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

961–970 of 1001 posts

Re: Dear Chess World

#961

Post by roflyear »

jquery wrote: post #953
roflyear wrote: post #936

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue I have with this is Hans is obviously either some god-level cheater (who can also cheat at rapid formats?? in casual settings - like in parks, on the beach, etc??) or he's actually 2500-2600 (or, let's even say 2400). If he's 2400, he can still analyze. This leads me to believe that the dude is just trolling. IDK. I haven't watched all his interviews, but he seems like a troll.

Well he obviously can’t cheat at the beach because Magnus absolutely destroyed him there: https://youtu.be/T1OBEY99inw

Lol both those games only show the opening. There's no way for me to analyze these games. Lots of speculation as the dude in the video says.

Re: Dear Chess World

#962

Post by avgcorrection »

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.

> Not only is that a logical fallacy (appeal to authority)

Most things that are called that are not.

This would be a fallacy:

1. World’s best player (to have ever lived)

2. Therefore his opinion is correct

This on the other hand is not a fallacy:

1. Ditto

2. Therefore one should take his opinions on this matter extremely seriously

It’s not fallacious since it doesn’t pretend or present itself as a derived fact.

Re: Dear Chess World

#963

Post by qq66 »

fastball wrote: post #865
warinukraine wrote: post #658

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I agree with the person you're responding to. Saying "I refuse to play with known cheaters" is better than "He's cheating and so I don't want to play with him". With the letter you suddenly have to prove something really difficult. With the former you have absolutely nothing to prove.

But.... that is what he said. Please highlight the part of the statement where he said something that was closer to "he is a known cheater" vs. "he is cheating".

The distinction is whether he cheated previously to the Sinquefield Cup or at the Sinquefield Cup itself. It's a critically important distinction.

Re: Dear Chess World

#965

Post by FartyMcFarter »

derac wrote: post #948
rurban wrote: post #860

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That just means cheaters will have to embed the devices in their body.

Re: Dear Chess World

#966

Post by krick »

dandanua wrote: post #944
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.

Maybe. But that's why I wrote that last paragraph. I.e., regarding Carlsen — I would never defend this type of behavior, but I understand him. First off, I believe that he truly believes what he says, and… well, somebody else already mentioned Fischer (like 20 times in one thread, probably). What he does is not ok, but the fact he is inclined to do so is ok, people do get in fights and behave poorly, what else is new. This is exactly why there are federations with their rules and event organizers with their protocols, to keep things civil even when it becomes really heated up. And their fault is 1000 times worse than Carlsen's.

(Honestly, I didn't expect them to do well, because we all know what FIDE and chess community in general are, but there still are degrees to how bad one could manage the situation, and they did it awfully bad.)

Re: Dear Chess World

#967

Post by D-Coder »

wayeq wrote: post #719
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…

found the car analogy

Yep. Car analogies are the Rolls Royces of analogies.

Re: Dear Chess World

#968

Post by Blackstrat »

traes wrote: post #749
Blackstrat wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cheating is a character issue. If he admits to cheating at 12 and 16, he’s cheated since then and will again.

That's a frankly ridiculous point of view. You're talking about a literal child cheating at an online video game. It's not that big of a deal, kids do dumb stuff.

I don’t consider 16 year olds to be children. If they are, they shouldn’t be driving. Yes, all kids do dumb things. But, if you are still behaving stupidly or dishonestly at 16, well that’s a different issue. That it’s no big deal to the younger generation explains why the country is as messed up as it is.

Re: Dear Chess World

#969

Post by VintageCool »

roflyear wrote: post #257
root_axis wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an outsider to the chess world, this all seems like a roundabout way of saying "we have no evidence that he cheated, but in lieu of evidence let's go with gut feelings".

Yeah it is 100% what it means. In contrast with the me-too stuff, Magnus did not even see Hans cheat. If Magnus could say Most people just don't like Hans. They don't like his personality, so they have motivation to pile on. See this comment that has been linked EVERYWHERE: https://talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=80630&start... Nevermind have people shot down this dudes analysis, but he says in the post "But…

That comment seems pretty damning. Maybe it would help your point to link rebuttal.
Post reply on HN