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

941–950 of 1001 posts

Re: Dear Chess World

#941

Post by PestoDiRucola »

noncoml wrote: post #524

Here is a crazy idea. If you get caught cheating, even once, you should be banned for life. Otherwise we end up in a lose-lose situation. It’s almost impossible for Magnus to prove Niemann cheated on that game. It’s impossible for Niemann to prove he didn’t cheat. But shouldn’t matter. He was caught cheating before, he shouldn’t have been allowed to compete again. I don’t remember Ben Johnson or Lance Armstrong getti…

> It’s impossible for Niemann to prove he didn’t cheat.

Niemann doesn't have to approve such a thing. It falls on the accuser to prove that the accused is guilty.

Re: Dear Chess World

#942

Post by xboxnolifes »

knaik94 wrote: post #754
grecy wrote: post #747

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I've definitely hit rate limits when bulk replying.

Re: Dear Chess World

#943

Post by Maursault »

JulianWasTaken wrote: post #898
Maursault wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

This is a straw man. Truth values of paradoxes can not be determined, only postulated. It is a paradox because if it were proven true it would be false, and vice versa. In precisely the same way, "this phrase is false," is also a paradox, and whether or not the truth value can be determined (it can not) is not relevant to whether it is a paradox.

Re: Dear Chess World

#944

Post by dandanua »

krick wrote: post #842

I am seriously aghast at how so many people defend (or even fully support) this type of behavior. This is disgusting. I want to emphasize, that it is disgusting regardless of Carlsen being right or wrong in his suspicions, it isn't really important, and I would stand by it even after Niemann being proven guilty. This really should be simple: either a player is caught cheating and then he is banned (or awarded a prize…

Magnus is not just a chess player anymore. He is a chess tycoon, an owner of the significant portion of chess business. Power corrupts people.

Re: Dear Chess World

#945

Post by dematz »

peterhunt wrote: post #711
freediver wrote: post #641

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cool! is this something you are working on?

Yes! I built this for exactly this use case :)

This is super cool! I tried it on a video I recorded a while ago that I completely forgot about and was like wait wow the summary came away with points that I'd be glad a viewer got.

One thing is it was a very long and rambling video and probably didn't do a great job of motivating examples rather than just getting bogged down in them for a while, so the summary doesn't really say how the examples support the central claim, but that may be the fault of the video honestly lol...

Also a few basic errors like writing "medium" where I'm pretty sure I said or at least meant "median" and in one case, I'd have to go back and watch this to be sure, but it seems like the summary says something is better in B than in A when I was saying it's better in A than B. The summary definitely touches the right content but I'm not sure it's correct.

Also funnily I have a tendency to sprinkle the word "like" liberally(for better or worse) and the summary copies some of the sentences verbatim, starting with "Like..."

(completely off the topic of cheating in chess, sorry...)

Re: Dear Chess World

#946

Post by gray_-_wolf »

This is probably naive question, but if the main concern here is remote assistance (at least that is my impression without following this too closely), why not just flood the room with wide spectrum EM jamming? I mean, let Niemann have his bluetooth buttplug if nothing can communicate with it.

Re: Dear Chess World

#947

Post by banku_brougham »

wikfwikf wrote: post #843
esrauch wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A bunch of grandmasters have now talked about the psychological aspect of even just wondering if your opponent could possibly by cheating, and second guessing if a bad looking move by your opponent might actually be a brilliant engine line. It seems that might even be enough for Hans as a 2675 rated player to get an edge against 2800+ player without even actually cheating

IIRC Kasparov was psychologically defeated by Deep Blue with the exact opposite of this play. After playing what seemed at the time like 'computer-type chess' - relentlessly accurate goal-seeking strategy, Deep Blue started to play far less obvious and riskier moves. Kasparov's prejudice that a computer couldn't play like that led him to believe that Bobby Fisher was hiding inside the machine with an oxygen tank and…

I thought his primary complaint at the time was that they were reprogramming in the evenings in response to the day's games, providing a lot of grandmaster human input during the tournament. I could be wrong there.

I watched his later matches against Deep Junior, around 2004 (?) in New York City. Match was tied, in the final game Junior made a mid-game move that was surprising to everyone in the analysis room. They were using a different software to analyze the potential lines and not finding the advantage for DJ. Yasser Seirawan and Maurice Ashley couldn't 100% agree that it was a bad move, but they said from what they can see it looked like a mistake by Deep Junior. Kasparov to a lot of time to ponder, and they accepted an exchange that would lead to a draw.

It was a very psychological moment in that era when machines were not clearly superior to the best humans.

Re: Dear Chess World

#948

Post by derac »

rurban wrote: post #860
derac wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could play in a Faraday cage, use an SDR and check for weird radio signals, and other steps. Some of this would only really be feasible at the highest levels, but that's where going to those lengths is needed.

We just had a project on HN with the stockfish engine and sensors both in the shoe. No radio signals whatsoever needed.

The other steps would have to include thoroughly checking clothing.

Re: Dear Chess World

#949

Post by thatguy0900 »

Ekaros wrote: post #887
xxs wrote: post #881

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Mandatory prematch laxatives

Re: Dear Chess World

#950

Post by noncoml »

maegul wrote: post #857
threatofrain wrote: post #851

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hans has admitted to cheating in tournaments for money. Money is surely the line between professional and amateur. As for forgiving young people, we should codify that if we are serious about that. For example, we might have a 3-strikes rule that allows all young people to cheat at least 3 times before they are given an adult punishment, and we might also desire the ability to seal prior history.

I wasn’t aware of the cheating for money. Do have a source? As for codification, criminal leniency for juveniles, which is widespread, gets you pretty close. For chess to have its own codifications, I think, as Magnus clearly does too, that they need to generally up their game across the board. All the way from detection, investigation, protocols/procedures around suspicions, accusations and hearings/tribunals … and…

If I was in charge with coming up with the punishment scheme, I would base it on level instead of age.

For NM and above, one time caught should get you banned for life

Protecting the game is far far far more important than protecting the individuals

For NM and below, I guess one warning would be ok. But nothing more than that.

Post reply on HN