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

301–310 of 1001 posts

Re: Dear Chess World

#301

Post by roflyear »

mikepurvis wrote: post #179
dgritsko wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it boils more down to this: "I was uncomfortable with how he played because he has a history of cheating so I quit" Which is entirely reasonable, if you think that cheating is an "existential threat" to chess itself.

I think the statement is a little bit more nuanced than that: "His over the board progress has been unusual, and throughout our game in the Sinquefield Cup I had the impression that he wasn't tense or even fully concentrating on the game in critical positions, while outplaying me as black in a way I think only a handful of players can do." This isn't just "I got weird vibes" or something, this is the professional ana…

Hans is a super weird dude. And Magnus was worried going into the event.

Re: Dear Chess World

#302

Post by Etheryte »

Tenoke wrote: post #282
markers wrote: post #72

In case you haven't seen it, some new evidence surfaced yesterday: https://youtu.be/jfPzUgzrOcQ

In one of those games, Nieman was losing by 1.3 points in the first 10 moves despite being 100% according to this analysis so I'll take it with a grain of salt. This only looks at having moves within the top 3 engine moves done by one of the engines tested, and sometimes there's just 1-2 good moves so doing 1 out of 10 (or whatever) possible moves doesn't mean you did anything good. Further, it's unclear how cherry-p…

A 1.3 difference out of an opening sideline is neither rare nor lost, and mostly simply comes down to the fact that the engine doesn't understand the opening. Even the mod pin in the link you posted clearly outlines that this is a misleading way to frame this. It would be better to read more into the discussion before helping misinformation spread.

Re: Dear Chess World

#303

Post by Tenoke »

tgtweak wrote: post #201
markers wrote: post #72

In case you haven't seen it, some new evidence surfaced yesterday: https://youtu.be/jfPzUgzrOcQ

Hard to cheat statistics. This is how they find accounting fraud as well.

It's actually fairly easy to cheat statistics. It happens literally all the time in Academia. There's a thousand ways to make a statistical analysis believably say what you want in a way where even other professionals don't realize is the case unless an expert does a thorough analysis.

Re: Dear Chess World

#304

Post by mikenew »

roflyear wrote: post #207
markers wrote: post #72

In case you haven't seen it, some new evidence surfaced yesterday: https://youtu.be/jfPzUgzrOcQ

That's hardly evidence. Me, as a 1600 player, have played some 0-0-0 games on Lichess. I didn't cheat. I just play a lot of chess games and during those games, my opponent was really bad, so I had a perfect game (according to the engine).

You're conflating accuracy with engine correlation. Having a perfectly accurate game means you didn't make any moves that caused a centipawn loss. Having 100% engine correlation means you're making the exact moves the engine would make.

Re: Dear Chess World

#305

Post by boole1854 »

markers wrote: post #72

In case you haven't seen it, some new evidence surfaced yesterday: https://youtu.be/jfPzUgzrOcQ

While interesting, this does not seem very convincing to me. They successfully show that Niemann was playing many games with a high percentage of "engine perfect" moves, but they do not do enough to show that this is inconsistent with what top players usually do. A whole distribution of scores is shown for Niemann but only limited summary statistics are shown for other top players. A proper comparison would involve showing the same type of data for both.

Re: Dear Chess World

#307

Post by epolanski »

jdthedisciple wrote: post #216

I believe people might be seriously underestimating just how good Magnus may be at detecting cheating. Dude probably trains with computers regularly. He has a better memory than 10 average Joe's combined. He's been the absolute #1 of the world for what, 10 years now? He wouldn't risk his whole reputation for nothing. I personally take his suspicions very seriously, though I agree that evidence has to be presented soo…

Hans is known to have cheated, his coach is known to have cheated, add low security in the event, Hans beating Magnus (a player two tiers above him) on black pieces (Magnus has lost only 15 games against black in an entire world champion career) and Hans acting suspicious during the game and here we are.

Re: Dear Chess World

#308

Post by rbongers »

It's not convincing to say that Hans was cheating because few people can beat Magnus playing black when Magnus was playing poorly in that game. I still feel like more information that could come out at any moment that could swing the situation in either direction, and this statement doesn't say much. I wish Magnus and chess.com would come out with whatever extra information they have.

Re: Dear Chess World

#309

Post by lacker »

zikduruqe wrote: post #214
cmeacham98 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In chess you cheat by receiving external assistance. Nowadays, especially at the high level, that assistance is basically always from a computer. Other than that your guess is as good as mine as _how_ he could have received said assistance, I've seen some wild theories.

What theories? That would be interesting to read. A micro-vibrating motor in his shoe, buzzing morse code? f4 to g5 for example?

Yeah, they make devices like this for stage magicians, that you can simply buy online. For example:

https://illuminati-magic.com/products/thumper

Some of them seem small enough that they won't trigger a metal detector. Currently they don't constantly scan the playing hall for wireless activity, which is what you'd need to detect this in use. I bet they start scanning for wireless transmissions soon, though.

Re: Dear Chess World

#310

Post by roflyear »

rednerrus wrote: post #197
niyazpk wrote: post #33

So basically, no concrete proof (yet), except the fact that Niemann has past history of cheating in online chess.

The analysis evidence is pretty damning.

What analysis? Lol. There does not seem to be ANY analysis that stands up to any criticism, which to me is pretty damning!
Post reply on HN