4 ms·
It's binary. Either he did cheat today or he did not. If he did not then who cares what his post analysis looks like after drawing the #4 player in the world an
by searealist 4y ago
It's binary. Either he did cheat today or he did not. If he did not then who cares what his post analysis looks like after drawing the #4 player in the world and being +3 at some point. The only reasonable analysis is to declare him a cheater today or discard the interview. To say that the interview would point to him cheating vs Magnus but not today is nonsense.
- bluecalm 4y agoThe event might be binary but our knowledge isn't. You may think he is likely cheating but you're not sure. You won't declare him a cheater but you will be suspicious.
- ivalm 4y agoYou can always say 40% cheater, 60% non cheater in this one game, but this updates the priors for future game considerations. At some point the priors will be such that the belief in the risk of cheating (which needs not be more than 50%) will cause the player to not be invited.
- icambron 4y agoI don’t think this is right. The idea seems to be that his post-game interview shows he didn’t understand the positions very well despite playing them accurately, so he may have cheated. But a) today there was a huge amount of extra security and specific scrutiny on him, b) he drew despite having a substantial advantage at one point, and c) a bad interview where he fumbled some stuff would be a nothing-burger if it hadn’t come after an accusation. It seems much more likely that this is a swirl of confirmation bias, not sound adjustments to priors. No one seemed to think his play was suspicious before the Magnus tweet and now everyone is reading tea leaves.
- ivalm 4y agoI agree that he probably did not cheat vs firouzja. Even vs Carlson my money is at most the line magnus wanted to play somehow got leaked. It’s hard to imagine getting live engine support otb at a modern tournament.
- bluecalm 4y agoWhy is it hard to imagine? It's easy to imagine him getting signals from the audience for example which can be done in multiple ways. I am not up to date with the state of metal/RFID detectors but simplistic ones they use at chess tournaments are probably possible to game as well.
- icambron 4y agoIt’s easy to imagine almost anything. The question isn’t whether he could but rather whether he did. I’m challenging the reasons many people believe he did, or likely did.
- icambron 4y agoRight. But the specific point in this thread is that his horrible analysis after the Firouzja game was suspicious, which doesn’t lend any weight to the accusation unless we’re also claiming he cheated in that one.
- sdwr 4y agoI got "busted" in school for "cheating" in an assembly language lab. I fumbled explaining the code to the TA, and he thought I had copied code from someone else. Explaining and performing are two different skills, it's very possible to be able to do things that you can't describe.
- searealist 4y agoThe point is that people keep bringing his post game interview today which is only relevant if he cheated in today's game, when security and scrutiny were at their highest.
- timwaagh 4y agoSo called Bayesian analysis frequently goes awry because of its ultimate dependence on assumptions (priors). But you don't even bother to do a calculation.
- Andrew_nenakhov 4y agoWhat is the reasoning of people accusing a player of the OTB cheating? That he somehow (with the help of a computer?) got up to +3 at some point against said #4 player, but then decided to stop cheating? If he is that 'bad' to draw a +3 position, how did he achieve this position in the first place?
- heydemo 4y agoSeems ironic to ask this on a post where a guy's cheating device malfunctions causing him to lose. There could be limitations which prevent him from cheating completely accurately
- Andrew_nenakhov 4y agoNo, not ironic at all. Said device was extremely unreliable and failed to win even 2 games - while the person you accuse of cheating has improved from 2400 to 2700 in about 2 years. Pretty reliable cheating device he had, only to fail at the crucial moment. Also, consider this: Nakamura knows that the position is good, but does he know it before he sees the evaluation, or after? Because it is a fact that when top player knows it is +3, he can explain why it is so good. But just looking at the board, without knowing the evaluation, he might have a very different conclusion.
- searealist 4y agoThis is not the point. The point was that he good enough to nearly beat the #4 in the world if he wasn't cheating.
- Andrew_nenakhov 4y agoEveryone has their good days and bad days. Elo rating estimates a probability of an outcome, and even with 2880/2680 it is far from zero.
- sweezyjeezy 4y agoI don't know about his game yesterday with Firouzja, but the rumor is that Magnus thinks Niemann got hold of his opening preparation before the game, which would put him at a huge advantage.
- em1sar 4y agothis guy is right