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

Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes

incoherency.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 262 posts

Re: Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes

#151

Post by searealist »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #140
searealist wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's binary. Either he did cheat today or he did not. If he did not then who cares what his post analysis looks like after drawing the #4 player in the world and being +3 at some point. The only reasonable analysis is to declare him a cheater today or discard the interview. To say that the interview would point to him cheating vs Magnus but not today is nonsense.

What is the reasoning of people accusing a player of the OTB cheating? That he somehow (with the help of a computer?) got up to +3 at some point against said #4 player, but then decided to stop cheating? If he is that 'bad' to draw a +3 position, how did he achieve this position in the first place?

This is not the point. The point was that he good enough to nearly beat the #4 in the world if he wasn't cheating.

Re: Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes

#152

Post by Underqualified »

markwkw wrote: post #96

There is little hope for stopping cheaters. example: Moon Ribas, an artist, has a small vibrating sensor embedded permanently in her feet that communicates wirelessly and vibrates whenever there is an earthquake somewhere in the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_Ribas#Seismic_Sense The idea can be extended to an implanted device that receives subtle signals from the user to have a representation of the game s…

They are now using a 15 minute delay to avoid outside communication. Jamming signals is also entirely possible.

Re: Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes

#153

Post by soegaard »

searealist wrote: post #76
squidbeak wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ignoring the lines (and any cheat at this level would be canny enough to avoid the top few engine moves), there's something seriously off about Niemann's analysis - shallowness and incoherence covered over with bluster. Even Ramirez seemed disdainful of his reasoning about his position against Firoujia tonight. It's pretty grim for him if he really didn't cheat. He won't be invited to a tournament involving Magnus ag…

Are you accusing him of cheating today despite the 15 minute delay and heightened security?

The 15 minute delay was introduced after the Magnus game.

Re: Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes

#154

Post by joshuamorton »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #143
FreakLegion wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's an objective reality here. You can watch the interviews and evaluate the positions yourself to verify it. I checked, since the interview today left the engine off and I was curious if Hikaru's ad hoc analysis was right. It was[1]. Anyway, one small but important logical issue. When you say "the guy is just a few points below 2700", that's begging the question. Other people are arguing, in effect, that "Nieman…

I did miss the exact context of this video, what is the position being discussed? It's that from a game Hans played with somebody which he then drew?

It's from a line that ultimately wasn't entered into in the game, but Hans mentioned to Alireza in the postgame. So it's a position that Hans should have considered during the game. He claims it's obviuosly winning for white. It isn't, and Hikaru is ~immediately able to see that the position is (significantly) losing for white.

Re: Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes

#155

Post by underdeserver »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #141
CSMastermind wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are "computer moves" which stand out vs human players. These normally show up in lines where there are many options of roughly equal value and the computer picks a move that is infinitesimally better but out of 'theme' with the position. They can also show up when for instance there are multiple checkmates in a position. The computer will choose the one requiring the least number of moves even if it requires de…

This is a rather poor example. If there are multiple checkmates, humans are usually much more likely to see ones that require the least number of moves. Anyway if there are multiple checkmates, the game is irrecoverably lost by another player and it is easy to see on the board.

This is false. If there's a longer mate where every move from your opponent is forced (that is, only one more is legal or doesn't immediately lose) a human player will play that, as opposed to a shorter mate, in say 5 moves, where you have all sorts of different cases to calculate depending on what your opponent plays.

Re: Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes

#156

Post by searealist »

soegaard wrote: post #153
searealist wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you accusing him of cheating today despite the 15 minute delay and heightened security?

The 15 minute delay was introduced after the Magnus game.

We are talking about the Firouzja game.

Re: Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes

#157

Post by myownpetard »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #141
CSMastermind wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are "computer moves" which stand out vs human players. These normally show up in lines where there are many options of roughly equal value and the computer picks a move that is infinitesimally better but out of 'theme' with the position. They can also show up when for instance there are multiple checkmates in a position. The computer will choose the one requiring the least number of moves even if it requires de…

This is a rather poor example. If there are multiple checkmates, humans are usually much more likely to see ones that require the least number of moves. Anyway if there are multiple checkmates, the game is irrecoverably lost by another player and it is easy to see on the board.

It's more complex than this.

The situation would be more like, there is a forced checkmate in 12 but it involves navigating a sharp position that is complex and any miscalculation could equalize the position.

On the other hand, you can simply exchange queens and rooks and have a clear winning endgame, but it will only result in a checkmate in 20 moves.

Almost any human would opt for the latter to avoid the risk. From the computer's perspective, there is no risk.

Re: Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes

#158

Post by sdwr »

avip wrote: post #8
sharedfrog wrote: post #3

This is relevant to today's events because Magnus Carlsen just withdrew from a tournament[1] after yesterday's loss to a significantly lower rated opponent who had previously been suspended for cheating on chess.com. The tournament organizers have also implemented additional anti-cheating protocols starting today. Whatever comes out of these accusations, the chess world will sure enjoy its new infusion of drama. [1]…

This makes little sense no? With 200 ELO diff Hans should beat Magnus ~1/4 games.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCeJrItfQqw&t=377s

I don't see a cheater, I see someone who's been grinding for a while and finally popped off. Dunno if he can keep it up though, might be one of those miracle performances that he never recovers from (ex. Linsanity). He comes across as arrogant and a little affected (the hand flourishes, stylistic pauses), but I like him a lot better than Hikaru. Hoping he continues to see success and smooths out his interview performance over time.

If anything, I'm suspicious it's was a throw from Magnus, or at least subconsciously choosing when to relinquish the throne. This is the guy you want to see in the spotlight. He's interesting, confident, and puts his heart into the game.

Re: Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes

#159

Post by fzliu »

randunel wrote: post #150
fzliu wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seconded re: Neimann's analysis. Specifically, he stated in a post-game interview that Carlsen had played the same Nimzo-Indian g3 line in a prior tournament, even though that never happened. For the sake of the sport, I hope Neimann didn't cheat, but I doubt we'll ever know for sure.

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1981206 (a blitz to be compared against https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=2372960 from 2 days ago).

Good catch. I was searching for a game without Nf3, but this is effectively a transposition.

One minor point folks aren't mentioning that I think works in Neimann's favor - Carlsen is known for enjoying the Catalan, and the opening in the game was essentially a Nimzo/Catalan hybrid. This fact makes Neimann's supposed pre-game prep a bit more palatable. Everything else (postgame interview, past history, Twitter antics) seems to work against Neimann though.

My question is - if Neimann did cheat, how? Doesn't seem like something that can be done easily in an OTB tournament.

Re: Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes

#160

Post by rozab »

Underqualified wrote: post #152
markwkw wrote: post #96

There is little hope for stopping cheaters. example: Moon Ribas, an artist, has a small vibrating sensor embedded permanently in her feet that communicates wirelessly and vibrates whenever there is an earthquake somewhere in the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_Ribas#Seismic_Sense The idea can be extended to an implanted device that receives subtle signals from the user to have a representation of the game s…

They are now using a 15 minute delay to avoid outside communication. Jamming signals is also entirely possible.

The method in this article uses no outside communication or signalling at all
Post reply on HN