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

881–890 of 1001 posts

Re: Dear Chess World

#881

Post by xxs »

fbnlsr wrote: post #859
not_kurt_godel wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, clever cheating devices have been found in over the board chess competitions The most convincing candidate for such a device I've seen is an Illuminati Thumper Pro hidden in Hans's shoe: https://illuminati-magic.com/products/thumper . If you watch the footage of him getting scanned before his match with Alireza (and, crucially, before Magnus announced he was dropping), there are a couple of subtle things that…

If chess TO are that scared of cheaters, they should just take each player measurements and provide them with their own clothing/accessories.

you missed the beads in the butt story

Re: Dear Chess World

#882

Post by vintermann »

chongli wrote: post #757
swyx wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 abil…

It's true that some people are worse at blitz, but if Niemann's OTB blitz rating is as good as his OTB rating at slower time controls, that's evidence against him cheating ... at least in ways that materially affect his rating. I guess it would be possible to cheat with an engine tuned to your actual rating just to make it less stressful.

Re: Dear Chess World

#883

Post by xiphias2 »

aqme28 wrote: post #872
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…

My issue with this is that it's all circumstantial evidence. If you suspect someone of cheating but can't show it, then enact some anti-cheating provisions and move on. We can't have a rule of law based on just the suspicions of interested parties.

Of course we can rule out people by past cheating. Technology changes, it makes it easier to cheat but harder to hide cheating history (as most of the games between people at this time are online). Rules have to adapt to technology.

Re: Dear Chess World

#884

Post by xiphias2 »

asimpletune wrote: post #580
jacobsenscott wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any opponent could cheat at anytime. Cheating in chess is a fact of life, and can't be stopped. Other professional sports have mostly come to terms with this, and chess needs to as well. When you have proof of cheating the sport's authorities take action (not individual players). When you don't you let the games go on knowing some folks are getting away with it sometimes.

The thing is that FIDE isn't really doing anything. This has been mentioned elsewhere in the comments, but what they really need to do is take this seriously and hire magicians, GM's, ex-intelligence, etc... to assess the situation and with transparency provide recommendations on how to move forward. If you look at FIDE's statement, they basically said they were made that Magnus did this and they're using "sophistica…

It's almost impossible to detect cheating, but it's trivial to statistically find a cheater from many thousands of online games that he has to play online to get to this level.

Re: Dear Chess World

#885

Post by WastingMyTime89 »

lupire wrote: post #788
WastingMyTime89 wrote: post #661

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I am not insinuating anything. I am stating that tournaments have rules which include a format – determining which player another player encounters – and sportsman behaviours and terms of play. Most were put in place to avoid players throwing games to get more rest and avoid collusion.

For exemple, Carlsen had to play at least one move for the game not to be forfeited and I’m fairly sure he is running afoul a sportsman behaviour rules by resigning on move one but the tournament isn’t pressing because he is Magnus.

Re: Dear Chess World

#886

Post by inimino »

WastingMyTime89 wrote: post #644
notshift wrote: post #638

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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. Yes, they do. When Magnus makes poor choice - not giving himself an advantage or playing moves giving black an advantage - it makes it easier for black. That’s the whole point.

No, that is not how that works. An engine evaluation saying that a position is better for black does not mean that it is easier for a human to play that position. Easy to play and winning for an engine are orthogonal concepts.

Putting your opponent in positions that are better according to the engine but only with engine-like perfect play is a strategy at the highest levels of chess. Because the move is objectively worse, it won't be played, because it's not played, your opponent won't know it, because they don't know it, you'll play it better, then you win.

Re: Dear Chess World

#887

Post by Ekaros »

xxs wrote: post #881
fbnlsr wrote: post #859

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If chess TO are that scared of cheaters, they should just take each player measurements and provide them with their own clothing/accessories.

you missed the beads in the butt story

Deep cavity search livestreamed before match.

Or lock them in transparent cube for week before match naked... So many solutions that specially person like Carlsen should be open to.

Re: Dear Chess World

#888

Post by flyax »

initplus wrote: post #819
flyax wrote: post #600

Earlier quoted context omitted.

chess.com suggests Hans cheated more than he admits. He did (much?) better in tournaments with zero delay. In a few consecutive tournaments, he made a lot of top engine moves, slightly above Magnus/Kasparov/Fisher at their best. He had a hard time explaining his lines in the interview after the game (with Firouzja I think).

The analysis of him doing better in broadcast/non-broadcast games was flawed, the analysis mis-categorized several of the tournaments in a way that made the conclusion stronger.

Thanks, I missed that information.

I would say there is more than a cheating history and a single game that triggered Magnus. However, most of it has a possible explanation. Like, I would be very nervous if you put me in front of a camera at 19 years. Are these arguments together strong enough? Hard to judge.

Re: Dear Chess World

#889

Post by croes »

Waterluvian wrote: post #494

I have no opinions on the actual event given I have no clue what the details are. But accusing someone of cheating without any concrete evidence doesn’t sit well with me. It creates a situation where it declares all exceptional cases impossible. It’s impossible for growth. It’s impossible that someone could lose to a weaker player. I suspect that people are able to say “even without concrete evidence, this is astrono…

It's a little bit more complicated.

Magnus Carlsen didn't say Niemann cheated because he won but because he did so without being fully concentrated.

Re: Dear Chess World

#890

Post by croes »

perihelions wrote: post #15

It's very remarkable that Carlsen is suspicious of Niemann's game against him in Sinquefield, since there's a clear consensus among other top chess players that there was absolutely nothing unusual about it (or at least about the moves played).

It seems not the moves are the problem but the lack of concentration to come up with them.
Post reply on HN