The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman • Hacker News Board

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#71

Post by bsder » Wed, Oct 05, 2022, 1:46 AM UTC

berkut wrote: post #37

erdevs wrote: post #27

This report provides a detailed background of Hans' potential cheating, and detailed breakdowns of certain aspects of chess.com's cheat-detection methodology, including previously unknown (or little known) methods such as window focus change event monitoring and post-focus-change move analysis.[1] The report also reveals Niemann's engine move correlations alongside over two dozen chess Grandmasters who have admitted…

Does engine correlation actually prove anything though? Some of the 'statistical analysis' that has been posted on twitter regarding it in the last week has been against hundreds of engines, so 'engine correlation' seems to mean "the move made matched against at least one engine that would have made that move" I think?

1) You can look at the "strength" of individual moves. Someone who plays at 2000-level normally but magically coughs up 2600-level moves when in trouble is probably cheating (watch some of the live chess streamers--you'll regularly see this in real time). Computers are quite good at estimating the strength of a move after the fact.

2) Quite often there are certain "play lines" that computers will play that humans simply can't find over the board.

For example, a computer can take a defensive "play line" that is littered with traps with only a single non-losing path for 30+ moves and work it out really quickly (there is only one non-losing path to take so it prunes the search space mega fast) and play it perfectly. A human playing such a line is almost always cheating--humans simply can't run those kinds of lines in real time.

If you look at computers analyzing even the highest end games, you see the humans making quite a few mistakes that the computers will spot and take advantage of immediately. Someone who walks down these kinds of paths regularly is a statistical anomaly.

That having been said, given the current crop of computer-trained chess kids, it IS possible that we'll grow a prodigy that can run those kinds of lines. However, it doesn't seem like that person exists, yet.

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#72

Post by systemvoltage » Wed, Oct 05, 2022, 1:48 AM UTC

a-dub wrote: post #24

doing the statistical analysis and all is pretty cool, but honestly, can't they just challenge him to play at his rating in a secure environment? his learning curve is a little steeper than the others... that doesn't convince me the otb games were fraudulent.

Chess is a game that requires large sample sizes to make any sort of conclusion with 95% confidence interval. The variance in performance is far beyond a lot of competing sports. Magnus makes blunders, sometimes below-GM level, and so do other GMs (including former World Chess Champions).

For example, if you were watching WCC, one cannot conclude who is better by simply looking at game 9 out of 14. Comebacks happen often.

Even the ELO rating has its drawbacks in determining true strength of the player.

If Magnus plays Hans for 5000 games, sure. Not a chance, at least statistically speaking, in 10 games.

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#73

Post by mherdeg » Wed, Oct 05, 2022, 1:48 AM UTC

Is Niemann's win in the 4 September 2022 in-person game really so improbable?

Is it unlikely enough that it offers convincing evidence that we live in a simulation? (i.e. he acted based on information he received from outside our reality)

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#74

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Oct 05, 2022, 1:48 AM UTC

maegul wrote: post #10

bombcar wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are devices that you can put on your arm to greatly improve your baseball swing. They are permitted during batting practice but not during play.

But are they even useful in training for a player? Are they essential for improvement and competition?

[deleted]

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#75

Post by Dalewyn » Wed, Oct 05, 2022, 1:50 AM UTC

erdevs wrote: post #27

This report provides a detailed background of Hans' potential cheating, and detailed breakdowns of certain aspects of chess.com's cheat-detection methodology, including previously unknown (or little known) methods such as window focus change event monitoring and post-focus-change move analysis.[1] The report also reveals Niemann's engine move correlations alongside over two dozen chess Grandmasters who have admitted…

>The fact that online cheating is so widespread even among top chess players is certainly news to many, including me.

Not to me. When the stakes of winning are so damn valuable, sometimes literally so, it would be patently stupid to not cheat and increase your odds of winning.

Remember: Cheating is only a problem if you're caught. If you're never caught, cheating is completely legitimate.

These aren't games of pleasure, played for the sake of playing chess. These are games played for the sake of winning. Prize money, ELO, fame and renown, etc. When the only thing that matters is winning, you gain nothing by playing honestly.

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#76

Post by systemvoltage » Wed, Oct 05, 2022, 1:52 AM UTC

hirundo wrote: post #67

The best humans play at an Elo rating of 2800. “Stockfish,” the most powerful chess engine, has an estimated rating of more than 3500. This may be the most terrifying statement I've read all year. From parity to ovewhelming dominance in two decades. And it may just be approaching the base of the S curve. I for one welcome ... There used to be this fantasy that the best player would be a human augmented by a computer,…

Checkout Alpha Zero chess which has no other information other than the chess rules. No opening books or repetoires. It sometimes beats Stockfish like a python strangling and squeeing a prey. It makes moves that no one understands.

> In a 1000-game match, AlphaZero won with a score of 155 wins, 6 losses, and 839 draws. DeepMind also played a series of games using the TCEC opening positions; AlphaZero also won convincingly. Stockfish needed 10-to-1 time odds to match AlphaZero.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaZero

It is savage.

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#77

Post by hackerlight » Wed, Oct 05, 2022, 1:52 AM UTC

jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #42

crystaln wrote: post #20

Seems to be happening in the poker world as well. https://twitter.com/dexerto/status/1575867098328289280

For anyone not following this I'll save you some time with the TL;DR: Hustler Casino livestreams a regular game with High Stakes Poker. A new player who is also a wealthy model wife type made a call against a pro that sucked out where her decision making was baffling. Off camera but on mic the pro demanded his money back. Then it blew up into a giant drama of accused cheating. Here's my read on what happened: this wo…

Most pros I've read think she misread her hand as J3 (instead of J4, which is what she had), which gave her the impression of having a pair. The donk call was seen as too obviously a bad call for it to be a viable explanation.

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#78

Post by jasonwatkinspdx » Wed, Oct 05, 2022, 1:57 AM UTC

LgWoodenBadger wrote: post #64

jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For anyone not following this I'll save you some time with the TL;DR: Hustler Casino livestreams a regular game with High Stakes Poker. A new player who is also a wealthy model wife type made a call against a pro that sucked out where her decision making was baffling. Off camera but on mic the pro demanded his money back. Then it blew up into a giant drama of accused cheating. Here's my read on what happened: this wo…

From personal experience, there’s nothing “good” poker players hate more than losing to a “bad” poker player who “shouldn’t have even been in the band.”

Especially in this era of GTO kinda taking over poker mindshare, it's important to remember that poker games happen in a context and something like Game Theory is really only applicable when you can fully account for everyone's subjective ordering of utility of outcomes.

I played in a weekly game back during the early 00's poker boom, where one guy that showed up pretty clearly just wanted to get away from his wife and get drunk. It was a low stakes game (intentionally so diverse friends could play) and the amounts involved were totally immaterial to him. He had zero problem being the fish of the game and no real pride in his play or the outcome.

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#79

Post by lwansbrough » Wed, Oct 05, 2022, 1:57 AM UTC

nevinera wrote: post #54

wsc981 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People can still cheat with some hidden hardware I guess [0]. A full body inspection of each player would be required as well. —— [0]: https://github.com/RonSijm/ButtFish

Most of the _plausible_ systems involve a one-way link, where an observer is running the engine and supplying information to the player through some system that is perceptible to the player and nobody else. Forcing the player to pass information about the board state _outward_ certainly doesn't make cheating impossible, but it makes it a whole lot harder - input devices that can't be observed are much more difficult.

Not if it’s tied to the live game state available on any number of websites or broadcasts. And the harder the game gets, the more delay you’d need to prevent timely feedback in such a system, as thinking about moves for considerable periods of time is commonplace.

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#80

Post by zeven7 » Wed, Oct 05, 2022, 1:57 AM UTC

maegul wrote: post #5

So page 9 from the last paragraph is interesting. Chess.com basically indicate that apart from Hans, a number of highly rated players (including higher than Hans) have been caught and admitted to cheating. I haven't gone over the report thoroughly, but it's clearly focused on Hans's conduct and not so much on the state of play regarding online cheating, which is, even by Magnus's statement, the chief focus of all of…

> Using a computer engine is part of learning and preparing in chess (AFAICT). What other sport has a similar issue where an extremely useful and essential and highly available tool in the sport is considered cheating based entirely on using it within the narrow window of a game?

In Magnus' recent interview with Lex Fridman, he said though members of his team utilize engines in preparation, it's not something he personally uses very much if at all in his training. In fact he seems to think training against engines can be detrimental.

---

Transcript from: https://steno.ai/lex-fridman-podcast-10/315-magnus-carlsen-g...

Lex: How much do you use engines like Leela and Stockfish in your preparations?

Magnus: My team does. Personally, I try not to use them too much on on my own because I know that when I play you can obviously cannot have help from from engines and often I feel like often having imperfect or knowledge about a position or some engine knowledge can be a lot worse than than having no knowledge. So I try to look at engines as little as possible.

Lex: So yeah, so your team uses them for research for generation of ideas but you are relying primarily on your human resources.

Mangus: Yeah, for sure... I can evaluate as a human. I can know what they find unpleasant and so on and it's very often the case for me to some extent... And so then looking at the engines doesn't necessarily help because at that point you're facing a human, you have to sort of think as a human.