971–980 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there a good summary by a chess expert on how he may or may not have cheated? (Ideally a video).
https://youtu.be/jfPzUgzrOcQ fits the bill
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lance’s case is interesting. Cheating is (was?) rampant in cycling. As Bill Burr joked “our roided up guy beat your roided up guy, what’s the big deal?” I don’t think chess is as bad as cycling. Doesn’t excuse bad behavior, but gives some perspective
And cycling became a punchline because of it. I think Magnus wants to avoid that fate for chess.
I agree with other comments here who suggested zero tolerance policy. Cheat once and get banned for life. I remember as a kid, watching hours of cricket. Then I found out some of my heroes were fixing matches. I stopped watching that day. No fan wants to see cheats and match fixers and other bad characters. That is what politics is for!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He has been caught of cheating online. Where you just open a new window and follow engine moves. Or you have a friend sitting beside you giving engine moves. In his over-the-board match, he didn't have a laptop. He didn't have a friend giving him moves. He didn't have any communication device. He was mostly looking at the board or into the distance while he was playing. He was scanned with a metal detector. So we kno…
There is a video explaining how Hans played ten 100% games (his moves matching 100% moves of what an engine would do) in the last three years and a lot of >90%: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfPzUgzrOcQ For reference, Magnus at his best does a 70% match with engines, and between 70-75% is historically enough to earn you the World Championship. This guy is consistently over 80%, come on. Reminds me of Lance Armstron…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree, but as I tried to state, there is simply more to it. Giving bad interviews doesn't mean anything. Accidentally beating the world champion doesn't mean anything. Spending all night studying a rarely played chess line that just happens to be the exact line played the next day doesn't really mean anything either. Not really being able to analyze like a GM doesn't mean anything too. But when you have all these f…
Given the amount of people who play Magnus in a year, it is not that improbable for one of them to fit this criteria.
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.
That's not true. Both he and Chess.com both say that they have evidence to the extent of Hans' cheating. Both have asked Neimann for the ability to speak freely without threat of libel. Ball is in Han's court.
If they tell the truth, there is no libel, and they don’t need anybody’s permission to speak.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is another example of the very common pattern of 90% of the contributions in online discourse come from 10% of the population with 90% of post coming from a 1% minority of the overall population. It's not unusual at all.
60+ comments in a single HN thread is common?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
In case you haven't seen it, some new evidence surfaced yesterday: https://youtu.be/jfPzUgzrOcQ
If this were the case, I think we'd see younger players more likely to get these 100s more often as they're learning from chess engines.
Does anyone familiarized with the topic know if this makes sense?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not true. Both he and Chess.com both say that they have evidence to the extent of Hans' cheating. Both have asked Neimann for the ability to speak freely without threat of libel. Ball is in Han's court.
This doesn’t make sense. If they tell the truth, there is no libel, and they don’t need anybody’s permission to speak.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well she shows 6+ games where he has 100% correlation with the engine. What are the chances?
> What are the chances? We don't know! That's why this is an incomplete analysis. A comparison against other players of his caliber would answer that question.