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

721–730 of 1001 posts

Re: Dear Chess World

#721

Post by viridian »

dylan604 wrote: post #714
viridian wrote: post #709

Some interesting meta observations for the few people who read my comment in this already enormous thread. I noticed that opinions on the issue seemed split rather 50/50 until I started seeing the same couple of names over and over on the "no evidence of cheating" side. And in fact, searching the HTML document for this page for a particularly prolific name yields that they make up about 10% of all posts in the thread…

Do you even need to search the HTML? Just a generic find of the browser's search will reveal the same info. Not sure why you'd need to go to that trouble. at the time I read this and replied, your comment was top of the stack. without reading the full comments, i'm already reading your comment as someone that's got their knickers in a twist rather than reading a substantive comment. so hopefully that's what you wante…

New comments start out at the top and sink within a few minutes, only a select few will have that problem.

Ctrl+f gives false positives for name mentions, and searching the html is just as easy. Benefits of having spent so much time dealing with css style/class related bugs, I guess.

Re: Dear Chess World

#722

Post by xipho »

viridian wrote: post #709

Some interesting meta observations for the few people who read my comment in this already enormous thread. I noticed that opinions on the issue seemed split rather 50/50 until I started seeing the same couple of names over and over on the "no evidence of cheating" side. And in fact, searching the HTML document for this page for a particularly prolific name yields that they make up about 10% of all posts in the thread…

This is against terms of use here, many of us have been nailed stating similar for other posts. The guideline is "assume the best" (or something like that).

Re: Dear Chess World

#723

Post by tehnub »

detaro wrote: post #224
zikduruqe wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What theories? That would be interesting to read. A micro-vibrating motor in his shoe, buzzing morse code? f4 to g5 for example?

for some reason the wild theory in this particular instance has been "vibrating anal beads". No, I don't know why.

It started out as a silly, obviously joking comment in the twitch chat of a GM chess streamer (Eric Hansen). Then he jokingly overreacted to it, and explained how it's possible, as an obvious joke. Then Elon tweeted about it as an obvious joke. But news websites don't care to make that distinction, and write about it.

Re: Dear Chess World

#724

Post by lysp »

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…

I saw a video a while ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eC1BAcOzHyY

They put a number of mid-game positions on the board, and Magnus was able to guess the players, tournament, game number, who won, what the next few moves were. Who was playing on the table next to him. What their moves were.

Re: Dear Chess World

#725

Post by viridian »

xipho wrote: post #722
viridian wrote: post #709

Some interesting meta observations for the few people who read my comment in this already enormous thread. I noticed that opinions on the issue seemed split rather 50/50 until I started seeing the same couple of names over and over on the "no evidence of cheating" side. And in fact, searching the HTML document for this page for a particularly prolific name yields that they make up about 10% of all posts in the thread…

This is against terms of use here, many of us have been nailed stating similar for other posts. The guideline is "assume the best" (or something like that).

Thanks. Edited such that my post isn't so targeted, at least. If it's still insufficient and gets taken down, it happens. I think my post is far less interesting than the observed behavior I mention.

Re: Dear Chess World

#726

Post by SantalBlush »

qudat wrote: post #699
kryogen1c wrote: post #677

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Appeal to authority is erroneously invoked so often that it should just be retired as a concept.

Re: Dear Chess World

#728

Post by goatlover »

knaik94 wrote: post #717
viridian wrote: post #709

Some interesting meta observations for the few people who read my comment in this already enormous thread. I noticed that opinions on the issue seemed split rather 50/50 until I started seeing the same couple of names over and over on the "no evidence of cheating" side. And in fact, searching the HTML document for this page for a particularly prolific name yields that they make up about 10% of all posts in the thread…

I think this is another example of the very common pattern of 90% of the contributions in online discourse come from 10% of the population with 90% of post coming from a 1% minority of the overall population. It's not unusual at all.

60+ comments in a single HN thread is common?

Re: Dear Chess World

#729

Post by areyousure »

chroma wrote: post #651
bombcar wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I saw something about a runner being disqualified because they moved 9 hundredths of a second after the gun. Ten hundredths is permitted but nine is not. It’s not impossible to believe someone could be just a sliver faster.

It is extremely unlikely that a human being can hear a sound and move their foot within 100ms. Based on what we know of the brain and nervous system, it's most likely that anyone who reacts under 120ms has jumped the gun.[1] 1. https://condellpark.com/kd/reactiontime.htm

In case anyone is curious, the starting times for the first five runners at the 110mH event at the 2022 World Championships were (in milliseconds) 99, 108, 109, 124, and 126.

While I personally disagree with the comment I am replying to regarding reaction times under 120ms, the issue at this World Championships was more likely that the reaction timing was wrong ...

Re: Dear Chess World

#730

Post by [deleted] »

roflyear wrote: post #270
nonethewiser wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But cheating wouldn't explain a relaxed state. You could easily expect that he'd be nervous as fuck to cheat OTB against Carlsen. This is just wildly speculative and ultimately meaningless.

People just spewing their garbage everywhere around this. It is amazing. It is almost like politics. It is crazy how people are getting about this issue.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN