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.
Doesn't really prevent the usage of vibrating anal beads ( https://kotaku.com/chess-champion-anal-bead-magnus-carlsen-h... )
Dear Chess World
481–490 of 1001 posts
Re: Dear Chess World
#482The discussions in this thread remind me a lot of the Mike Postle Poker scandal: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21161043
It was a similar case where cheating was theoretically possible and alleged, but could not be proven. Only difference is that the Mike Postle case was a far bigger statistical anomaly.
Re: Dear Chess World
#483Earlier 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…
At their level it's pretty much known what location / piece they're thinking about. For key moments, it may be enough to transmit the piece name only. And have some follow up for destination if they really need them.
Re: Dear Chess World
#484I don't particularly mind Carlsen's actions (leaving the Sinquefield cup and resigning a game against Niemann in the Julius Baer Cup).
I also watched Niemann's games in the Julius Baer Cup, and he certainly has an uncanny ability to switch on some form of an afterburner against people like Aronian, Ivanchuk, Pragg and Duda. Perhaps he is that talented, but I can understand that the top players do not feel at ease.
On the other hand I'm not too happy about chess.com turning into some form of credit rating agency for top chess players. If I were above 2500, I wouldn't play there. Too much to lose if their proprietary algorithms misfire.
As a European, I'd certainly issue a GDPR information request for my cheating score, followed by a deletion request for all personal data.
Re: Dear Chess World
#485Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Chess engines have outclassed humans for about 15 years now. Yet chess is more popular than ever. Why would chess engines playing very well mean human chess stops being interesting? I don't see the relation.
In a similar vein, Tool Assisted Speedruns for video games can always outperform human players, but TAS streams and youtube videos don't get nearly as many viewers as real humans running. And human speedrunners caught cheating and using tools etc. have drastic hits to their popularity after they're exposed.
Re: Dear Chess World
#486Earlier 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…
From what I understand you only need one bit. The assistance doesn't need to be "move piece P to square S", but "this position is critical, if you spend extra time exploring here you will find a winning move".
As these players are on timers there is a race against a clock. So if you know where to focus your time/effort you can easily gain an advantage.
Re: Dear Chess World
#487Magnus 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.
Signing the letter with "Magnus Carlson - World Chess Champion" had bad optics IMO.
Is he not the World Chess Champion? What's the problem then?
Re: Dear Chess World
#488Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
we're dealing with bits of info here, thats the shortest hand there is
Re: Dear Chess World
#489Earlier 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.
Doesn't than line of thinking mean that anybody can accuse somebody of cheating when they unexpectedly beat them?
Niemann have admitted cheating before when playing online, so Carlsen is just not making this up about any random player. There is a history of cheating.
Re: Dear Chess World
#490Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 boo…
yes but against magnus, who is supposedly two levels above Hans, this is not just a one move cheat, he'd have to cheat + have a continuous absence of mistakes, which is an awful lot of information to transmit.
i dont have a horse in this race i just like thinking about things in terms of information theory since this is a remarkable applied case
another way to decide this - have them play blitz (where the moves are way too fast for info transmission to happen), and see if the skill level scales accordingly?