36 ms·

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 in

by 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.
- esrauch 4y ago
  A bunch of grandmasters have now talked about the psychological aspect of even just wondering if your opponent could possibly by cheating, and second guessing if a bad looking move by your opponent might actually be a brilliant engine line. It seems that might even be enough for Hans as a 2675 rated player to get an edge against 2800+ player without even actually cheating
  - 8note 4y ago
    Won't they run into the same issue playing strong players? A weird Magnus move might be a blunder or a brilliant line he calculated? Are GMs cheating against NMs because there's said skill gap?
    - spuz 4y ago
      To some extent yes, but humans tend to make moves that follow some kind of reasoning or logic. When you play a strong opponent, it's possible that you won't see the next move that they play, but once they have played it, you can deduce the logic they used in order to make it. An engine move on the other hand can easily reject the standard strategies and can appear highly irrational. When you see this kind of move, it becomes easier to suspect cheating.
    - PKop 4y ago
      yes but the computer is just so much more powerful, as well as it makes seemingly weird moves more often, as well as it can get itself out of a "bad" line if pushed that way much easier.
  - lmm 4y ago
    I've definitely experienced that, playing mahjong against a guy who was behaving oddly in the European championships. But all you can do is have strict referreeing and stricter penalties for anyone who is caught cheating even once (which seems to be missing in the chess world given the player in question's record). You certainly can't try to retroactively impose a vigilante penalty that FIDE haven't.
  - 4y ago
Tenoke 4y ago
200 points difference means a 25% chance to win, so I doubt just 1 hint is enough to bridge that gap consistently. Many high level games are won by grinding out a small advantage. I'll take a 2700 with 3 hints against a 2800 though.
- gamegoblin 4y ago
  The "200 points difference means 25% chance to win" breaks down at the highest levels. It works fine near the middle of the bell curve -- i.e. 800-2000 Elo -- but once you get to 2200 Elo you are talking about the >99th percentile. For example, I don't know of a single 2400 player who can score an average of 0.25 against 2600 players. Even at my own mediocre level of 1800, I definitely do not score 0.25 against 2000 rated players. More like 0.1 if I'm feeling sharp.
  - stouset 4y ago
    As an example of this, until the Niemann game Magnus had a 53-game win^H^H^Hunbeaten streak. Prior to this he had a 125-game unbeaten streak. Many (most?) of these games were played against competitors within 200 Elo. Many of these were played against the 10 next-best chess players in the world. The back of the envelope percentage calculation absolutely does not apply at this level of chess. In reality if Niemann were to play Magnus in 100 games, he would be exceedingly lucky to win one game.
    - dfan 4y ago
      I disagree with the second paragraph but not enough to get into a public debate about it. But it is worth pointing out that Carlsen's 53-game streak was a non-loss streak, not a win streak. Many of those games were draws.
      - stouset 4y ago
        You are of course correct on that point and I have edited my comment.
    - 4y ago
nonethewiser 4y ago
> (or Niemann, if concrete evidence against him emerges) This window seems closed though. Carlsen seems to have no evidence. Where else could the evidence come from? All we have is character attacks. Even if justified, they can't prove that he cheated. All we know for sure is that Carlsen accused him of cheating with no evidence.
- stouset 4y ago
  What hard evidence—exactly—do you expect Carlsen to be able to produce? Alternatively, imagine anyone in a similar position. What hard evidence can anyone produce in situations such as this? 100% serious question.
  - roflyear 4y ago
    I don't expect him to produce evidence, but I expect him to say more than "I suspect he cheated" If he saw something unusual, like "Hans was messing with his shoe" or "I heard several vibrations coming from Hans during the game" etc.. that would be at least something. It would be something. Magnus has given nothing.
    - stouset 4y ago
      Magnus has produced what he can given the situation and has staked something of extreme personal value—his legendary near-2900 ELO—on it with his move-1 resignation. If he'd heard the guy's damn shoe buzzing he would have insisted on a search.
      - roflyear 4y ago
        Blah. Magnus has given nothing. Could have still insisted he was searched. He didn't. Magnus has anxiety.
        jamespo 4y ago
        Playing cheats can do that
not_kurt_godel 4y ago
> Also, clever cheating devices have been found in over the board chess competitions The most convincing candidate for such a device I've seen is an Illuminati Thumper Pro hidden in Hans's shoe: https://illuminati-magic.com/products/thumper https://illuminati-magic.com/products/thumper. If you watch the footage of him getting scanned before his match with Alireza (and, crucially, before Magnus announced he was dropping), there are a couple of subtle things that are consistent with this theory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIulWkTHuu0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIulWkTHuu0: 1. He swallows (seemingly nervously) at 4 seconds shortly before his left shoe is scanned. 2. As the left shoe is being scanned, there are 2 beeping noises that at least to me, sound like they are coming from the wand, but are seemingly ignored by the wander. The same beeps do not repeat when his right shoe is scanned (that is, it's not just metal parts built into the shoes themselves). Two caveats to this part: First, I've heard differing opinions on whether the thumper will trigger metal detectors. Second, it's possible (even if unlikely IMO) that those beeps are not from that wand and it's just a coincidence that another wand or object beeped - since we can't see the wand in frame. 3. At 1:17 he starts nervously fidgeting with the credit card as the RF scanner gets close to his left foot and noticeably slows down when the scanner switches from his left foot to the right foot, and appears to stop completely as soon as the scanner is moving up away from his right foot. The RF scanner, to my understanding, would only detect devices that are actively transmitting which the thumper shouldn't need to do at all if Hans were using purely to receive engine moves/hints during the but the fact that it theoretically could transmit would explain why he'd be nervous about getting scanned anyway. Of course none of these observations are proof but they sure look suspicious to me.
- roflyear 4y ago
  Now analyze a video of Magnus being wanded!
  - Bud 4y ago
    Why? Has Magnus admitted to cheating on multiple occasions in the past? No. He has not.
    - 4y ago
paxys 4y ago
I don't think people are saying that it cannot happen, just that you need to prove it instead of hurling empty accusations, especially when it can destroy someone's career. I personally think it sets a bad precedent if every top player immediately starts crying "cheating!" when beaten by a lower ranked one.
- acheron 4y ago
  …by a lower ranked one who is already a known cheater.
  - return_to_monke 4y ago
    He did cheat in online chess. Other than that, what do you mean "known cheater"?
    - KvanteKat 4y ago
      Surely he means just that; i.e. Hans Niemann is known to have cheated in past games (these were online games and it must be noted that Niemann maintains that he has never cheated before or since the and never in an "over the board" tournament).
SCAQTony 4y ago
Perhaps play naked in a Faraday cage?
- swyx 4y ago
  this is really the only way (maybe not naked, but change into preapproved uniforms)
  - BipolarCapybara 4y ago
    ok but why not, let's do it the classic greek way
  - SCAQTony 4y ago
    Eve Babitz played artist Marcel Duchamp* naked. Perhaps clothing optional? ;-) https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-marcel-duchamp-played-chess-naked-eve-babitz https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-marcel-duchamp...
  - micromacrofoot 4y ago
    you’d need a cavity search too (seriously)
    - TakeBlaster16 4y ago
      What do you do about subcutaneous implants?
      - amelius 4y ago
        MRI scanner.
- p1necone 4y ago
  You could still run a chess engine offline on a decently powerful phone that would beat high rated players afaik.
  - 4y ago
toolslive 4y ago
You're right: the hint doesn't even have to be a move. It could also be an evaluation "it's better for white", or even: "there is a winning combination" which might be enough to get them to focus on finding it.
duxup 4y ago
Very interesting. I don’t really understand chess beyond the basics but when I think of sports the difference between good and great really seems to be, in baseball just a hit or two per week, in American football a running back who has the vision to cut decisively a second or less before another running would. When you see it consistently the difference seems enormous, but the math … is surprisingly tiny.
- SPBesui 4y ago
  “or less” is doing a lot of work in that first paragraph. Running plays typically only last like two seconds, maybe four if they get to the second level (linebackers). Also, I agree the “math is tiny“ but the talent, work ethic, luck, etc. required to separate oneself from the good to be great is *enormous*.
abdullahkhalids 4y ago
What's the possibility of a dental implant as a cheating device?
- lisper 4y ago
  As an electrical engineer currently in the process of getting a dental implant, I would say it's definitely doable. But it would present a pretty serious packaging challenge, particularly the power supply. [UPDATE] Turns out you can get dental implant hardware on eBay: https://www.ebay.com/itm/272267166511 https://www.ebay.com/itm/272267166511
  - rowanG077 4y ago
    Considering it only needs to be powered for a single match it seems very possible to me with over the counter components.
    - lisper 4y ago
      It's a pretty straightforward calculation, which I don't feel like doing right now. But I think Stockfish is going to be pretty power-hungry at the grandmaster level.
      - CamperBob2 4y ago
        I'd be thinking more "radio" than "computer."
      - bigyikes 4y ago
        What about a wireless receiver instead? I have some smart light switches in my house that don’t contain batteries and aren’t wired to mains. They’re powered purely by the force of pressing the switch. A bite-powered receiver might not even need batteries. Okay, maybe I’m getting too crazy?
        lisper 4y ago
kennyloginz 4y ago
The St. Louis chess club provided more checking / scrutiny than any other OTB tournament I have seen. How would you improve their process? Honestly would love to hear.
- fsckboy 4y ago
  the TSA airport x-ray scanners, would they do a nice job of finding devices internal or external?
  - o_nate 4y ago
    It seems at a minimum they could go through the same level of security as it takes to board a plane: remove shoes, back-scatter x-ray, etc.
- seanhunter 4y ago
  Daniel Naroditsky[1] said at the St Louis chess club specifically it would be pretty easy to cheat OTB no matter what searches they do. He said there is a balcony which the players have access to when they walk away from the board which has a clear view of the car park and you could have an assistant signal from there at crucial moments. He also cited a case of a player who was definitely cheating OTB[2] and was never caught and where no mechanism was ever found. It really seems to me that everyone is overthinking this. Hans has admitted to cheating and just says he didn't cheat here. The idea we should give him the benefit of the doubt seems really odd. It doesn't really matter to me whether he cheated in this specific tournament - he shouldn't have a place in the chess world. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJVzSXsZ10I&t=3291s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJVzSXsZ10I&t=3291s [2] in the sense that every move for an extended period covering multiple tournaments was exactly the top engine move - way more accurate than any human ever
  - kennyloginz 4y ago
    Word, I hear ya, a cheater is always gonna be a cheater. … But, honestly, we are going through a strange transition in chess. I’m not very familiar with online chess, so I take that sort of cheating lightly. Was surprised that online games can effect OTB ratings. I’m guessing FIDE, USCF , and other orgs will start separating online vs. OTB ratings as a result of this friction.
xiaodai 4y ago
> 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 source? sounds like bs to me
- for1nner 4y ago
  Chess is not a game where there is always one right move, but where positions are threatened/protected to a greater/lesser degree, and the _value_ of those threats/protection can only be realized much further along in the game. The best players in the world, these 2700+ rated players have: 1. Played many many positions many times over and have incredible recall of those general positions. 2. Know how to analyze a position/state of the game at any given moment and have a better "feel" for who is advantaged and/or where the greatest strengths/weaknesses of black/white are located. However, none of them have the power of chess engines, which analyze singular moves (or poll a db) for the hundreds/thousands of possible outcomes 1, 2, 3, ..., n moves ahead (this is why the best engines are strictly better than humans at this point), so unless a player has both played and committed to memory the exact line being played in a game, the best they tend to get to is "having a feeling" about the state of the game (please forgive my oversimplification here, chess fans) Now if a 2600 rated player - someone who's still easily in the top 1% of chess players and incredibly capable player of the game - were to be playing a game against a 2800 rated opponent, but had a computer tell them "Hey, this one move is critical" without being told the exact move, they would almost _certainly_ become heavily favored to win. That "feeling" about a position is now irrelevant. There are only a few pieces that will be likely moved on any given turn, and now you can narrow down your own analysis to what is different about moving any one of them in particular because you've been given advanced warning that the most-likely-to-be-played moves will result in wildly different consequences n moves later. These are hours-long games. Taking 15-20 minutes on a turn is not unheard of, and doing so on a turn that is proven-critical can make all the difference.
- lupire 4y ago
  If you wrote a computer program with 3 bugs, how long would it take you to fix the bugs if someone did / didn't tell you where the bugs where?
porquilho 4y ago

by erdevs 4y ago

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.

esrauch 4y ago
A bunch of grandmasters have now talked about the psychological aspect of even just wondering if your opponent could possibly by cheating, and second guessing if a bad looking move by your opponent might actually be a brilliant engine line. It seems that might even be enough for Hans as a 2675 rated player to get an edge against 2800+ player without even actually cheating
- 8note 4y ago
  Won't they run into the same issue playing strong players? A weird Magnus move might be a blunder or a brilliant line he calculated? Are GMs cheating against NMs because there's said skill gap?
  - spuz 4y ago
    To some extent yes, but humans tend to make moves that follow some kind of reasoning or logic. When you play a strong opponent, it's possible that you won't see the next move that they play, but once they have played it, you can deduce the logic they used in order to make it. An engine move on the other hand can easily reject the standard strategies and can appear highly irrational. When you see this kind of move, it becomes easier to suspect cheating.
  - PKop 4y ago
    yes but the computer is just so much more powerful, as well as it makes seemingly weird moves more often, as well as it can get itself out of a "bad" line if pushed that way much easier.
- lmm 4y ago
  I've definitely experienced that, playing mahjong against a guy who was behaving oddly in the European championships. But all you can do is have strict referreeing and stricter penalties for anyone who is caught cheating even once (which seems to be missing in the chess world given the player in question's record). You certainly can't try to retroactively impose a vigilante penalty that FIDE haven't.
- 4y ago

Tenoke 4y ago

200 points difference means a 25% chance to win, so I doubt just 1 hint is enough to bridge that gap consistently. Many high level games are won by grinding out a small advantage. I'll take a 2700 with 3 hints against a 2800 though.

gamegoblin 4y ago
The "200 points difference means 25% chance to win" breaks down at the highest levels. It works fine near the middle of the bell curve -- i.e. 800-2000 Elo -- but once you get to 2200 Elo you are talking about the >99th percentile. For example, I don't know of a single 2400 player who can score an average of 0.25 against 2600 players. Even at my own mediocre level of 1800, I definitely do not score 0.25 against 2000 rated players. More like 0.1 if I'm feeling sharp.
- stouset 4y ago
  As an example of this, until the Niemann game Magnus had a 53-game win^H^H^Hunbeaten streak. Prior to this he had a 125-game unbeaten streak. Many (most?) of these games were played against competitors within 200 Elo. Many of these were played against the 10 next-best chess players in the world. The back of the envelope percentage calculation absolutely does not apply at this level of chess. In reality if Niemann were to play Magnus in 100 games, he would be exceedingly lucky to win one game.
  - dfan 4y ago
    I disagree with the second paragraph but not enough to get into a public debate about it. But it is worth pointing out that Carlsen's 53-game streak was a non-loss streak, not a win streak. Many of those games were draws.
    - stouset 4y ago
      You are of course correct on that point and I have edited my comment.
  - 4y ago

nonethewiser 4y ago

> (or Niemann, if concrete evidence against him emerges) This window seems closed though. Carlsen seems to have no evidence. Where else could the evidence come from? All we have is character attacks. Even if justified, they can't prove that he cheated. All we know for sure is that Carlsen accused him of cheating with no evidence.

stouset 4y ago
What hard evidence—exactly—do you expect Carlsen to be able to produce? Alternatively, imagine anyone in a similar position. What hard evidence can anyone produce in situations such as this? 100% serious question.
- roflyear 4y ago
  I don't expect him to produce evidence, but I expect him to say more than "I suspect he cheated" If he saw something unusual, like "Hans was messing with his shoe" or "I heard several vibrations coming from Hans during the game" etc.. that would be at least something. It would be something. Magnus has given nothing.
  - stouset 4y ago
    Magnus has produced what he can given the situation and has staked something of extreme personal value—his legendary near-2900 ELO—on it with his move-1 resignation. If he'd heard the guy's damn shoe buzzing he would have insisted on a search.
    - roflyear 4y ago
      Blah. Magnus has given nothing. Could have still insisted he was searched. He didn't. Magnus has anxiety.
      - jamespo 4y ago
        Playing cheats can do that

not_kurt_godel 4y ago

> Also, clever cheating devices have been found in over the board chess competitions The most convincing candidate for such a device I've seen is an Illuminati Thumper Pro hidden in Hans's shoe: https://illuminati-magic.com/products/thumper https://illuminati-magic.com/products/thumper. If you watch the footage of him getting scanned before his match with Alireza (and, crucially, before Magnus announced he was dropping), there are a couple of subtle things that are consistent with this theory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIulWkTHuu0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIulWkTHuu0: 1. He swallows (seemingly nervously) at 4 seconds shortly before his left shoe is scanned. 2. As the left shoe is being scanned, there are 2 beeping noises that at least to me, sound like they are coming from the wand, but are seemingly ignored by the wander. The same beeps do not repeat when his right shoe is scanned (that is, it's not just metal parts built into the shoes themselves). Two caveats to this part: First, I've heard differing opinions on whether the thumper will trigger metal detectors. Second, it's possible (even if unlikely IMO) that those beeps are not from that wand and it's just a coincidence that another wand or object beeped - since we can't see the wand in frame. 3. At 1:17 he starts nervously fidgeting with the credit card as the RF scanner gets close to his left foot and noticeably slows down when the scanner switches from his left foot to the right foot, and appears to stop completely as soon as the scanner is moving up away from his right foot. The RF scanner, to my understanding, would only detect devices that are actively transmitting which the thumper shouldn't need to do at all if Hans were using purely to receive engine moves/hints during the but the fact that it theoretically could transmit would explain why he'd be nervous about getting scanned anyway. Of course none of these observations are proof but they sure look suspicious to me.

roflyear 4y ago
Now analyze a video of Magnus being wanded!
- Bud 4y ago
  Why? Has Magnus admitted to cheating on multiple occasions in the past? No. He has not.
  - 4y ago

paxys 4y ago

I don't think people are saying that it cannot happen, just that you need to prove it instead of hurling empty accusations, especially when it can destroy someone's career. I personally think it sets a bad precedent if every top player immediately starts crying "cheating!" when beaten by a lower ranked one.

acheron 4y ago
…by a lower ranked one who is already a known cheater.
- return_to_monke 4y ago
  He did cheat in online chess. Other than that, what do you mean "known cheater"?
  - KvanteKat 4y ago
    Surely he means just that; i.e. Hans Niemann is known to have cheated in past games (these were online games and it must be noted that Niemann maintains that he has never cheated before or since the and never in an "over the board" tournament).

SCAQTony 4y ago

Perhaps play naked in a Faraday cage?

swyx 4y ago
this is really the only way (maybe not naked, but change into preapproved uniforms)
- BipolarCapybara 4y ago
  ok but why not, let's do it the classic greek way
- SCAQTony 4y ago
  Eve Babitz played artist Marcel Duchamp* naked. Perhaps clothing optional? ;-) https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-marcel-duchamp-played-chess-naked-eve-babitz https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-marcel-duchamp...
- micromacrofoot 4y ago
  you’d need a cavity search too (seriously)
  - TakeBlaster16 4y ago
    What do you do about subcutaneous implants?
    - amelius 4y ago
      MRI scanner.
p1necone 4y ago
You could still run a chess engine offline on a decently powerful phone that would beat high rated players afaik.
- 4y ago

toolslive 4y ago

You're right: the hint doesn't even have to be a move. It could also be an evaluation "it's better for white", or even: "there is a winning combination" which might be enough to get them to focus on finding it.

duxup 4y ago

Very interesting. I don’t really understand chess beyond the basics but when I think of sports the difference between good and great really seems to be, in baseball just a hit or two per week, in American football a running back who has the vision to cut decisively a second or less before another running would. When you see it consistently the difference seems enormous, but the math … is surprisingly tiny.

SPBesui 4y ago
“or less” is doing a lot of work in that first paragraph. Running plays typically only last like two seconds, maybe four if they get to the second level (linebackers). Also, I agree the “math is tiny“ but the talent, work ethic, luck, etc. required to separate oneself from the good to be great is *enormous*.

abdullahkhalids 4y ago

What's the possibility of a dental implant as a cheating device?

lisper 4y ago
As an electrical engineer currently in the process of getting a dental implant, I would say it's definitely doable. But it would present a pretty serious packaging challenge, particularly the power supply. [UPDATE] Turns out you can get dental implant hardware on eBay: https://www.ebay.com/itm/272267166511 https://www.ebay.com/itm/272267166511
- rowanG077 4y ago
  Considering it only needs to be powered for a single match it seems very possible to me with over the counter components.
  - lisper 4y ago
    It's a pretty straightforward calculation, which I don't feel like doing right now. But I think Stockfish is going to be pretty power-hungry at the grandmaster level.
    - CamperBob2 4y ago
      I'd be thinking more "radio" than "computer."
    - bigyikes 4y ago
      What about a wireless receiver instead? I have some smart light switches in my house that don’t contain batteries and aren’t wired to mains. They’re powered purely by the force of pressing the switch. A bite-powered receiver might not even need batteries. Okay, maybe I’m getting too crazy?
      - lisper 4y ago

kennyloginz 4y ago

The St. Louis chess club provided more checking / scrutiny than any other OTB tournament I have seen. How would you improve their process? Honestly would love to hear.

fsckboy 4y ago
the TSA airport x-ray scanners, would they do a nice job of finding devices internal or external?
- o_nate 4y ago
  It seems at a minimum they could go through the same level of security as it takes to board a plane: remove shoes, back-scatter x-ray, etc.
seanhunter 4y ago
Daniel Naroditsky[1] said at the St Louis chess club specifically it would be pretty easy to cheat OTB no matter what searches they do. He said there is a balcony which the players have access to when they walk away from the board which has a clear view of the car park and you could have an assistant signal from there at crucial moments. He also cited a case of a player who was definitely cheating OTB[2] and was never caught and where no mechanism was ever found. It really seems to me that everyone is overthinking this. Hans has admitted to cheating and just says he didn't cheat here. The idea we should give him the benefit of the doubt seems really odd. It doesn't really matter to me whether he cheated in this specific tournament - he shouldn't have a place in the chess world. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJVzSXsZ10I&t=3291s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJVzSXsZ10I&t=3291s [2] in the sense that every move for an extended period covering multiple tournaments was exactly the top engine move - way more accurate than any human ever
- kennyloginz 4y ago
  Word, I hear ya, a cheater is always gonna be a cheater. … But, honestly, we are going through a strange transition in chess. I’m not very familiar with online chess, so I take that sort of cheating lightly. Was surprised that online games can effect OTB ratings. I’m guessing FIDE, USCF , and other orgs will start separating online vs. OTB ratings as a result of this friction.

xiaodai 4y ago

> 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 source? sounds like bs to me

for1nner 4y ago
Chess is not a game where there is always one right move, but where positions are threatened/protected to a greater/lesser degree, and the _value_ of those threats/protection can only be realized much further along in the game. The best players in the world, these 2700+ rated players have: 1. Played many many positions many times over and have incredible recall of those general positions. 2. Know how to analyze a position/state of the game at any given moment and have a better "feel" for who is advantaged and/or where the greatest strengths/weaknesses of black/white are located. However, none of them have the power of chess engines, which analyze singular moves (or poll a db) for the hundreds/thousands of possible outcomes 1, 2, 3, ..., n moves ahead (this is why the best engines are strictly better than humans at this point), so unless a player has both played and committed to memory the exact line being played in a game, the best they tend to get to is "having a feeling" about the state of the game (please forgive my oversimplification here, chess fans) Now if a 2600 rated player - someone who's still easily in the top 1% of chess players and incredibly capable player of the game - were to be playing a game against a 2800 rated opponent, but had a computer tell them "Hey, this one move is critical" without being told the exact move, they would almost _certainly_ become heavily favored to win. That "feeling" about a position is now irrelevant. There are only a few pieces that will be likely moved on any given turn, and now you can narrow down your own analysis to what is different about moving any one of them in particular because you've been given advanced warning that the most-likely-to-be-played moves will result in wildly different consequences n moves later. These are hours-long games. Taking 15-20 minutes on a turn is not unheard of, and doing so on a turn that is proven-critical can make all the difference.
lupire 4y ago
If you wrote a computer program with 3 bugs, how long would it take you to fix the bugs if someone did / didn't tell you where the bugs where?

porquilho 4y ago