391–400 of 1001 posts
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.
A key fact to understand in thinking about cheating in over the board chess: a strong player can defeat a much stronger opponent with just 1-3 hints per game indicating the strongest move. For example, most chess experts agree that a ~2600 rated player with 2-3 hints at key moments per game would be expected to beat a ~2800 rated player. Many people might assume that a cheater needs guidance every move, thereby requi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, and so does.... everyone else that is 2600+. And lots of people who aren't.
Quoted post unavailable.
I mean, come on. There's a guy that replied to you who is insinuating that I AM Hans. LOL!
Let the conspiracies fly, I guess!
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The second best player in the world would be best positioned to cheat; they'd need a small advantage to become best. And the best player in the world could cheat, too, reducing their mental load and taking it easy. Both cases would likely be exposed by the cheaters getting lazy.
I don't think you become the best or second best player through a mindset that includes "I'll cheat if that's what it takes to reach the top".
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).
>at least about the moves played You missed a large part. Some of his moves were "somewhat suspect". However, he was interviewed after the game with Magnus and he really could not explain why he was making the moves he made. Even the interviewers were almost laughing as he gave his "analysis" for his own moves. He played off his top engine moves as just getting lucky, while at the same time stating he didn't make oth…
Isn't it time to just abandon chess as a competitive sport? It's (mostly) a solved game for f* sake, move on. I will probably be downvoted to oblivion, but I'm absolutely serious and would love constructive commentary. What's the big appeal of chess? We (as humans) can't beat computers. It's probably useful for further research, but I see absolutely no value in (human) competitions.
> It's (mostly) a solved game for f* sake, move on. This is completely incorrect. We have fully solved chess with 7 pieces, and 8-piece tablebases are in progress. The initial chess position has 64 pieces, and solving gets exponentially harder as more pieces are added. > We (as humans) can't beat computers. We can't beat cars at races either yet competitive foot races still exist.
But the competition in chess was never about the computers, it's about the players. And that's true for many sports, otherwise we'd only ever watch the Olympics.
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.
The simple fact is that computers vastly outcompete human chess players. And not just big and expensive purpose built machines but the kind of computers everyone has access to.
Furthermore at the skill levels these players are you don’t even need constant handholding from a computer. A few hints at key moments would be enough to basically shift the balance in someones favour.
So if someone wants to cheat all they have to do is to receive a few bits of information from an accomplice. The question is not even if someone cheated in that particular game, but if cheating is possible.
We can imagine all kind of spy gadgetry one could use to communicate those few bits. People have two hangups with many of them: they can be found in a security screening, or they sound too sci-fy.
The vibrating anal beads combine three properties: - they could transfer the few bits of information needed to tilt the game in favour of a cheat. - they are not too far fetched. You can buy them right now commercially. - they would be very hard to detect by security arrangements. It feels very unlikely that players would agree to the kind of invasive probing which would be necessary to detect one.
So it is not that people think that this particular player in this particular game actually used vibrating anal beads. It is more about the idea that someone could cheat at chess with covert communication methods.
they should play a game inside one of these: https://www.ets-lindgren.com/products/shielding/rf-shielded-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So there are "really bad" opponents at the 1600 level, but is it reasonable to think there are "really bad" opponents at the 2600 level? It's a different world up there.
Right, op is making a mistake in thinking that a perfect game against a 1600 is the same as a perfect game against a GM. GMs will intentionally play less perfect moves to head towards complications where they will come out ahead. When I start to bang out 15 moves of theory against a IM/GM they will recognize it and play something I’m not familiar with and just win more quickly.