5 ms·

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

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.
    - sixothree 4y ago
      I don't know if there's data but people who have cheated in the past often seem to cheat in the future. Having watched some videos about the state of speed-running video games lately intersected with how gambling cheaters seems to never stop cheating supports that.
  - tradertef 4y ago
    He admits to cheating in the video linked below. However, that's when he was 12 (and 16) and his friend helped. It is much more different situation then anal beads or electronics in your shoe. Disclaimer: don't know much about chess, let alone professional chess.
    - PKop 4y ago
      And chess.com and Magnus have disputed that Hans has admitted to all of the times he has cheated.
      - mccorrinall 4y ago
        Then they should just provide evidence instead of allegations. Innocent until proven guilty.
        KvanteKat 4y ago
        The fundamental asummetry at play here is that cheating is a lot easier than detecting cheaters in modern chess. As such, I'm not sure insisting on people shutting up unless they can provide ironclad evidence won't just lead to professional chess becoming rife with cheaters (which is presumably the "existential threat" to proffessional chess that Carlsen reffers to in his statement). I admit that it is a trickly problem, and I agree that Carlsen's behavior here is not beyond reproach. Withdrawing from the tournament only after having lost a game makes the statement much less impactfull since one can not discount the possibility that he's just being a rather sore looser. I would personally have respected his decision much more if he had followed his impulse (again, referred to in his statement) to withdraw as soon as Niemann had been invited to the tournament in the first place.
    - lupire 4y ago
      Also his coach was caught cheating in a titled tournament on chess.com
- flyax 4y ago
  chess.com suggests Hans cheated more than he admits. He did (much?) better in tournaments with zero delay. In a few consecutive tournaments, he made a lot of top engine moves, slightly above Magnus/Kasparov/Fisher at their best. He had a hard time explaining his lines in the interview after the game (with Firouzja I think).
  - TakeBlaster16 4y ago
    Let the chess speak for itself... because I sure can't explain it!
  - initplus 4y ago
    The analysis of him doing better in broadcast/non-broadcast games was flawed, the analysis mis-categorized several of the tournaments in a way that made the conclusion stronger.
    - flyax 4y ago
      Thanks, I missed that information. I would say there is more than a cheating history and a single game that triggered Magnus. However, most of it has a possible explanation. Like, I would be very nervous if you put me in front of a camera at 19 years. Are these arguments together strong enough? Hard to judge.
systemvoltage 4y ago
Mangus is human after all, who occassionally make blunders of sub-GM levels: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=magnus+chess+blunders https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=magnus+chess+bl... That just shows that he is fallible, which I empathize with. Also don't forget the bishop blunder by Nepo in the world championship against Magnus. That was a 1800 level blunder trapping the bishop. Nepo is in top 5 GM list. The fact of the matter is that all GMs including Magnus have the potential to make blunders.
- stouset 4y ago
  Niemann, as black, equalized reasonably early on and then had a consistent lead against Magnus the entire game. Magnus did make mistakes in the game, but only after a near-perfect grind for 27 moves. To be clear, I'm not saying this to make a claim that this is definitive proof of anything. I'm pointing out that the theory that Magnus simply blundered away the game doesn't hold water. Niemann had the advantage—as black no less—for essentially the entire game against someone who is widely known for being capable of grinding away nearly-perfectly for extensive periods of time.
  - systemvoltage 4y ago
    Gotham's analysis here is quite important at this time stamped link: https://youtu.be/pfqXnFNnDII?t=433 https://youtu.be/pfqXnFNnDII?t=433 I agree but Magnus also plays bad games once in a while. So it is not quite clear from a sample size 1 and a std deviation of infinite.
    - stouset 4y ago
      For sure! It's absolutely reasonable to believe that Hans beat Magnus completely fairly. It's also completely reasonable to believe there's a better-than-even chance that Hans cheated in this game. There are a number of comments here which promote the idea that this is simply sour grapes by Magnus and totally uncalled for, and I find those perspectives to be overwhelmingly uncompelling.
  - 8note 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
noncoml 4y ago
This. It’s like how some people in here have built amazing intuition about where a bug in a system may be, even if it’s a system they haven’t written or designed themselves
- vikingerik 4y ago
  Those data points are cherry-picked by anecdote and statistically useless, unless you're also counting all the times someone thought they had such intuition that turned out not to be correct at all.
faeriechangling 4y ago
Magnus is obviously extremely qualified to detect cheating, I see many other people who are honestly just as qualified as him say that Hans isn't cheating. I'm going to also say emotions are going to play a massive role here, both in terms of defence of Hans and against Hans. The interesting thing is the one party MORE qualified than Magnus and the other grandmasters to detect cheating is the chesscom statistics team and they think Hans has cheated online recently and didn't admit to it. Still, there's no smoking gun that proves the OTB matches were fixed, Hans can be innocent at least in those specific circumstances, but if he's been guilty in online chess recently is it truly fair to make the world champion play against him OTB? >He wouldn't risk his whole reputation for nothing. It is pretty important to realise in terms of Magnus's mindset he has given up on defending the world championship and doing anything other than achieving 2900 elo, the highest rating ever achieved. He is a champion, and that is his goal in life, he wants that rating in a way most people can't fathom. If he proves Hans Neimann is a cheater, Han's win's against Magnus are void, and Magnus's rating goes up. Imagine being the world champion and having your dream drift further away because of a known cheater beating you when they're at a disadvantage, what goes through your head? What goes through your head when you think of how many people COULD be cheating and making getting 2900 impossible? What can others do about the spectre of chess cheating, the world champion, doesn't stand up? So what I'm saying here is, I wouldn't be super confident that Magnus wouldn't throw his reputation in the trash to become the greatest chess player who ever lived. I think he would absolutely throw away his reputation, but not for nothing.
- bombcar 4y ago
  And the goal of hitting 2900 is basically impossible if there are cheaters in the mix. That has to really make him annoyed.
  - faeriechangling 4y ago
    Realize Magnus JUST literally lost rating pints to somebody who chesscom has alleged to have cheated on their website recently. I think he’s furious.
- undefinedzero 4y ago
aritmo 4y ago
It was obvious that Hans did not make a real effort while playing chess with Magnus. Hans was not concentrating. Hans was constantly moving his hand, covering his mouth. Hans was not paying attention.
Hadriel 4y ago
He's clearly stated he rarely ever trains with computers
- Quarrel 4y ago
  This isn't true at all. He is well known for playing and exploring "AI lines" that have been introduced by computers. Here is the first interview I could find from a 10 second google: https://www.dw.com/en/world-chess-champion-magnus-carlsen-the-computer-never-has-been-an-opponent/a-19186058 https://www.dw.com/en/world-chess-champion-magnus-carlsen-th... The money quote: " My practice at home is with the computer. When I study chess with other people, we always have a chess board. But on my own, it's always at the computer. "
radiator 4y ago
I was agreeing with your complete post, except for the last line. No more evidence is required. The quality of Hans Niemann's moves, recently as well as during his rise from 2400-rating three years ago, is enough evidence against him. Either he is a good as Stockfish, or ...

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.
  - sixothree 4y ago
    I don't know if there's data but people who have cheated in the past often seem to cheat in the future. Having watched some videos about the state of speed-running video games lately intersected with how gambling cheaters seems to never stop cheating supports that.
- tradertef 4y ago
  He admits to cheating in the video linked below. However, that's when he was 12 (and 16) and his friend helped. It is much more different situation then anal beads or electronics in your shoe. Disclaimer: don't know much about chess, let alone professional chess.
  - PKop 4y ago
    And chess.com and Magnus have disputed that Hans has admitted to all of the times he has cheated.
    - mccorrinall 4y ago
      Then they should just provide evidence instead of allegations. Innocent until proven guilty.
      - KvanteKat 4y ago
        The fundamental asummetry at play here is that cheating is a lot easier than detecting cheaters in modern chess. As such, I'm not sure insisting on people shutting up unless they can provide ironclad evidence won't just lead to professional chess becoming rife with cheaters (which is presumably the "existential threat" to proffessional chess that Carlsen reffers to in his statement). I admit that it is a trickly problem, and I agree that Carlsen's behavior here is not beyond reproach. Withdrawing from the tournament only after having lost a game makes the statement much less impactfull since one can not discount the possibility that he's just being a rather sore looser. I would personally have respected his decision much more if he had followed his impulse (again, referred to in his statement) to withdraw as soon as Niemann had been invited to the tournament in the first place.
  - lupire 4y ago
    Also his coach was caught cheating in a titled tournament on chess.com
flyax 4y ago
chess.com suggests Hans cheated more than he admits. He did (much?) better in tournaments with zero delay. In a few consecutive tournaments, he made a lot of top engine moves, slightly above Magnus/Kasparov/Fisher at their best. He had a hard time explaining his lines in the interview after the game (with Firouzja I think).
- TakeBlaster16 4y ago
  Let the chess speak for itself... because I sure can't explain it!
- initplus 4y ago
  The analysis of him doing better in broadcast/non-broadcast games was flawed, the analysis mis-categorized several of the tournaments in a way that made the conclusion stronger.
  - flyax 4y ago
    Thanks, I missed that information. I would say there is more than a cheating history and a single game that triggered Magnus. However, most of it has a possible explanation. Like, I would be very nervous if you put me in front of a camera at 19 years. Are these arguments together strong enough? Hard to judge.

systemvoltage 4y ago

Mangus is human after all, who occassionally make blunders of sub-GM levels: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=magnus+chess+blunders https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=magnus+chess+bl... That just shows that he is fallible, which I empathize with. Also don't forget the bishop blunder by Nepo in the world championship against Magnus. That was a 1800 level blunder trapping the bishop. Nepo is in top 5 GM list. The fact of the matter is that all GMs including Magnus have the potential to make blunders.

stouset 4y ago
Niemann, as black, equalized reasonably early on and then had a consistent lead against Magnus the entire game. Magnus did make mistakes in the game, but only after a near-perfect grind for 27 moves. To be clear, I'm not saying this to make a claim that this is definitive proof of anything. I'm pointing out that the theory that Magnus simply blundered away the game doesn't hold water. Niemann had the advantage—as black no less—for essentially the entire game against someone who is widely known for being capable of grinding away nearly-perfectly for extensive periods of time.
- systemvoltage 4y ago
  Gotham's analysis here is quite important at this time stamped link: https://youtu.be/pfqXnFNnDII?t=433 https://youtu.be/pfqXnFNnDII?t=433 I agree but Magnus also plays bad games once in a while. So it is not quite clear from a sample size 1 and a std deviation of infinite.
  - stouset 4y ago
    For sure! It's absolutely reasonable to believe that Hans beat Magnus completely fairly. It's also completely reasonable to believe there's a better-than-even chance that Hans cheated in this game. There are a number of comments here which promote the idea that this is simply sour grapes by Magnus and totally uncalled for, and I find those perspectives to be overwhelmingly uncompelling.
- 8note 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

noncoml 4y ago

This. It’s like how some people in here have built amazing intuition about where a bug in a system may be, even if it’s a system they haven’t written or designed themselves

vikingerik 4y ago
Those data points are cherry-picked by anecdote and statistically useless, unless you're also counting all the times someone thought they had such intuition that turned out not to be correct at all.

faeriechangling 4y ago

Magnus is obviously extremely qualified to detect cheating, I see many other people who are honestly just as qualified as him say that Hans isn't cheating. I'm going to also say emotions are going to play a massive role here, both in terms of defence of Hans and against Hans. The interesting thing is the one party MORE qualified than Magnus and the other grandmasters to detect cheating is the chesscom statistics team and they think Hans has cheated online recently and didn't admit to it. Still, there's no smoking gun that proves the OTB matches were fixed, Hans can be innocent at least in those specific circumstances, but if he's been guilty in online chess recently is it truly fair to make the world champion play against him OTB? >He wouldn't risk his whole reputation for nothing. It is pretty important to realise in terms of Magnus's mindset he has given up on defending the world championship and doing anything other than achieving 2900 elo, the highest rating ever achieved. He is a champion, and that is his goal in life, he wants that rating in a way most people can't fathom. If he proves Hans Neimann is a cheater, Han's win's against Magnus are void, and Magnus's rating goes up. Imagine being the world champion and having your dream drift further away because of a known cheater beating you when they're at a disadvantage, what goes through your head? What goes through your head when you think of how many people COULD be cheating and making getting 2900 impossible? What can others do about the spectre of chess cheating, the world champion, doesn't stand up? So what I'm saying here is, I wouldn't be super confident that Magnus wouldn't throw his reputation in the trash to become the greatest chess player who ever lived. I think he would absolutely throw away his reputation, but not for nothing.

bombcar 4y ago
And the goal of hitting 2900 is basically impossible if there are cheaters in the mix. That has to really make him annoyed.
- faeriechangling 4y ago
  Realize Magnus JUST literally lost rating pints to somebody who chesscom has alleged to have cheated on their website recently. I think he’s furious.
undefinedzero 4y ago

aritmo 4y ago

It was obvious that Hans did not make a real effort while playing chess with Magnus. Hans was not concentrating. Hans was constantly moving his hand, covering his mouth. Hans was not paying attention.

Hadriel 4y ago

He's clearly stated he rarely ever trains with computers

Quarrel 4y ago
This isn't true at all. He is well known for playing and exploring "AI lines" that have been introduced by computers. Here is the first interview I could find from a 10 second google: https://www.dw.com/en/world-chess-champion-magnus-carlsen-the-computer-never-has-been-an-opponent/a-19186058 https://www.dw.com/en/world-chess-champion-magnus-carlsen-th... The money quote: " My practice at home is with the computer. When I study chess with other people, we always have a chess board. But on my own, it's always at the computer. "

radiator 4y ago

I was agreeing with your complete post, except for the last line. No more evidence is required. The quality of Hans Niemann's moves, recently as well as during his rise from 2400-rating three years ago, is enough evidence against him. Either he is a good as Stockfish, or ...