4 ms·

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 s

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/
  - jsnell 4y ago
    > Here is the data: https://cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/data/Niemann/ https://cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/data/Niemann/ Yes, that's what I mean by his presentation of results. That's a dozen text files with undocumented schemas, and no interpretation of the results or contextualizing them. > Here is some reasoning and links to articles: https://cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/ https://cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/ Yes, I've also seen that page, and tried reading the papers. You know what the outcome is? That the links to the research description, overview, papers, and talks are all dead.

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/
- jsnell 4y ago
  > Here is the data: https://cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/data/Niemann/ https://cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/data/Niemann/ Yes, that's what I mean by his presentation of results. That's a dozen text files with undocumented schemas, and no interpretation of the results or contextualizing them. > Here is some reasoning and links to articles: https://cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/ https://cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/ Yes, I've also seen that page, and tried reading the papers. You know what the outcome is? That the links to the research description, overview, papers, and talks are all dead.