Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now analyze a video of Magnus being wanded!
Why? Has Magnus admitted to cheating on multiple occasions in the past? No. He has not.
No post body was provided.
Dear Chess World
471–480 of 1001 posts
Re: Dear Chess World
#472Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well she shows 6+ games where he has 100% correlation with the engine. What are the chances?
> What are the chances? We don't know! That's why this is an incomplete analysis. A comparison against other players of his caliber would answer that question.
[deleted]
Re: Dear Chess World
#473Earlier 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…
Here's a relevant quote from Magnus regarding cheating:
"I would just needed to cheat one or two times during a match, and I would not even need to be given moves, just the answer on which move was way better, or here there is a possibility of winning and here you need to be more careful. That is all I would need in order to be almost invincible."
Even just 1 bit - an indication to be careful - would be enough to boost the strength of a GM. An accomplice coughing in the background to let you know there's something to watch for. For a strong player - and there's no doubt that Niemann is a strong player, the question is just how strong - that's all they need to avoid making mistakes. GMs can solve insanely hard puzzles, because they know it's a puzzle and has a specific solution. Same thing with 1 bit of info.
Of course, realistically they could simply use Morse code instead of "bits" and transmit two squares (just 4 Morse "letters").
Re: Dear Chess World
#474Earlier quoted context omitted.
But cheating wouldn't explain a relaxed state. You could easily expect that he'd be nervous as fuck to cheat OTB against Carlsen. This is just wildly speculative and ultimately meaningless.
Sherlock Holmes used to say that a clue is just a clue, two clues are just two clues, but three clues make a proof.
Except that you can't really call things a clue if you're just looking for things to confirm your existing opinion. Any stance Hans could have had during that game could be construed as indication of him cheating.
Re: Dear Chess World
#475Earlier quoted context omitted.
A documented history of cheating online counts as "no evidence" in your book?
Is a conviction evidence of a future crime? No, it isn't.
It certainly doesn't help his case. If you have had troubles with the law prior to a new crime, it gets taken into consideration negatively by the judge. Same with cheaters. It means he is a cheater by definition and has the moral compass to cheat again.
Re: Dear Chess World
#476Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Blah. Magnus has given nothing. Could have still insisted he was searched. He didn't. Magnus has anxiety.
Re: Dear Chess World
#477Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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…
I disagree with the second paragraph but not enough to get into a public debate about it. But it is worth pointing out that Carlsen's 53-game streak was a non-loss streak, not a win streak. Many of those games were draws.
Re: Dear Chess World
#478A 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…
I don't think people are saying that it cannot happen, just that you need to prove it instead of hurling empty accusations, especially when it can destroy someone's career. I personally think it sets a bad precedent if every top player immediately starts crying "cheating!" when beaten by a lower ranked one.
…by a lower ranked one who is already a known cheater.
Re: Dear Chess World
#479Earlier 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…
I disagree with the second paragraph but not enough to get into a public debate about it. But it is worth pointing out that Carlsen's 53-game streak was a non-loss streak, not a win streak. Many of those games were draws.
You are of course correct on that point and I have edited my comment.
Re: Dear Chess World
#480Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Hans is known to have cheated Do you have a link to this? Proof that this player has cheated in the past would be the strongest evidence, I believe, he'd do so again.
He admitted to having previously cheated. The admission happened during the Sinquefeld cup, on stream, during the event. Having cheated in prior history is not a question, but the extent and recency of the behavior is.
I don't know if there's data but people who have cheated in the past often seem to cheat in the future. Having watched some videos about the state of speed-running video games lately intersected with how gambling cheaters seems to never stop cheating supports that.