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

Chess Investigation Finds U.S. Grandmaster ‘Likely Cheated’ More Than 100 Times

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 339 posts

Re: Chess Investigation Finds U.S. Grandmaster ‘Likely Cheated’ More Than 100 Times

#211

Post by threatofrain »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #196
threatofrain wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being a TA and discovering that about half the class was engaged in a singular cheating ring (that does not mean the other half is free from cheating) changed my perspective as to how cheating should be dealt with. In general I feel that if enough people are doing the "wrong" thing, then punishing most of the population is probably an even worse move. Failing individuals, marking their transcript, or kicking them out…

> In general I feel that if enough people are doing the "wrong" thing, then punishing most of the population is probably an even worse move Why?

I feel that the raison d'etre of morality is in the promotion of healthy relations and prosperous communities, and my policy intuition tells me that punishing over half of a population is probably the wrong move.

Re: Chess Investigation Finds U.S. Grandmaster ‘Likely Cheated’ More Than 100 Times

#212

Post by Andrew_nenakhov »

jsnell wrote: post #169
Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hans' strength magically decreased in the Sinquefield cup once broadcast delay was introduced for example. So you discount a possibility that the controversy and allegations against him had at least some effect in him playing worse in the Sinquefield Cup? Anyway, there were studies out there that there were no statistical differences in his rating gains in tournaments broadcasted with delays and without it. Study b…

> Anyway, there were studies out there that there were no statistical differences in his rating gains in tournaments broadcasted with delays and without it. It is exactly the opposite of what you claim: there is a massive statistical aberration in his performance of broadcast tournaments vs. non-broadcast. He is 200 Elo higher in the former. https://talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?p=933597&sid=1fd7... You're clear…

Because I have seen these claims you are referring to and they were refuted by a more full analysis. This is a carefully doctored result that took only a slice of data 2019-2020, and if you look at a bigger picture, which is actually in a reply to a tweet linked in the post you are referring to, irregularities even out:

https://twitter.com/NikolaosNtirlis/status/15688492214487818...

> You're clearly very invested in this case

Well, I'm probably into it because I don't believe in presumption of guilt over vague allegations. Also, someone is _wrong_ on the internet, you know.

What is happening is nothing but bullying, Magnus is using his popularity and fanbase to destroy am opponent and his fans are like a mob on a witch hunt who are out for blood, demanding severe punishment. I believe it is unfair and an aberration of sports conduct and my ideas of justice. Just crank up anti-cheating measures to 11 at the next OTB event, and see how Hans will play.

Re: Chess Investigation Finds U.S. Grandmaster ‘Likely Cheated’ More Than 100 Times

#213

Post by sgjohnson »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #190
somenameforme wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cheat detection isn't done by only by move analysis, but by an extensive profiling of a person and games based on many factors beyond even just the moves. For instance one of the easiest ways to catch a weak player cheating is move times. Such a player will have no idea whether a move is trivial or works only due to an exceptionally precise and lengthy series of counter-intuitive calculations that no human could do w…

> Niemann was playing without any significant effort or tension, in spite of playing in a game where he was outplaying the world champion. Carlsen was making mistakes. That wasn't his best game at all. Are we sure we aren't talking of this because someone's ego was hurt? > And after the game he was unable to explain his own ideas, proposed ideas that were simply losing, That doesn't mean anything at all > referenced…

> If I was, I'd probably believe that Niemann is a proven cheater and would look for facts to confirm that bias.

But Niemann is a proven cheater. He admitted to it himself.

The only thing up for debate is how much he’s cheated.

Re: Chess Investigation Finds U.S. Grandmaster ‘Likely Cheated’ More Than 100 Times

#214

Post by Taek »

bambax wrote: post #118
somenameforme wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cheat detection isn't done by only by move analysis, but by an extensive profiling of a person and games based on many factors beyond even just the moves. For instance one of the easiest ways to catch a weak player cheating is move times. Such a player will have no idea whether a move is trivial or works only due to an exceptionally precise and lengthy series of counter-intuitive calculations that no human could do w…

> For instance one of the easiest ways to catch a weak player cheating is move times. Such a player will have no idea whether a move is trivial or works only due to an exceptionally precise and lengthy series of counter-intuitive calculations that no human could do without a significant think Ok, but what prevents the helper to communicate the difficulty or the number of minutes to think-pretend as well as the move i…

There are always extra factors that can be discovered.

There was a video game speedrun cheating incident where the cheater was caught splicing. But their splices were perfect. No audio artifacts, no video artifacts, for a long time no evidence at all because the cheater perfectly conformed to all known cheat detection.

Then one day it was discovered that the loading animation was dependent on a frame counter that persisted across all game states. If the run wasn't spliced, the loading animation's current sprite should have matched a perfectly predictable pattern.

It didn't. But this counter/consistency wasn't discovered until much after the run was achieved, so the cheater had no way of avoiding detection.

This is basically what happened with Hans. Hans knew all the traditional methods for detecting chess cheating successfully evaded them.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-30/chess-cheating-expert...

but new techniques for cheat detection were developed in direct response to accusations against Hans, and Hans had not perfectly emulated a prodigy human with his cheating. He did things that only an assisted player would be capable of.

Re: Chess Investigation Finds U.S. Grandmaster ‘Likely Cheated’ More Than 100 Times

#215

Post by bjourne »

chesscom wrote: post #144

There is so much more to our report than what was focused on in the WSJ article. The full report will be shared shortly…

Even more!? Whats in the WSJ article is more than plenty enough to conclude that Nieman is a dirty cheater.

Re: Chess Investigation Finds U.S. Grandmaster ‘Likely Cheated’ More Than 100 Times

#216

Post by sgjohnson »

moralestapia wrote: post #186

Keep this in mind(!) Magnus Carlsen is a majority shareholder in chess.com.

Magnus Carlsen is not on trial here.

And it’s disingenious to suggest that he’s actively trying to destroy Hans’ career because his ego couldn’t stand losing to him in that OTB game, because it’s an extremely serious allegation from human perspective.

Re: Chess Investigation Finds U.S. Grandmaster ‘Likely Cheated’ More Than 100 Times

#217

Post by pclmulqdq »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #199
threatofrain wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being a TA and discovering that about half the class was engaged in a singular cheating ring (that does not mean the other half is free from cheating) changed my perspective as to how cheating should be dealt with. In general I feel that if enough people are doing the "wrong" thing, then punishing most of the population is probably an even worse move. Failing individuals, marking their transcript, or kicking them out…

There will always be cheaters when money is involved. The Saudi route of death penalty is probably too high. It’s better to just invest money into anti cheat architecture.

Why not both? Particularly in a game or a sport, where losing access to the competitive scene doesn't really negatively impact your life. Like it or not, there aren't very many robbers in Saudi Arabia - they get their hands cut off.

Re: Chess Investigation Finds U.S. Grandmaster ‘Likely Cheated’ More Than 100 Times

#218

Post by [deleted] »

Tenoke wrote: post #193
chesscom wrote: post #144

There is so much more to our report than what was focused on in the WSJ article. The full report will be shared shortly…

I appreciate the increase in transparency here. Can we expect similar transparency for all other (or at leasted titled) cheater cases?

[deleted]

Re: Chess Investigation Finds U.S. Grandmaster ‘Likely Cheated’ More Than 100 Times

#219

Post by permo-w »

IceWreck wrote: post #152
aluminum96 wrote: post #27

It's a real red flag that he plays stronger moves after the browser window loses focus. I'd argue that's much less circumstantial than anything else so far.

Even if he was cheating, its a dumb move to do that. It's super easy to stop websites from knowing that you're switching tabs or windows. https://github.com/IceWreck/Page-Visibility-User-Script I made this a while ago. Or just use another computer.

yeah exactly. if you're cheating online at a high-level, would this not be the exact first thing you'd think about dealing with? chess.com can have all the crazy algorithms in the world to try and figure out if you're playing like a human, but if you're tabbing out every time your opponent plays a move, you're giving the game away in move 1 (or - to take a more literal approach - whatever move takes you out of your opening repertoire...)

and yeah you could argue that if you're not into web dev it's not hyper obvious that websites are able to know when you lose focus on them, but I'd argue that it is fairly obvious. there are indications that should make it clear. facebook flashing notifications in their tab title until you click on them, to take a simple example.

Re: Chess Investigation Finds U.S. Grandmaster ‘Likely Cheated’ More Than 100 Times

#220

Post by pclmulqdq »

threatofrain wrote: post #211
lotsofpulp wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In general I feel that if enough people are doing the "wrong" thing, then punishing most of the population is probably an even worse move Why?

I feel that the raison d'etre of morality is in the promotion of healthy relations and prosperous communities, and my policy intuition tells me that punishing over half of a population is probably the wrong move.

The thing is, it's only half the population now. Once you set the precedent, it won't be half the population any more. You can also just slowly ratchet up the pressure, cutting off the cheating over time.
Post reply on HN