4 ms·

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.

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.
- roflyear 4y ago
  Fabi also said (during the same interview, I'm sure) that he doesn't think Hans cheated. Your last statement there is really misleading and even dishonest.
  - hellcow 4y ago
    No, it is not dishonest. Fabi said don’t trust Regan’s analysis. He also said that he didn’t think Hans cheated in that one game given the moves played (before Magnus gave his reasoning, so perhaps Fabi’s opinion would change). Fabi never said “Hans is not a cheater.” Rather, he argued it’s possible to cheat, and detection methods FIDE uses are not sufficient. If Hans is cheating, Fabi implied that Regan’s analysis likely wouldn’t catch it. Magnus, Ian, and Hikaru at the very least have pretty openly (given the legal threats flying around) said/implied they believe Hans cheats, and chess.com has very explicitly said this. Maybe not all of their comments and beliefs focus on this particular OTB game, but that’s not how you catch a cheater, since it’s rare to find a smoking gun. You look at a pattern of behavior. Hans has cheated in the past, and many top players believe he is cheating in some way, in at least some games, on a continued basis… which is why Magnus refuses to play Hans, and why we’re even having this discussion.
    - roflyear 4y ago
      Those players have not said that.
    - Sebb767 4y ago
      > If Hans is cheating, Fabi implied that Regan’s analysis likely wouldn’t catch it. He implied that maybe it would not catch it. I don't read it as a "likely", especially given the fact that he said he doesn't think Hans cheated in this case.
      - roflyear 4y ago
        Yeah. All nuance is out the window with this drama. Either you're one side or the other. Fabi seems to have been trying to take a nuanced stance, but it is being interpreted as him saying he thinks Hans cheated, which is not true at all.
ouid 4y ago
having a history of cheating in a game that is mostly otherwise honor bound is a very very very bad sign. Don't be fooled by the "when he was younger" bit. Everything that you did you did when you were younger, it has been less time since hans was last caught cheating than the interval between that time and the previous one. Don't let the statisticians convince you that they know what they're doing either. Statistics, as a discipline, is essentially predicated on the principle that the objects of study do not know that they are being observed. Without this assumption, the domain is now more accurately described as game theory. Statisticians will happily and confidently ignore this and draw very wrong conclusions as a result.
- Maursault 4y ago
  > Statistics, as a discipline, is essentially predicated on the principle that the objects of study do not know that they are being observed. There is no such "principle" in statistics. Statistics is based on statistical methodology, i.e. formulas, models, and techniques that are used in statistical analysis of raw research data, which is collected, organized, analyzed, interpreted and presented. The Hawthorne effect, "a type of reactivity in which individuals modify an aspect of their behavior in response to their awareness of being observed,"[1] arose from analysis of a statistical study. > Without this assumption, the domain is now more accurately described as game theory. Game theory is utilized for decision-making in strategic environments where rational agents interact with each other. Statistics, on the other hand, is employed for reasoning in non-adversarial settings where the samples are assumed to be generated by some stationary and non-reactive source. > Statisticians will happily and confidently ignore this and draw very wrong conclusions as a result. Contradiction. You've already claimed that statistics is "essentially predicated on the principle that the objects of study do not know that they are being observed." Yet now you're claiming experts "confidently" ignore their discipline's "essentially predicated" principle. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect
  - ouid 4y ago
    There is a difference between a subject that changes with observation and a subject that changes adversarially with your statistical methods. A qualitative difference.

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.

roflyear 4y ago
Fabi also said (during the same interview, I'm sure) that he doesn't think Hans cheated. Your last statement there is really misleading and even dishonest.
- hellcow 4y ago
  No, it is not dishonest. Fabi said don’t trust Regan’s analysis. He also said that he didn’t think Hans cheated in that one game given the moves played (before Magnus gave his reasoning, so perhaps Fabi’s opinion would change). Fabi never said “Hans is not a cheater.” Rather, he argued it’s possible to cheat, and detection methods FIDE uses are not sufficient. If Hans is cheating, Fabi implied that Regan’s analysis likely wouldn’t catch it. Magnus, Ian, and Hikaru at the very least have pretty openly (given the legal threats flying around) said/implied they believe Hans cheats, and chess.com has very explicitly said this. Maybe not all of their comments and beliefs focus on this particular OTB game, but that’s not how you catch a cheater, since it’s rare to find a smoking gun. You look at a pattern of behavior. Hans has cheated in the past, and many top players believe he is cheating in some way, in at least some games, on a continued basis… which is why Magnus refuses to play Hans, and why we’re even having this discussion.
  - roflyear 4y ago
    Those players have not said that.
  - Sebb767 4y ago
    > If Hans is cheating, Fabi implied that Regan’s analysis likely wouldn’t catch it. He implied that maybe it would not catch it. I don't read it as a "likely", especially given the fact that he said he doesn't think Hans cheated in this case.
    - roflyear 4y ago
      Yeah. All nuance is out the window with this drama. Either you're one side or the other. Fabi seems to have been trying to take a nuanced stance, but it is being interpreted as him saying he thinks Hans cheated, which is not true at all.

ouid 4y ago

having a history of cheating in a game that is mostly otherwise honor bound is a very very very bad sign. Don't be fooled by the "when he was younger" bit. Everything that you did you did when you were younger, it has been less time since hans was last caught cheating than the interval between that time and the previous one. Don't let the statisticians convince you that they know what they're doing either. Statistics, as a discipline, is essentially predicated on the principle that the objects of study do not know that they are being observed. Without this assumption, the domain is now more accurately described as game theory. Statisticians will happily and confidently ignore this and draw very wrong conclusions as a result.

Maursault 4y ago
> Statistics, as a discipline, is essentially predicated on the principle that the objects of study do not know that they are being observed. There is no such "principle" in statistics. Statistics is based on statistical methodology, i.e. formulas, models, and techniques that are used in statistical analysis of raw research data, which is collected, organized, analyzed, interpreted and presented. The Hawthorne effect, "a type of reactivity in which individuals modify an aspect of their behavior in response to their awareness of being observed,"[1] arose from analysis of a statistical study. > Without this assumption, the domain is now more accurately described as game theory. Game theory is utilized for decision-making in strategic environments where rational agents interact with each other. Statistics, on the other hand, is employed for reasoning in non-adversarial settings where the samples are assumed to be generated by some stationary and non-reactive source. > Statisticians will happily and confidently ignore this and draw very wrong conclusions as a result. Contradiction. You've already claimed that statistics is "essentially predicated on the principle that the objects of study do not know that they are being observed." Yet now you're claiming experts "confidently" ignore their discipline's "essentially predicated" principle. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect
- ouid 4y ago
  There is a difference between a subject that changes with observation and a subject that changes adversarially with your statistical methods. A qualitative difference.