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

751–760 of 1001 posts

Re: Dear Chess World

#751

Post by ericpruitt »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #737
jbaber wrote: post #656

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Imagine if they did that at the FAANG. There would be no more recruits. What percentage of all technical interviews at FAANG involve the candidate googling the answer in a way that the interviewer didn't know about? My guess? Over 30%

At least pre-pandemic, that would be hard to do at the last stage (on-sites). You're generally in a room with one or more people and often whiteboarding rather than using a laptop. In the stages leading up to on-sites, in many cases, you're actually allowed to use reference materials like the official documentation -- which might contain examples -- because the interviewers don't necessarily expect you to have the entire standard library of the language you're using memorized. I've certainly Googled stuff during remote interviews myself, but I disclose that I'm doing that and explain what I'm searching for.

Re: Dear Chess World

#752

Post by Maursault »

insane_dreamer wrote: post #286
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.

Carlson already has enough $ to retire, and he certainly would have nothing to gain from such a "spectacle for the masses". His place as #1 in the world (and arguably, history) is not threatened by Hans.

Fischer refused to play Karpov in 1975 and lost his World Champion title by default. Granted, Niemann is not Karpov, and no one is Fischer, and the situation was entirely different, but this is known as counter-example. The salient point is that if Carlson has a serious challenge to his title, he couldn't refuse to play and still keep his title.

Re: Dear Chess World

#753

Post by kennyloginz »

notshift wrote: post #638
mellosouls wrote: post #623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You miss the vitally important point: they weren't needed in the game in question, so we don't even get to the point where fanciful theorising is relevant. Magnus didn't play particularly well and Hans played ok. This was not an example of a superhuman intelligence passing hints to overcome Magnus at his best.

> Magnus didn't play particularly well and Hans played ok. Everyone says this, but do you really know? Those statements are after-the-fact observations of engine evaluations. They don't speak to the amount of mental work that Hans would have had to put in to play optimally (or 'ok' as you say) in those positions. You might find yourself making the same remarks when looking at the post-game analysis of any top player…

Yah, even to club level players, Magnus played a bad game. Hans had nowhere close to perfect play ( I think the stock fish analysis says it’s close to 70% best moves, which is equivalent to Hans rating ). As a club level player, it blows my mind how many people are siding with Magnus. : edit, typo

Re: Dear Chess World

#754

Post by knaik94 »

grecy wrote: post #747
goatlover wrote: post #728

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I have experienced no such limitation and never see it myself. Googling shows me the current policy is rate limiting accounts when they "post too many low-quality comments and/or get involved in flamewars."

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32771195

Re: Dear Chess World

#755

Post by chongli »

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

I love it. The idea that someone would undergo training as a magician in order to cheat at chess is just hilarious! It’s not totally absurd though, given the history of cheating (as well as espionage) in sport.

The tricks people have pulled to cheat in baseball and (NFL) football are similarly amusing!

Re: Dear Chess World

#756

Post by kennyloginz »

chordalkeyboard wrote: post #120
bergenty wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t like this. You can’t just imply someone is cheating without proof or some indication of proof. I understand we need to crack down on cheating but this is not the way.

Magnus doesn't imply Niemann is cheating. He states his own belief that Niemann is cheating, and explains why he believes that to be the case.

Yah, his explanation was that Hans didn’t appear to be concentrating. Seems a bit flimsy to me.

Re: Dear Chess World

#757

Post by chongli »

swyx wrote: post #490
rococode wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a relevant quote from Magnus regarding cheating: "I would just needed to cheat one or two times during a match, and I would not even need to be given moves, just the answer on which move was way better, or here there is a possibility of winning and here you need to be more careful. That is all I would need in order to be almost invincible." Even just 1 bit - an indication to be careful - would be enough to boo…

yes but against magnus , who is supposedly two levels above Hans, this is not just a one move cheat, he'd have to cheat + have a continuous absence of mistakes, which is an awful lot of information to transmit. i dont have a horse in this race i just like thinking about things in terms of information theory since this is a remarkable applied case another way to decide this - have them play blitz (where the moves are…

have them play blitz (where the moves are way too fast for info transmission to happen), and see if the skill level scales accordingly?

Not a fair contest. There are plenty of top classical chess players who are weaker in blitz and vice versa. It’s a different skillset. Classical is all about preparation for the opening followed by some deep thinking in the midgame. Blitz is all about pattern recognition and the ability to simplify down to an ending where you can blitz out the exact solution from a database.

Re: Dear Chess World

#758

Post by kennyloginz »

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…

The St. Louis chess club provided more checking / scrutiny than any other OTB tournament I have seen. How would you improve their process? Honestly would love to hear.

Re: Dear Chess World

#759

Post by areyousure »

SamReidHughes wrote: post #647
MichaelCollins wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know about high-level billiards, but low level billiards is basically synonymous with hustling and cheating (aka sharking.) Pool sharking is so widespread and infamous, I think it casts the entire sport in a sleazy light. With baseball, a lot of high level players have gotten caught or admitted it, and have said that it's widespread. Jose Canseco admitted to cheating and claimed as much as 80% of players use…

Steroid use wasn't banned by the MLB until after Canseco's career.

In case anyone is curious, Canseco played in the MLB from 1985 to 2001. It is unclear when the MLB banned steroids, but some possible years include 1990--1991, 1997, or somewhere around 2003--2005.

Note, however, that steroid use was made effectively illegal on a federal level in the United States in 1990. The 1991 date above references a memo from the commissioner that states that illegal drugs are "strictly prohibited". Steroids are mentioned explicitly, though they do not have to be, seeing as how they were in fact illegal.

You can read the memo here: https://www.espn.com/espn/eticket/format/memos20051109

Re: Dear Chess World

#760

Post by heartbreak »

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.

It’s not an appeal to authority it’s an appeal to expertise.
Post reply on HN