41 ms·

Dear Chess World

• jbaczuk 4y ago
  It reminds me of the outcry from Trevor Bauer over the MLB not enforcing the illegal substance rule for pitchers. He had to take matters into his own hands until the league decided to enforce the rules.
  • walrus01 4y ago
    Look at all the people who had their careers absolutely destroyed by the US Postal/Discovery Channel/Lance Armstrong/Trek business (including Greg LeMond!) in the era where they were accusing Armstrong of the world's largest ever coordinated doping program, in the era before Armstrong and team were stripped of all their titles. Ultimately in the fullness of time they were all proven to be correct.
    • bombcar 4y ago
      I always felt the doping scandal broke just because way too many people were involved. If it had only been Lance alone it may never have been found.
• Belgicama 4y ago
• joemazerino 4y ago
  How did Niemann cheat? Magnus uses Niemann's outplaying as evidence but is there anything concrete?
  • u10 4y ago
    "Buddy was acting strange, must be cheating".
    • ceejayoz 4y ago
      Said buddy has publicly admitted to cheating multiple times prior.
      • roflyear 4y ago
        He's trying to own up to his mistakes.
        • ceejayoz 4y ago
          Perhaps, but that’s the first step to forgiveness and trust, not the last.
          • roflyear 4y ago
            I agree. But he should be given his chance to make the second step - which seems to be to continue to play without cheating.
  • alasr 4y ago
    From the horse's mouth: "I had the impression that he wasn't tense or even fully concentrating on the game in critical positions, while outplaying me as black in a way I think only a handful of players can do. This game contributed to changing my perspective." --- Personally I don't think that's strong enough reason to convince me that Niemann is a cheat. However, I would love to see more evidence before I change my position on this issue.
    • naasking 4y ago
      > Personally I don't think that's strong enough reason to convince me that Niemann is a cheat. Given he has admitted to cheating before, the "is a cheat" test is arguably satisfied. Whether he also cheated here is a different question.
    • matsemann 4y ago
      I agree. But at the same time it's absolutely destructive for other players playing a known cheater, spending so much energy on "is he cheating against me now?" With how Hans responded to Carlsen's unorthodox opening and his history, it made Carlsen unsure and wrecked the rest of his game. And given Hans couldn't even explain his moves later..
  • vikingerik 4y ago
    The somewhat-concrete evidence is that analyzers have now found many instances where Niemann's moves correlate highly with engine-suggested moves. I don't know the details as to whether that claim is credible. Is this correlation really any more for Niemann than any other grandmaster of similar strength? Are the analyzers cherry-picking data points that fit the narrative? And of course it is possible that Niemann is legitimately that good. Reddit's /r/chess has loads of viewpoints and speculation, if you want to read more there.
    • Dave_Rosenthal 4y ago
      There is a guy named Ken Regan who is one of the leading experts in this question of whether the correlation with engine moves is at a normal or abnormal level. His statement is that he analyzed the last two years of Hans' games and found no evidence of cheating. So, yeah, the people on Reddit are probably cherry picking. (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...) The counter to that is that it looks likely that a clever high-level player could probably use an engine once or twice in a game in a judicious way and not raise statistical alarm bells. But still, Ken's work tries to suss out things like that--e.g. does the player in question make good moves in 'key' positions. Plus, continued use of such techniques over time would leave a statistical trail. Honestly, Magnus' statement of, "well, he beat me and it didn't look like he was thinking hard" is pretty thin. Magnus knows that Hans has a history of cheating in online games when he was younger and to me it feels like he's just seeing ghosts and deep into confirmation bias territory. Especially since the game in question took place at a high-level tournament with rigorous anti-cheating scanning, etc.
      • hellcow 4y ago
        Fabi (for those that don’t know, he’s another one of the best chess players in the world) gave a statement along the lines of, “I know of at least one case where I was certain cheating happened, and Regan’s analysis missed it, so take any of his analysis with a huge grain of salt.” So here we have a whole bunch of the world’s best chess players and chess.com believing that Niemann repeatedly cheats, in addition to Niemann’s own admission to cheating in the past, and Regan taking the opposite stance.
  • jfengel 4y ago
    Nobody knows how he was cheating. Without a strip search there's no way to be sure. It is known that it's not technologically impossible. There are ways to do it, some of them rather outlandish but not infeasible. Unfortunately, that's as far as it can go. Either you start doing something really extreme to ensure that players can't cheat (that aforementioned strip search, making them play in a Faraday cage, etc), you'll never really know. Even worse than that, the cheating may not have gone on during the match. It could have been as simple as old-fashioned spying: studying what preparations Carlsen had made, and learning their weaknesses before the match even starts. You can't really prevent that. The best you can hope for is for a chess expert to opine that this move seems like an unlikely thing for a human to play without the assistance of a computer. Carlsen is just such an expert, but obviously his opinion alone is much too biased.
    • hobo_mark 4y ago
      > Even worse than that, the cheating may not have gone on during the match. It could have been as simple as old-fashioned spying: studying what preparations Carlsen had made, and learning their weaknesses before the match even starts. How is that even "cheating"?
      • InitialLastName 4y ago
        If your opponent is playing white and someone from their team tells you "He's going to open with X move", so that's the only one you have to prepare against, that goes a long way to eliminating white's advantage.
      • jfengel 4y ago
        That would require spying on him, perhaps by having suborned one of his preparation team, or conceivably even by bugging his hotel room. I'm not saying it's likely. I'm just explaining what I meant. Those preparations are private, and getting inside intel is cheating.
  • ouid 4y ago
    I am very sorry to see this position being posted. Niemann has been caught cheating in chess twice before, less than three years ago. He should never have been allowed to play in the cup. It was FIDE's decision not to collect the concrete evidence that would have caught him in the first place, and we must make do with the circumstantial evidence. As it stands, Niemann is a demonstrated cheater, and has more to gain by cheating in a game against the world champion than at any other time. It is very unlikey that Hans only cheated exactly the two times he was caught, and his failure to produce other instances than the times when he was caught are a mark against him. Remember that we are not giving him the death penalty, we are just trying to establish which scenario is more likely. It is important to be able to render most likely judgments based on incomplete information. Its not a courtroom.
    • jfengel 4y ago
      Niemann has admitted cheating, but only in online chess, not over the board. That's not to say he should be allowed to play, but only to note that live play is kind of a different ball game compared to doing it online. Online, it's you alone in a room (with a second computer). Similar cheating over the board would require some kind of hidden communications device, and probably an assistant.
      • petilon 4y ago
        > Niemann has admitted cheating, but only in online chess, not over the board. That's a distinction without a difference.
        • roflyear 4y ago
          Wrong. I've stolen things (I'm sure you have too - theft can be really small!) does that mean I should be labeled a thief in perpetuity? Beyond that, does it mean that I should be publicly shamed for it? Come on. You people need a heart.
          • petilon 4y ago
  • RavingGoat 4y ago
    Remote control anal beads is the cheapest, easiest to conceal and readily available.
    • rightbyte 4y ago
      Like, read Morse with your behind?
• foobaw 4y ago
  I'm actually curious what the Chess.com statement would be - they seem to have some bombshell that's coming soon. Also curious how Hans' will react to all of this.
• abnry 4y ago
  I am disappointed with Magnus. He is misusing the weight of his reputation even if cheating is a big deal in chess. The first mistake was still choosing to play when he had reservations once Hans was invited. The second mistake was quitting the tournament and messing up the standings once he lost. The third mistake was making an insinuation through a tweet. The fourth mistake was resigning in two moves his next game with Hans. Even though Hans is suspicious and untrustworthy, Magnus is taking on himself the authority to be judge, jury and executioner. If he is concerned about cheating being an issue, proactively bring up the issue, don't do it re-actively.
  • smoldesu 4y ago
    Yeah, the tone I'm getting from reading this basically boils down to "I was uncomfortable with how he played so I quit". Isn't that part of the metagaming in chess? Poker has always been about unnerving your opponent through stoicism or deception. I don't see why chess can't have the same layer of subtlety, and if it really concerns him then he should be able to wear a visor to block everything but the game board. Otherwise, just take your loss and stand your ground.
    • abnry 4y ago
      I want more of this metagaming in chess. That's one of the things I find interesting about Hans. His interviews suggest he's taking a sort of meta game approach. He suggested once a move of his against Alireza was a bluff because Alireza doesn't like attacking chess.
      • deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      • squeaky-clean 4y ago
        This is extremely common in high level chess. Every chess player will study their opponents history and recent play patterns and practice against that. Hans claimed he studied against Magnus' opening because Magnus had played it a few months ago. It turns out Magnus has never used that opening in a recorded game. The dialog has now changed to "well by move 20 the board state became identical to a previous Magnus game" but Hans didn't say he spotted the similarities at move 20, he said he studied that specific opening.
• keepquestioning 4y ago
  I last played chess in high school. I'm following this for the drama. I guess "over the board" chess means an IRL chess game. Can someone explain how the fuck someone would be able to do this and not make it obvious? Why is this being continually glossed over? Am I dumb?
  • solarparade 4y ago
    It is possible to have a device in your shoe that will not trip metal detectors that can feed moves from the outside. It doesn't even have to be that complex, for a super GM even just a simple signal that indicates "this position has a crushing move, spend extra time thinking on this move" is enough to significantly improve their performance Unless you catch the method of cheating directly, it's basically impossible to definitively determine if someone was cheating from a small number of games, they could just have gotten lucky or have been especially prepared in a given line like Niemann claims to have been
    • smoldesu 4y ago
      If that's a big concern, why would you even allow audiences to spectate in real-time? If the integrity of the game takes precedent over the spectacle of the match, why do we care about anything but the results? This reductive approach to looking at cheating will just end with both of these shmucks sitting naked in an empty room, surrounded by an audience of a single referee who's job is to stop them from physically attacking one another. If he wants to accuse someone of cheating, he should do it - otherwise, dragging someone in public and refusing to make public statements doesn't reflect well on his professional integrity.
      • bombcar 4y ago
        The extent that anti-cheating measures in Contract Bridge have gone to is hilariously insane. The players are effectively in telephone booths and cannot say or do anything except mark a bid indicator or slide a card, and at regulated intervals, too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheating_in_bridge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheating_in_bridge Bridge is an imperfect information game so the opportunities are much larger, but something similar can happen in chess.
• draw_down 4y ago
• mzs 4y ago
  This is carefully worded to never claim cheating at the Sinquefield Cup but heavily imply it.
• perihelions 4y ago
  It's very remarkable that Carlsen is suspicious of Niemann's game against him in Sinquefield, since there's a clear consensus among other top chess players that there was absolutely nothing unusual about it (or at least about the moves played).
  • addicted 4y ago
    And he wasn’t suspicious about his game when he beat Hans a few weeks earlier itself. If Hans did go to all those extremes to cheat OTB it’s really surprising he would do so while playing black against Magnus Carlsen in an otherwise kind of pointless game.
  • MauranKilom 4y ago
    The reasons Carlsen gives for being suspicious are not "the moves played were unusual" but about Niemann's behavior surrounding them.
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    • Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
      When Robert Fischer achieved an unprecedented scores in the pretenders matches prior to winning the champion title, I believe that the biggest factor was not the quality of the play of Fischer, but the way he mentally unbalanced and broke his opponents, who absolutely did not give a performance they were capable of.
      • morelisp 4y ago
        In this case it seems most of the unusual behavior occurred after the match, where (I've seen claimed) Niemann gave obviously wrong reasons why he had played so well on such an uncommon line, and was also not able to explain why he made particular choices he did playing it.
        • 4y ago
• honkdaddy 4y ago
  What’s the split in the chess community like here? Do most people agree with Magnus?
  • gkoberger 4y ago
    My read is that people believe it's very possible (even likely) he cheated, but are also frustrated that Magnus has brought a lot of other players into this without making (prior to this) any actual statement. Even with this statement, he hasn't formally accused him or presented any proof. I'd say the vibe of the community seems to be a general distaste for drama, rather than taking a particular side.
  • i_am_jl 4y ago
    I'm not a strong enough player/analyst to have a meaningful opinion on whether or not Niemann cheated. It's possible he cheated. I'm taken aback at the manner in which these accusations have been made. I guess that Magnus felt that the only way he could force FIDE and tournament organizers into action was with a big, public, shocking act. It feels like a black eye for chess no matter the outcome. Either Niemann is proven guilty and professional chess has to grapple with that hit to its integrity, or the situation isn't resolved and the question of Niemann's (and pro chess') integrity is left open indefinitely. I don't know to what extent Magnus has pushed for anti-cheating measures or increased scrutiny of Niemann behind closed doors, but I'll be very disappointed if it turns out that this public spectacle could've been avoided.
    • Bakary 4y ago
      Chess and FIDE are already the source of massive amounts of drama. This story got some mainstream traction but this is not going to impact the sport. On the contrary there are probably future champions who just turned to the game because of the latest nonsense.
• niyazpk 4y ago
  So basically, no concrete proof (yet), except the fact that Niemann has past history of cheating in online chess.
  • draw_down 4y ago
  • rednerrus 4y ago
    The analysis evidence is pretty damning.
    • roflyear 4y ago
      What analysis? Lol. There does not seem to be ANY analysis that stands up to any criticism, which to me is pretty damning!
    • aqme28 4y ago
      If you mean the "100% correlation" video, I highly disagree that it's damning.
      • rednerrus 4y ago
        How many 100% games against grand masters seems reasonable? A 45 move game?
• bombcar 4y ago
  Dear Chess World, At the 2022 Sinquefield Cup, I made the unprecedented professional decision to withdraw from the tournament after my round three game against Hans Niemann. A week later during the Champions Chess Tour, I resigned against Hans Niemann after playing only one move. I know that my actions have frustrated many in the chess community. I'm frustrated. I want to play chess. I want to continue to play chess at the highest level in the best events. I believe that cheating in chess is a big deal and an existential threat to the game. I also believe that chess organizers and all those who care about the sanctity of the game we love should seriously consider increasing security measures and methods of cheat detection for over the board chess. When Niemann was invited last minute to the 2022 Sinquefield Cup, I strongly considered withdrawing prior to the event. I ultimately chose to play. I believe that Niemann has cheated more - and more recently - than he has publicly admitted. His over the board progress has been unusual, and throughout our game in the Sinquefield Cup I had the impression that he wasn't tense or even fully concentrating on the game in critical positions, while outplaying me as black in a way I think only a handful of players can do. This game contributed to changing my perspective. We must do something about cheating, and for my part going forward, I don't want to play against people that have cheated repeatedly in the past, because I don't know what they are capable of doing in the future. There is more that I would like to say. Unfortunately, at this time I am limited in what I can say without explicit permission from Niemann to speak openly. So far I have only been able to speak with my actions, and those actions have stated clearly that I am not willing to play chess with Niemann. I hope that the truth on this matter comes out, whatever it may be. Sincerely, Manus Carlsen - World Chess Champion
  • Victerius 4y ago
    "I'm not saying Hans Niemann cheated in this very specific instance against me. I'm just saying he's a professional cheater, and that fact may or may not be related to my withdrawal in a game against him after just one move." Carlsen is all but accusing Niemann of having cheated against him. Why can't he go the extra step? Is this something his lawyers have advised him to do? (I don't have a dog in this fight)
    • bombcar 4y ago
• peter422 4y ago
  For all the people defending Hans, he has admitted to cheating in real, official, prize money online tournaments, and chess.com believes that in his apology he still lied about the extent of his cheating. Maybe Hans did cheat OTB, maybe he didn't, but the tough part about reputation is it is very hard to build and very easy to break. And Hans had proven to the world that he would cheat. I personally don't think Hans did cheat in that particular tournament but at the same time I don't think he deserves too much sympathy. Cheaters literally destroy the game, and Hans at the very least was a cheater.
  • flawn 4y ago
    I could also decide to cheat when being in the top players in the world. Even better, because I would only need to use my cheats sometimes and hide it even better because my knowledge holds up enough.
    • bombcar 4y ago
      The second best player in the world would be best positioned to cheat; they'd need a small advantage to become best. And the best player in the world could cheat, too, reducing their mental load and taking it easy. Both cases would likely be exposed by the cheaters getting lazy.
      • MauranKilom 4y ago
        I don't think you become the best or second best player through a mindset that includes "I'll cheat if that's what it takes to reach the top".
        • medvezhenok 4y ago
          All the history of doping in the Olympics would disagree. It is possible that some people can reach quite a high level but top out in their natural abilities well below the absolute top of the game and be incentivized to cheat to break through their personal, natural ceiling.
• Andugal 4y ago
  So Magnus can't prove it (yet?) but has a strong feeling about it. It reminds me of other cases in cycling or athletics... Let's hope the truth also triumphs this time.
• browningstreet 4y ago
  These situations are never great.. there's no "best way to handle things" when the drama reaches a certain level. Carlsen specifically mentions that there are Niemann details he can't or won't reveal. Niemann could release him from that confidence, but I think Carlsen's reputation is strong enough that doubting this doesn't seem reasonable. Personally, I think shading Carlsen, in isolation, seems misguided to me.
  • smoldesu 4y ago
    > there's no "best way to handle things" when the drama reaches a certain level. I agree, but that's mostly where my frustration with Carlsen is rooted. He had the choice with how to handle this - he went out of his way to choose the dramatic route. He better have some conclusive evidence to back up the hurricane-sized shitstorm he's whipped up here. If it turns out the entire chess community got manipulated by a single rockstar and his badly-hurt ego, it would be hard to take the sport seriously again at a professional level.
    • tux1968 4y ago
      Carlsen has an impeccable reputation for being principled and magnanimous in defeat, and always complimentary and respectful of his opponents after a loss, acknowledging their deserved win and well played game. Frankly, i'm shocked more people aren't being supportive of this single decision of his, that stands alone in his long and rather glorious career.
      • roflyear 4y ago
        • tux1968 4y ago
          Being extremely competitive is not being a sore loser, and he is playful and spirited in trash-talk. But he ultimately always shows respect towards his opponent, even when he's extremely disappointed in himself. Being upset at a loss, which you'll see in a few videos, is much different than disrespecting the person who beat him.
• gmiller123456 4y ago
  I am limited in what I can say without explicit permission from Niemann What? I'd like him to explicitly state what rule/law/agreement prevents him from saying more. He explicitly accused him of cheating. I can't imagine what would prevent him from providing details.
  • bombcar 4y ago
    I expect it's GDPR-covered or similar cheating examples from chess.com or whatever site it was that he saw all the list of cheaters from.
    • gizmo 4y ago
      GDPR??? Not at all related.
    • djrockstar1 4y ago
      Chess.com already put out a statement saying Carlsen has not seen anything about their cheat detection or their list of known cheaters.
  • lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
    Slander / libel laws, I would imagine. It seems like he was more careful in his phrasing than to make an explicit accusation.
  • fotta 4y ago
    I'd guess it's some sort of legal litigation.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  • cmeacham98 4y ago
    My guess is some sort of FIDE dispute process that binds both parties to (partial) secrecy.
    • 4y ago
• CalChris 4y ago
  I’m a Magnus fanboy. He’s been and continues to be a great champion. He’s up there in the pantheon with Kasparov, Anand and Fischer. We’re lucky to have him. That kinda settles this for me.
• gizmo 4y ago
  Why are known cheaters even allowed to participate in top level tournaments? It’s insulting to all the other chess players. Magnus is setting the right example by refusing to play Niemann
  • Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
    If someone makes a mistake at 16, is it a valid reason to ban a person for life? Ok. If someone kills a person at 16. Should the killer be in prison for life?
    • Invictus0 4y ago
      Enough with the fiction that cheating is a mistake, or that a 16 year old smart enough to be a chess grandmaster is simultaneously so underdeveloped that they have not learned the consequences of cheating. Your comparison with murder is ridiculous. First of all, teenage murderers are regularly sentenced to life in prison. A murderer is deprived of fundamental human liberties--Niemann is deprived of being able to compete at the highest competitive level in a tabletop board game, without suspicion.
      • Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
        He cheated online on a second rate chess site. Nobody has any explanations how he could do it over the board. (Considering that people become more or less aware about their responsibilities and consequences of their actions at about 15 yo, he is now 4 times the responsible age he was at 16.)
        • jobs_throwaway 4y ago
          > Nobody has any explanations how he could do it over the board. If you believe this, its because you aren't looking. There's tons of explanations online of how it could be possible. Go look at /r/chess.
          • 4y ago
• addicted 4y ago
  This is highly disappointing. For one thing, the fact that Carlsen is making this statement now and not weeks earlier is embarrassing. For another, the evidence he presents is disappointingly weak. I can understand being suspicious of online games. Fair enough. But the evidence for cheating offline is: 1) Rapid progress in OTB chess. This rapid progress is still much less rapid than many other players and involved Hans quite clearly spending nearly 2 years only focused on chess during and after the pandemic. 2) Him competing as black in a way only a handful of players could. I’d argue there is almost no one who stands even a 10% chance of beating Magnus as black OTB. But, if all the GMs playing Magnus had a 0.1% chance, then there’s a 1/2000 chance he loses, and the loss is not likely to be to one of the top players simply because there are far more non top players. 3) Lack of nervousness. Well, it’s hard to see how Magnus would be beat by someone who was nervous. On 1 hand, Hans had nothing to lose and be nervous about. On the other hand Magnus had a ton of pressure on a quest for 2900. At the end of the day, Hans didn’t play a brilliancy to beat Magnus. He simply played normal decent moves. The game itself presented no evidence of cheating.
  • eklitzke 4y ago
    With regards to his recent rating increase, Hans' rating increase is not completely unprecedented but it's still very rare. The issue isn't that he's a mid-2600s player, or even that he's increased by 200 points in two years, it's the shape of the ratings graph and the unusual staircase progress he's made at the GM level. It took Hans about five years to go from 2300 to 2500 rating, and most of that was pre-pandemic. Increasing your rating gets exponentially more difficult as your rating increases, which is why there are so few players who ever make it to the 2700 level or even the 2600 level. Most players at this level who spend multiple years in a rating lull never significantly increase their playing ability (there are countless examples, but look at someone like MVL for a typical example). There are only a small number of cases of people who reach Hans' level who have staircase looking ratings progress graphs at the 2500+ level. Hans' recent rating increase is far from proof that he's cheating, but it is definitely extremely unusual.
    • helaoban 4y ago
      What's missing in that analysis is the sheer number of games Niemann has played recently, it's simply an enormous amount of OTB games - outside the norm. Furthermore, there's some consensus that a lot of the younger players are underrated as a result of the pandemic when a lack of rated OTB tournaments prevented a normal rating increase, and Hans' rapid improvement would partially be explained by his official rating quickly equalizing with his actual ability.
• Blackstrat 4y ago
  The bigger question to me is why Nieman, who had admitted cheating in the past, was admitted to the tournament in the first place.
  • Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
    People make mistakes. Also, it is kinda difficult to cheat uncaught in over the board games.
  • neaden 4y ago
    Part of it is that he cheated on Chess.com which does not publicize bannings for cheating/punishments, so there wasn't really a reason for the tournament to not invite him since at that point from an organizers perspective it was just rumors.
  • Tenoke 4y ago
    He hasn't cheated in a FIDE event as far as FIDE knows. Banning him for cheating at 12 and 16 in an unrelated to them place (and not even OTB) without anything else would just be bizarre. Even more so, when players who have actually cheated in actual FIDE OTB games as adults start off with a temporary rather than permanent ban.
  • Blackstrat 4y ago
    Cheating is a character issue. If he admits to cheating at 12 and 16, he’s cheated since then and will again.
    • roflyear 4y ago
      Nah. People change.
    • traes 4y ago
      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.
• hsuduebc2 4y ago
• macintux 4y ago
  A newer post, but more comments at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32987630 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32987630
  • dang 4y ago
    We'll merge that one hither.
• hsuduebc2 4y ago
  Some evidence supporting his claim would be nice.
• markers 4y ago
  In case you haven't seen it, some new evidence surfaced yesterday: https://youtu.be/jfPzUgzrOcQ https://youtu.be/jfPzUgzrOcQ
  • bombcar 4y ago
    This seems interesting, any chess-knowing people willing to take the hit for the team and watch all 23 minutes?
    • Invictus0 4y ago
      He played several games with 100% correlation with what chess engines considered to be the best move, and also played in 5 consecutive tournaments with such a high fraction of engine-preferred moves that his performance rivals the best players in history at the pinnacle of their careers.
      • roflyear 4y ago
        Yes, and so does.... everyone else that is 2600+. And lots of people who aren't.
        • Loughla 4y ago
          • Traubenfuchs 4y ago
          • roflyear 4y ago
            No connection. I just think it is stupid that a lot of people who consider themselves intelligent reduce themselves to this level of drivel. I mean, come on. There's a guy that replied to you who is insinuating that I AM Hans. LOL! Let the conspiracies fly, I guess!
          • 4y ago
• edmcnulty101 4y ago
  We need a TSA body detector before a match between Magnus and Niemann.
  • matsemann 4y ago
    They often have that. But if you have an accomplice placed with the spectators that person could just discreetly signal stuff. Like scratching the nose or so. At least for the WC matches they also often sat behind one-way glass.
  • MichaelCollins 4y ago
    You'd need a full blown X-ray to catch implants. I don't think technical countermeasures are the solution; even this is technically and logistically feasible highest levels of play, it wouldn't be something you could practically apply to the mid/low levels of play. Inexpensive technical countermeasures like the metal detecting wands are reasonable enough, but probably not enough to stop the reputational harm that cheating scandals do to the entire sport.
    • ComplexSystems 4y ago
      An X ray seems very reasonable.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• jdoliner 4y ago
  It seems like if Nieman wants to clear his name he should offer Carlsen explicit permission to say whatever it is he can't. If Magnus is bluffing and that information doesn't amount to much he'd wind up looking a lot better.
  • bergenty 4y ago
    So give him a carte blanche to say whatever he wants and ruin his reputation- warranted or not? Why would someone do this? It’s akin to talking to the cops without a lawyer.
    • bombcar 4y ago
      It's pretty obvious to me that Carlsen has evidence of Hans cheating after the 16-year old incident that we know of. And so he's trying to maneuver Hans into a bad place; so that would be reason for Hans to not say anything (which also looks bad; it's the horns of a dilemma).
      • roflyear 4y ago
  • paxys 4y ago
    No the best way to clear his name is to keep playing and keep winning. If he can do that then the chess world will get over Magnus's whining pretty quick.
    • erichocean 4y ago
      Not just the best, it's really the ONLY way. If Niemann is really God's gift to chess, it'll be obvious to everyone soon enough.
      • croes 4y ago
        Or he has a clever way of cheating
• unethical_ban 4y ago
  Meta: The top displayed "replies" to his post are indicative of how utterly trashy Twitter is.
• loxs 4y ago
  Isn't it time to just abandon chess as a competitive sport? It's (mostly) a solved game for f* sake, move on. I will probably be downvoted to oblivion, but I'm absolutely serious and would love constructive commentary. What's the big appeal of chess? We (as humans) can't beat computers. It's probably useful for further research, but I see absolutely no value in (human) competitions.
  • walrus01 4y ago
    Isn't this like saying we should abandon professional road cycling as a sport, because motorcycles have been invented and exist and are a faster method of two wheeled transportation? Or we should abandon rowing as a sport because we now have 9hp Honda outboard motors?
    • loxs 4y ago
      Well, cycling is plagued with lots of similar problems (doping, people hiding electric motors in their bikes etc.), so yeah, I would argue the same there. On the other hand the very act of cycling improves health, so it's much more suitable as a sport for humans. Chess may have some arguable benefits, but it's very hard to detect so. Of course, everything depends on "the market" - if people want to watch human chess tournaments (or cycling tournaments), they will... but I suspect with time it will either have to become a hilarious, anti-cheat porn or it will die out. I'm rooting for the latter :-D. I'm sure we can invent much better competitive games that are not that prone to these problems.
      • lmm 4y ago
        > I'm sure we can invent much better competitive games that are not that prone to these problems. I rather doubt that. Go was thought to be much harder to solve, but AI has caught up there, and with techniques that will probably generalise to any similar games.
        • loxs 4y ago
          I didn't say "similar" games, just games that are better suited for humans than computers.
• erdevs 4y ago
  A key fact to understand in thinking about cheating in over the board chess: a strong player can defeat a much stronger opponent with just 1-3 hints per game indicating the strongest move. For example, most chess experts agree that a ~2600 rated player with 2-3 hints at key moments per game would be expected to beat a ~2800 rated player. Many people might assume that a cheater needs guidance every move, thereby requiring a potentially more obvious cheating mechanism. That is not the case. Also, clever cheating devices have been found in over the board chess competitions. So, this is possible. Moreover, one needn't carry a device on themselves. A cheater may have accomplices providing hints, if they carry a device. It will be interesting to see how chess tournaments, as well as FIDE, chess.com, and other major chess institutions react to this situation. The potential for cheating has now been brought to the absolute forefront of chess discussion. And Carlsen's actions have been questioned by FIDE in recent interviews, with FIDE staff condemning "vigilantism" of a kind. Some set of resolutions seems necessary--perhaps standards for security in major chess tournaments, perhaps an alliance to share cheating or reliability data amongst major chess operations, perhaps a standard term in major chess tournament agreements that no previously identified cheaters (online or otherwise) will be allowed to play, and perhaps sanctions in some form against Carlsen (or Niemann, if concrete evidence against him emerges).
  • bananamerica 4y ago
    Chess tournaments could use the services of already existing casino anti cheating experts. But I imagine that would be very expensive and not feasible for most events. I can't think of any effective way to curb online cheating in chess. Ultimately, online chess with money prizes shouldn't really exist.
  • root_axis 4y ago
    > Many people might assume that a cheater needs guidance every move, thereby requiring a potentially more obvious cheating mechanism. That is not the case. IMO, this reasoning potentially implicates every high level player. If it's possible that two hints can account for the difference between 2600 and 2800, and a 19 year old kid under heavy scrutiny can exploit this weakness without being detected, it seems assured that other more experienced players are also exploiting this.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
  • utopcell 4y ago
    This is a statement from one of the two players.
• jl6 4y ago
  It’s a deeply unsatisfactory situation, because on one side we expect evidence for such a serious accusation, and on the other side we know such evidence is all but impossible to gather retrospectively.
  • krisoft 4y ago
    I believe the takeaway is exactly that. We are in a situation where we can’t know for certain. We can’t go back in time and learn if there was cheating going on. But we can go forward and increase security so the next time we are more likely to be confident about if cheating happened or not. And that is what Carlsen is asking for.
  • roflyear 4y ago
    Magnus can't even say he KNOWS he cheated. He only says he SUSPECTS he cheated. That's all he can say.
    • Bud 4y ago
      No, that's all he has said thus far. You don't have the faintest idea what he "can say". In fact, Magnus hints that he has more to say, if GM Cheatboy gives him permission to do so without threat of a lawsuit. I imagine Magnus is telling the truth about that.
      • asimpletune 4y ago
        Exactly, and if he really wants to, he'll just give Magnus permission to say what he needs to say and they can discuss the matter transparently.
    • XCSme 4y ago
      I mean, he is the greatest player in history, he definitely can feel if something is odd, it's not the first match he loses.
      • deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
• timwaagh 4y ago
  I'm not sure I have ever understood the Magnus hype. This whole thing... It makes me certain he did not deserve it. Unless he's proven right somehow... But generally as a sportsman it's not up to you to play referee. Maybe they should take bullying in chess just as seriously as cheating.
  • bfgoodrich 4y ago
  • mikenew 4y ago
    ...you don't understand the "hype" around the best player in the history of the game?
• Maursault 4y ago
  Carlson should just challenge Niemann to a 30 game over the board televised match in their shorts (no shoes, no shirt) at Madison Square Garden. With the revenue generated from ticket sales and advertising, they could both retire and international chess can put this episode behind them.
  • InitialLastName 4y ago
    Everyone in the audience has to be in their shorts, and the players need to be surrounded by one-way mirrors otherwise someone in the audience could use a computer and signal the players.
    • utopcell 4y ago
      And the air temperature should be controlled because someone may signal single-bit information otherwise.
      • InitialLastName 4y ago
        Be sure to pause train traffic through Penn Station, otherwise the Amtrak dispatcher could transmit seismic data depending on platform routing.
        • bombcar 4y ago
          Now I want an Oceans 11 style movie where it’s chess cheating and the revealed method is insanely elaborate.
    • MichaelCollins 4y ago
      And then a very noisy motorcycle drives by the stadium during a tense moment and everybody is left wondering, what if...
    • vsareto 4y ago
      Remove all of the players' teeth because they could pick up Morse signals with fillings
• armchairhacker 4y ago
  What i think should happen is, Hans should play in tournaments which have much more security, and play against Magnus. If he did cheat it should be really obvious because his performance will suddenly drop. If he didn’t than he will play the same, but now with the added security he won’t have to face unbacked accusations, and there is no excuse for Magnus to refuse to play with Hans like he has been doing now. Even if Hans really did cheat, if there is no credible evidence you can’t fault him. And IMO it’s not enough that he cheated many years ago. Right now all the criticism he’s getting is unfair because it’s based on speculation.
  • Someone 4y ago
    If he were a computer, that would work. Being a human, the added stress of “this game will be used to decide whether I will be considered a cheater” may be enough to make him perform worse than he did before.
  • kjerkegor 4y ago
    > If he did cheat it should be really obvious because his performance will suddenly drop I mean, Magnus is so much more better player than Hans that even if Hans didn't cheat he would probably be worse in rematch. But in all sports sometimes underdogs win. In couple yt videos i watched it was said that Magnus played bad game and that Hans already gained an advantage in opening. Hans said that he prepared opening play but if he is indeed a cheater he maybe used engine just for opening. We'll probably never get an answer if there was cheating or not
    • roflyear 4y ago
      Of course he used an engine for the opening. Before the game, 100% certain he did.
    • armchairhacker 4y ago
      Maybe he will get away with it if he only cheated against Magnus, and only in that one match. Because it's perfectly reasonable for him to play against Magnus many more times and lost. But if he cheated a lot more (as Magnus seems to allege) then he'll also lose to others he used to beat easily. EDIT: I think a big issue with chess is this "perfection" mentality. Magnus cannot make a single mistake or lose a single game without it being a big show. Hans beating Magnus this one time, even though he was playing against black, should basically mean nothing - Magnus can probably beat Hans 10 times over. If Hans was beating Magnus 10 times it would be different - but also if he was on a streak to Magnus 10 times he would be playing with a lot more scrutiny.
• stephc_int13 4y ago
  Magnus is not doing this in the best possible way. If Hans is cheating (possible, especially given his past) Magnus should act and use his connections in the Chess world to catch him cheating. Suspicion is not proof. Using his reputation as leverage can work to destroy Hans's reputation, but there is a high risk of collateral damages. He should be smarter than that.
  • onemoresoop 4y ago
    It's a fools errand to try to catch your opponent cheating, they may not be in fact cheating and you're stressing out making your game worse. But general anti-cheating measures should be taken. What are those I don't know.
  • systemvoltage 4y ago
    Signing the letter with "Magnus Carlson - World Chess Champion" had bad optics IMO.
    • lvl102 4y ago
      Is he not the World Chess Champion? What's the problem then?
      • stephc_int13 4y ago
        He does not have to write it...
  • lvl102 4y ago
    How do you think he can accomplish that exactly? You think they’re going to install hidden cameras everywhere?
    • stale2002 4y ago
      Well, for over the board chess you can have highly sensitive metal detectors or x ray machines. And you have mave matches delaying the broadcast. Problem solved.
• a-dub 4y ago
  they should play a game inside one of these: https://www.ets-lindgren.com/products/shielding/rf-shielded-enclosures/11003/1100303?page=Products-Item-Page https://www.ets-lindgren.com/products/shielding/rf-shielded-...
  • chrisshroba 4y ago
    It wouldn't do much good since Stockfish could easily run on a raspberry pi or similar inside of that, say, in a player's shoe
    • a-dub 4y ago
      yes but your ability to detect rf noise from electronics, even well shielded electronics, is greatly enhanced in that environment.
      • a-dub 4y ago
        or better yet... follow the wikipedia model and have a parallel cheater chess league where there are cash prizes for proving after the fact that wins were the most sophisticated and undetectable cheats.
        • traes 4y ago
          that would make the games themselves extremely boring, which makes it no longer really a game of chess and more like the Penn & Teller Fool Us show but more specific.
    • yardstick 4y ago
      Wouldn’t the raspberry pi have detectable EM radiation? Not from comms but from the normal operation of the board?
    • denlekke 4y ago
      would a rpi+battery trigger a metal detector though ?
    • 4y ago
• jdthedisciple 4y ago
  Magnus isn't trying to be judge, jury and executioner by refusing to play Hans. He has stated before that merely having suspicions (e.g. based on past cheating as in Niemann's case) about your opponent possibly cheating completely ruins one's mentality during a game. He simply wants to avoid going through that, which imo is understandable.
  • jacobsenscott 4y ago
    Any opponent could cheat at anytime. Cheating in chess is a fact of life, and can't be stopped. Other professional sports have mostly come to terms with this, and chess needs to as well. When you have proof of cheating the sport's authorities take action (not individual players). When you don't you let the games go on knowing some folks are getting away with it sometimes.
    • asimpletune 4y ago
      The thing is that FIDE isn't really doing anything. This has been mentioned elsewhere in the comments, but what they really need to do is take this seriously and hire magicians, GM's, ex-intelligence, etc... to assess the situation and with transparency provide recommendations on how to move forward. If you look at FIDE's statement, they basically said they were made that Magnus did this and they're using "sophisticated" techniques to prevent cheating. I don't think that is a responsible way to act, given that this presents an existential threat to the sport. With today's system, there is no way to get proof of cheating, without catching someone red handed, and there's no way to bring awareness because FIDE is either not interested, incompetent, or both. Also, there might be a lot of cheating in chess, and it could be just an ugly secret that they're protecting.
      • uup 4y ago
        If you look at FIDE’s statement, all they did is ask for a single shred of evidence that Niemann is cheating OTB.
      • xiphias2 4y ago
        It's almost impossible to detect cheating, but it's trivial to statistically find a cheater from many thousands of online games that he has to play online to get to this level.
• jdthedisciple 4y ago
  I believe people might be seriously underestimating just how good Magnus may be at detecting cheating. Dude probably trains with computers regularly. He has a better memory than 10 average Joe's combined. He's been the absolute #1 of the world for what, 10 years now? He wouldn't risk his whole reputation for nothing. I personally take his suspicions very seriously, though I agree that evidence has to be presented sooner or later.
  • epolanski 4y ago
    Hans is known to have cheated, his coach is known to have cheated, add low security in the event, Hans beating Magnus (a player two tiers above him) on black pieces (Magnus has lost only 15 games against black in an entire world champion career) and Hans acting suspicious during the game and here we are.
    • geertj 4y ago
      > Hans is known to have cheated Do you have a link to this? Proof that this player has cheated in the past would be the strongest evidence, I believe, he'd do so again.
      • deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      • sentientslug 4y ago
        Niemann during an interview admitted to having cheated in the past
      • jdthedisciple 4y ago
        This is not disputed, he has admitted to it himself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oU6UJz_X8DU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oU6UJz_X8DU
      • casion 4y ago
        He admitted to having previously cheated. The admission happened during the Sinquefeld cup, on stream, during the event. Having cheated in prior history is not a question, but the extent and recency of the behavior is.
• russellbeattie 4y ago
  The questions I have about this are pretty basic: 1. How would Niemann have cheated? The shoe computer theory is a bit far fetched - are devices that small capable enough? Is he suspected of having an accomplice? 2. Why didn't Magnus just say something right away? He could have easily made his accusations at the moment to event organizers - quietly - and they could have had Niemann remove his shoes or something. Instead he threw a tantrum. Obviously this isn't just about Hans. Personally, I think Niemann is just a 19yo kid who has made mistakes and Carlsen is a 31yo professional who is absolutely hammering this kid to make a larger point. He may be frustrated, but taking it out on Hans is a bit much. The imbalance of power here is just off the charts. Even if Hans somehow cheated in that OTB game - of which there isn't a shred of real evidence - Magnus is the leader of the chess world and needs to accept that responsibility and react in a mature way. He should have taken the high road, simply said "I don't know what happened, but it was highly unusual. Let's guarantee that this doesn't happen in the future," and directed his frustrations totally at the event organizers rather than encouraging the entire world to attack this one kid.
  • insane_dreamer 4y ago
    > are devices that small capable enough? yes, the tech is there But yes, I agree that Carlsen should have just refused to play Hans after Sinquefield
    • onemoresoop 4y ago
      The cheating technique could be ingenious in itself. I remember what students were coming up in high-school, back in the day, without modern technology.
      • bombcar 4y ago
        Now I'm imagining a Slugworth scenario where someone developed a cheating tool and offered it to Carlsen and he refused it, but suspects that Slugworth also offered it to Hans ...
  • roflyear 4y ago
• etothepii 4y ago
  The fact that cheating is now on the agenda in chess is so lame. My chess.com rating is only 864 and after making a move that won me the game my opponent said they were going to report me because "I played an unusual tactic." It's taking all the fun out of the game. Edit - to clarify that cheating being on the agenda is a sad state of affairs, not that Carlson calling it out is sad.
• syncerr 4y ago
  Hans is clearly cheating. Comparing his past games against what an engine would do is pretty damning. Chess engines are far superior to players and the best players in the world top out in the high 70s percent correlations (Magnus averages around 70%). Hans has a string of games at 100% correlation[0], meaning he's playing perfect games. Past players who achieved this later went on to admit to cheating[1]. Magnus knows this because he owns part of chess.com and presumably sees the data. Magnus has a lot riding on his statement. He wouldn't make it unless he was sure. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfPzUgzrOcQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfPzUgzrOcQ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9bastien_Feller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9bastien_Feller
  • Sporktacular 4y ago
    You mean Magnus?
  • fieryscribe 4y ago
    Daniel Rensch and others have said that Magnus has not seen chesscom cheating algorithms or lists. It had been a rumor in the chess world for a while that Hans has cheated before
    • Tenoke 4y ago
      He hasn't been officially shown but that doesn't mean that someone in the know hasn't leaked it to him. He's deeply connected and respected in the chess world. Further, even if he didn't see it people notice when GMs get bans as their accounts turn inactive (which they had in this case).
  • aqme28 4y ago
    That "100%" analysis is very deeply flawed. The author of the video even issued a retraction (https://twitter.com/IglesiasYosha/status/1574308784566067201?t=uc0qD6T7cSD2dWD0vLeW3g&s=19 https://twitter.com/IglesiasYosha/status/1574308784566067201...). It's cherry-picked games and it doesn't compare to the "engine correlation" of other high ranked players against similar opponents. I would not rely on it as evidence that Hans is "clearly cheating."
• mach1ne 4y ago
  Hypothetically, using AlphaGo as your cheating engine could produce moves which are undetectable to originate from an engine.
  • Tenoke 4y ago
    Alphazero plays very differently than a human, and you can analyze if the player is playing the same moves as it, just as well as you can with another engine. Less importantly, modern stockfish also uses neural networks.
    • cool_dude85 4y ago
      Nobody has access to alphazero as far as I know. Regardless, it is an interesting point. The TCEC has a ton of oddball engines, many probably open source, that are virtually unknown but are still far stronger than any human. Could make sense to choose one of those if you don't want to be caught.
      • Tenoke 4y ago
        Leela Zero is similar enough and available that the point stands.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• jacobsenscott 4y ago
  Interesting how in the 90s the concern was GM's where helping the machines (Kasparaov vs Deep Blue), and today the concern is the machines are helping the GMs.
• rbongers 4y ago
  It's not convincing to say that Hans was cheating because few people can beat Magnus playing black when Magnus was playing poorly in that game. I still feel like more information that could come out at any moment that could swing the situation in either direction, and this statement doesn't say much. I wish Magnus and chess.com would come out with whatever extra information they have.
  • lvl102 4y ago
    I don’t think you understand why cheating is so bad. Once you know your opponent COULD BE cheating, your approach changes entirely. You will know this if you played against Stockfish.
    • rbongers 4y ago
      What was the evidence that Hans COULD be cheating on top of the two incidents we know about? Was it, for example, video evidence of Hans using Stockfish on an illegal phone during an OTB tournament, or was it second hand accounts of Hans cheating during an online game years ago after he claimed to stop? We have no idea and that's still the issue, even if this topic is entirely about making players more comfortable and not actually about whether Hans was cheating on the game in question.
      • deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    • adamdusty 4y ago
      There is always a chance your opponent could be cheating. Just because you get tilted does not mean the opponent was cheating.
• onemoresoop 4y ago
  Do they do any tests for substances? How about nootropics which are known to boost brainpower, are these banned just doping in athletics? Would nootropics be considered cheating??
  • narag 4y ago
    I doubt there's some kind of NZT that would be useful for chess. Some ancient masters had a complicated relation with alcohol, specially Blackburne. Adversaries knew and invited him believing it would make him blunder, but it seems Blackburne actually played better while drunk.
    • tartoran 4y ago
      I like the idea but only if the opponent knows so it’s not thought of as an unfair advantage. They both can have a drink. Now im thinking of a drunk chess competition but it would be more than measuring alcohol tolerance than actual play ability.
• jointpdf 4y ago
  Speaking seriously, how plausible is a teledildonics-based ruse? (context: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23094477 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23094477) Would a thoughtfully designed device be detectable via the pre-screening methods at OTB tournaments? You only need to send a few bits of information to swing a chess game.
• unnouinceput 4y ago
  This is easy to check/prove. Make them pass an x-ray machine and play alone in a Faraday cage. No external signal will pass while the cage still can send video through cables. This can be deployed automatically by organizers in next public event and is quite cheap, no more than a few thousand dollars.
• planetsprite 4y ago
  There are two things that must be understood before making any judgement on this case: 1. It is solidly within the realm of possibility that a person who spends all his time devoted to succeeding in tournament chess would be able to devise a cheating method that cannot be easily detected by standard protocols 2. It is impossible to prove a negative, so it is impossible to disprove Magnus' claims With these things being said, it is both possible that Hans didn't cheat and we'll never know for sure, or that he did cheat and we'll never know how. Given these facts, the most productive analysis would be to find just how unusual Hans' performance, both in the game and prior, really was. A few things could be determined: 1. How many other high level players have a history of cheating? Have any players who have once cheated in a lower stakes match later been proven to have cheated in a higher stakes one? 2. Based on improvement per game played, how unusually rapid was Hans' development in the past 2 years? Are there other players which have progressed as rapidly as he has despite having progressed slower earlier in their careers? 3. Do all the engine correlation analyses that implicate Hans not fire warning signals when analysis any other game by confirmed non-cheaters? Do they signal cheating in a similar way when analyzing games of proven cheaters?
  • Maursault 4y ago
    > It is impossible to prove a negative Since this statement is itself a negative, you've presented a paradox, because if it were proven true it would then be false.
    • planetsprite 4y ago
      I'll amend my statement It is easier to prove a positive since it requires only the "smoking gun" to be made apparent. It is much harder to disprove a negative because it requires hypothetical smoking gun that could have caused the effect (Han's beating of Magnus) to be disproven. Since we don't have a record of every electromagnetic and sonic wave which passed through the room the day Hans beat Magnus, disproving the cheating claim is likely impossible.
      • bombcar 4y ago
• alphabetting 4y ago
  Saying he needs legal permission to say more seems ridiculous. Hans' reputation is in the gutter and Magnus has accused him of cheating. That's likely enough grounds for legal action and why would the most powerful chess play in the world be afraid about facing some kid in court?
• 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  Until it is proven that your opponent cheated you need to be more gracious in your defeat.
• roflyear 4y ago
  https://twitter.com/ben_finegold/status/1574506362658181120 https://twitter.com/ben_finegold/status/1574506362658181120
• markwkw 4y ago
  Chess is, in a way, doomed. At this point cheating by a smart perpetrator is nearly impossible to detect. - Miniature devices can even be implanted. You can probably already have a chess engine onboard your body. - Accomplices of a cheater only need to transmit a few bits of information to be useful - making cheating cheap when audience is allowed. - Statistical methods will not be able to detect a player increasing their apparent skill by a small margin (help with occasional moves, successively picking suggestions from a varied group of chess engines so that adherence to one engine cannot be proven) Given this, we will be left with cheaters getting caught rarely through obvious slips in op-sec (device falls out, gets picked by a detector through unlucky occurrence) or We will be forever accusing people of cheating. They will deny it. We will ask them to explain why they made certain moves. They will fail to explain themselves sufficiently... Are we here yet?
  • derac 4y ago
    You could play in a Faraday cage, use an SDR and check for weird radio signals, and other steps. Some of this would only really be feasible at the highest levels, but that's where going to those lengths is needed.
    • rurban 4y ago
      We just had a project on HN with the stockfish engine and sensors both in the shoe. No radio signals whatsoever needed.
      • derac 4y ago
        The other steps would have to include thoroughly checking clothing.
        • FartyMcFarter 4y ago
          That just means cheaters will have to embed the devices in their body.
• Sebb767 4y ago
  The discussions in this thread remind me a lot of the Mike Postle Poker scandal: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21161043 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21161043 It was a similar case where cheating was theoretically possible and alleged, but could not be proven. Only difference is that the Mike Postle case was a far bigger statistical anomaly.
• ukgenv 4y ago
  I don't particularly mind Carlsen's actions (leaving the Sinquefield cup and resigning a game against Niemann in the Julius Baer Cup). I also watched Niemann's games in the Julius Baer Cup, and he certainly has an uncanny ability to switch on some form of an afterburner against people like Aronian, Ivanchuk, Pragg and Duda. Perhaps he is that talented, but I can understand that the top players do not feel at ease. On the other hand I'm not too happy about chess.com turning into some form of credit rating agency for top chess players. If I were above 2500, I wouldn't play there. Too much to lose if their proprietary algorithms misfire. As a European, I'd certainly issue a GDPR information request for my cheating score, followed by a deletion request for all personal data.
• School-Cotton 4y ago
  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 new crime with no other evidence just because he committed similar crimes in the past. However, it would be entirely natural for a reasonable person to assume that theft is the most likely explanation of the facts, and to avoid trusting that person. This is basically what happened with Hans. He has been caught cheating multiple times, and then had an unusually fast rise in rating. Is that rise impossible? No. But it’s consistent with cheating, and given his history, cheating is the simplest explanation. So it would be totally normal for Magnus to refuse to trust such a person even though it can’t be conclusively proven that he’s still dirty. But even then, Magnus agreed to play against him, until further circumstantial evidence came to light and it just got to be too much. So, is it possible that Hans is clean? Sure. If that’s indeed the case, do I feel sorry for him? No. He made the choice to destroy his own reputation when he cheated multiple times. If he doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt now, it’s on him.
  • a9entroy 4y ago
    That's not a complete analogy tho. Everyone knows Hans cheated in the past. But Magnus is going beyond that and saying that Hans cheated in the over-the-board game against him. Coming back to your analogy. So now imagine this person suddenly has a new shiny car but he also has the Title and registration for that car. Not only that, someone reported him to the cops and the cops said that the car is not stolen. He also has income tax returns that show that he has a legit source of income. Would it be natural for a reasonable person to assume that theft is the most likely explanation?
    • School-Cotton 4y ago
      I don’t understand your analogy. There’s no evidence that Hans didn’t cheat in the game against Magnus. This isn’t Hans’s fault, as it’s hard to imagine what such evidence could even be possible, but the fact remains that there’s nothing comparable to having the title, etc. to a car.
• Waterluvian 4y ago
  I have no opinions on the actual event given I have no clue what the details are. But accusing someone of cheating without any concrete evidence doesn’t sit well with me. It creates a situation where it declares all exceptional cases impossible. It’s impossible for growth. It’s impossible that someone could lose to a weaker player. I suspect that people are able to say “even without concrete evidence, this is astronomically unlikely and the simplest explanation by far is that they cheated.” Nevertheless, it all just doesn’t quite sit right with me. There’s something manifestly unpalatable about saying, “they cheated because surely nobody could ever do that.” Please don’t see this comment as something that warrants explanation for why the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. I’m not really interested in the merits of this specific case. I’m also probably doing a poor job communicating this feeling I struggle myself to understand.
  • spuz 4y ago
    I think you're uneasy because you're assuming the accusation of cheating has to do with the outcome of Hans's games but I don't believe that's the criterion Magnus is using. Magnus has been beaten many times before, but that doesn't automatically cause him to suspect his opponent of cheating. Magnus's suspicions arise from a sum of many different factors some of which he mentioned in this tweet and some of which he clearly can't talk about. If we judge people based on their past actions, their suspicious behaviour during the game or during the post-game analysis then it doesn't preclude the advancement of a legitimate genius player.
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  • victor9000 4y ago
    There's no smoking gun, but it's so blatantly obvious. Hans has floundered incredibly in postgame analysis after some of his recent wins, saying things like "I don't need to show variations" and "chess speaks for itself". For those who are not familiar, postgame analysis is where a player sits down with a commentator (often a retired GM) and discusses the key positions in the game. This universally involves describing the variations for a potential move, and explaining the logic for choosing a particular line. So his inability to speak coherently about a position where he won the match is perhaps the most glaring clue that his recent wins have not been earned.
• Revery42 4y ago
  Perhaps an interesting piece of this is that high-level play is becoming so close to computer play that cheating is increasingly difficult to uncover. I feel that something in the sport has become lost from all this.
• snapetom 4y ago
  As an outsider, this debate has been entertaining for me. This is happening in online tournaments with money at stake. Is it just me, or are you basically just begging for some sort of shenanigans to occur?
• noncoml 4y ago
  Here is a crazy idea. If you get caught cheating, even once, you should be banned for life. Otherwise we end up in a lose-lose situation. It’s almost impossible for Magnus to prove Niemann cheated on that game. It’s impossible for Niemann to prove he didn’t cheat. But shouldn’t matter. He was caught cheating before, he shouldn’t have been allowed to compete again. I don’t remember Ben Johnson or Lance Armstrong getting a pass Edit: Replies seem to focus on my examples. Forget about them. Proposition stands. If you are old enough to compete you are old enough to be banned for life if you cheat. Online or OTB.
  • roflyear 4y ago
    Nieman was never caught cheating OTB
    • lupire 4y ago
      This is correct. Despite FIDE's request, there is not yet official collaboration between chess.com Fair Play and FIDE.
  • akudha 4y ago
    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
    • jquery 4y ago
      And cycling became a punchline because of it. I think Magnus wants to avoid that fate for chess.
      • akudha 4y ago
        Understandable. There is just too much money and fame in sports - people are going to try to cheat. It is upto the governing bodies to reduce cheating to a minimum, if eliminating it completely isn’t practically feasible. 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!
• hughw 4y ago
  A search of these comments reveals possibly the first violation of Godwin's Law ever recorded.
  • Havoc 4y ago
    I hereby posit that there may need to be an addendum: For the purposes of Godwin’s law Hans may be deemed equivalent to Nazi. You know: >Hans get ze Flammenwerfer
• dredmorbius 4y ago
  Nitter / Regwall / Dark patterns: <https://nitter.net/MagnusCarlsen/status/1574482694406565888 https://nitter.net/MagnusCarlsen/status/1574482694406565888>
  • Lapsa 4y ago
    thanks, didn't know about the Nitter
    • dredmorbius 4y ago
      It's quite handy. Among other features: - You can configure alternative front-ends for other services, including YouTube, Instagram, and Reddit. - It supports RSS. Feeds for accounts or queries. E.g., a search for "dredmorbius" (I occasionally get quoted or mentioned, mostly by bots): <https://nitter.kavin.rocks/search/rss?f=tweets&q=dredmorbius https://nitter.kavin.rocks/search/rss?f=tweets&q=dredmorbius> - Themes, including a dark mode if you prefer.
• wnevets 4y ago
  Anyone who has played online video games long enough won't find this story about a known cheater getting caught again surprising. Its almost remarkable to see the same commentary and excuses being used for a counterstrike (fill in your multiple player game here) cheater playing out with a "proper" game like chess.
• qq66 4y ago
  This is way too much accusation without any evidence, and a terrible blow to Carlsen's sterling reputation. What he should have said was: "Niemann is an admitted chess cheater, and has cheated even more than he has admitted to, per Chess.com's recent statement. Cheating destroys the game and I refuse to play against known cheaters. I will not play Hans Niemann or any other known cheaters."
  • chrononaut 4y ago
    I am confused. Isn't that what he essentially said? What other accusations is he making (the "more than he publicly admitted" part aligns to your Chess.com reference), other than the addition of his observations of his behaviors during their match? Are you referring to the concluding paragraph?
    • warinukraine 4y ago
      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.
      • fastball 4y ago
        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".
        • qq66 4y ago
          The distinction is whether he cheated previously to the Sinquefield Cup or at the Sinquefield Cup itself. It's a critically important distinction.
          • deleted 4y ago
            [deleted]
• uup 4y ago
  This situation is creating an entirely new meta in the chess world. It’s clearly advantageous to have others think you’re cheating. Players should start deactivating their chess.com accounts, start a rumor that they’ve cheated, and then take advantage of other players’ mental state during competition. The only downside is that a top GM could shadow an you by claiming you cheated without providing any evidence.
  • traes 4y ago
    ...what?
• Havoc 4y ago
  Hope he has something better up his sleeve than “he wasn’t concentrating right”
• kennyloginz 4y ago
  Can any radio people chime in? What would be a reasonable ( affordablish ) way to detect signals at an over the board tournament?
  • CamperBob2 4y ago
    Given the low information bandwidth -- single-digit bits per second, transmitted in bursts with an extremely low duty cycle -- it's impossible to detect such signals in the general case. One way to conceal conventionally-modulated pulse signals would be to superimpose them against legitimate signals like local FM broadcast stations, for instance. Another strategy would be to use spreading codes to randomize the timing of very brief pulses, rendering them completely indistinguishable from static. The best way to catch this type of activity would be by detecting the presence of the equipment itself, such as with a nonlinear junction detector. This is a piece of gear that generates a small number of strong, spectrally-pure RF signals and listens for distortion products that indicate the presence of semiconductors nearby that are acting as mixers (which they will, whether they're designed to or not.) You can find anything from a hidden bug to a rusty rivet on a gutter that way. Even so, an NLJ sweep is no guarantee of success. The active devices in the transmitter and receiver could be biased into hard conduction or cutoff except when being used, for instance. People have joked about "anal beads," but the fact is that a buttplug would be a near-flawless platform for such a communication system. You have the fine muscle control needed to transmit your opponent's moves to an accomplice via any number of pressure or motion transducers, and obviously you have the ability to perceive electrical or mechanical impulses received in return. If X-rays are ruled out for safety and if cavity searches are ruled out for modesty, detecting something like this would be a challenge for the highest-level government TSCM teams.
    • kennyloginz 4y ago
      Thanks!
  • TT-392 4y ago
    With modern digital signals, which can be encrypted, and be pretty low power. And with there being lots of radio signals from unknown sources in any populated area. I doubt you'd be able to distinguish the signal from the noise. Unless the entire thing takes place in a fariday cage.
• iambateman 4y ago
  This whole situation is _not_ a Hans problem…it’s a FIDE problem. They don’t know how to reliably adjudicate claims of cheating, so it ends up being a massive game of “he said he said.” As the game gets more popular, they have a tremendous amount of work to do to guarantee game integrity – not unlike the work baseball had to do with steroids. If other world top-50 players even think Hans cheated and got away with it, it creates an open door for lots more unscrupulous players to look for their own cheating schemes. We need to stop being so focused on a 19-year-old child and start asking chess organizers some hard questions about what they are planning to do to guarantee clean chess.
  • nonethewiser 4y ago
    They should do 2 things going forward: 1. Ramp up anti cheat across the board. Stream delay, collect metrics which trigger an INTERNAL review at a certain threshold, etc. 2. Give players a process for lodging a suspicion of cheating. Part of this would be working with FIDE, not starting public drama. Fine them if they break the rules of that process.
    • smcl 4y ago
      > Stream delay Good god yes, I couldn't believe they didn't have a stream delay in the original Hans/Magnus game that kicked this off
      • gsinclair 4y ago
        Especially given the organisers were approached by at least one super-GM requesting extra security before the tournament started.
• maegul 4y ago
  For me, this weakens Magnus's case. Obviously there's more information that isn't being disclosed, and until the definitive information comes to light we're all going to be left in the dark. Nonetheless, addressing this statement, it basically reveals that Magnus couldn't trust Hans before the tournament and especially the game they played in which Magnus lost as white. Essentially, there isn't a game where Magnus loses to Hans and doesn't see cheating. He'd probably suspect cheating even if he won so long as there was some "unusually good play" from Hans. So, excluding cheating as a possibility, the probability of Magnus strongly suspecting cheating given that he loses to Hans, however unlikely, looks like about 100%. I haven't been following this closely (so please correct any details), but Hans's defence of how well he played in the game seems consistent with him playing unusually well and Magnus's observations. IE, Hans claims that he happened to prepare the opening Magnus played because he was trying to think of ways Magnus would play unpredictable openings, which is something, AFAIK, Magnus tends to do. It also seems plausible that Hans would prepare much more for the game against Magnus than anyone else. That combined with some luck and having a good day all seems consistent with not only winning unexpectedly but a relatively unusual demeanour. And on the demeanour points Magnus makes, can we take a moment to imagine being him in the game: already suspecting cheating, running into someone who seems prepared for your "unusual/unexpected opening" and then being down as white ... what would you see on the other side of the board? How could you not read into any tick or gesture? Moreover, how focused are you? Would this not be the set of circumstances where you're going to play unusually badly? My vague understanding is that Magnus did indeed make some blunders in the game. The question for me is how well did Magnus play relative to his own level? Overall, on the general point of cheating, Magnus is probably very much on point. His unilateral action on this seems on par with World Champions thinking they're as big as the game itself, for better or worse. On the specific point of whether Hans cheated in this game, I think that "innocent until proven guilty" is the only thing that will keep things together because if Magnus is wrong and Hans is bullied out of the game because of this then it will only contribute to the ugliness of a cheating crisis not remove it, IMO. That a cheating accusation is as ugly as this has been already is already a black mark against all those involved in managing the sport. Should it turn out that Hans did cheat, for instance, it's not a good look that the undisputed world champion had to or felt he had to forfeit a tournament and a game in another tournament to make his point. Otherwise for the sport of Chess, it'd be a sad sport indeed if exciting and unexpected moments like Magnus's loss to Hans can't exist in it and the difference between "great" and "cheater" is whether you get help from a computer before or during the game.
• WastingMyTime89 4y ago
  I’m glad Magnus has now acknowledged he is on a personal crusade against a teenager with absolutely no proof to bake him except his own feelings. I think we can safely assume this is the moment people will remember as him losing the plot. I now wait to see if FIDE will do what they should and sanction him but I am not sure I have faith.
• viridian 4y ago
  Some interesting meta observations for the few people who read my comment in this already enormous thread. I noticed that opinions on the issue seemed split rather 50/50 until I started seeing the same couple of names over and over on the "no evidence of cheating" side. And in fact, searching the HTML document for this page for a particularly prolific name yields that they make up about 10% of all posts in the thread. I'm not sure why someone would respond to dozens of all comment threads, but the different tones of voice, presented familiarity with the topic, between posts are disconcerting. I've never accused anyone of being a bot or shill (nor am I now) because I've seen starry-eyed true believers of just about every cause, idea, and entity, but this behavior is exceptionally unusual.
  • dylan604 4y ago
    Do you even need to search the HTML? Just a generic find of the browser's search will reveal the same info. Not sure why you'd need to go to that trouble. at the time I read this and replied, your comment was top of the stack. without reading the full comments, i'm already reading your comment as someone that's got their knickers in a twist rather than reading a substantive comment. so hopefully that's what you wanted?
    • viridian 4y ago
      New comments start out at the top and sink within a few minutes, only a select few will have that problem. Ctrl+f gives false positives for name mentions, and searching the html is just as easy. Benefits of having spent so much time dealing with css style/class related bugs, I guess.
  • knaik94 4y ago
    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.
    • goatlover 4y ago
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• xiaodai 4y ago
  maybe humans just need to invent a new game that computers aren't good at. Arimaa was cool but then got beat by computers soon after gloating how it's resistant to alpha-beta pruning etc.
• account-5 4y ago
  Maybe in future the players have to play in an isolated (no spectators) but monitored environment (cameras), naked (minimum clothing provided if absolutely necessary). Then it's only prisoner wallets to consider, which full body scanners can sort out.
• ur-whale 4y ago
  https://nitter.net/MagnusCarlsen/status/1574482694406565888 https://nitter.net/MagnusCarlsen/status/1574482694406565888
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• Lapsa 4y ago
• porquilho 4y ago
  "GREATES CHESS PLAYER ALIVE" = larper, everyone is larping today, nobody true.
• raindear 4y ago
  Is it possible to put a computer in a shoe, that would be powerful enough? Or does it take a large computer to beat a GM?
  • ycuser2 4y ago
    You could put a Pi Zero with WiFi in your shoe and do the calculations somewhere else.
    • raindear 4y ago
      But it could be detected with RF.
• nathan_f77 4y ago
  So now they just need to set up a match that takes place in a Faraday cage, and check each player using a full-body scanner. I'd watch that!
• dominis 4y ago
  Hungary already solved this, it's harder to cheat in a bath in swimsuit: https://www.awl-images.com/cache/pcache2/00042940.jpg https://www.awl-images.com/cache/pcache2/00042940.jpg
• yewenjie 4y ago
  In this thread, people who have no idea how chess engines work, hell, even just how the game of chess works, are taking centipawn analysis, engine correlation and various other metrics to support their claims. Anyone who has studied with engines for a decent amount of time knows those numbers themselves are often misleading as just statistics. To be clear, I'm not supporting either side of the debate, I'm just stating that people are throwing in numbers in a confident and convincing tone without understanding what those numbers mean.
• krick 4y ago
  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, or whatever this particular federation does with cheaters). Public statement must be given by federation and/or organizers, after which players may be allowed to speak up. Or a player isn't caught, and then you keep your fucking opinion to yourself (except of informing the arbiters, of course), however great champion you may be. In fact, the greater you are, the more responsibility you have, and even if you are borderline sure the opponent has cheated (but have no legal proof) — you really should be mindful of possibility that your are mistaken, and of what consequences your (however "legally non-binding") allegations may bear, given how prominent you are. I.e., this is an issue that must be dealt by organizers — not players, not reddit users and surely not youtube bloggers. Otherwise, what happens is that somebody totally innocent (and I'm not talking about Niemann — the point is, that it really could have been ANYBODY) can be publicly executed on a whim of a great King of Chess. Seriously, just think about it. A person's whole carrier may be ruined, he may be driven to a suicide, just because… Magnus has suspicions? Does it sit well with you? Also, all of this is far beyond the question of if a suspect has cheated in the past. I mean, I think it's fair to say that refusing to play somebody who the federation/organizers do not ban, can (and should) be considered ill sportsmanship and be frowned upon — but this is just my personal opinion and means nothing. This said, I guess it should be acceptable that one may publicly refuse to play a person who is known to have cheated in the past (or for any other reason — and the criteria of refusal being potentially arbitrary is why I find this problematic). But then you kinda should make this statement before you play them, or at least make a note to yourself to do it after the tournament has finished, instead of throwing a tantrum just after you lose a game to that person (a game that you played really poorly, according to many respectable experts in the field, by the way… which isn't the point of course). But, obviously, one cannot (and shouldn't) be expected to make the best and most moral decision all of the time. Which is why this should be handled (and even enforced) by the arbiters/event organizers/federation. And it would be too kind to say that it wasn't — it was literally the opposite of that! They were throwing fuel to the fire all way along! This is obscene.
• erfgh 4y ago
  This is a farce. All credibility has been lost when you have to scan players like you scan people when entering a plane. Chess is touted as an ingenious game when it is little more than a brute-force search with simple prune and huge amounts of memorization. I would argue that most GMs would easily play up to 200-300 elo points below their current level with little to no practice. But they spend decades of their lives memorizing and memorizing just to get the highest rating they can. And it is diminishing returns --- if you spent 1000 hours memorizing to get 100 points, the next 1000 hours will only get you 50 points. And when you reach your peak --- be prepared to keep memorizing forever just to stay there and inevitably drop when you reach a certain age. What a waste of intelligence. It is telling that nobody is pushing for chess960. This would greatly devalue memorization and make chess a brute-force-search-with-simple-prune game once again, as it was meant to be. But that's exactly the problem; if you are at the top after doing all this memorization you don't want to throw it away! In fact, your memorization might be better than your calculation in which case you will be surpassed by other players.
  • fastball 4y ago
    > It is telling that nobody is pushing for chess960 I mean chess960 seems to be on the up, no? FIDE had their first ever world champs only three years ago (where notably Carlsen still made it to the final, though did end up losing to Wesley So)
  • nottorp 4y ago
    I have no idea about the main topic of this discussion. But I did lose all interest in chess years ago when I realized the same thing: at the top level it's not about thinking but about memorizing (at the least) openings. I believe go is too complex for the human mind to memorize strategies? Human mind, not computer.
  • lastofthemojito 4y ago
    I feel similarly about a lot of games and sports as they're played at the very highest levels. Scrabble is a fun game to play with kids, or sometimes with adults, and having a bigger vocabulary is an advantage. But competitive Scrabble means memorizing the dictionary of allowable Scrabble words. It's just a different game. There was the story a while back about the Scrabble champion who doesn't speak French but memorized French Scrabble words and won the French-language Scrabble World Championships: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/07/21/424980378/winner-of-french-scrabble-title-does-not-speak-french https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/07/21/424980378... And that's fine - competition spurs invention to find any advantage possible. But to me it'd be more impressive to see someone play an obscure Scrabble world, and then when you ask what the word means, they're actually familiar with it, rather than "eh, it's in the word list".
• eimrine 4y ago
  I'm not very interested in chess, but I think I came up with the perfect option for cheating. You swallow a tablet with a radio receiver and a vibration motor, having studied the Morse code before this. You can even play naked, as Hans suggested. Happy discovery.
• LightG 4y ago
  I have sympathy with Magnus. Once a cheat, not always a cheat ... but you built the reputation of being a cheat and that's all on the cheat. It's on the cheat to literally bend-over backwards (lol) to assure people they have changed.
• DocTomoe 4y ago
  At this time, and with the different claims (use of sex toys as a cheating device, "I can't name specifics" wink wink), and with the pacing this comes up (every 7-10 days), I get the distinct impression that this is more about character assassination than honesty in chess tournaments.
• zakk 4y ago
  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
• t_mann 4y ago
  "I had the impression that he wasn't tense or even fully concentrating on the game in critical positions, while outplaying me as black in a way I think only a handful of players can do." That's a mere gut feeling, how on earth is Niemann supposed to defend against such a vague allegation? Magnus is a world-class competitor not only in chess but also in fantasy football and even quite decent at poker, so it stands to reason that he knows a thing or two about statistics and game theory. I was hoping he'd have far more concrete evidence than what he shared in this statement (like maybe he was playing a game that he'd deliberately prepared to test how long Niemann will take to compute certain hard-to-spot key moves; even that would still be extremely vague, but at least give Niemann something to concretely address). He is such an outstanding brain that I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but he needs to produce concrete evidence. In the end Magnus hints that he has more to share, and I hope he will do so soon. Otherwise I don't see how we could get to any sort of satisfying resolution here (short of Niemann suddenly confessing, which seems unlikely, and we still don't have evidence that he has anything to confess at all).
• bardan 4y ago
  Wouldn't installing a few RF sweepers and audio recorders in the play area account for any feasible methods of cheating?
• phlipski 4y ago
  Naked chess in a Faraday cage. Problem solved.
• dandanua 4y ago
  Here is Niemann's statement https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJZuT-_kij0&t=921s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJZuT-_kij0&t=921s In my opinion, it's more probable that Magnus is not just a chess player anymore. He is a chess tycoon that has a huge stake in chess business and a huge fanbase. And he is using that power frivolously.
• gray_-_wolf 4y ago
  This is probably naive question, but if the main concern here is remote assistance (at least that is my impression without following this too closely), why not just flood the room with wide spectrum EM jamming? I mean, let Niemann have his bluetooth buttplug if nothing can communicate with it.
• schnulller 4y ago
  I dont play chess that much but I think this discussion is somewhat interesting, because all the hobby analysts and human lie detectors come out with things like: look how this guy nervously swallowed, look at this timestamp what is he doing why is he leaning forward and all that stuff. it goes up to the point where even intelligent people will believe that there must have been some device in his shoe, or elsewhere, putting a theory out there as the truth that, now, afterwards, can't be proved, but - more importantly - cant be disproved. That stuff is really dangerous. It is dangerous, because people who do that know exactly they will not be able to provide evidence for their hypothesis to be true, but the other side won't be able to provide evidence either. So they rely solely on their convincing powers, and persuading others into their own belief system instead applying to reason. I think, if at all, that all just proves one thing, something that scientists knew all along: if you want your thesis to be true, you will start interpreting reality in a fashion that supports your hypothesis. We don't do science like that for precisely this reason. After all this, I think Magnus really ridiculed himself with this. His strongest evidence is "he wasn't tense"? Really, though?
• nurettin 4y ago
  You might have a stockfish, buttfish, or whatever hidden somewhere on your body. But how the game position is transmitted to the said device is a hard problem and just handwaved away as a triviality.