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

671–680 of 1001 posts

Re: Dear Chess World

#671

Post by baumy »

WastingMyTime89 wrote: post #660
kryogen1c wrote: post #562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Magnus' evidence of "it didn't seem like he was thinking very hard during critical junctures" is the nail in the coffin for me. If he has a history of stealing cars AND his new car is hot wired? Possible it's legal? Sure. Let's not twist our hands about a grand theft auto charge, however.

I don’t think you can call the opinion of the famous player who lost about how hard he thought his opponent was thinking during the game evidence without twisting the meaning of the word past the breaking point.

I don't think you can casually dismiss the ability of one of the greatest chess players to ever live to identify when his opponents are engaged, concentrating and thinking hard, and when they are not, without twisting common sense past its breaking point either.

Re: Dear Chess World

#672

Post by goatlover »

roflyear wrote: post #218
bombcar wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's been talked to death. The consensus is you cannot just cherry-pick some games and claim he's cheating. Everyone has games that are perfect. Everyone. Not just GMs or Super GMs. I have at least a few perfect games and I'm half the rating Hans is. The games analyzed also have crazy blunders by his opponents.

Perfect when compared to the moves the top chess engines would make? Hikaru says he only scored 100% one time, and 70% is more typical for a GM, yet everyone does it?

Re: Dear Chess World

#673

Post by mattnewton »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #668
walrus01 wrote: post #442

Earlier 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…

Quoted post unavailable.

That was a joke reddit post.

Re: Dear Chess World

#675

Post by sva_ »

nonethewiser wrote: post #316
erdevs wrote: 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.

I don't know much about chess, but it seems like Niemann now has to either maintain his performance in Chess without cheating, or cheat to maintain it if he can't without - in which case he could still be caught.

Re: Dear Chess World

#676

Post by rdlw »

WastingMyTime89 wrote: post #661
School-Cotton wrote: post #577

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is claiming they should be. FIDE isn’t banning Hans based on Magnus’s vague suspicions, as indeed they shouldn’t. Magnus is just refusing to invest time and energy (and rating points) to play against someone he doesn’t like, which is absolutely his right. Nobody has the right to force Magnus or anyone else to play against them.

I think you might want to read the rules of chess tournaments. You will quickly realise that in fact Magnus doesn’t have a choice of who he plays against and can’t actually resign for no reason.

What rule is there against resigning?

Re: Dear Chess World

#677

Post by kryogen1c »

WastingMyTime89 wrote: post #660
kryogen1c wrote: post #562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Magnus' evidence of "it didn't seem like he was thinking very hard during critical junctures" is the nail in the coffin for me. If he has a history of stealing cars AND his new car is hot wired? Possible it's legal? Sure. Let's not twist our hands about a grand theft auto charge, however.

I don’t think you can call the opinion of the famous player who lost about how hard he thought his opponent was thinking during the game evidence without twisting the meaning of the word past the breaking point.

> the opinion of the famous player

This is a hilariously inaccurate description of magnus. He is widely regarded as the greatest chess player to have ever lived. His opinion on what it takes to play high level chess is worth taking extremely seriously. It's not like he has a history of temper tantrums or petulant behavior; he's an upstanding custodian of the mantle of world champion.

Re: Dear Chess World

#678

Post by goatlover »

sudosysgen wrote: post #271
markers wrote: post #72

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

This is complete garbage. Real statistical analysis has been done, and has been inconclusive so far. Cherry picking games is ridiculous - at the 2800 level, a GM will only deviate from the engine's top moves 0-3 times. It would be expected that an exceptional performance would remain within top engine moves if someone was able to play at that level.

Hans isn't at the 2800 level, but Magnus is almost 2900, and probably has good reason to be suspicious of someone playing way above their rating in tough matches.

Re: Dear Chess World

#679

Post by viridian »

philwelch wrote: post #616
xboxnolifes wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There isn't yet a humanoid robot that can autonomously play those sports, though.

From what I've read on this exact topic w.r.t. robotics, there are a few select places you could probably replace humans with a robot using current technology, and achieve almost perfect results. Kickers in American football, free throws in basketball are two such examples.

Re: Dear Chess World

#680

Post by goatlover »

arnaudsm wrote: post #590
pphysch wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chess is not some random online video game though

What's the difference ? Many online games have the same player base and prize pools, and some have way more dimensions than chess.

Chess has a rating system, and we know what the best humans rate out at compared to the best chess engines, and we know the likelihood of lower ranked players beating higher ranked ones, just depending on how much difference there is, and where in the ratings the two players are. Chess is not some video game one person perfected playing.
Post reply on HN