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

The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

chess.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 486 posts

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#311

Post by burnished »

quadrifoliate wrote: post #139
dhikapow wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a big difference between "[if you're not a GM by age 14], it is unlikely that you can reach the top levels of chess." and "..then don't bother, it's hopeless". The former statement is perfectly valid, nobody saying that it's hopeless

> nobody saying that it's hopeless Well, it's a report about cheating which is essentially claiming that if you're not a GM by age 14, then you must be cheating . Which is...kind of the same thing.

It literally does not say that. What do you want them to do? Leave out all the weird or suspicious stuff so that some other commenter will swing by and complain that they didn't analyze it?

The conclusion of their report is repeated several times; no evidence of OTB cheating.

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#312

Post by ThinBold »

ajhurliman wrote: post #96
noncoml wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could have chosen to ban him for life when they caught him cheating. I would have no sympathy for him in that case. But the document paints a different picture. He cheated, and they agreed to re-enable his account if he promised to not cheat again. According to chess.com he kept his promise. So why the sudden new ban? I would agree with you that the initial cheating was enough for lifetime ban. But chess.com dec…

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."

If the situation is that bad and cheating is that easy, soon there will be researchers cheating all the way to Elo 2000, just like there are researchers submitting garbage papers to prove that some journals are jokes. That will be interesting too so I am not against your vision.

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#313

Post by burnished »

Valgrim wrote: post #2

Will chess.com provide an automated tool that uses the same methodology to analyse every player that uses it's platform? If not it seems unfair to other high profile players. But imagine they do, will those players get automatically banned from the website? Will tournaments require a proof of your online score and "non-cheater" certificate? A part of me seems to see this kind of automated analysis dangerously intrusi…

It is a very manual process involving human experts. It is not an automatic process, which you would know if you read a couple pages of TFA

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#314

Post by hsbauauvhabzb »

xxs wrote: post #269
maoeurk wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah it's pretty much exclusively used incorrectly. The original meaning was that an exception to a rule proves that such a rule exists. For example, "no parking on Sunday" is an exception that implies that parking on any day except Sunday is okay. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule It honestly doesn't bother me as much as when people incorrectly say "begs the question" when they mean "raise…

One note about parking - normally all actions (incl. parking) are allowed, unless they are explicitly forbidden. Lack of any other rules/guidance implies the parking is allowed.

That’s a fairly generic statement, have you confirmed that rule to be true across every city/state/country across the globe?

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#316

Post by AmericanChopper »

Aicy wrote: post #285
Woeps wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you please elaborate? I personally can't see how the acquisition and cheating are connected

Conflict of interest. Magnus Carlsen has put his reputation on the line by calling out Hans Niemann for cheating. Many people have criticised him for doing saying there is not enough evidence. Chess.com has an interest in defending Magnus's brand since they are buying his companies.

There is a very short list of people, in the entire history of the game, who could possibly be considered better players than Carlsen. His reputation is not in jeopardy at all.

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#318

Post by Aicy »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #316
Aicy wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conflict of interest. Magnus Carlsen has put his reputation on the line by calling out Hans Niemann for cheating. Many people have criticised him for doing saying there is not enough evidence. Chess.com has an interest in defending Magnus's brand since they are buying his companies.

There is a very short list of people, in the entire history of the game, who could possibly be considered better players than Carlsen. His reputation is not in jeopardy at all.

No one is questioning his reputation as a skilled player. They are questioning him for potentially calling someone out for cheating on flimsy (or no) evidence.

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#319

Post by Aicy »

maegul wrote: post #12
karpierz wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Using a computer engine is part of learning and preparing in chess (AFAICT). What other sport has a similar issue where an extremely useful and essential and highly available tool in the sport is considered cheating based entirely on using it within the narrow window of a game? Of course it was going to leak into play in online games where you only have the data feed of moves and nothing else connecting the players…

I don’t know about those games … but isn’t the incomplete/hidden information a fundamental difference from chess and how easy it is to cheat?

I'd argue it's much easier to cheat in Chess than those games. In Chess the "hidden information" is the best move to play (I know I'm misusing the term there), which is easily determined by using a computer.

eSports are similar to normal sports in the fact that even if you have complete information, you need the physical skill to back it up. Professional DotA / SC2 / CSGO players would still wipe the floor with a mediocre player using maphacks.

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#320

Post by shawabawa3 »

mellosouls wrote: post #30

I've only really looked at the WSJ version but I'm scratching my head at what the big reveal is here - we already know - by Hans admission - he cheated online when he was 12 and 16. I think anybody who knows how online chess tournaments work assumed those two times would cover multiple games and dates. Other statistical analyses have been published that indicate no evidence for OTB cheating. The negative against Niem…

I think the big reveal was 100+ games where it's extremely likely he cheated including prize games
Post reply on HN