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

521–530 of 1001 posts

Re: Dear Chess World

#521

Post by bombcar »

faeriechangling wrote: post #466
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…

Magnus is obviously extremely qualified to detect cheating, I see many other people who are honestly just as qualified as him say that Hans isn't cheating. I'm going to also say emotions are going to play a massive role here, both in terms of defence of Hans and against Hans. The interesting thing is the one party MORE qualified than Magnus and the other grandmasters to detect cheating is the chesscom statistics team…

And the goal of hitting 2900 is basically impossible if there are cheaters in the mix. That has to really make him annoyed.

Re: Dear Chess World

#522

Post by Sebb767 »

Tenoke wrote: post #462
Sebb767 wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's easy to cheat a statistic you create. It's quite hard to cheat a statistic where you don't know who will look when at which particular data points.

Which is exactly the case here, as they decided what data to look at and how, and possibly had a bias. Further, clearly the analysis wasn't so irrefutable given that they admitted faults with it after others pointed out mistakes[0] 0. https://twitter.com/IglesiasYosha/status/1574308784566067201 ?

I did not intend to attack or defend Hans with that statement, I just wanted to point out that both you and the original comment could be right at the same time. That being said, it's quite funny that this case showed both sides.

Re: Dear Chess World

#523

Post by a9entroy »

School-Cotton wrote: post #491

Imagine you know someone with a history of stealing cars and other valuable objects. He has been caught multiple times. Now you see him with a shiny new car that you’re pretty sure he can’t afford. Did he steal it? Not necessarily — it’s entirely possible that he got a higher-paying legit job and saved up for it, or inherited money from a relative, or got it legally in some other way. He shouldn’t be convicted of a n…

That's not a complete analogy tho. Everyone knows Hans cheated in the past. But Magnus is going beyond that and saying that Hans cheated in the over-the-board game against him.

Coming back to your analogy. So now imagine this person suddenly has a new shiny car but he also has the Title and registration for that car. Not only that, someone reported him to the cops and the cops said that the car is not stolen. He also has income tax returns that show that he has a legit source of income. Would it be natural for a reasonable person to assume that theft is the most likely explanation?

Re: Dear Chess World

#524

Post by noncoml »

Here is a crazy idea.

If you get caught cheating, even once, you should be banned for life.

Otherwise we end up in a lose-lose situation.

It’s almost impossible for Magnus to prove Niemann cheated on that game.

It’s impossible for Niemann to prove he didn’t cheat.

But shouldn’t matter. He was caught cheating before, he shouldn’t have been allowed to compete again.

I don’t remember Ben Johnson or Lance Armstrong getting a pass

Edit: Replies seem to focus on my examples. Forget about them. Proposition stands. If you are old enough to compete you are old enough to be banned for life if you cheat. Online or OTB.

Re: Dear Chess World

#525

Post by bombcar »

dorkwood wrote: post #434
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…

When I was younger, I spent many, many hours playing one particular video game. I became a “known cheater” at the game, despite never actually cheating (I’d cheated at other games in my early teens, but had since given up that lifestyle). I can recall several players on discussion boards analysing my statistics and explaining how I was clearly cheating because it was impossible for a human to play like me. Humans, th…

I saw something about a runner being disqualified because they moved 9 hundredths of a second after the gun. Ten hundredths is permitted but nine is not.

It’s not impossible to believe someone could be just a sliver faster.

Re: Dear Chess World

#526

Post by 8note »

stouset wrote: post #432
systemvoltage wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

27 moves being mostly opening prep?

Re: Dear Chess World

#527

Post by jasonwatkinspdx »

markers wrote: post #72

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

This analysis has since been retracted after a wide variety of people explained to her that she was misunderstanding fundamentals of how to do this.

The discussion on /r/chess is pretty good.

Re: Dear Chess World

#528

Post by bombcar »

planetsprite wrote: post #430
Maursault wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is impossible to prove a negative Since this statement is itself a negative, you've presented a paradox, because if it were proven true it would then be false.

I'll amend my statement It is easier to prove a positive since it requires only the "smoking gun" to be made apparent. It is much harder to disprove a negative because it requires hypothetical smoking gun that could have caused the effect (Han's beating of Magnus) to be disproven. Since we don't have a record of every electromagnetic and sonic wave which passed through the room the day Hans beat Magnus, disproving th…

It would be amusing if such a record had been quietly made and then made available to all for analysis.

Re: Dear Chess World

#529

Post by 8note »

usgroup wrote: post #342
boole1854 wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While interesting, this does not seem very convincing to me. They successfully show that Niemann was playing many games with a high percentage of "engine perfect" moves, but they do not do enough to show that this is inconsistent with what top players usually do. A whole distribution of scores is shown for Niemann but only limited summary statistics are shown for other top players. A proper comparison would involve s…

Well she shows 6+ games where he has 100% correlation with the engine. What are the chances?

How long was the engine run for those cases? Does the engine output change if you double or halve the depth?

100% correlation to an output that can be tuned doesn't seem that exciting

Re: Dear Chess World

#530

Post by a-dub »

chrisshroba wrote: post #399
a-dub wrote: post #161

they should play a game inside one of these: https://www.ets-lindgren.com/products/shielding/rf-shielded-...

It wouldn't do much good since Stockfish could easily run on a raspberry pi or similar inside of that, say, in a player's shoe

yes but your ability to detect rf noise from electronics, even well shielded electronics, is greatly enhanced in that environment.
Post reply on HN