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

Dear Chess World

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 1001 posts

Re: Dear Chess World

#151

Post by jfengel »

hobo_mark wrote: post #145
jfengel wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody knows how he was cheating. Without a strip search there's no way to be sure. It is known that it's not technologically impossible. There are ways to do it, some of them rather outlandish but not infeasible. Unfortunately, that's as far as it can go. Either you start doing something really extreme to ensure that players can't cheat (that aforementioned strip search, making them play in a Faraday cage, etc), you…

> Even worse than that, the cheating may not have gone on during the match. It could have been as simple as old-fashioned spying: studying what preparations Carlsen had made, and learning their weaknesses before the match even starts. How is that even "cheating"?

That would require spying on him, perhaps by having suborned one of his preparation team, or conceivably even by bugging his hotel room.

I'm not saying it's likely. I'm just explaining what I meant. Those preparations are private, and getting inside intel is cheating.

Re: Dear Chess World

#152

Post by bombcar »

bergenty wrote: post #138
jdoliner wrote: post #82

It seems like if Nieman wants to clear his name he should offer Carlsen explicit permission to say whatever it is he can't. If Magnus is bluffing and that information doesn't amount to much he'd wind up looking a lot better.

So give him a carte blanche to say whatever he wants and ruin his reputation- warranted or not? Why would someone do this? It’s akin to talking to the cops without a lawyer.

It's pretty obvious to me that Carlsen has evidence of Hans cheating after the 16-year old incident that we know of. And so he's trying to maneuver Hans into a bad place; so that would be reason for Hans to not say anything (which also looks bad; it's the horns of a dilemma).

Re: Dear Chess World

#153

Post by squeaky-clean »

abnry wrote: post #8
smoldesu wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the tone I'm getting from reading this basically boils down to "I was uncomfortable with how he played so I quit". Isn't that part of the metagaming in chess? Poker has always been about unnerving your opponent through stoicism or deception. I don't see why chess can't have the same layer of subtlety, and if it really concerns him then he should be able to wear a visor to block everything but the game board. Ot…

I want more of this metagaming in chess. That's one of the things I find interesting about Hans. His interviews suggest he's taking a sort of meta game approach. He suggested once a move of his against Alireza was a bluff because Alireza doesn't like attacking chess.

This is extremely common in high level chess. Every chess player will study their opponents history and recent play patterns and practice against that.

Hans claimed he studied against Magnus' opening because Magnus had played it a few months ago. It turns out Magnus has never used that opening in a recorded game. The dialog has now changed to "well by move 20 the board state became identical to a previous Magnus game" but Hans didn't say he spotted the similarities at move 20, he said he studied that specific opening.

Re: Dear Chess World

#154

Post by loxs »

walrus01 wrote: post #116
loxs wrote: post #86

Isn't it time to just abandon chess as a competitive sport? It's (mostly) a solved game for f* sake, move on. I will probably be downvoted to oblivion, but I'm absolutely serious and would love constructive commentary. What's the big appeal of chess? We (as humans) can't beat computers. It's probably useful for further research, but I see absolutely no value in (human) competitions.

Isn't this like saying we should abandon professional road cycling as a sport, because motorcycles have been invented and exist and are a faster method of two wheeled transportation? Or we should abandon rowing as a sport because we now have 9hp Honda outboard motors?

Well, cycling is plagued with lots of similar problems (doping, people hiding electric motors in their bikes etc.), so yeah, I would argue the same there. On the other hand the very act of cycling improves health, so it's much more suitable as a sport for humans. Chess may have some arguable benefits, but it's very hard to detect so.

Of course, everything depends on "the market" - if people want to watch human chess tournaments (or cycling tournaments), they will... but I suspect with time it will either have to become a hilarious, anti-cheat porn or it will die out. I'm rooting for the latter :-D. I'm sure we can invent much better competitive games that are not that prone to these problems.

Re: Dear Chess World

#155

Post by unfunco »

keepquestioning wrote: post #6

I last played chess in high school. I'm following this for the drama. I guess "over the board" chess means an IRL chess game. Can someone explain how the fuck someone would be able to do this and not make it obvious? Why is this being continually glossed over? Am I dumb?

Potentially with vibrating anal beads.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/sep/20/carlsen-v-niem...

Re: Dear Chess World

#156

Post by MichaelCollins »

gizmo wrote: post #46

Why are known cheaters even allowed to participate in top level tournaments? It’s insulting to all the other chess players. Magnus is setting the right example by refusing to play Niemann

Zero tolerance blacklisting of cheaters is probably the best way forward. If neither Niemann nor Carlsen recant, then I predict chess will fall into general disrepute like baseball or billiards. The way for the professional chess community to salvage this situation is with zero tolerance blacklisting of anybody caught cheating, even as a teenager.

Re: Dear Chess World

#157

Post by JoshTko »

abnry wrote: post #4

I am disappointed with Magnus. He is misusing the weight of his reputation even if cheating is a big deal in chess. The first mistake was still choosing to play when he had reservations once Hans was invited. The second mistake was quitting the tournament and messing up the standings once he lost. The third mistake was making an insinuation through a tweet. The fourth mistake was resigning in two moves his next game…

The fact that Magnus fully understand all the implications of such a statement and still went forward with this speaks to how sure he is of his intuition. He will forever tarnish his reputation if ultimately it's proven that he was simply flat out wrong. He is basically saying that Hans is playing impossibly well and that he does not exhibit the same behavioral patterns as any other player. And that he also has access to some other incriminating info that he can't yet share.

Re: Dear Chess World

#158

Post by InitialLastName »

hobo_mark wrote: post #145
jfengel wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody knows how he was cheating. Without a strip search there's no way to be sure. It is known that it's not technologically impossible. There are ways to do it, some of them rather outlandish but not infeasible. Unfortunately, that's as far as it can go. Either you start doing something really extreme to ensure that players can't cheat (that aforementioned strip search, making them play in a Faraday cage, etc), you…

> Even worse than that, the cheating may not have gone on during the match. It could have been as simple as old-fashioned spying: studying what preparations Carlsen had made, and learning their weaknesses before the match even starts. How is that even "cheating"?

If your opponent is playing white and someone from their team tells you "He's going to open with X move", so that's the only one you have to prepare against, that goes a long way to eliminating white's advantage.

Re: Dear Chess World

#159

Post by frumper »

jstanley wrote: post #106
frumper wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's one thing to say an old man cheated when he was 12 years old, it's yet another to say a 19 year old did it just a handful of years ago. He's still a kid.

It's a third of his life ago. Were you the same person at 19 as you were at 12?

The trust is broken and equating it to fractions of someones life is the wrong measure. What has he done since he cheated at 12? Oh, he cheated in random games at 16. Surefire way to rebuild trust...

Re: Dear Chess World

#160

Post by MichaelCollins »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #103
gizmo wrote: post #46

Why are known cheaters even allowed to participate in top level tournaments? It’s insulting to all the other chess players. Magnus is setting the right example by refusing to play Niemann

If someone makes a mistake at 16, is it a valid reason to ban a person for life? Ok. If someone kills a person at 16. Should the killer be in prison for life?

> If someone kills a person at 16. Should the killer be in prison for life?

If you murder somebody at 16, you shouldn't be a free man at 19. Three years is not enough time for somebody to mature and mellow.

Post reply on HN