6 ms·

How did Niemann cheat? Magnus uses Niemann's outplaying as evidence but is there anything concrete?

by joemazerino 4y ago

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?

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?