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

221–230 of 339 posts

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

#221

Post by Retric »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #177
ehsankia wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the biggest tell is how he wasn't able to explain his play and just threw a smug response whenever asked to describe anything.

I might take into consideration rapid rise in ratings, and even this chess.com report, but please, this argument about post game interview is pure nonsense. It is not a 'tell' in the slightest. Any player with at least IM title will give you a decent analysis of that position if he wants , and Niemann is certainly better than IM even without alleged computer help. He was visibly disinterested in the interview and it…

It’s definitely evidence just not very strong evidence on it’s own. Combined with a history of cheating and a few other tells and things look rather damming.

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

#222

Post by debo_ »

raydiatian wrote: post #158
JetSetIlly wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can’t explain why you know something you just know it. The way Carlsen described his suspicions reminded me of "connoisseurship" in the art world. Now that's a "skill" that's not as important as it once was but once the science has given its results and there are still no firm conclusions, connoisseurship is all you have.

Cheater connoisseurship. Nice.

Con-noisseurship.

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

#223

Post by nikcub »

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 hope you revise your policy of keeping all known instances of cheating amongst titled players on chess.com private. Further, as part of this report also reveal who the other professional players who confessed to cheating are.

I attribute part of the reason why this scandal has reached as far as it has is that Niemann was able to retain his reputation and enter professional OTB tournaments up until the Sinquefield Cup.

Nobody knew about any of this until it was alluded to vaguely, and then implicitly after Magnus was defeated OTB

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

#224

Post by permo-w »

bambax wrote: post #125
KennyBlanken wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people don't realize that the online chat functions for a lot of customer service sites show every character you type, not when you hit 'enter' or 'send'.

Didn't know that. Is this really true? What would be the point of it? When chatting with a customer support it's quite apparent the csr is involved in many chats at once; wouldn't it be quite taxing for them to have to monitor not just the responses but every keystroke of the people they interact with?

the way they justify it is to give faster responses. I suspect that is part of it, but another part of it is to weed out time-wasters and liars

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

#226

Post by [deleted] »

mda wrote: post #88
ghank wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is Carlsen taking a move from Howell in a Lichess prize tournament, which he'd never do OTB: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNMcnrmb97g

So a half drunk Howell blurts a single move to half drunk Carlsen in a bullet game and this is cheating?

[deleted]

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

#227

Post by permo-w »

bena wrote: post #86
FireBeyond wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which shows ... I don't know ... naivety, or cockiness, or something. If I'm cheating at chess (or poker or whatever) online and I know that there are likely to be some form of anti-cheat scanning happening... why wouldn't you run your chess client on a computer beside you - then everything surrounding that is undetectable (processes, focus, CPU utilization, etc.)

People are still rather short-sighted when it comes to what a computer can do. They can really only think in front of them. If I put information into this program, I get information out. They don't think that applications can monitor their own meta-state. Or the state of other applications. So I'm not terribly surprised that he thought running the engine in another browser window would have been sufficient. He might…

there are easily observed indications that websites can detect window focus. take facebook for example. if you get a notification while a facebook tab is open but not in focus, the tab title will irritatingly and eye-drawingly flash between "facebook" and "x messaged you" until you focus on the tab. or youtube. if you open a youtube video in the background it will not autoplay until you focus on that tab. these things are not hidden from the user

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

#228

Post by Andrew_nenakhov »

sgjohnson wrote: post #213
Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Whatever happened when he was a kid and played online is absolutely irrelevant in otb tournament that had anticheating measures which organisers considered to be sufficient to stop cheating.

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

#229

Post by Retric »

threatofrain wrote: post #179
throwawaysleep wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why I constantly cheated in school. I got caught once and the penalty was a 0 on the test and a talking to. And only because I was a cheating noob. The benefits were in the thousands and thousands of scholarship dollars. I cheat now in my employment. I work three full time jobs remotely and do the bare minimum in each. The risk is getting fired (and if I only get fired from two of the jobs, I am still ahead o…

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…

It’s a feedback loop where if there are no penalties for cheating then more people cheat which eventually forces people to cheat just to compete.

In a collage setting having a high number of cheaters reduces the value of a degree as people get used to graduates being incompetent. That also hurts non cheaters.

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

#230

Post by gerdesj »

throwawaysleep wrote: post #135
pclmulqdq wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is, I think, the single biggest factor in the proliferation of cheating. Most cheaters are smart enough to do the math on how they should win at the sport, or is smart enough to hire someone who can do the math. In other words, cheaters are rational actors. Allowing people back into the sport swings the EV math heavily in favor of cheating if the penalty isn't massive given that the chance of getting caught is s…

This is why I constantly cheated in school. I got caught once and the penalty was a 0 on the test and a talking to. And only because I was a cheating noob. The benefits were in the thousands and thousands of scholarship dollars. I cheat now in my employment. I work three full time jobs remotely and do the bare minimum in each. The risk is getting fired (and if I only get fired from two of the jobs, I am still ahead o…

"I cheat now in my employment. I work three full time jobs remotely and do the bare minimum in each."

Do you earn more from the three jobs than one job "honestly"? Perhaps ... but then it becomes complicated because I suspect you have to maintain three lots of "reality" to deal with each employer. Now it may be that you have managed full on parasite and are able to live with that and prosper. I'd keep an eye out over my shoulder if I was you.

Sociopathic behaviour can work for a while, quite a long while but eventually society might lose more than it can afford to easily lose and looks for scapegoats and then deals with it. Then you had better have some remarkable camouflage or discover the joys of summary justice.

You describe one unpleasant aspect of society that we all are aware of: the parasite. I'm warning you that society has fangs beyond the police and the law. We might call it natural justice or whatever but please do not fall afoul of it.

There is of course way more to your story and my response but please do be careful.

Post reply on HN