2 ms·

yes but against magnus, who is supposedly two levels above Hans, this is not just a one move cheat, he'd have to cheat + have a continuous absence of mistakes,

by swyx 4y ago

yes but against magnus, who is supposedly two levels above Hans, this is not just a one move cheat, he'd have to cheat + have a continuous absence of mistakes, which is an awful lot of information to transmit. i dont have a horse in this race i just like thinking about things in terms of information theory since this is a remarkable applied case another way to decide this - have them play blitz (where the moves are way too fast for info transmission to happen), and see if the skill level scales accordingly?

asimpletune 4y ago
Carlsen has broken 3000 in blitz before... Unfortunately he's too good for it to mean anything I think.
derefr 4y ago
> he'd have to cheat + have a continuous absence of mistakes, which is an awful lot of information to transmit. Perhaps a top-level player can jump to a higher level if they can stop worrying about coming up with brilliances in the macro strategy, and instead focus entirely on making their micro-level play spotless.
- CrazyStat 4y ago
  This is the opposite of what a computer-assisted player would do. Computer chess engines (generally speaking, somewhat less true of the latest generation) are not great at high level strategy but will never miss a tactic (micro level play).
  - Taek 4y ago
    That's outdated, now that we have deep learning the machines are great at high level strategy too.
cool_dude85 4y ago
>this is not just a one move cheat, he'd have to cheat + have a continuous absence of mistakes Blunders are exactly what a device like the one described would seriously help with. If the buzz means both "there is an only move here and it's not immediately obvious" and "at least one of the natural moves here is a blunder or very inaccurate" then you need to just send a buzz and you've probably cut inaccuracies significantly. That said, a very simple communication device like this is probably badly hurt by a 15 minute delay.
- SamBam 4y ago
  > at least one of the natural moves here is a blunder Interesting, I'm not sure if a computer has the ability to recognize something as a "natural move but also a blunder." It would require a very human-like way of thinking about moves, which computers don't generally have.
  - folli 4y ago
    In any case, you would need a human operator who is a very strong chessplayer himself.
    - cuu508 4y ago
      Magnus Carlsen has commented that Hans' mentor Maxim Dlugy "must be doing a great job" https://youtu.be/c50PJmOj2-U?t=83 https://youtu.be/c50PJmOj2-U?t=83
  - fizx 4y ago
    Anyone 1500+ can recognize the natural move--that's what makes it natural. Probably the easiest case of "natural move but blunder" is anything that is a top 3 engine move when looking 3-5 moves deep, but losing significantly on deeper evaluation. Also, this sort of categorization is at the heart of how chess puzzle collections are automatically assembled. A good chess puzzle contains an unnatural move that wins--the exact opposite of the natural but blunder. Chess sites scan their online play databases for these all the time, and serve them up as puzzles.
    - SamBam 4y ago
      > Anyone 1500+ can recognize the natural move--that's what makes it natural. Any human 1500+ can recognize the natural human move. The way the computer thinks about moves is different. I really don't believe that Stockfish can tell you "this move is tempting, but wrong." I'm sure you could build something in that might kind of work, but until I see it I'm skeptical.
WastingMyTime89 4y ago
> two levels above Hans What does that even mean? ELO gives you a statistical evaluation of how likely victory is for one of the player. Hans rating means he has non insignificant chance of winning against Magnus. Hans can win without cheating as this last game proves. There is not a shred of evidence against him after all.
jquery 4y ago
Two levels if he isn't cheating. If he is, perhaps 3 or more. Recently magnus played hans on the beach: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1OBEY99inw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1OBEY99inw magnus completely destroyed hans in two games, as black. I think the ease with which magnus took hans apart in these beach games, presumably added to his suspicion when hans played so much better in the Sinquefield cup.
- Taek 4y ago
  Eh casual play has so many factors. I wouldn't put much weight on how badly a gm loses on the beach. For example, drugs could have been involved. I do think Hans is cheating, but I think the proof will lie in statistical analysis of his games and demonstrating that he has an unusual (>3200 rated) propensity to clutch out specific moves. I think everyone suspects at this point that if Hans is cheating, its only a handful of moves per game.
chongli 4y ago
have them play blitz (where the moves are way too fast for info transmission to happen), and see if the skill level scales accordingly? Not a fair contest. There are plenty of top classical chess players who are weaker in blitz and vice versa. It’s a different skillset. Classical is all about preparation for the opening followed by some deep thinking in the midgame. Blitz is all about pattern recognition and the ability to simplify down to an ending where you can blitz out the exact solution from a database.
- Taek 4y ago
  Well, even endgames with as few as 5 pieces on the board are beyond what a human can solve with memorization. I don't disagree that blitz is mostly pattern recognition and rapid tactical thinking, but that applies all the way down to the end.
- vintermann 4y ago
  It's true that some people are worse at blitz, but if Niemann's OTB blitz rating is as good as his OTB rating at slower time controls, that's evidence against him cheating ... at least in ways that materially affect his rating. I guess it would be possible to cheat with an engine tuned to your actual rating just to make it less stressful.

by swyx 4y ago

asimpletune 4y ago

Carlsen has broken 3000 in blitz before... Unfortunately he's too good for it to mean anything I think.

derefr 4y ago

> he'd have to cheat + have a continuous absence of mistakes, which is an awful lot of information to transmit. Perhaps a top-level player can jump to a higher level if they can stop worrying about coming up with brilliances in the macro strategy, and instead focus entirely on making their micro-level play spotless.

CrazyStat 4y ago
This is the opposite of what a computer-assisted player would do. Computer chess engines (generally speaking, somewhat less true of the latest generation) are not great at high level strategy but will never miss a tactic (micro level play).
- Taek 4y ago
  That's outdated, now that we have deep learning the machines are great at high level strategy too.

cool_dude85 4y ago

>this is not just a one move cheat, he'd have to cheat + have a continuous absence of mistakes Blunders are exactly what a device like the one described would seriously help with. If the buzz means both "there is an only move here and it's not immediately obvious" and "at least one of the natural moves here is a blunder or very inaccurate" then you need to just send a buzz and you've probably cut inaccuracies significantly. That said, a very simple communication device like this is probably badly hurt by a 15 minute delay.

SamBam 4y ago
> at least one of the natural moves here is a blunder Interesting, I'm not sure if a computer has the ability to recognize something as a "natural move but also a blunder." It would require a very human-like way of thinking about moves, which computers don't generally have.
- folli 4y ago
  In any case, you would need a human operator who is a very strong chessplayer himself.
  - cuu508 4y ago
    Magnus Carlsen has commented that Hans' mentor Maxim Dlugy "must be doing a great job" https://youtu.be/c50PJmOj2-U?t=83 https://youtu.be/c50PJmOj2-U?t=83
- fizx 4y ago
  Anyone 1500+ can recognize the natural move--that's what makes it natural. Probably the easiest case of "natural move but blunder" is anything that is a top 3 engine move when looking 3-5 moves deep, but losing significantly on deeper evaluation. Also, this sort of categorization is at the heart of how chess puzzle collections are automatically assembled. A good chess puzzle contains an unnatural move that wins--the exact opposite of the natural but blunder. Chess sites scan their online play databases for these all the time, and serve them up as puzzles.
  - SamBam 4y ago
    > Anyone 1500+ can recognize the natural move--that's what makes it natural. Any human 1500+ can recognize the natural human move. The way the computer thinks about moves is different. I really don't believe that Stockfish can tell you "this move is tempting, but wrong." I'm sure you could build something in that might kind of work, but until I see it I'm skeptical.

WastingMyTime89 4y ago

> two levels above Hans What does that even mean? ELO gives you a statistical evaluation of how likely victory is for one of the player. Hans rating means he has non insignificant chance of winning against Magnus. Hans can win without cheating as this last game proves. There is not a shred of evidence against him after all.

jquery 4y ago

Two levels if he isn't cheating. If he is, perhaps 3 or more. Recently magnus played hans on the beach: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1OBEY99inw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1OBEY99inw magnus completely destroyed hans in two games, as black. I think the ease with which magnus took hans apart in these beach games, presumably added to his suspicion when hans played so much better in the Sinquefield cup.

Taek 4y ago
Eh casual play has so many factors. I wouldn't put much weight on how badly a gm loses on the beach. For example, drugs could have been involved. I do think Hans is cheating, but I think the proof will lie in statistical analysis of his games and demonstrating that he has an unusual (>3200 rated) propensity to clutch out specific moves. I think everyone suspects at this point that if Hans is cheating, its only a handful of moves per game.

chongli 4y ago

have them play blitz (where the moves are way too fast for info transmission to happen), and see if the skill level scales accordingly? Not a fair contest. There are plenty of top classical chess players who are weaker in blitz and vice versa. It’s a different skillset. Classical is all about preparation for the opening followed by some deep thinking in the midgame. Blitz is all about pattern recognition and the ability to simplify down to an ending where you can blitz out the exact solution from a database.

Taek 4y ago
Well, even endgames with as few as 5 pieces on the board are beyond what a human can solve with memorization. I don't disagree that blitz is mostly pattern recognition and rapid tactical thinking, but that applies all the way down to the end.
vintermann 4y ago
It's true that some people are worse at blitz, but if Niemann's OTB blitz rating is as good as his OTB rating at slower time controls, that's evidence against him cheating ... at least in ways that materially affect his rating. I guess it would be possible to cheat with an engine tuned to your actual rating just to make it less stressful.