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

International chess federation sanctions Kramnik

fide.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 114 posts

Re: International chess federation sanctions Kramnik

#101

Post by alex1138 »

traes wrote: post #90
zmgsabst wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hans did plenty to damage his own career - eg, his 2024 ban for trashing a hotel room.

This is true, but the crushing response to this scandal is clearly disproportionate. Millions of views on videos making crude sexual jokes about a 19 year old is already an incredibly unfortunate situation, and his career got completely halted for years due to (what are now clearly) false accusations.

It should also be said Niemann has also had incredibly good results since the whole thing

So it casts doubt on what Magnus said somewhat

(Of course, on Rogan, I think, Magnus defended the allegations. And of course he's world's strongest player for a reason. Other young players have beaten himm before such as Esipenko and he never said anything like that)

Re: International chess federation sanctions Kramnik

#102

Post by Seattle3503 »

TimPC wrote: post #36
nopinsight wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To my knowledge, Pangram has a very low false positive rate approaching zero. (False negative is another matter.) I’m not sure that’s what you want to use as the analogy here? (I don’t know much about this Kramnik situation.)

Pangram’s market claims are very different from independent validations of the platform. The 99.98% rate is on a toy dataset not resembling reality. Even if 2/10000 is true that’s nowhere near accurate enough to make aggressive accusations that create anxiety at levels people need to medicate with potentially fatal consequences.

> Pangram’s market claims are very different from independent validations of the platform.

Do you have a link to independent validations? The ones I found, like an upcoming nber paper confirm the companies claims.

Re: International chess federation sanctions Kramnik

#103

Post by mschuster91 »

searealist wrote: post #55
WJW wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you mean Kramnik or Hans Niemann? Kramnik ((ab)using his status as a former world champion) accused several other top level players to the point that one of them committed suicide. Niemann allegedly cheated (In my personal opinion as a decently rated but certainly not elite chess player, he probably did cheat in this particular game, though proof was never given and probably never will) at a high level chess tourn…

> Kramnik ((ab)using his status as a former world champion) accused several other top level players to the point that one of them committed suicide. There is no evidence of suicide, and he had multiple drugs in his system when he died. > he probably did cheat in this particular game This is a fringe opinion at this point in time, even though it was obvious he did not cheat on day 1.

> There is no evidence of suicide, and he had multiple drugs in his system when he died.

Polyintoxication is nasty because after the fact, you can't tell if someone underestimated the effects of the drugs or knew about them and used it to guarantee death.

Re: International chess federation sanctions Kramnik

#104

Post by randomNumber7 »

InterviewFrog wrote: post #94
kelipso wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A big percentage of the top grandmasters skip high school and almost none of them have went to college. They are “smart” in that they have the potential intelligence to learn that stuff, as demonstrated by them having learned chess, but they have basically no knowledge of statistics, mathematics, plenty of other general knowledge topics. From that point of view, you should really consider them to be as knowledgeable…

This is just a Western cultural perception and baggage. That if you are good at chess, you are smart. If you can solve the Rubik's Cube quickly, you are a genius, etc. Getting better at chess, the Rubik's Cube, etc. is a skill. The more you practice and the more passionate you are, the better you get at it. This is just like learning to play the piano or learning to swim. There is natural aptitude as well but its not…

A lot of people try to get good at chess. If someone manages to become world class he is likely very intelligent.

Re: International chess federation sanctions Kramnik

#105

Post by traes »

alex1138 wrote: post #101
traes wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true, but the crushing response to this scandal is clearly disproportionate. Millions of views on videos making crude sexual jokes about a 19 year old is already an incredibly unfortunate situation, and his career got completely halted for years due to (what are now clearly) false accusations.

It should also be said Niemann has also had incredibly good results since the whole thing So it casts doubt on what Magnus said somewhat (Of course, on Rogan, I think, Magnus defended the allegations. And of course he's world's strongest player for a reason. Other young players have beaten himm before such as Esipenko and he never said anything like that)

I didn't watch it myself, but there was a recent Netflix documentary on the subject where Magnus claims he was misled by chess.com into believing that they had more concrete evidence than they did.

Re: International chess federation sanctions Kramnik

#106

Post by Imustaskforhelp »

luckysori wrote: post #61

I am happy about the outcome of this investigation, but I think it's far more important to highlight the other people mentioned in this decision statement. I'm not so familiar with Navara, who I understand was also under a lot of pressure because of this, so I will speak about Daniel and his impact on me. Daniel Naroditsky was one of the most influential figures in chess: arguably the best chess educator on the inter…

Rest in peace Daniel Naroditsky.

Re: International chess federation sanctions Kramnik

#107

Post by BoingBoomTschak »

InterviewFrog wrote: post #94
kelipso wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A big percentage of the top grandmasters skip high school and almost none of them have went to college. They are “smart” in that they have the potential intelligence to learn that stuff, as demonstrated by them having learned chess, but they have basically no knowledge of statistics, mathematics, plenty of other general knowledge topics. From that point of view, you should really consider them to be as knowledgeable…

This is just a Western cultural perception and baggage. That if you are good at chess, you are smart. If you can solve the Rubik's Cube quickly, you are a genius, etc. Getting better at chess, the Rubik's Cube, etc. is a skill. The more you practice and the more passionate you are, the better you get at it. This is just like learning to play the piano or learning to swim. There is natural aptitude as well but its not…

Please don't devolve into reactionary nonsense. I'm pretty sure that if you measure the average IQ of good (whatever your definition of good) chess players, you won't get 100.

Re: International chess federation sanctions Kramnik

#108

Post by assbuttbuttass »

randomNumber7 wrote: post #104
InterviewFrog wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just a Western cultural perception and baggage. That if you are good at chess, you are smart. If you can solve the Rubik's Cube quickly, you are a genius, etc. Getting better at chess, the Rubik's Cube, etc. is a skill. The more you practice and the more passionate you are, the better you get at it. This is just like learning to play the piano or learning to swim. There is natural aptitude as well but its not…

A lot of people try to get good at chess. If someone manages to become world class he is likely very intelligent.

If someone manages to become a world class chess player, they are likely very good at chess

Re: International chess federation sanctions Kramnik

#109

Post by justacrow »

BoingBoomTschak wrote: post #107
InterviewFrog wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just a Western cultural perception and baggage. That if you are good at chess, you are smart. If you can solve the Rubik's Cube quickly, you are a genius, etc. Getting better at chess, the Rubik's Cube, etc. is a skill. The more you practice and the more passionate you are, the better you get at it. This is just like learning to play the piano or learning to swim. There is natural aptitude as well but its not…

Please don't devolve into reactionary nonsense. I'm pretty sure that if you measure the average IQ of good (whatever your definition of good) chess players, you won't get 100.

Seems weird to dismiss stuff as "nonsense" just because you're "pretty sure". Hikaru Nakamura (who's been the world #2 in classical rating) did an IQ test on stream and ended up with 102. I've not seen any other results for top players.

The first study of it I found (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01602...) notes that, while there is some correlation, "Full-scale IQ explained < 1% of the variance in chess skill."

Re: International chess federation sanctions Kramnik

#110

Post by dwa3592 »

Seattle3503 wrote: post #102
TimPC wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pangram’s market claims are very different from independent validations of the platform. The 99.98% rate is on a toy dataset not resembling reality. Even if 2/10000 is true that’s nowhere near accurate enough to make aggressive accusations that create anxiety at levels people need to medicate with potentially fatal consequences.

> Pangram’s market claims are very different from independent validations of the platform. Do you have a link to independent validations? The ones I found, like an upcoming nber paper confirm the companies claims.

https://github.com/deepanwadhwa/ai_detector_fails/blob/main/...

the text in above is all ai generated. i uploaded a picture of two kittens to gemini and asked it to guess their age. then asked gemini to change the language to of someone who is born in deep Appalachia but has Japanese parents. then asked it to change the bullets to paragraphs written by someone who is talking fro life experience rather than grounded in published science. pangram gave it 100% human generated. go ahead, try it. it boggles me how people believe these ai detectors.

if it makes you feel good the original response from gemini gets 100% AI detection and for that I think pangram should get the credit but in practical terms the empty pots in my yard are more useful than pangram at this point.

Post reply on HN