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

191–200 of 1001 posts

Re: Dear Chess World

#191

Post by i_am_jl »

honkdaddy wrote: post #17

What’s the split in the chess community like here? Do most people agree with Magnus?

I'm not a strong enough player/analyst to have a meaningful opinion on whether or not Niemann cheated. It's possible he cheated.

I'm taken aback at the manner in which these accusations have been made. I guess that Magnus felt that the only way he could force FIDE and tournament organizers into action was with a big, public, shocking act.

It feels like a black eye for chess no matter the outcome. Either Niemann is proven guilty and professional chess has to grapple with that hit to its integrity, or the situation isn't resolved and the question of Niemann's (and pro chess') integrity is left open indefinitely.

I don't know to what extent Magnus has pushed for anti-cheating measures or increased scrutiny of Niemann behind closed doors, but I'll be very disappointed if it turns out that this public spectacle could've been avoided.

Re: Dear Chess World

#192

Post by roflyear »

neaden wrote: post #76
bombcar wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How accurate are those rating calculations? Is it really "Hans vs Magnus will be 1 vs 19 win rate" or is it something else? I would assume that I'd have absolutely no chance of winning against either even with a handicap.

They are pretty accurate, though of course when you are dealing with the person at the very top it's going to be hard to say how accurate it is. I think broadly though most experts agree that Hans beating Magnus was an unlikely but possible ting to happen. For comparison a 1400 rated player, which is someone who plays and studies a decent amount of chess but isn't devoted, would have a 0.0000014% chance of beating Ma…

Also, it is likely that Hans is higher rated than he is, which would make his chances better. Chess rating is earned so you can be underrated.

Re: Dear Chess World

#193

Post by alephxyz »

neaden wrote: post #34
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…

Yeah, I think Magnus is making a mistake conflating two things. It is totally fine to think that Nieman should have been punished more for online cheating, but combining it with his accusation of cheating at the Sinquefield Cup come off as sour grapes. Watching the Crypto Cup there was obviously no love lost between the two of them but they played each other, it's not until Magnus losses to Hans (which based on their…

It's even less than 5% since Magnus had whites.

Re: Dear Chess World

#196

Post by Tenoke »

smoldesu wrote: post #7
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…

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…

>Poker has always been about unnerving your opponent through stoicism or deception

As much as TV would make you think so that's mostly a myth. It was probably more so the case in the past but now it's at most a very minor part of the game, and most (typically all) of your edge comes from better card playing.

A huge river bluff is viewed in the lens of 'I've represented a range which includes strong hands, and I make money if I get a fold X% of the time while increasing the call chance by Y% when I do have a good hand in this spot' and not 'I'm going to unnerve him by throwing money to make a bad decision'.

Re: Dear Chess World

#198

Post by root_axis »

peter422 wrote: post #21

For all the people defending Hans, he has admitted to cheating in real, official, prize money online tournaments, and chess.com believes that in his apology he still lied about the extent of his cheating. Maybe Hans did cheat OTB, maybe he didn't, but the tough part about reputation is it is very hard to build and very easy to break. And Hans had proven to the world that he would cheat. I personally don't think Hans…

As an outsider to the chess world, this all seems like a roundabout way of saying "we have no evidence that he cheated, but in lieu of evidence let's go with gut feelings".

Re: Dear Chess World

#199

Post by nindalf »

Maursault wrote: post #128

Carlson should just challenge Niemann to a 30 game over the board televised match in their shorts (no shoes, no shirt) at Madison Square Garden. With the revenue generated from ticket sales and advertising, they could both retire and international chess can put this episode behind them.

Doesn't really prevent the usage of vibrating anal beads (https://kotaku.com/chess-champion-anal-bead-magnus-carlsen-h...)

Re: Dear Chess World

#200

Post by l33tman »

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.

Well very many people think it's fun to watch sports or other competitions regardless of if a robot could do it better. I don't think anybody cares about if its "solved" or not, it's just fun to see humans interact in a controlled dramatic way I guess.

Chess also has the added bonus of providing a lot of interesting puzzles for those interested, they can sit and analyze lines with engines after the games as well or watch Agadmator on YouTube analyze it. It's fun!

Post reply on HN