5 ms·

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 eviden

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.
- onemoresoop 4y ago
  I play chess casually and wanted to note that 2600 is pretty darn good. I'll never reach that number but will never stress over it either.
yreg 4y ago
>the fact that Carlsen is making this statement now and not weeks earlier is embarrassing Why?
- roflyear 4y ago
  Left the fanbase to stew about it for weeks. Ridiculous. This just makes things worse.
jobs_throwaway 4y ago
>I can understand being suspicious of online games. Fair enough. But the evidence for cheating offline is... How can people act like the evidence of online cheating doesn't affect the likelihood that he cheated OTB? This is the exact same person playing both games. Circumstantial evidence is still evidence
- utopcell 4y ago
  But what is the circumstantial evidence here ? The argument essentially boils down to: "this guy cheated in the past, so I don't trust that he won't cheat in the future". This is fair: he should decide whom he wants to play with, but no proof was actually presented.
- denlekke 4y ago
  i agree that past cheating probably makes it more likely that someone would cheat in the future but i also see a relevant difference in the ease and risk of cheating online vs OTB, so i don't see them as perfect equivalents

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.
onemoresoop 4y ago
I play chess casually and wanted to note that 2600 is pretty darn good. I'll never reach that number but will never stress over it either.

yreg 4y ago

>the fact that Carlsen is making this statement now and not weeks earlier is embarrassing Why?

roflyear 4y ago
Left the fanbase to stew about it for weeks. Ridiculous. This just makes things worse.

jobs_throwaway 4y ago

>I can understand being suspicious of online games. Fair enough. But the evidence for cheating offline is... How can people act like the evidence of online cheating doesn't affect the likelihood that he cheated OTB? This is the exact same person playing both games. Circumstantial evidence is still evidence

utopcell 4y ago
But what is the circumstantial evidence here ? The argument essentially boils down to: "this guy cheated in the past, so I don't trust that he won't cheat in the future". This is fair: he should decide whom he wants to play with, but no proof was actually presented.
denlekke 4y ago
i agree that past cheating probably makes it more likely that someone would cheat in the future but i also see a relevant difference in the ease and risk of cheating online vs OTB, so i don't see them as perfect equivalents