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

691–700 of 1001 posts

Re: Dear Chess World

#691

Post by lupire »

tluyben2 wrote: post #685
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.

I don’t really think you can compare those though; robots are crap and easily beaten at most physical sports. I mean, as far as I can find, there is not even a bipedal robot that outruns humans (there is the cheetah robot but it has 4 legs ; that’s like having a dog or, you know, cheetah compete against Usain). But yes, people will continue to play chess, go and spear throwing because it doesn’t matter if something n…

Why is bipedal required for running, but neuronal is not required for chess? These lines are arbitrary.

Re: Dear Chess World

#692

Post by zamalek »

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…

> This all sounds like a slow-motion tantrum, which Carlsen can get away with because he's Magnus Carlsen.

Unlike Hans history of cheating, Magnus does not have a history of baseless accusations when he loses (which he has on many occasions).

Re: Dear Chess World

#693

Post by tzs »

Maursault wrote: post #128

Carlson should just challenge Niemann to a 30 game over the board televised match in their shorts (no shoes, no shirt) at Madison Square Garden. With the revenue generated from ticket sales and advertising, they could both retire and international chess can put this episode behind them.

I can think of at least one way to cheat that would not be detectable by any of the screening methods I've seen suggested so far, but that only works if the cheaters can get reasonably private access to the venue before the match to hide some equipment. (I'm not going to go into details).

Playing a match in a big venue like MSG that holds numerous other events would make doing this easier. There are concerts there for example that involve bands setting up a lot of equipment. Get some of your chess team members to take temporary jobs on the crews setting up some of those shows and you might have a good chance of sneaking your chess cheating equipment in.

I think what you want to do with this kind of match is play each game in a different venue, and the players do not find out where the venue is until it is time for them to be taken there (on transportation arranged by the organizers) for the game. The player's teams are not told where the venue was until after the game.

If a player is going to cheat then it has to be done via something entirely contained on/in the player.

Maybe even have some of the games played on the move. E.g., the players are driven to an airport, board a chartered jet, and play their game in flight while the jet just flies around over a wide area.

Re: Dear Chess World

#694

Post by deadfoxygrandpa »

jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #519
squeaky-clean wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

just watch this https://youtu.be/pUgvAoTzWBA and you will see what super gms are capable of

Re: Dear Chess World

#695

Post by WastingMyTime89 »

kryogen1c wrote: post #677
WastingMyTime89 wrote: post #660

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> He is widely regarded as the greatest chess player to have ever lived.

By whom exactly? He has a large fan club on the internet and uses modern social network very well but I don’t think there is a wide consensus that he is better than Kasparov at his prime. I personally don’t believe him to be better than neither Fischer nor Botvinnik but that’s only me and is impossible to verify anyway.

And no, his opinion against his own opponent after suffering an embarrassing defeat poorly playing with white doesn’t hold much credibility.

Re: Dear Chess World

#696

Post by lupire »

bnralt wrote: post #544
stouset wrote: post #418

Earlier 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.

Innocence is never proven, only presumed.

Re: Dear Chess World

#697

Post by [deleted] »

jbaber wrote: post #656
noncoml wrote: post #524

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 getti…

Permanent ban is standard punishment for cheating in lots of things in life. It's bizarre to me that it's not so in chess. Was he only caught while under 18. I can understand giving a second chance to children.

[deleted]

Re: Dear Chess World

#698

Post by [deleted] »

kryogen1c wrote: post #562
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…

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.

[deleted]

Re: Dear Chess World

#699

Post by qudat »

kryogen1c wrote: post #677
WastingMyTime89 wrote: post #660

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not only is that a logical fallacy (appeal to authority) but magnus lost to him and is claiming cheating which is clearly a huge conflict of interest. His opinion should be heavily scrutinized.

Re: Dear Chess World

#700

Post by deusum »

grouchomarx wrote: post #608
deusum wrote: post #586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The first paragraph was mostly facetious.

The second merely suggests an unusually clever, yet plausible methodology.

Post reply on HN