Hope he has something better up his sleeve than “he wasn’t concentrating right”
Dear Chess World
601–610 of 1001 posts
Re: Dear Chess World
#602Earlier 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.
Questioning him at the tournament would have at least given Niemann a chance to prove his innocence.
That probably would have been even worse of a shit-storm. You think you are rational and will ask good questions, but if you are not a trained journalist, and you haven’t prepared, you will most likely only ask really dumb question that do nothing except cause more drama.
Re: Dear Chess World
#603I 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…
He's clearly stated he rarely ever trains with computers
Re: Dear Chess World
#604Do they do any tests for substances? How about nootropics which are known to boost brainpower, are these banned just doping in athletics? Would nootropics be considered cheating??
I doubt there's some kind of NZT that would be useful for chess. Some ancient masters had a complicated relation with alcohol, specially Blackburne. Adversaries knew and invited him believing it would make him blunder, but it seems Blackburne actually played better while drunk.
I like the idea but only if the opponent knows so it’s not thought of as an unfair advantage. They both can have a drink. Now im thinking of a drunk chess competition but it would be more than measuring alcohol tolerance than actual play ability.
Re: Dear Chess World
#605Earlier quoted context omitted.
Carlsen has an impeccable reputation for being principled and magnanimous in defeat, and always complimentary and respectful of his opponents after a loss, acknowledging their deserved win and well played game. Frankly, i'm shocked more people aren't being supportive of this single decision of his, that stands alone in his long and rather glorious career.
Quoted post unavailable.
To save everyone the trouble, I looked it up myself and here's a video of Magnus losing in blitz https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-rVb2b4oBA
Make up your own minds if this crosses the line or if this is normal, competitive behavior.
Re: Dear Chess World
#606Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any opponent could cheat at anytime. Cheating in chess is a fact of life, and can't be stopped. Other professional sports have mostly come to terms with this, and chess needs to as well. When you have proof of cheating the sport's authorities take action (not individual players). When you don't you let the games go on knowing some folks are getting away with it sometimes.
The thing is that FIDE isn't really doing anything. This has been mentioned elsewhere in the comments, but what they really need to do is take this seriously and hire magicians, GM's, ex-intelligence, etc... to assess the situation and with transparency provide recommendations on how to move forward. If you look at FIDE's statement, they basically said they were made that Magnus did this and they're using "sophistica…
If you look at FIDE’s statement, all they did is ask for a single shred of evidence that Niemann is cheating OTB.
Re: Dear Chess World
#607Earlier 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…
>Chess engines aren't like car engines are to sprinting.
Why? That seems like a completely arbitrary line to draw.
Re: Dear Chess World
#608Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't need something that transmits if you're searching for bug-like devices or any general integrated circuits with a nonlinear junction detector: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear_junction_detector I am very far removed from anything related to Chess, but if they want to get serious about this they should hire people who specialize in the federal-contracting adjacent field of TSCM (technical surveillance…
With that nest of hair I wonder maybe he disassembles the device and puts small parts in various locations, the most detectable in the shoe or "the pocket". Someone familiar with slight of hand could comfortably scratch here and there while dropping pieces in a 'build' pocket.
of all the whacky theories I've heard so far this one stands out. Don't get too swept up in it
Re: Dear Chess World
#609Magnus isn't trying to be judge, jury and executioner by refusing to play Hans. He has stated before that merely having suspicions (e.g. based on past cheating as in Niemann's case) about your opponent possibly cheating completely ruins one's mentality during a game. He simply wants to avoid going through that, which imo is understandable.
Some other GMs mentioned the same thing, having doubts whether the opponent is cheating or not makes you play differently (if they blunder, you might consider it could be a really deep engine line).
Re: Dear Chess World
#610It’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.
I mean, he is the greatest player in history, he definitely can feel if something is odd, it's not the first match he loses.