5 ms·

Magnus Carlsen Finally Speaks on Chess Cheating Scandal, Sows Even More Chaos

28 points by isaacfrond 4y ago

mellosouls 4y ago
"Magnus Carlsen finally speaks on Chess Cheating Scandal" No he didn't (from the article!): “Unfortunately I cannot particularly speak on that”
- emsixteen 4y ago
  They quote him as not wanting to speak on it not only once, but twice, yet they still give the article this title. Genuinely farcical journalism.
  - permo-w 4y ago
    if you watch the video, which is on his youtube channel, yes he says “I don’t want to speak on this”, but then he does end up saying quite a lot anyway
- grnmamba 4y ago
  Facts don't generate clicks
- bryanlarsen 4y ago
  The title is much more accurate than the quote, since he did in fact talk quite a bit about the scandal. Much of it obliquely and by implication.
random314 4y ago
Can the professionals playing chess receive visual signals from the audience? That should be good enough. You can just use your eyes instead of your anus!
- mattigames 4y ago
  Or just put something under your skin, watching a handful of the thousands of surgery videos online its enough learn how to do it with the help of a friend, or even by yourself if you are the daring type.
  - draugadrotten 4y ago
    https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/160080-man-implants-magnetic-headphones-becomes-music-cyborg https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/160080-man-implants-magn...
  - dstick 4y ago
    Seeing as you're going to need an outside man any way, I'd opt for the friend route :D
    - AndrewOMartin 4y ago
      The difficulty is in finding a friend willing to be implanted under your skin.
      - mattigames 4y ago
        Calm down ant-man
- killingtime74 4y ago
  Transmit with anus receive with eyes, full duplex!
- permo-w 4y ago
  in the game Magnus is accusing Hans of cheating in, there would be no feasible way for Hans to receive visual signals like this, not without it being obvious
  - random314 4y ago
schappim 4y ago
I notice there is a lot of XYZ is implying that ABC cheated in the chess world. Is such indirectness a cultural/convention thing, or a is there some greater game theory going on?
- jstx1 4y ago
  Some of the indirectness is likely because of how recent it is - as a player you don't want to speak about something that is being currently investigated. I think people who expect Magnus to just explain everything asap are being a bit too harsh.
- killingtime74 4y ago
  I suppose if you don’t have hard evidence all you can do is insinuate without getting in trouble yourself (defamation?). Not saying there’s no cheating. Frequently in criminal world for certain things like insider trading or cartels you need a whistle blower to really get any evidence, without it it’s hard to gather.
- mattigames 4y ago
  We have lost the count of the amount of people that have risk their lives trying to cheat in sports (e.g. the Olympics), I actually find it a bit surprising that it took this long to ocurre in Chess world, specially given how long small wireless devices have been available.
  - bspammer 4y ago
    I doubt a small wireless device is even the easiest way to cheat. Very little information needs to be transmitted: 2-3 bits at the right time could give a player a huge advantage. To me it seems easier to use a stooge in the audience. Information could be transmitted as coughs of varying volume, pitch, length, rubbing your eyes/nose, or any number of even more discreet ways. To completely remove suspicion, you’d need to start playing games in a faraday cage in a soundproof room with no spectators.
    - Euphorbium 4y ago
bni 4y ago
They should setup an event in a room that blocks any transmission, with no light coming in or out except a single camera. Full body X-ray before.
- mda 4y ago
  MRI is better, you don't want to get irradiated before every game.
hammock 4y ago
Why doesn’t he just leak his thoughts through a mouthpiece? E.g. “friends close to Carlsen say…” There is no risk of defamation etc this way.
Nokinside 4y ago
If you suspect that someone is cheating, playing against them can be very frustrating and decreases performance. Niemann is suspected and his mentor has been suspected in the past. Ken Regan analyzed Niemann online and offline games from the last two years and found noting (statistically) suspicious, but: > It turns out that not only did Niemann perform almost exactly as expected of him in terms of move accuracy, but his opponents are the ones who underperformed against him. https://en.chessbase.com/post/is-hans-niemann-cheating-world-renowned-expert-ken-regan-analyzes https://en.chessbase.com/post/is-hans-niemann-cheating-world... Of course, statistical analysis over all games can't detect cheating that is used sparingly only on few important occasions. Chess players are generally not idiots and statistical methods are known to all. If Niemann gets help only for 1-3 moves in few important games per year, statistics can't catch him. If Carlsen can't find evidence, he can avoid playing in the same tournaments as Niemann. So can others. Attending tournaments and losing games on purpose is not right. It affects other people.
- jsnell 4y ago
  The most convincing case against I've seen against Niemann is that he appears to play absurdly much better (200 Elo!) in games that are broadcast, and where cheating with an accomplice would thus be easy [0]. The tournament being broadcast explains the majority of the variation in his performance during the time period. That's standard statistics, with easy to understand methodology. While after reading your article, I just don't understand Regan's methodology, his presentation of results, nor his evasive answer to the question of broadcast games. Now, of course Regan is an expert on the topic. But he is also making a far worse case than the "zealous amateurs" as the article calls it. It really is coming across just as an argument from authority. (Maybe the full 90 minute interview is better, and it's just the article that's shit.) [0] https://talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?p=933597&sid=1fd7a59b7f0ba1407c603d8ca3b918e8#p933597 https://talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?p=933597&sid=1fd7...
  - Nokinside 4y ago
    I think his method is straight forward, simple and well justified. He calculates "move match" agreement with engine's first line, move-match percentage, average error per move judged by computer, (uneven positions count less) and goes from there to calculate Raw Outlier Index. Here is the data: https://cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/data/Niemann/ https://cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/data/Niemann/ Here is some reasoning and links to articles: https://cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/ https://cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/
kthejoker2 4y ago
A content free article worthy of an evidence free insinuation. The epitome of fake news.

28 points by isaacfrond 4y ago

"Magnus Carlsen finally speaks on Chess Cheating Scandal" No he didn't (from the article!): “Unfortunately I cannot particularly speak on that”

emsixteen 4y ago
They quote him as not wanting to speak on it not only once, but twice, yet they still give the article this title. Genuinely farcical journalism.
- permo-w 4y ago
  if you watch the video, which is on his youtube channel, yes he says “I don’t want to speak on this”, but then he does end up saying quite a lot anyway
grnmamba 4y ago
Facts don't generate clicks
bryanlarsen 4y ago
The title is much more accurate than the quote, since he did in fact talk quite a bit about the scandal. Much of it obliquely and by implication.

random314 4y ago

Can the professionals playing chess receive visual signals from the audience? That should be good enough. You can just use your eyes instead of your anus!

mattigames 4y ago
Or just put something under your skin, watching a handful of the thousands of surgery videos online its enough learn how to do it with the help of a friend, or even by yourself if you are the daring type.
- draugadrotten 4y ago
  https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/160080-man-implants-magnetic-headphones-becomes-music-cyborg https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/160080-man-implants-magn...
- dstick 4y ago
  Seeing as you're going to need an outside man any way, I'd opt for the friend route :D
  - AndrewOMartin 4y ago
    The difficulty is in finding a friend willing to be implanted under your skin.
    - mattigames 4y ago
      Calm down ant-man
killingtime74 4y ago
Transmit with anus receive with eyes, full duplex!
permo-w 4y ago
in the game Magnus is accusing Hans of cheating in, there would be no feasible way for Hans to receive visual signals like this, not without it being obvious
- random314 4y ago

schappim 4y ago

I notice there is a lot of XYZ is implying that ABC cheated in the chess world. Is such indirectness a cultural/convention thing, or a is there some greater game theory going on?

jstx1 4y ago
Some of the indirectness is likely because of how recent it is - as a player you don't want to speak about something that is being currently investigated. I think people who expect Magnus to just explain everything asap are being a bit too harsh.
killingtime74 4y ago
I suppose if you don’t have hard evidence all you can do is insinuate without getting in trouble yourself (defamation?). Not saying there’s no cheating. Frequently in criminal world for certain things like insider trading or cartels you need a whistle blower to really get any evidence, without it it’s hard to gather.
mattigames 4y ago
We have lost the count of the amount of people that have risk their lives trying to cheat in sports (e.g. the Olympics), I actually find it a bit surprising that it took this long to ocurre in Chess world, specially given how long small wireless devices have been available.
- bspammer 4y ago
  I doubt a small wireless device is even the easiest way to cheat. Very little information needs to be transmitted: 2-3 bits at the right time could give a player a huge advantage. To me it seems easier to use a stooge in the audience. Information could be transmitted as coughs of varying volume, pitch, length, rubbing your eyes/nose, or any number of even more discreet ways. To completely remove suspicion, you’d need to start playing games in a faraday cage in a soundproof room with no spectators.
  - Euphorbium 4y ago

bni 4y ago

They should setup an event in a room that blocks any transmission, with no light coming in or out except a single camera. Full body X-ray before.

mda 4y ago
MRI is better, you don't want to get irradiated before every game.

hammock 4y ago

Why doesn’t he just leak his thoughts through a mouthpiece? E.g. “friends close to Carlsen say…” There is no risk of defamation etc this way.

Nokinside 4y ago

If you suspect that someone is cheating, playing against them can be very frustrating and decreases performance. Niemann is suspected and his mentor has been suspected in the past. Ken Regan analyzed Niemann online and offline games from the last two years and found noting (statistically) suspicious, but: > It turns out that not only did Niemann perform almost exactly as expected of him in terms of move accuracy, but his opponents are the ones who underperformed against him. https://en.chessbase.com/post/is-hans-niemann-cheating-world-renowned-expert-ken-regan-analyzes https://en.chessbase.com/post/is-hans-niemann-cheating-world... Of course, statistical analysis over all games can't detect cheating that is used sparingly only on few important occasions. Chess players are generally not idiots and statistical methods are known to all. If Niemann gets help only for 1-3 moves in few important games per year, statistics can't catch him. If Carlsen can't find evidence, he can avoid playing in the same tournaments as Niemann. So can others. Attending tournaments and losing games on purpose is not right. It affects other people.

jsnell 4y ago
The most convincing case against I've seen against Niemann is that he appears to play absurdly much better (200 Elo!) in games that are broadcast, and where cheating with an accomplice would thus be easy [0]. The tournament being broadcast explains the majority of the variation in his performance during the time period. That's standard statistics, with easy to understand methodology. While after reading your article, I just don't understand Regan's methodology, his presentation of results, nor his evasive answer to the question of broadcast games. Now, of course Regan is an expert on the topic. But he is also making a far worse case than the "zealous amateurs" as the article calls it. It really is coming across just as an argument from authority. (Maybe the full 90 minute interview is better, and it's just the article that's shit.) [0] https://talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?p=933597&sid=1fd7a59b7f0ba1407c603d8ca3b918e8#p933597 https://talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?p=933597&sid=1fd7...
- Nokinside 4y ago
  I think his method is straight forward, simple and well justified. He calculates "move match" agreement with engine's first line, move-match percentage, average error per move judged by computer, (uneven positions count less) and goes from there to calculate Raw Outlier Index. Here is the data: https://cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/data/Niemann/ https://cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/data/Niemann/ Here is some reasoning and links to articles: https://cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/ https://cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/

kthejoker2 4y ago

A content free article worthy of an evidence free insinuation. The epitome of fake news.