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

511–520 of 1001 posts

Re: Dear Chess World

#511

Post by xboxnolifes »

psychphysic wrote: post #390
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…

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…

Machines can throw objects faster, further, and more accurate than humans, but field sports are still popular. It's interesting not because the object goes far, but because it's being done by a human.

Re: Dear Chess World

#512

Post by Dylan16807 »

HideousKojima wrote: post #485
andrepd wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A human making a TAS isn't playing the same game. They're playing a version with slow motion, rewind, memory inspection, etc.

And a computer performing a TAS isn't playing the game at all.

So many cheating scandals boil down to splicing, which is again not playing the same game.

Tools that don't hack the game are very often allowed and openly used.

Re: Dear Chess World

#513

Post by stouset »

systemvoltage wrote: post #498
stouset wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Niemann, as black, equalized reasonably early on and then had a consistent lead against Magnus the entire game . Magnus did make mistakes in the game, but only after a near-perfect grind for 27 moves. To be clear, I'm not saying this to make a claim that this is definitive proof of anything. I'm pointing out that the theory that Magnus simply blundered away the game doesn't hold water. Niemann had the advantage—as bl…

Gotham's analysis here is quite important at this time stamped link: https://youtu.be/pfqXnFNnDII?t=433 I agree but Magnus also plays bad games once in a while. So it is not quite clear from a sample size 1 and a std deviation of infinite.

For sure! It's absolutely reasonable to believe that Hans beat Magnus completely fairly. It's also completely reasonable to believe there's a better-than-even chance that Hans cheated in this game.

There are a number of comments here which promote the idea that this is simply sour grapes by Magnus and totally uncalled for, and I find those perspectives to be overwhelmingly uncompelling.

Re: Dear Chess World

#514

Post by Sebb767 »

roflyear wrote: post #274
esaym wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>at least about the moves played You missed a large part. Some of his moves were "somewhat suspect". However, he was interviewed after the game with Magnus and he really could not explain why he was making the moves he made. Even the interviewers were almost laughing as he gave his "analysis" for his own moves. He played off his top engine moves as just getting lucky, while at the same time stating he didn't make oth…

Hans also is trolling. Who knows if he can't explain or just doesn't want to. It means nothing.

Hans trolling like this, as an admitted cheater winning a play far above his rating, would be an astonishingly bad move.

Re: Dear Chess World

#515

Post by 8note »

dfan wrote: post #458
gamegoblin wrote: post #295

Earlier 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…

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 ver…

Is the current ELO accurate though? How many fide rated games were played over covid?

Re: Dear Chess World

#516

Post by [deleted] »

andrepd wrote: post #420
psychphysic wrote: post #390

Earlier 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.

[deleted]

Re: Dear Chess World

#517

Post by peterhunt »

bombcar wrote: post #146
markers wrote: post #72

In case you haven't seen it, some new evidence surfaced yesterday: https://youtu.be/jfPzUgzrOcQ

This seems interesting, any chess-knowing people willing to take the hit for the team and watch all 23 minutes?

Ai written summary https://www.summarize.tech/youtu.be/jfPzUgzrOcQ

Re: Dear Chess World

#518

Post by triyambakam »

icambron wrote: post #230
peter422 wrote: post #21

For all the people defending Hans, he has admitted to cheating in real, official, prize money online tournaments, and chess.com believes that in his apology he still lied about the extent of his cheating. Maybe Hans did cheat OTB, maybe he didn't, but the tough part about reputation is it is very hard to build and very easy to break. And Hans had proven to the world that he would cheat. I personally don't think Hans…

But you can't go about punishing him this way. If FIDE or Chess.com or whoever wanted to ban him from events for his past behavior--or players simply wanted to ostracize him by refusing to play in tournaments with him--they needed to have banned/ostracized him for that behavior. I don't think anyone would complain if Niemann were caught cheating and then permanently banned. That's what Carlsen implies he's after and…

> which Carlsen can get away with because he's Magnus Carlsen.

Exactly.

Re: Dear Chess World

#519

Post by jasonwatkinspdx »

squeaky-clean wrote: post #501
swyx wrote: post #440

Earlier 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…

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.

I watched the livestreams of Andrea Botez's games in Vegas. Something I was really struck by is even though she's not a GM strength player, her mental board visualization skills are way up there. She did post game debriefs on the streams where she went rapid fire through hundreds of variations with her cohost just verbally. She'd go through them faster than the host could click to show chat at times.

Now imagine what people like the Super GMs are capable of.

Re: Dear Chess World

#520

Post by cgy1 »

epolanski wrote: post #277
nonethewiser wrote: post #237

Earlier 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.

Sherlock Holmes is a fictional character.
Post reply on HN