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

741–750 of 1001 posts

Re: Dear Chess World

#741

Post by Bakary »

i_am_jl wrote: post #191
honkdaddy wrote: post #17

What’s the split in the chess community like here? Do most people agree with Magnus?

I'm not a strong enough player/analyst to have a meaningful opinion on whether or not Niemann cheated. It's possible he cheated. I'm taken aback at the manner in which these accusations have been made. I guess that Magnus felt that the only way he could force FIDE and tournament organizers into action was with a big, public, shocking act. It feels like a black eye for chess no matter the outcome. Either Niemann is pr…

Chess and FIDE are already the source of massive amounts of drama. This story got some mainstream traction but this is not going to impact the sport. On the contrary there are probably future champions who just turned to the game because of the latest nonsense.

Re: Dear Chess World

#742

Post by bigyikes »

lisper wrote: post #718
rowanG077 wrote: post #629

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering it only needs to be powered for a single match it seems very possible to me with over the counter components.

It's a pretty straightforward calculation, which I don't feel like doing right now. But I think Stockfish is going to be pretty power-hungry at the grandmaster level.

What about a wireless receiver instead?

I have some smart light switches in my house that don’t contain batteries and aren’t wired to mains. They’re powered purely by the force of pressing the switch. A bite-powered receiver might not even need batteries. Okay, maybe I’m getting too crazy?

Re: Dear Chess World

#743

Post by traes »

uup wrote: post #618

This situation is creating an entirely new meta in the chess world. It’s clearly advantageous to have others think you’re cheating. Players should start deactivating their chess.com accounts, start a rumor that they’ve cheated, and then take advantage of other players’ mental state during competition. The only downside is that a top GM could shadow an you by claiming you cheated without providing any evidence.

...what?

Re: Dear Chess World

#744

Post by denlekke »

jobs_throwaway wrote: post #215
addicted wrote: post #50

This is highly disappointing. For one thing, the fact that Carlsen is making this statement now and not weeks earlier is embarrassing. For another, the evidence he presents is disappointingly weak. I can understand being suspicious of online games. Fair enough. But the evidence for cheating offline is: 1) Rapid progress in OTB chess. This rapid progress is still much less rapid than many other players and involved Ha…

>I can understand being suspicious of online games. Fair enough. But the evidence for cheating offline is... How can people act like the evidence of online cheating doesn't affect the likelihood that he cheated OTB? This is the exact same person playing both games. Circumstantial evidence is still evidence

i agree that past cheating probably makes it more likely that someone would cheat in the future but i also see a relevant difference in the ease and risk of cheating online vs OTB, so i don't see them as perfect equivalents

Re: Dear Chess World

#745

Post by tux1968 »

asimpletune wrote: post #605
roflyear wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A few isolated shows of emotion in two decades is hardly a fair representation for people to judge a man overall. People who have watched this man grow up from a young child in the public eye, know he is a good person.

And even if you're not inclined to believe that, nobody has shown a clip where he has disrespected or accused an opponent of impropriety. This latest incident stands alone as a unique one time event.

Re: Dear Chess World

#746

Post by traes »

a-dub wrote: post #552
a-dub wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes but your ability to detect rf noise from electronics, even well shielded electronics, is greatly enhanced in that environment.

or better yet... follow the wikipedia model and have a parallel cheater chess league where there are cash prizes for proving after the fact that wins were the most sophisticated and undetectable cheats.

that would make the games themselves extremely boring, which makes it no longer really a game of chess and more like the Penn & Teller Fool Us show but more specific.

Re: Dear Chess World

#747

Post by grecy »

goatlover wrote: post #728
knaik94 wrote: post #717

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I thought there was a limit to how frequently you can post a comment and if you post more than x in y minutes you can't post for a while....

From my experience I'd say it's something like 5 comments in 5-10 minutes will trip you up.

Re: Dear Chess World

#748

Post by knaik94 »

goatlover wrote: post #728
knaik94 wrote: post #717

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

In a pool of 700+ comments, yeah. Especially if they feel like no one else commenting is representing their point of view.

Re: Dear Chess World

#749

Post by traes »

Blackstrat wrote: post #536
Blackstrat wrote: post #51

The bigger question to me is why Nieman, who had admitted cheating in the past, was admitted to the tournament in the first place.

Cheating is a character issue. If he admits to cheating at 12 and 16, he’s cheated since then and will again.

That's a frankly ridiculous point of view. You're talking about a literal child cheating at an online video game. It's not that big of a deal, kids do dumb stuff.

Re: Dear Chess World

#750

Post by denlekke »

6nf wrote: post #125
gmiller123456 wrote: post #41

I am limited in what I can say without explicit permission from Niemann What? I'd like him to explicitly state what rule/law/agreement prevents him from saying more. He explicitly accused him of cheating. I can't imagine what would prevent him from providing details.

Magnus owns 20% of Chess.com. Chess.com put out a statement basically saying 'we have sent Hans evidence that he cheated more than the two times he admitted to' Chess.com / Magnus is waiting for Niemann to respond.

chess.com said they haven't provided Carlson with their list of detected cheaters or any info on the cheating detection system
Post reply on HN