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

501–510 of 1001 posts

Re: Dear Chess World

#501

Post by squeaky-clean »

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…

Just "e6" would likely be enough context in most situations. Sometimes only one piece can legally move there. Sometimes it's obvious which piece should move there once the position is pointed out.

Re: Dear Chess World

#502

Post by Bud »

roflyear wrote: post #223
Invictus0 wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He played several games with 100% correlation with what chess engines considered to be the best move, and also played in 5 consecutive tournaments with such a high fraction of engine-preferred moves that his performance rivals the best players in history at the pinnacle of their careers.

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

That's simply a lie.

Re: Dear Chess World

#503

Post by danparsonson »

aqme28 wrote: post #405
gizmo wrote: post #46

Why are known cheaters even allowed to participate in top level tournaments? It’s insulting to all the other chess players. Magnus is setting the right example by refusing to play Niemann

But he's not a known cheater! He cheated as a minor in online play. He has never been shown to have cheated as an adult or in OTB play. Someone needs to prove one of those things before he can be blacklisted for being a cheater.

>But he's not a known cheater!

>He cheated as a minor in online play.

Certain kinds of cheating are not actually cheating? Or between 16 and 19 a switch flicked in his head and suddenly he's clean?

Re: Dear Chess World

#504

Post by 8note »

esrauch wrote: post #362
root_axis wrote: post #236

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…

A bunch of grandmasters have now talked about the psychological aspect of even just wondering if your opponent could possibly by cheating, and second guessing if a bad looking move by your opponent might actually be a brilliant engine line. It seems that might even be enough for Hans as a 2675 rated player to get an edge against 2800+ player without even actually cheating

Won't they run into the same issue playing strong players? A weird Magnus move might be a blunder or a brilliant line he calculated?

Are GMs cheating against NMs because there's said skill gap?

Re: Dear Chess World

#505

Post by FreakLegion »

stouset wrote: post #459
roflyear wrote: post #426

Earlier 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.

FIDE doesn't rate the Champions Chess Tour, but even if it did the format isn't classical, so his quest for 2900 is doubly unaffected.

Re: Dear Chess World

#506

Post by patresh »

aqme28 wrote: post #385
syncerr wrote: post #227

Hans is clearly cheating. Comparing his past games against what an engine would do is pretty damning. Chess engines are far superior to players and the best players in the world top out in the high 70s percent correlations (Magnus averages around 70%). Hans has a string of games at 100% correlation[0], meaning he's playing perfect games. Past players who achieved this later went on to admit to cheating[1]. Magnus kno…

That "100%" analysis is very deeply flawed. The author of the video even issued a retraction ( https://twitter.com/IglesiasYosha/status/1574308784566067201... ). It's cherry-picked games and it doesn't compare to the "engine correlation" of other high ranked players against similar opponents. I would not rely on it as evidence that Hans is "clearly cheating."

She says that the ROI probability calculation is wrong, which is the last part of her video and a separate topic.

The part about correlations has not been retracted AFAIK. I agree that there's a need for a baseline though, there is one example on her recent twitter feed but more samples are needed to get a better picture.

Re: Dear Chess World

#507

Post by snapetom »

As an outsider, this debate has been entertaining for me. This is happening in online tournaments with money at stake. Is it just me, or are you basically just begging for some sort of shenanigans to occur?

Re: Dear Chess World

#508

Post by Bud »

roflyear wrote: post #245
jl6 wrote: post #115

It’s a deeply unsatisfactory situation, because on one side we expect evidence for such a serious accusation, and on the other side we know such evidence is all but impossible to gather retrospectively.

Magnus can't even say he KNOWS he cheated. He only says he SUSPECTS he cheated. That's all he can say.

No, that's all he has said thus far. You don't have the faintest idea what he "can say". In fact, Magnus hints that he has more to say, if GM Cheatboy gives him permission to do so without threat of a lawsuit.

I imagine Magnus is telling the truth about that.

Re: Dear Chess World

#509

Post by bombcar »

roflyear wrote: post #471
Bud wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Quoted post unavailable.

Now I’m waiting for the big reveal when it turns out Carlson has been three PC Jrs stacked on top of each other all these years.
Post reply on HN