411–420 of 486 posts
Maybe at this point the highest levels of competitive chess should just continue outright as programming challenges. It would perhaps be more interesting and open to anyone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my opinion, this sort of ad-hoc stereotyping weakens the rest of the analysis. There are plenty of counterexamples. Anand, a former world champion, became a GM at age 19 and is still ranked World No. 9 currently (at age 52). Ding Liren (Current No. 2) became a GM at 17. Grischuk (currently No. 17, peak No.3) became a GM at 17. All three have crossed 2800 ELO at some point. I hope this is not the sort of analysis t…
> Anand, a former world champion, became a GM at age 19 At the age of 18: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viswanathan_Anand#Early_chess_... Also, according 2700chess.com he was #96 in the world with a rating of 2520 on January 1988. That's right after turning 18. Growing up in India (before the chess boom). Before chess engines existed. 6 months later he was #49 in the world. https://2700chess.com/players/anand A year…
doing the statistical analysis and all is pretty cool, but honestly, can't they just challenge him to play at his rating in a secure environment? his learning curve is a little steeper than the others... that doesn't convince me the otb games were fraudulent.
Chess is a game that requires large sample sizes to make any sort of conclusion with 95% confidence interval. The variance in performance is far beyond a lot of competing sports. Magnus makes blunders, sometimes below-GM level, and so do other GMs (including former World Chess Champions). For example, if you were watching WCC, one cannot conclude who is better by simply looking at game 9 out of 14. Comebacks happen o…
Famously Kramnik, one of the greatest players of all time, blundered mate in one at classical time controls, which is literally a beginner-level mistake.
This report provides a detailed background of Hans' potential cheating, and detailed breakdowns of certain aspects of chess.com's cheat-detection methodology, including previously unknown (or little known) methods such as window focus change event monitoring and post-focus-change move analysis.[1] The report also reveals Niemann's engine move correlations alongside over two dozen chess Grandmasters who have admitted…
> [1]Tangentially, this induces an obvious concern about cheat and cheat-detection arms races. A clever cheater might scrutinize this report and refine their cheating plan. For example, they might recognize the need to use a second device (such as a phone) to cheat. They might use the data corpus presented in this report to establish limits on how often they use chess engine moves per game, and they might manage thei…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surely that kind of play would indicate a rating considerably above 1200.
1200 rapid if that makes a difference? Also, I suppose it's.. certainly not orthogonal, but it's not dead parallel either - can have a good/bad memory and play well/not well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd be willing to bet that the prevalence of cheating is roughly equal regardless of the discipline. Let's say 1% of participants are cheating at any given time (I have no idea if this is a high or low estimate). For better or worse, this could represent a metric for gauging how well that discipline is at detecting active cheaters.
I'm quite skeptical that it's equal as that would mean that cheating is not affected by, nor affects community/culture. I think we would find, if we explored this deeper, that occurrences of cheating are clustered as they feed off themselves in a developing culture of cheating.
I think clusters of cheating would be especially prevalent in cases where there was a finite pool of positions available, and more people than that who wanted to get a position. If you know others are cheating, it's a pretty strong rationalization for cheating yourself, and the more prevalent the cheating, the stronger the rationalization.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another explanation is simply that, if you reach early adulthood without deciding to devote your life to becoming good at chess, you are unlikely to do it later. Becoming among the best in the world at anything requires not only natural talent but also focused, almost monomaniacal work, and if you haven't started doing that (for chess) by your mid-teens, it's hard to see why you would start. If, for some reason, you…
Brain plasticity is real. If I dropped everything and devoted my life to studying Chinese I would still never learn to speak it as well as a child who grew up in China. I think both effects have something to do with it.
In other words, you can only learn a language natively, if you have some good reason to do so, like say money.
But, your basic point that both effects have something to do with it, is surely correct.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> [1]Tangentially, this induces an obvious concern about cheat and cheat-detection arms races. A clever cheater might scrutinize this report and refine their cheating plan. For example, they might recognize the need to use a second device (such as a phone) to cheat. They might use the data corpus presented in this report to establish limits on how often they use chess engine moves per game, and they might manage thei…
> I really can't shake my personal feeling that chess as a sport is just simply dead, especially as an online e-sport. Especially in combination with the possibility that there's plenty more cheating that they're not catching/detecting. Online chess is bigger than ever, and some kind of botting/cheating is possible for virtually every e-sport (indeed I'd say many are easier than chess). This is a major scandal that s…
This report provides a detailed background of Hans' potential cheating, and detailed breakdowns of certain aspects of chess.com's cheat-detection methodology, including previously unknown (or little known) methods such as window focus change event monitoring and post-focus-change move analysis.[1] The report also reveals Niemann's engine move correlations alongside over two dozen chess Grandmasters who have admitted…
> The fact that online cheating is so widespread even among top chess players is certainly news to many, including me. A few weeks ago my daughter very proudly announced that she managed to "outsmart" (=hack) her online test app used by her class. I was shocked and asked why she would do that, she's smart enough to get an A without that. She seemed obviously puzzled by my question and my lack of enthusiasm about her…