Live data from Hacker News

The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

chess.com

181–190 of 486 posts

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't expect an honest report from chess.com, think about how that conversation would go in the event he _was_ cheating and they caught him: Public: "So he's been cheating recently?" Chess.com: "Oh yeah, he cheats all the time. Everyone does, really. Online chess is like 50% cheaters/bots, don't expect any real humans here, this is like 10x worse than Twitter."

This doesn't even remotely line up with the data they cite.

It’s not an assertion, it’s a hypothetical. If the situation was bad, they would never admit it.

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A game is defined by its very specific set of rules. This can easily be seen in chess, which has a huge variety of variants. Or how one, minor rule change in baseball and you've got people wondering if the Hall of Fame even make sense anymore. Once a set of rules are defined, competitions and tournaments within those rules are meant to determine the best people in that game. When a player cheats, and rationalizes it…

Here's the thing though: How do you know a player cheated? Because you caught him. So what about all the cheaters who are never caught? You can't say they're cheaters. Therefore, if a player cheats but is never caught, he isn't a cheater. If a player isn't a cheater, whatever he did is legitimate and it isn't a problem. Therefore: Cheating is only a problem if you're caught. Put another way, the rules only tell you t…

If all you care about is the prize money, then there are easier ways to rob people, e.g. at gunpoint on their way out of the competition venue. The Rules say "If Person X does Y, then Person X gets Z". You want to rationalize interrupting that process to take Z for yourself. Y could be "their job" and Z could be "their salary". I suppose, in your terms, highway robbery is also a "high risk, high return course of action".

But entering into the competition under the guise of legitimate play means you also care about the prestige of being declared the winner. But you haven't won the game. You've played a completely different game. You can claim to have played the same game, but that would be a lie. You could just as easily redefine "narcissistic sociopath" in your own head to exclude adhering to The Rules. But it'd still be a lie.

I see in your other comments in this thread that you claim "most people finish dead last in life", intimating that they are fools for not cheating. But that's the thing: if everyone cheated, it would be a complete breakdown of society. Rules, laws, and systems to enforce them, are how we can leave our houses in the morning without wearing bulletproof armor from head to toe.

But what do I know? I only have a happy life with my wife and two kids. I'm a loser. So go! Cheat at science and get that Nobel Prize money! Cheat at keeping your restaurant clean and pocket the savings on soap! Never mind the wasted time and resources and lives ruined. You're a winner.

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#184

Quoted post unavailable.

I love the aggressively ignorant takes people feel compelled to make on this topic because they're coming from a place of emotion rather than understanding or common sense.

The only thing that will happen to Hans is that he will lose his career and fade into oblivion. Alternatively, he will go the Lance Armstrong route, confess to everything with Oprah, and redeem himself as a decent chess player that streams professionally.

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#185
post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>Online chess is bigger than ever, and some kind of botting/cheating is possible for virtually every e-sport (indeed I'd say many are easier than chess). I think it's the other way, chess is about as easy to cheat as it gets. With chess you can have a perfectly usable cheating system that isn't on the same computer at all - computer A is clean, and is where you actually play on chess.com, computer B is where you ent…

For shooters, bots or assists that only use vision and normal input (special mouse/keyboard) aren't hard to imagine and I'm positive already exist. I know specifically I read a while back about mice that do recoil correction to improve aim, and things like "click when something that looks like a head is in the crosshairs" would be a weekend project at most for a bored college student. Strategy games may be harder, bu…

Those have been common for decades and are pretty much the lowest bar for detection.

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> cheating is completely legitimate. 100% disagree. Legitimate would mean condoning cheating. Which then means everyone should be allowed to use engines, which then would mean engine vs engine, which we already have. Human vs human no augmentation.

I commented on this already in another post, but I'll reiterate here: How do you know a player is a cheater? If you can't prove a player cheated, that is if you never catch the cheater, then whatever the player did is legitimate. It doesn't matter if the player in fact cheated and got away with it, it's all legitimate if he wasn't caught. The rules do not and cannot police the act of cheating itself, only the results…

You seem to define "legitimate" as depending on society's perception. As another thought experiment, what if someone didn't cheat, but society erroneously came to the conclusion that the person did cheat. Is what that player did legitimate?

I guess it comes down to: does objective truth exist, or is everything relative to society's beliefs?

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#187
post #142

It sounds like cheating detection in chess is highly circumstantial, based on outlier data points. Given the massive volumes of chess data out there, I bet it would be easy to make a bot that mirrors the win/loss and blunder/best move ratio of an average GM chess player’s trajectory. Instead of picking the best move all the time, maybe pick a random move out of the top 10 moves. And use a random number generator to d…

Except, chess.com has literal "strength profiles" of every top player. They have enough data to say, hey, this how strong you should be playing, anything outside that expected norm might be suspicious, especially over a long enough time period.

It's a similar idea to the 'Biological Passport' seen in sports wherein the biological data of an athlete is stored and you can reference the data points against new test results to see any anomalies.

Creating the "perfect cheating engine" would only be useful for unknown players, and in chess, it's literally impossible to be an unknown and play at a Super GM level (its happened, and of course they were immediately exposed for cheating).

Now, if someone like Hikaru or Magnus decided to just automate themselves at their best in the form of a bot, yeah, it would be nearly impossible to detect them on data alone.

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#189

Where was this report say 1 month ago, before a certain Magnus Carlsen lost to Niemann over the board? Is Chess.com gonna reveal similar reports for every other player or is this privilege only for those who are accused by a chess.com part owner of OTB cheating.

They must have started investigating when Carlsen protested a month ago.

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#190
post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That makes lots of sense for quick real time games. But getting back to my point about how integral computer engines are in chess for training/preparation ... a script to enhance reaction times seems much more like doping in sports where it probably doesn't improve the player's intrinsic abilities only their performance.

Poker would also break if you could just use algorithms to tell you how much to bet and when to fold. I suppose any strategic, turn-based game breaks down as soon as you have a world class engine for it.

In Poker all skilled players remember all probability tables, and there are heuristics for calculating probabilities on the flight, and players also count chips, so any players has all the information for theoretical optimal bets. The game happens on estimating bluffs and adjusting your strategy agains opponent bluffs.
Post reply on HN