Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

chess.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 486 posts

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#381

Post by OJFord »

thefringthing wrote: post #373
OJFord wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At the level of chess player we're talking about it's sorta trivial for them to almost immediately memorize a boardstate. And the rest! I'm pretty crap (hovering 750-850 on chess.com, idk if I play enough for it to be accurate though, probably lower) but I was still thoroughly impressed when I got thrashed by someone (~1200) playing the entire game in their head. As in I had a local game running on my phone, called…

Surely that kind of play would indicate a rating considerably above 1200.

1200 rapid if that makes a difference? Also, I suppose it's.. certainly not orthogonal, but it's not dead parallel either - can have a good/bad memory and play well/not well.

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#382

Post by nvarsj »

rossdavidh wrote: post #376

So, this is all interesting for chess, but I wonder if we should be discussing more the broader implications. How much does this happen during high-stakes tests (professional qualifications, etc.)? How much does this happen during job interviews? How much does this happen during political debates? How much does this happen during any high-stakes activity where the person is supposed to be thinking through it on their…

Well, people on blind have admitted to cheating during algo interviews. Not sure how prevalent it is, but a lot of people openly admitted to it. Guess it shouldn’t be surprising given the nature of these interviews and the money at stake.

I also know from my time at school, cheating is fairly prevalent there - even at top rated universities. Lots of universities have developed fairly sophisticated statistical tools for catching cheaters, similar to what chess.com has.

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#383

Post by mminer237 »

bombcar wrote: post #346
Orothrim wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Due to the need for real-time input that's just not true.

There are/have been elaborate cheating setups for online shooters that involved a second computer using the VGA or HDMI video stream. It’s doable to get around kernel detection tools.

Splitting the video stream to a second computer to run real-time video analysis and then send back commands through an emulated mouse may be doable, but it's certainly harder for anyone to do than copying chess moves on your phone.

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#384

Post by mzs »

erdevs wrote: post #247
mzs wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where does this report state that the "removal of Hans' ban was controversial among chess.com's Fairplay staff?"

> Where does this report state that the "removal of Hans' ban was controversial among chess.com's Fairplay staff?" Page 58, from the text of a letter chess.com sent privately to Hans, just after they banned him: "When I received your confession back on August 12th of 2020, in light of your age, I allowed you to create a new account with no fair play markings to continue to stream chess... For my team, however, there…

Thank you very much!

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#385

Post by OJFord »

xipho wrote: post #374
OJFord wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At the level of chess player we're talking about it's sorta trivial for them to almost immediately memorize a boardstate. And the rest! I'm pretty crap (hovering 750-850 on chess.com, idk if I play enough for it to be accurate though, probably lower) but I was still thoroughly impressed when I got thrashed by someone (~1200) playing the entire game in their head. As in I had a local game running on my phone, called…

A 1200 playing full games in their head sends up some warning flags to me?! I'm over 1500 on Lichess (yes, ELO calculation is not the same, but likely within 300 points at that level?!) and can't even dream of doing that. Did your friend cheat? ;)

I don't see how he could (or why he would) have, in the same room, eyes often closed, yelling at people to shut up so he could concentrate; occasionally checking the board state with me (always bang on) - but as I replied to sibling, it's not necessary to have a great memory like that is it? Of course, picturing/tracking the current state of the board has a lot of overlap with thinking x moves ahead though I suppose.

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#386

Post by [deleted] »

Dalewyn wrote: post #75
erdevs wrote: post #27

This report provides a detailed background of Hans' potential cheating, and detailed breakdowns of certain aspects of chess.com's cheat-detection methodology, including previously unknown (or little known) methods such as window focus change event monitoring and post-focus-change move analysis.[1] The report also reveals Niemann's engine move correlations alongside over two dozen chess Grandmasters who have admitted…

>The fact that online cheating is so widespread even among top chess players is certainly news to many, including me. Not to me. When the stakes of winning are so damn valuable, sometimes literally so, it would be patently stupid to not cheat and increase your odds of winning. Remember: Cheating is only a problem if you're caught. If you're never caught, cheating is completely legitimate. These aren't games of pleasu…

[deleted]

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#387

Post by teolandon »

xipho wrote: post #374
OJFord wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At the level of chess player we're talking about it's sorta trivial for them to almost immediately memorize a boardstate. And the rest! I'm pretty crap (hovering 750-850 on chess.com, idk if I play enough for it to be accurate though, probably lower) but I was still thoroughly impressed when I got thrashed by someone (~1200) playing the entire game in their head. As in I had a local game running on my phone, called…

A 1200 playing full games in their head sends up some warning flags to me?! I'm over 1500 on Lichess (yes, ELO calculation is not the same, but likely within 300 points at that level?!) and can't even dream of doing that. Did your friend cheat? ;)

I'm 1500 Lichess but 900 on Chess.com, so no, not within 300 points at that level.

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#388

Post by treis »

maegul wrote: post #155
quadrifoliate wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my opinion, this sort of ad-hoc stereotyping weakens the rest of the analysis. There are plenty of counterexamples. Anand, a former world champion, became a GM at age 19 and is still ranked World No. 9 currently (at age 52). Ding Liren (Current No. 2) became a GM at 17. Grischuk (currently No. 17, peak No.3) became a GM at 17. All three have crossed 2800 ELO at some point. I hope this is not the sort of analysis t…

Yea generally I wouldn't characterise the report as being a glimmering indication of the scientific quality of the chess.com cheat detection team. Even the graphs look a lot like copy-paste jobs from excel, which is fine obviously, but not the sort of thing I'd expect competent scientists/data-scientists/developers to be doing, especially for a big public report where some of the formatting issues are just about read…

IMHO unless line three of the table on page 5 is a typo it conclusively proves that their analysis is bunk. In every other line they think he cheated 100% of the games. But for line three it's only 12 out of 32. Of the 11 events in that table he had his 2nd highest rating in that event.

That obviously shouldn't be possible. If he only cheated in 1/3 of the games in the event then his performance should have been much worse than events where he cheated 100% of the time.

And I don't understand how they can say this:

>However, while Hans has had a record-setting and remarkable rise in rating and strength, in our view there is a lack of concrete statistical evidence that he cheated in his game with Magnus or in any other over-the-board (“OTB”)—i.e., in-person—games.

So what the hell? They pored over his OTB games, found no evidence of cheating, but then wrote 70 more pages? And even the circumstantial evidence is weak. They base a lot on Hans having unusually late improvements. But it's not like they're an order of magnitude better. He's slightly better than #2. And it's a simple fact that someone is going to have a late career rise that is better than anyone else. It's not evidence of cheating.

IMHO, Magnus or Chess.com need to pony up some hard evidence or STFU.

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#389

Post by rybosworld »

berkut wrote: post #37
erdevs wrote: post #27

This report provides a detailed background of Hans' potential cheating, and detailed breakdowns of certain aspects of chess.com's cheat-detection methodology, including previously unknown (or little known) methods such as window focus change event monitoring and post-focus-change move analysis.[1] The report also reveals Niemann's engine move correlations alongside over two dozen chess Grandmasters who have admitted…

Does engine correlation actually prove anything though? Some of the 'statistical analysis' that has been posted on twitter regarding it in the last week has been against hundreds of engines, so 'engine correlation' seems to mean "the move made matched against at least one engine that would have made that move" I think?

Not anymore than elevated testosterone levels are "proof" of performance enhancing drugs. Engine correlation is a marker and when combined with other markers, can be meaningful.

What it mostly shows is that Hans move strength is unnatural.

Further evidence to support this is that he often plays bad moves. That is, moves that are considered blunders, with a high frequency. This is either an attempt to cover up the engine moves or representative of his actual capability. For instance, the report mentions that in a post-game analysis he suggested a move that would be an obvious blunder. When the interviewer pointed this out, Hans wasn't fully convinced until he was shown the engine analysis. So he also is showing a habit of deferring to what the engine suggests.

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#390

Post by bombcar »

mminer237 wrote: post #383
bombcar wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are/have been elaborate cheating setups for online shooters that involved a second computer using the VGA or HDMI video stream. It’s doable to get around kernel detection tools.

Splitting the video stream to a second computer to run real-time video analysis and then send back commands through an emulated mouse may be doable, but it's certainly harder for anyone to do than copying chess moves on your phone.

Certainly! But it does show the amount of effort people will go to cheat - though lots of the "online shooter" cheating is people selling cheating tools/kits to idiots who want to win (basically turning games into pay to win).

The number of people who can build that kind of system from scratch is small.

But anyone can cheat at chess online.

Post reply on HN