Dear Chess World • Hacker News Board

Re: Dear Chess World

#321

Post by roflyear » Mon, Sep 26, 2022, 9:49 PM UTC

jobs_throwaway wrote: post #246

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone makes a mistake at 16, is it a valid reason to ban a person for life? Ok. If someone kills a person at 16. Should the killer be in prison for life?

playing competitive Chess is a privilege, not a right like freedom. I'm totally fine with 0-tolerance, because the only penalty is you can't play in competitions. If you want to play chess with your mates, no one is going to stop you.

It's the dude's livelihood, though. There are laws about taking someone's tools if they owe a debt for similar reasons. I think it is a very similar thing.

Re: Dear Chess World

#322

Post by onemoresoop » Mon, Sep 26, 2022, 9:50 PM UTC

stephc_int13 wrote: post #135

Magnus is not doing this in the best possible way. If Hans is cheating (possible, especially given his past) Magnus should act and use his connections in the Chess world to catch him cheating. Suspicion is not proof. Using his reputation as leverage can work to destroy Hans's reputation, but there is a high risk of collateral damages. He should be smarter than that.

It's a fools errand to try to catch your opponent cheating, they may not be in fact cheating and you're stressing out making your game worse.

But general anti-cheating measures should be taken. What are those I don't know.

Re: Dear Chess World

#323

Post by ninth_ant » Mon, Sep 26, 2022, 9:50 PM UTC

perihelions wrote: post #15

It's very remarkable that Carlsen is suspicious of Niemann's game against him in Sinquefield, since there's a clear consensus among other top chess players that there was absolutely nothing unusual about it (or at least about the moves played).

It's a bit misleading to say that there was absolutely nothing unusual about the game. The Sinquefield game in question showed a very high correlation between engine optimal moves and the moves played by Niemann. His gameplay accuracy here is within the bounds of what the very top players can achieve in individual games, but high enough to raise some suspicion.

The next step is to place that mild suspicion in the context of both his history of admitted cheating, his unwillingness/inability to explain his remarkable moves post-game, and the additional context of many other games played in the last few years with _extraordinary_ accuracy. Now something that could be explained by just a very strong game appears very suspicious.

Re: Dear Chess World

#324

Post by Loughla » Mon, Sep 26, 2022, 9:50 PM UTC

detaro wrote: post #224

zikduruqe wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

for some reason the wild theory in this particular instance has been "vibrating anal beads". No, I don't know why.

I have a theory about why that exists, in particular.

1. The trope of the 'Depraved Homosexual' has a long established history in pop culture and cinema. Anal beads as the choice for cheating would fall, comfortably, into that trope. [https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DepravedHomosexu...]

2. Chess is full of VERY smart people. One of the most common ways to insult a smart person is to call into question their sexuality; hence why we have to have entire movements related to calling out anti-lgbtq+ statements like "that's so gay". [https://welcomingschools.org/resources/stop-thats-so-gay-ant...]

Anyway, combine those two things, and you get your answer. It's because the world hasn't really evolved at all in the last 30-40 years, outside of what we have been forced to do by law. It's easy and socially acceptable to call a man gay as an insult, so in a roundabout way, that's what we're getting with the anal beads talk.

I sort of laser focused on this last week when I heard this theory for the first time. It just struck me as so. . . odd. Why would that be a thing? That's what I came up with.

Re: Dear Chess World

#325

Post by roflyear » Mon, Sep 26, 2022, 9:50 PM UTC

Invictus0 wrote: post #147

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone makes a mistake at 16, is it a valid reason to ban a person for life? Ok. If someone kills a person at 16. Should the killer be in prison for life?

Enough with the fiction that cheating is a mistake, or that a 16 year old smart enough to be a chess grandmaster is simultaneously so underdeveloped that they have not learned the consequences of cheating. Your comparison with murder is ridiculous. First of all, teenage murderers are regularly sentenced to life in prison. A murderer is deprived of fundamental human liberties--Niemann is deprived of being able to comp…

He wasn't GM at 16. He was awarded the GM title last year. Why make up stuff?

Re: Dear Chess World

#326

Post by ouid » Mon, Sep 26, 2022, 9:51 PM UTC

Maursault wrote: post #256

ouid wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

having a history of cheating in a game that is mostly otherwise honor bound is a very very very bad sign. Don't be fooled by the "when he was younger" bit. Everything that you did you did when you were younger, it has been less time since hans was last caught cheating than the interval between that time and the previous one. Don't let the statisticians convince you that they know what they're doing either. Statistics…

> Statistics, as a discipline, is essentially predicated on the principle that the objects of study do not know that they are being observed. There is no such "principle" in statistics. Statistics is based on statistical methodology, i.e. formulas, models, and techniques that are used in statistical analysis of raw research data, which is collected, organized, analyzed, interpreted and presented. The Hawthorne effect…

There is a difference between a subject that changes with observation and a subject that changes adversarially with your statistical methods. A qualitative difference.

Re: Dear Chess World

#327

Post by roflyear » Mon, Sep 26, 2022, 9:51 PM UTC

jobs_throwaway wrote: post #248

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He cheated online on a second rate chess site. Nobody has any explanations how he could do it over the board. (Considering that people become more or less aware about their responsibilities and consequences of their actions at about 15 yo, he is now 4 times the responsible age he was at 16.)

> Nobody has any explanations how he could do it over the board. If you believe this, its because you aren't looking. There's tons of explanations online of how it could be possible. Go look at /r/chess.

"random redditors say it!"

Re: Dear Chess World

#328

Post by onemoresoop » Mon, Sep 26, 2022, 9:51 PM UTC

eklitzke wrote: post #166

addicted wrote: post #50

This is highly disappointing. For one thing, the fact that Carlsen is making this statement now and not weeks earlier is embarrassing. For another, the evidence he presents is disappointingly weak. I can understand being suspicious of online games. Fair enough. But the evidence for cheating offline is: 1) Rapid progress in OTB chess. This rapid progress is still much less rapid than many other players and involved Ha…

With regards to his recent rating increase, Hans' rating increase is not completely unprecedented but it's still very rare. The issue isn't that he's a mid-2600s player, or even that he's increased by 200 points in two years, it's the shape of the ratings graph and the unusual staircase progress he's made at the GM level. It took Hans about five years to go from 2300 to 2500 rating, and most of that was pre-pandemic.…

I play chess casually and wanted to note that 2600 is pretty darn good. I'll never reach that number but will never stress over it either.

Re: Dear Chess World

#329

Post by tux1968 » Mon, Sep 26, 2022, 9:52 PM UTC

roflyear wrote: post #203

tux1968 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Carlsen has an impeccable reputation for being principled and magnanimous in defeat, and always complimentary and respectful of his opponents after a loss, acknowledging their deserved win and well played game. Frankly, i'm shocked more people aren't being supportive of this single decision of his, that stands alone in his long and rather glorious career.

Quoted post unavailable.

Being extremely competitive is not being a sore loser, and he is playful and spirited in trash-talk. But he ultimately always shows respect towards his opponent, even when he's extremely disappointed in himself.

Being upset at a loss, which you'll see in a few videos, is much different than disrespecting the person who beat him.

Re: Dear Chess World

#330

Post by bombcar » Mon, Sep 26, 2022, 9:52 PM UTC

detaro wrote: post #224

zikduruqe wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

for some reason the wild theory in this particular instance has been "vibrating anal beads". No, I don't know why.

Because it's sensational.

The key takeaway is that if you have someone assisting you (entering the information into the computer) they only need a very simple way of sending a signal - which could be a "do something unexpected" or "this move is crucial". And you'd only need a time or two in a game to get the edge, assuming you're already skilled at the game.