411–420 of 1001 posts
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.
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.
I think there's little dispute that he's a very good chess player. He could perhaps earn a modest living as a chess tutor. That should be good enough, he's not entitled to riches.
Then everyone will think his students are cheating when they perform well!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
Online games often: - are how players make their living in cash tournaments - qualify for OTB events (including wct events) - are rated by FIDE or national organizations - count for points in otb/online hybrid tournaments. All of those are significantly impactful for a professional player.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is extremely common in high level chess. Every chess player will study their opponents history and recent play patterns and practice against that. Hans claimed he studied against Magnus' opening because Magnus had played it a few months ago. It turns out Magnus has never used that opening in a recorded game. The dialog has now changed to "well by move 20 the board state became identical to a previous Magnus game…
Magnus did have the same opening, but not the same sequence of moves (transposition) in several games. So that's just wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of top play ends up being a certain percent intuition. Him beings bad at explaining his intuition is the lowest form of circumstantial evidence.
You should see the sequence. He was totally unable to explain any lines he had in mind, stating some positions were « obviously winning » (where it was absolutely not obvious, and in fact the engine marked it as loosing), etc. A total disaster.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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…
> (or Niemann, if concrete evidence against him emerges) This window seems closed though. Carlsen seems to have no evidence. Where else could the evidence come from? All we have is character attacks. Even if justified, they can't prove that he cheated. All we know for sure is that Carlsen accused him of cheating with no evidence.
100% serious question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 s…
Well she shows 6+ games where he has 100% correlation with the engine. What are the chances?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Many people might assume that a cheater needs guidance every move, thereby requiring a potentially more obvious cheating mechanism. That is not the case. IMO, this reasoning potentially implicates every high level player. If it's possible that two hints can account for the difference between 2600 and 2800, and a 19 year old kid under heavy scrutiny can exploit this weakness without being detected, it seems assured…
Hot take, but chess is a zombie sport. Software running in a smartphone can play deep games against each other. Chess engines aren't like car engines are to sprinting. They are more akin to text-to-image AIs but as though every single picture they produce is better than what any artist ever could produce. Part of that is because Chess is easily defined (the win conditions are comparatively simple). I'm rambling now a…
Why would chess engines playing very well mean human chess stops being interesting? I don't see the relation.