11 ms·

Hans is clearly cheating. Comparing his past games against what an engine would do is pretty damning. Chess engines are far superior to players and the best pla

Hans is clearly cheating. Comparing his past games against what an engine would do is pretty damning. Chess engines are far superior to players and the best players in the world top out in the high 70s percent correlations (Magnus averages around 70%). Hans has a string of games at 100% correlation[0], meaning he's playing perfect games. Past players who achieved this later went on to admit to cheating[1]. Magnus knows this because he owns part of chess.com and presumably sees the data. Magnus has a lot riding on his statement. He wouldn't make it unless he was sure. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfPzUgzrOcQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfPzUgzrOcQ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9bastien_Feller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9bastien_Feller

Sporktacular 4y ago
You mean Magnus?
fieryscribe 4y ago
Daniel Rensch and others have said that Magnus has not seen chesscom cheating algorithms or lists. It had been a rumor in the chess world for a while that Hans has cheated before
- Tenoke 4y ago
  He hasn't been officially shown but that doesn't mean that someone in the know hasn't leaked it to him. He's deeply connected and respected in the chess world. Further, even if he didn't see it people notice when GMs get bans as their accounts turn inactive (which they had in this case).
aqme28 4y ago
That "100%" analysis is very deeply flawed. The author of the video even issued a retraction (https://twitter.com/IglesiasYosha/status/1574308784566067201?t=uc0qD6T7cSD2dWD0vLeW3g&s=19 https://twitter.com/IglesiasYosha/status/1574308784566067201...). It's cherry-picked games and it doesn't compare to the "engine correlation" of other high ranked players against similar opponents. I would not rely on it as evidence that Hans is "clearly cheating."
- patresh 4y ago
  She says that the ROI probability calculation is wrong, which is the last part of her video and a separate topic. The part about correlations has not been retracted AFAIK. I agree that there's a need for a baseline though, there is one example on her recent twitter feed but more samples are needed to get a better picture.
- rurban 4y ago
  No it's not. Just the probability calculation had a few flaws. The string of 100% games, esp. in the few tournament games he needed a win, is decisive. Note that he played a lot of games in each tournament on the 70% level, to fool statistics.
dorkwood 4y ago
When I was younger, I spent many, many hours playing one particular video game. I became a “known cheater” at the game, despite never actually cheating (I’d cheated at other games in my early teens, but had since given up that lifestyle). I can recall several players on discussion boards analysing my statistics and explaining how I was clearly cheating because it was impossible for a human to play like me. Humans, they said, just weren’t that accurate. One cheat-detection algorithm even “caught” me one day, and I was promptly banned from that server. Confused about what had happened, I sought out the server documentation online so I could see what they had used to “detect” me. My crime, it turns out, was scoring too many kills per second. I keep this in mind whenever I see another person accused of something similar. Sometimes people have just put in more effort and study than we choose to comprehend.
- bombcar 4y ago
  I saw something about a runner being disqualified because they moved 9 hundredths of a second after the gun. Ten hundredths is permitted but nine is not. It’s not impossible to believe someone could be just a sliver faster.
  - chroma 4y ago
    It is extremely unlikely that a human being can hear a sound and move their foot within 100ms. Based on what we know of the brain and nervous system, it's most likely that anyone who reacts under 120ms has jumped the gun.[1] 1. https://condellpark.com/kd/reactiontime.htm https://condellpark.com/kd/reactiontime.htm
    - areyousure 4y ago
      In case anyone is curious, the starting times for the first five runners at the 110mH event at the 2022 World Championships were (in milliseconds) 99, 108, 109, 124, and 126. While I personally disagree with the comment I am replying to regarding reaction times under 120ms, the issue at this World Championships was more likely that the reaction timing was wrong ...
  - 4y ago
rybosworld 4y ago
Agreed. His ELO improvement alone is evidence enough imo. His rating plateaued around 2300 from end of 2015 to mid 2018. Then in the last 2 years, I believe his improvement from 2400 to 2700 is the most rapid in history. If you compare his rating with other young players like Duda, Firouzja, Gukesh - then his rating increase looks very unique. I'm not aware of any chess prodigies that have followed a trajectory quite like this. So maybe Hans is an unusual talent. Or maybe, he's receiving computer assistance.

Sporktacular 4y ago

You mean Magnus?

fieryscribe 4y ago

Daniel Rensch and others have said that Magnus has not seen chesscom cheating algorithms or lists. It had been a rumor in the chess world for a while that Hans has cheated before

Tenoke 4y ago
He hasn't been officially shown but that doesn't mean that someone in the know hasn't leaked it to him. He's deeply connected and respected in the chess world. Further, even if he didn't see it people notice when GMs get bans as their accounts turn inactive (which they had in this case).

aqme28 4y ago

That "100%" analysis is very deeply flawed. The author of the video even issued a retraction (https://twitter.com/IglesiasYosha/status/1574308784566067201?t=uc0qD6T7cSD2dWD0vLeW3g&s=19 https://twitter.com/IglesiasYosha/status/1574308784566067201...). It's cherry-picked games and it doesn't compare to the "engine correlation" of other high ranked players against similar opponents. I would not rely on it as evidence that Hans is "clearly cheating."

patresh 4y ago
She says that the ROI probability calculation is wrong, which is the last part of her video and a separate topic. The part about correlations has not been retracted AFAIK. I agree that there's a need for a baseline though, there is one example on her recent twitter feed but more samples are needed to get a better picture.
rurban 4y ago
No it's not. Just the probability calculation had a few flaws. The string of 100% games, esp. in the few tournament games he needed a win, is decisive. Note that he played a lot of games in each tournament on the 70% level, to fool statistics.

dorkwood 4y ago

When I was younger, I spent many, many hours playing one particular video game. I became a “known cheater” at the game, despite never actually cheating (I’d cheated at other games in my early teens, but had since given up that lifestyle). I can recall several players on discussion boards analysing my statistics and explaining how I was clearly cheating because it was impossible for a human to play like me. Humans, they said, just weren’t that accurate. One cheat-detection algorithm even “caught” me one day, and I was promptly banned from that server. Confused about what had happened, I sought out the server documentation online so I could see what they had used to “detect” me. My crime, it turns out, was scoring too many kills per second. I keep this in mind whenever I see another person accused of something similar. Sometimes people have just put in more effort and study than we choose to comprehend.

bombcar 4y ago
I saw something about a runner being disqualified because they moved 9 hundredths of a second after the gun. Ten hundredths is permitted but nine is not. It’s not impossible to believe someone could be just a sliver faster.
- chroma 4y ago
  It is extremely unlikely that a human being can hear a sound and move their foot within 100ms. Based on what we know of the brain and nervous system, it's most likely that anyone who reacts under 120ms has jumped the gun.[1] 1. https://condellpark.com/kd/reactiontime.htm https://condellpark.com/kd/reactiontime.htm
  - areyousure 4y ago
    In case anyone is curious, the starting times for the first five runners at the 110mH event at the 2022 World Championships were (in milliseconds) 99, 108, 109, 124, and 126. While I personally disagree with the comment I am replying to regarding reaction times under 120ms, the issue at this World Championships was more likely that the reaction timing was wrong ...
- 4y ago

rybosworld 4y ago

Agreed. His ELO improvement alone is evidence enough imo. His rating plateaued around 2300 from end of 2015 to mid 2018. Then in the last 2 years, I believe his improvement from 2400 to 2700 is the most rapid in history. If you compare his rating with other young players like Duda, Firouzja, Gukesh - then his rating increase looks very unique. I'm not aware of any chess prodigies that have followed a trajectory quite like this. So maybe Hans is an unusual talent. Or maybe, he's receiving computer assistance.