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

781–790 of 1001 posts

Re: Dear Chess World

#781

Post by Andrew_nenakhov »

tehnub wrote: post #664
Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When Robert Fischer achieved an unprecedented scores in the pretenders matches prior to winning the champion title, I believe that the biggest factor was not the quality of the play of Fischer, but the way he mentally unbalanced and broke his opponents, who absolutely did not give a performance they were capable of.

The unnerving, unbalancing effect Fischer had in the 1971 Candidate's tournament was absolutely due to his play. He put up immense resistance against lines prepared by teams of Soviet GMs (example here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8-90cPf61M ), which was the sort of thing that broke their nerve. He was not intimidating or manipulating his opponents outside of the board; if there were any outside-chess forces at p…

> He was not intimidating or manipulating his opponents outside of the board

They absolutely were blundering much more than they did vs other opponents, showing a far lower quality off play than usual. Also I believe you didn't read much about his championship match. Remember how the games were moved to a different room, and why?

Re: Dear Chess World

#782

Post by TT-392 »

kennyloginz wrote: post #642

Can any radio people chime in? What would be a reasonable ( affordablish ) way to detect signals at an over the board tournament?

With modern digital signals, which can be encrypted, and be pretty low power. And with there being lots of radio signals from unknown sources in any populated area. I doubt you'd be able to distinguish the signal from the noise. Unless the entire thing takes place in a fariday cage.

Re: Dear Chess World

#783

Post by account-5 »

Maybe in future the players have to play in an isolated (no spectators) but monitored environment (cameras), naked (minimum clothing provided if absolutely necessary). Then it's only prisoner wallets to consider, which full body scanners can sort out.

Re: Dear Chess World

#785

Post by AmericanChopper »

pseudo0 wrote: post #662
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All this talk of "Carlsen accused him of cheating with no evidence" reminds me of the blowback against some athletes in the 70s and 80s who accused rivals of taking PEDs "with no evidence". Sometimes the evidence of someone doing monstrously better than can be expected by their history is sufficient IMO. I mean, look at this article about swimmer Shirley Babashoff [1], dubbed "Surly Shirley" at the time by the media,…

Usain Bolt is another interesting case. Commentators have made a pretty compelling case based on the circumstantial evidence that he was doping, but due to weaknesses in Jamaica's anti-doping program it's likely impossible to prove one way or the other. https://tomnew.medium.com/usain-bolt-lance-armstrong-and-the...

A huge number of (male) athletes across all sports are doping now. Testosterone deficiency is a medical condition, and taking “testosterone replacement therapy” is explicitly allowed by many sports. Even if it’s not allowed, it’s not really possible to robustly test for, because in some forms at least it’s simply increasing the levels of the same hormones that your body is naturally producing. Same goes for human growth hormone. Just take enough to put your levels at a very high, but plausibly natural level and you essentially can’t fail a drug test.

It’s only called “testosterone replacement therapy” when it’s prescribed by a doctor btw. Taking exactly the same course of medication in any other circumstances is called “taking steroids”.

Re: Dear Chess World

#786

Post by lupire »

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 like he has a history of temper tantrums or petulant behavior;

He absolutely does. People forget because he so rarely loses a classical game. But he almost always shows petulant behavior when he loses an important classical game.

Re: Dear Chess World

#787

Post by Taek »

stouset wrote: post #418
nonethewiser wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (or Niemann, if concrete evidence against him emerges) This window seems closed though. Carlsen seems to have no evidence. Where else could the evidence come from? All we have is character attacks. Even if justified, they can't prove that he cheated. All we know for sure is that Carlsen accused him of cheating with no evidence.

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.

I believe you could have an engine look at the historical games of a player and identify the "strength" of each move. How strong (in terms of elo) does a player have to be before they find a certain move? How often do the top players find moves that greatly exceed their own elo? Does Hans find top moves more frequently than his opponents?

The challenge with this appoach of course is identifying a players strengths and adjusting for their preparation. Making 20 top engine moves in a row is not odd if both players studied that exact line before the match.

What's odd is making 20 top moves in a row on a bizzare line that nobody has ever played before that Magnus specifically prepared because he knew it was unusual (and engine disadvantaged) and unlikely to be in anyone's prep.

Re: Dear Chess World

#788

Post by lupire »

WastingMyTime89 wrote: post #661
School-Cotton wrote: post #577

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is claiming they should be. FIDE isn’t banning Hans based on Magnus’s vague suspicions, as indeed they shouldn’t. Magnus is just refusing to invest time and energy (and rating points) to play against someone he doesn’t like, which is absolutely his right. Nobody has the right to force Magnus or anyone else to play against them.

I think you might want to read the rules of chess tournaments. You will quickly realise that in fact Magnus doesn’t have a choice of who he plays against and can’t actually resign for no reason.

Can you please explain what you are insinuating?

Magnus just recently quit a tournament and resigned a game in another one, storngy suggesting that you are mistaken.

Re: Dear Chess World

#789

Post by lupire »

a9entroy wrote: post #523
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…

That's not a complete analogy tho. Everyone knows Hans cheated in the past. But Magnus is going beyond that and saying that Hans cheated in the over-the-board game against him. Coming back to your analogy. So now imagine this person suddenly has a new shiny car but he also has the Title and registration for that car. Not only that, someone reported him to the cops and the cops said that the car is not stolen. He also…

Please don't make blatantly false statements.
Post reply on HN