Live data from Hacker News

Dear Chess World

twitter.com

541–550 of 1001 posts

Re: Dear Chess World

#541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you become the best or second best player through a mindset that includes "I'll cheat if that's what it takes to reach the top".

Lance Armstrong would like a word with you.

Only two kinds of bike racers: cheaters and losers.

Re: Dear Chess World

#542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rampant doping got so bad they had a highly publicized congressional hearing about it. I doubt it ever stopped. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_in_baseball#Congression...

True, but IMO doping is much less of an existential threat to the game than computer-assisted cheating is for chess.

There was also some sign stealing scandal but I didn’t pay much attention.

And the umpires are the dirtiest cheaters of all and always win.

Re: Dear Chess World

#543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A documented history of cheating online counts as "no evidence" in your book?

It is zero evidence that Hans has ever cheated OTB, yeah.

Past criminal behavior is routinely admitted as evidence in court.

It's not proof, but it is evidence.

You're refusing to see this, by the way. You're capable of understanding what I said without me saying it.

Re: Dear Chess World

#544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (or Niemann, if concrete evidence against him emerges) This window seems closed though. Carlsen seems to have no evidence. Where else could the evidence come from? All we have is character attacks. Even if justified, they can't prove that he cheated. All we know for sure is that Carlsen accused him of cheating with no evidence.

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.

Questioning him at the tournament would have at least given Niemann a chance to prove his innocence.

Re: Dear Chess World

#545

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…

On Hikaru's YouTube channel today he posted a video about today's developments [1]. In the later part of that video ran some software that used Stockfish to analyze that game and show percentage of moves where each player made the top engine move.

Magnus only matched the top engine move 43% of the time, which is quite low for a super-GM. Hikaru said he'd bet money that it was Magnus' worst performance in any game in the last 3 years.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6ML2b7IdD4

Re: Dear Chess World

#546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zero tolerance blacklisting of cheaters is probably the best way forward. If neither Niemann nor Carlsen recant, then I predict chess will fall into general disrepute like baseball or billiards. The way for the professional chess community to salvage this situation is with zero tolerance blacklisting of anybody caught cheating, even as a teenager.

> fall into general disrepute like baseball or billiards Could you elaborate, especially on billiards? I had heard a 99PI episode about baseball cheating, but thought it was more isolated incidents and not general disrepute. I enjoy playing pool but know nothing about the professional scene or cheating.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=W2ySBtVLCYA

Re: Dear Chess World

#547

I last played chess in high school. I'm following this for the drama. I guess "over the board" chess means an IRL chess game. Can someone explain how the fuck someone would be able to do this and not make it obvious? Why is this being continually glossed over? Am I dumb?

There are a lot of possibilities, mainly if the cheater has help from someone outside who has information about the game. It's enough to transmit a signal in critical position that something is there.In past, player refused to take off his shoes. Other one has friends who sit in particular order. From other discussions

* a hair of defined length placed in a bowl or glass of water and vibrations at the resonant frequency of that hair would produce visible ripples around the hair. * distant noise such as car horns honking, bass from a passing vehicle blasting dubstep, construction noise, etc. * laser beam through the window visible only with particular contact lenses * a bone-induction speaker or thumper (vibrating device) embedded in them or replacing a tooth * thumpers that can be put inside the soles of shoes that would not be detectable with a regular metal detector

My impression is that the technology is there. If the incentives are high enough, someone can find the way.

Re: Dear Chess World

#549
post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this like saying we should abandon professional road cycling as a sport, because motorcycles have been invented and exist and are a faster method of two wheeled transportation? Or we should abandon rowing as a sport because we now have 9hp Honda outboard motors?

Well, cycling is plagued with lots of similar problems (doping, people hiding electric motors in their bikes etc.), so yeah, I would argue the same there. On the other hand the very act of cycling improves health, so it's much more suitable as a sport for humans. Chess may have some arguable benefits, but it's very hard to detect so. Of course, everything depends on "the market" - if people want to watch human chess…

> I'm sure we can invent much better competitive games that are not that prone to these problems.

I rather doubt that. Go was thought to be much harder to solve, but AI has caught up there, and with techniques that will probably generalise to any similar games.

Re: Dear Chess World

#550
post #97

A 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…

> (or Niemann, if concrete evidence against him emerges) This window seems closed though. Carlsen seems to have no evidence. Where else could the evidence come from? All we have is character attacks. Even if justified, they can't prove that he cheated. All we know for sure is that Carlsen accused him of cheating with no evidence.

All this talk of "Carlsen accused him of cheating with no evidence" reminds me of the blowback against some athletes in the 70s and 80s who accused rivals of taking PEDs "with no evidence".

Sometimes the evidence of someone doing monstrously better than can be expected by their history is sufficient IMO. I mean, look at this article about swimmer Shirley Babashoff [1], dubbed "Surly Shirley" at the time by the media, for suggesting the East German women were on PEDs in the 70s. Nowadays we look back on those images of the East German women, looking more manly than any dude I've ever seen, and wonder how we considered with a straight face that they weren't on a boatload of drugs. Similarly, it completely baffles me how any sane person can think that Flo Jo wasn't on PEDs in the runup to the 1988 Olympics - her 100m dash record still stands today.

I'm not saying Carlsen went about it in the right way, because now Niemann is basically in an indefensible position, but I'm also not willing to quickly dismiss it because Carlsen has "no evidence".

1. https://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/news/exclusive-shirley...

Post reply on HN