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

Dear Chess World

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 1001 posts

Re: Dear Chess World

#451

Post by vsareto »

InitialLastName wrote: post #149
Maursault wrote: post #128

Carlson should just challenge Niemann to a 30 game over the board televised match in their shorts (no shoes, no shirt) at Madison Square Garden. With the revenue generated from ticket sales and advertising, they could both retire and international chess can put this episode behind them.

Everyone in the audience has to be in their shorts, and the players need to be surrounded by one-way mirrors otherwise someone in the audience could use a computer and signal the players.

Remove all of the players' teeth because they could pick up Morse signals with fillings

Re: Dear Chess World

#452

Post by root_axis »

Loughla wrote: post #283
roflyear wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and so does.... everyone else that is 2600+. And lots of people who aren't.

Quoted post unavailable.

Why not address the substance of the comment instead of casting aspersions on the author of the comment?

Re: Dear Chess World

#453

Post by kQq9oHeAz6wLLS »

swyx wrote: post #440
not_kurt_godel wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, clever cheating devices have been found in over the board chess competitions The most convincing candidate for such a device I've seen is an Illuminati Thumper Pro hidden in Hans's shoe: https://illuminati-magic.com/products/thumper . If you watch the footage of him getting scanned before his match with Alireza (and, crucially, before Magnus announced he was dropping), there are a couple of subtle things that…

is there any thinking on how many bits of information do you need to cheat, and how many can be communicated via thumper? e.g. is the bit of information "move the knight" aka theres only about 4 bits of info, or is it "move the knight to E6" which is a good deal more bits, that could be lossy/error prone. just on the surface of it, i dont see how this thing could give enough info but i suppose with a loooot of traini…

I would think a shorthand code would be employed

Re: Dear Chess World

#454

Post by stephc_int13 »

krisoft wrote: post #422
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.

> Magnus is not doing this in the best possible way. You are assuming that his goal is to somehow uncover Hans cheating. On the other hand if his goal is to highlight that in his opinion the security arrangements are not sufficient to be able to tell if an opponent is cheating or not, then he is doing that just right. He spoke up and the competition in question introduced anti-cheating measures right the next day. Th…

People have been caught cheating in the past. Chess cheating is not black magic.

Chess engines are an integral part of the Chess world now, players a training with them, to analyze and prepare. I would not be surprised if many players tried to "enhance" their rating online with such an engine.

Chess.com probably has stats about this behavior.

My gut feeling is that online cheating is very common, and thus, saying that someone was caught cheating online is not a very strong proof that he also did it over the board.

Re: Dear Chess World

#455

Post by stouset »

andrepd wrote: post #433
stouset wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an example of this, until the Niemann game Magnus had a 53-game win^H^H^Hunbeaten streak. Prior to this he had a 125-game unbeaten streak. Many (most?) of these games were played against competitors within 200 Elo. Many of these were played against the 10 next-best chess players in the world. The back of the envelope percentage calculation absolutely does not apply at this level of chess. In reality if Niemann wer…

So hitting a 1/100 chance means he is cheating? 1% is slim, but far from impossible.

First, I said he would be lucky to have a 1 in 100 chance. Second, absolutely nobody is saying that's the only reason to be suspicious of this game. Regardless of whether or not you believe Niemann cheated, if you think the fact that he won is the only claim in this accusation you simply aren't paying attention.

Re: Dear Chess World

#456

Post by joshuamorton »

roflyear wrote: post #389
why-el wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are hung up on the wrong thing. Parent writes: "[clear consensus that] there was absolutely nothing unusual about it", I quote one of the greats saying the game is "more than impressive", which, at least we should agree, is the exact opposite of claiming there is "nothing unusual about this game". Onus is on parent to come up with a list of grandmasters claiming the game was "usual", at least I provided one refut…

Correct. They will not come up with a list of GMs saying Hans cheated. Many GMs have said that it doesn't seem like he did (at least during the game with Magnus).

Alireza, Ian, Magnus, Fabi, Wesley, and Levon have since made statements that imply they believe Hans cheated, or at least that they were suspicious of his play, as well as Yasser and Hikaru.

That's the majority of the players in the Sinquefield cup. Even Levon, who was initially skeptical, has since reversed his position.

As is tradition in chess, no one says "He cheated" they say things like "his moves were better than one would have expected" or "superhuman" or "I felt like I should trust my opponent over my calculation".

Re: Dear Chess World

#457

Post by buitreVirtual »

systemvoltage wrote: post #346
jdthedisciple wrote: post #216

I believe people might be seriously underestimating just how good Magnus may be at detecting cheating. Dude probably trains with computers regularly. He has a better memory than 10 average Joe's combined. He's been the absolute #1 of the world for what, 10 years now? He wouldn't risk his whole reputation for nothing. I personally take his suspicions very seriously, though I agree that evidence has to be presented soo…

Mangus is human after all, who occassionally make blunders of sub-GM levels: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=magnus+chess+bl... That just shows that he is fallible, which I empathize with. Also don't forget the bishop blunder by Nepo in the world championship against Magnus. That was a 1800 level blunder trapping the bishop. Nepo is in top 5 GM list. The fact of the matter is that all GMs including Magnu…

What was Carlsen's blunder in his game against Niemann? If he had blundered badly in that game, it would be a very different story.

Re: Dear Chess World

#458

Post by dfan »

gamegoblin wrote: post #295
Tenoke wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

200 points difference means a 25% chance to win, so I doubt just 1 hint is enough to bridge that gap consistently. Many high level games are won by grinding out a small advantage. I'll take a 2700 with 3 hints against a 2800 though.

The "200 points difference means 25% chance to win" breaks down at the highest levels. It works fine near the middle of the bell curve -- i.e. 800-2000 Elo -- but once you get to 2200 Elo you are talking about the >99th percentile. For example, I don't know of a single 2400 player who can score an average of 0.25 against 2600 players. Even at my own mediocre level of 1800, I definitely do not score 0.25 against 2000…

The Elo system is calibrated so that that the expected value from playing a player 200 points stronger than you is 0.24. This is true independent of the strength of the players. If you are scoring 0.10 against players 200 points stronger than you (that would mean, for example, 1 draw and 4 losses over 5 games) but maintaining a stable rating, then you must be crushing players that are weaker than you and/or doing very well against players at your level.

(FWIW, I am 2000 USCF and an expected value of 0.24 vs a 2200 and 0.76 vs an 1800 feels quite reasonable to me.)

Re: Dear Chess World

#459

Post by stouset »

roflyear wrote: post #426
stouset wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What hard evidence—exactly—do you expect Carlsen to be able to produce? Alternatively, imagine anyone in a similar position. What hard evidence can anyone produce in situations such as this? 100% serious question.

I don't expect him to produce evidence, but I expect him to say more than "I suspect he cheated" If he saw something unusual, like "Hans was messing with his shoe" or "I heard several vibrations coming from Hans during the game" etc.. that would be at least something. It would be something. Magnus has given nothing.

Magnus has produced what he can given the situation and has staked something of extreme personal value—his legendary near-2900 ELO—on it with his move-1 resignation.

If he'd heard the guy's damn shoe buzzing he would have insisted on a search.

Re: Dear Chess World

#460

Post by Bud »

roflyear wrote: post #424
not_kurt_godel wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, clever cheating devices have been found in over the board chess competitions The most convincing candidate for such a device I've seen is an Illuminati Thumper Pro hidden in Hans's shoe: https://illuminati-magic.com/products/thumper . If you watch the footage of him getting scanned before his match with Alireza (and, crucially, before Magnus announced he was dropping), there are a couple of subtle things that…

Now analyze a video of Magnus being wanded!

Why? Has Magnus admitted to cheating on multiple occasions in the past? No. He has not.
Post reply on HN