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

891–900 of 1001 posts

Re: Dear Chess World

#891

Post by Quarrel »

Hadriel wrote: post #603
jdthedisciple wrote: post #216

I believe people might be seriously underestimating just how good Magnus may be at detecting cheating. Dude probably trains with computers regularly. He has a better memory than 10 average Joe's combined. He's been the absolute #1 of the world for what, 10 years now? He wouldn't risk his whole reputation for nothing. I personally take his suspicions very seriously, though I agree that evidence has to be presented soo…

He's clearly stated he rarely ever trains with computers

This isn't true at all. He is well known for playing and exploring "AI lines" that have been introduced by computers.

Here is the first interview I could find from a 10 second google:

https://www.dw.com/en/world-chess-champion-magnus-carlsen-th...

The money quote:

" My practice at home is with the computer. When I study chess with other people, we always have a chess board. But on my own, it's always at the computer. "

Re: Dear Chess World

#892

Post by croes »

erichocean wrote: post #634
paxys wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No the best way to clear his name is to keep playing and keep winning. If he can do that then the chess world will get over Magnus's whining pretty quick.

Not just the best, it's really the ONLY way. If Niemann is really God's gift to chess, it'll be obvious to everyone soon enough.

Or he has a clever way of cheating

Re: Dear Chess World

#893

Post by icemelt8 »

mccorrinall wrote: post #643
derac wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet the audience for chess engine tournaments is basically 0, while millions(?) watch human tournaments.

Didn’t we just learn that Hans Niemann is apparently just a front-end for a chess engine? ;)

what if Hans is not human, but an advance AI cyborg? maybe he's not communicating with a chess engine, he IS the chess engine. Maybe his name is an anagram for the word Enigma or something.

Re: Dear Chess World

#894

Post by me_me_me »

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 am into chess, was studying it, have read few books on chess.

People who know near zero about chess seem to come out of woodwork to defend underdog who is attacked by the top level clique. Its understandable, but to me its akin to the flat earth arguments. All based on emotions, never have much to say about chess.

Anyone who knows a bit about chess (lets say advanced level), would point to the post game interview of game vs Firouzja as amazingly suspicious. It feels like a guy in group project who did noting and is trying to explain the project to their professor.

50/50 split is either illusion or its due to inflation of randoms giving their opinions.

No sound human would bee asking random ppl to determine if a patient has a cancer as a diagnostic tool. Cheating in chess is at top level extremely subtle, how is a random 1000 player any authority on the topic?

Re: Dear Chess World

#895

Post by viridian »

johnfn wrote: post #803
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…

The issue is fairly split. I saw a poll recently: yes and no were split, but "I don't know" took up a large majority. I don't think it's too surprising that some people have strong opinions about this matter either.

I'm happy to take your word for the fact that it's reasonably split, I don't have a dog in this particular race.

The strange thing to me then, is that with regards to this Hacker News thread, it is fairly split in sentiment if you look at the total number of comments in either direction, but if you look at unique commenters it overwhelmingly swings one direction.

My question from that premise is, why is that the case? Specifically, I've never seen a hacker news thread with 250+ comments where a single person or a handful make up such a large percentage of the comments. The human effort required for such a thing is significant, and obviously that can't scale forever. I'd be surprised that with tiktok and youtube videos with 30000+ comments, if there's ever been a case of a single person responding 3000+ times.

Re: Dear Chess World

#896

Post by smcl »

nonethewiser wrote: post #773
iambateman wrote: post #650

This whole situation is _not_ a Hans problem…it’s a FIDE problem. They don’t know how to reliably adjudicate claims of cheating, so it ends up being a massive game of “he said he said.” As the game gets more popular, they have a tremendous amount of work to do to guarantee game integrity – not unlike the work baseball had to do with steroids. If other world top-50 players even think Hans cheated and got away with it,…

They should do 2 things going forward: 1. Ramp up anti cheat across the board. Stream delay, collect metrics which trigger an INTERNAL review at a certain threshold, etc. 2. Give players a process for lodging a suspicion of cheating. Part of this would be working with FIDE, not starting public drama. Fine them if they break the rules of that process.

> Stream delay

Good god yes, I couldn't believe they didn't have a stream delay in the original Hans/Magnus game that kicked this off

Re: Dear Chess World

#897

Post by DocTomoe »

At this time, and with the different claims (use of sex toys as a cheating device, "I can't name specifics" wink wink), and with the pacing this comes up (every 7-10 days), I get the distinct impression that this is more about character assassination than honesty in chess tournaments.

Re: Dear Chess World

#898

Post by JulianWasTaken »

Maursault wrote: post #423
planetsprite wrote: post #361

There are two things that must be understood before making any judgement on this case: 1. It is solidly within the realm of possibility that a person who spends all his time devoted to succeeding in tournament chess would be able to devise a cheating method that cannot be easily detected by standard protocols 2. It is impossible to prove a negative, so it is impossible to disprove Magnus' claims With these things bei…

> It is impossible to prove a negative Since this statement is itself a negative, you've presented a paradox, because if it were proven true it would then be false.

Things which are true but not provable aren't paradoxes, they're simply unprovable.

Re: Dear Chess World

#899

Post by zakk »

MichaelCollins wrote: post #160
Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone makes a mistake at 16, is it a valid reason to ban a person for life? Ok. If someone kills a person at 16. Should the killer be in prison for life?

> If someone kills a person at 16. Should the killer be in prison for life? If you murder somebody at 16, you shouldn't be a free man at 19. Three years is not enough time for somebody to mature and mellow.

Still, cheating at chess is not murdering someone!
Post reply on HN