Niemann - Carlsen

[Brad Thomson]

As a generalization, the stronger the chess player the weirder they are.

I would not put it quite this way. But it is surely the case that persons with certain difficult to specify eccentricities are also sometimes fabulous chess players. I am not sure what comes first, the chicken or the egg.

[Pargat Perrer]

As a generalization, the stronger the chess player the weirder they are.

I would not put it quite this way. But it is surely the case that persons with certain difficult to specify eccentricities are also sometimes fabulous chess players. I am not sure what comes first, the chicken or the egg.

I on the other hand know exactly what comes first. I learned it by being a chess variant inventor. The reaction I get from long-time chess players is almost vitriolic if I dare introduce any element of chance into a variant. That really is telling.

It means, and I can understand this, that long-time chess players, especially the good ones who are more serious about chess, cannot tolerate ANY act of randomness. Everything to them must be cause and effect. If you plan and direct your energy to a goal, and your plan is superior to someone you are competing against, you MUST win. To lose by some roll of the dice, even if that roll involves probability rather than just pure luck (it is more probable that 2 dice will roll a 7 than a 12), is absolute desecration.

And to me, this is why they have so much trouble with our physical universe, in which randomness does come along quite often and ruins the best-laid plans of mice and men. It literally wounds their psyche.

Part of the problem is that these good chess players have been studying chess intensely since very early childhood ... and in the process, lost part of their childhood. It affects different players to different degrees, as we are all both biologically and psychologically different. But none of these players can ever, in my opinion, be as tolerant and flexible in dealing with the world around them as we who have not been indoctrinated into chess in such a serious way.

[Brad Thomson]

Interesting ideas Pargat. I myself am attracted to chess in part because there is no luck element, no randomness, no dice, no bad bounces, it is a finite game, and you win when make the best moves. Thank goodness I am strictly an intermediate player, if I had gotten any better I may have ended up being even more disreputable than I already am.

[Neil Frarey]

A significant post from GM Maxim Dlugy:

https://sites.google.com/view/gmdlug...ZMj1WsdTKIR_s4

Interesting read, thanks Aris.

Did GM Dlugy just throw his students under the school bus?

[Joshua Guo]

Another loss for Niemann today at US Championship.
After the anti-cheating measures were implemented after R3 of Sinq Cup, Hans has scored 1 Win, 7 Draws, and 5 Losses in St. Louis.
15 min. broadcast delay at Sinq Cup after R3, 30 min. broadcast delay at US Championship.
Draw your own conclusions.

Also his analysis in post-game interview is still crap. Every GM they interviewed (Robson, Fabi, Shankland, etc.) all show good insights about their games and not necessarily long accurate variations. But Hans just seems like a much weaker player when analyzing, if he chooses to analyze at all. Sorry that's my honest opinion.

[Brad Thomson]

Draw your own conclusions.

This may rule out the theory first put forth by Sid to the effect that Niemann has a state-sponsored implant that allows him to cheat without outside help. (Although we know that Magnus tosses games, maybe Niemann does too.)

[J. Crowhurst]

Another loss for Niemann today at US Championship.
After the anti-cheating measures were implemented after R3 of Sinq Cup, Hans has scored 1 Win, 7 Draws, and 5 Losses in St. Louis.
15 min. broadcast delay at Sinq Cup after R3, 30 min. broadcast delay at US Championship.
Draw your own conclusions.

Here are my conclusions.

He was the lowest rated player in the Sinquefeld Cup by 60 points. In round three, he had the greatest moment in his entire life, which he got to enjoy for one day. The next day, he was branded a cheater by the World Champion's insinuations, and convicted by the internet at large based on no evidence, no suggestion that there was any yet-to-be-revealed evidence, and no explanation as to how he could have cheated.

After that, his play went downhill. Carlen's withdrawal stripped Niemann of his win, so he even though he finished at .500 with 2-5-2, it was scored as 1-5-2. For the lowest rated player in the tournament.

At his next trip to St. Louis he has, so far, he has lost to the two players leading the tournament, he beat a guy rated 140 points lower, and drew against 2747, 2690, and 2712. Then today, he lost to 2652.

The thing about statistics is when you say "7 draws" and you leave out "against 7 of the top 50 players in the world", some might conclude that you're trying to mislead the people who are reading what you have to say.

I'm pretty confident that if his true strength, without cheating, was 2550 or whatever chess.com suggested it would be, his results in those post round 3 games would be very, very different.

[Joshua Guo]

Here are my conclusions.

He was the lowest rated player in the Sinquefeld Cup by 60 points. In round three, he had the greatest moment in his entire life, which he got to enjoy for one day. The next day, he was branded a cheater by the World Champion's insinuations, and convicted by the internet at large based on no evidence, no suggestion that there was any yet-to-be-revealed evidence, and no explanation as to how he could have cheated.

After that, his play went downhill. Carlen's withdrawal stripped Niemann of his win, so he even though he finished at .500 with 2-5-2, it was scored as 1-5-2. For the lowest rated player in the tournament.

At his next trip to St. Louis he has, so far, he has lost to the two players leading the tournament, he beat a guy rated 140 points lower, and drew against 2747, 2690, and 2712. Then today, he lost to 2652.

The thing about statistics is when you say "7 draws" and you leave out "against 7 of the top 50 players in the world", some might conclude that you're trying to mislead the people who are reading what you have to say.

I'm pretty confident that if his true strength, without cheating, was 2550 or whatever chess.com suggested it would be, his results in those post round 3 games would be very, very different.

I wasn't leaving out anything. Everyone who plays in St Louis is strong, I assume people know that. His performance rating is 2635 in these 12 games, you happy?

In any case, I think Hans true strength is around 2600, which is much stronger compared to everyone. But there's big difference between 2600 vs. 2700 FIDE.

Anyways, no point arguing with people on ChessTalk, if you believe Hans is innocent and only cheated twice online, then.... by all means, just believe that.

Edit: I didn't even mention Hans only win out of 12 games was against Yoo (2563). He was close to losing in multiple games (vs. Dominguez vs. Nepo in Sinq Cup, and vs. Shankland in US Championship), but managed to draw them.

[Brad Thomson]

and no explanation as to how he could have cheated.

This is the crucial factor, without this explanation all accusations are without merit because they do not demonstrate opportunity.

[J. Crowhurst]

This is the crucial factor, without this explanation all accusations are without merit because they do not demonstrate opportunity.

Exactly, particularly when a room has video cameras everywhere.

I’m a prosecutor. If police send me a bank robbery charge, and the only evidence is video footage of the guy sitting in a chair for an hour, and the bank is saying “well we lost $3,000 during that hour, and he was there the whole time so he must have done it”, I would label that a below-average case, and suggest that maybe it was the bank that lost the money all by themselves.

It’s been five weeks since this happened, there has been nothing new. And we’re still reading ridiculous stuff like “after his first three games at Sinq, where his performance rating was 3100, he hasn’t continued to do that well. Draw your own conclusions.”

i’m sorry for getting testy. To me this kind of thing is serious. I’ve had many situations where I’m staring at my computer thinking, “If I click this button, this guy’s life is over. He’ll be in the papers, on the internet, he’ll lose his job and probably his marriage and he’ll have to sell a kidney to pay the $40,000 it will cost for a proper defence. So how much do I believe that one witness?”

And if I get police report where the facts are as cherry picked as the chess.com report, I just wonder, “what do you idiots think your job is?”

[Joshua Guo]

Exactly, particularly when a room has video cameras everywhere.

I’m a prosecutor. If police send me a bank robbery charge, and the only evidence is video footage of the guy sitting in a chair for an hour, and the bank is saying “well we lost $3,000 during that hour, and he was there the whole time so he must have done it”, I would label that a below-average case, and suggest that maybe it was the bank that lost the money all by themselves.

It’s been five weeks since this happened, there has been nothing new. And we’re still reading ridiculous stuff like “after his first three games at Sinq, where his performance rating was 3100, he hasn’t continued to do that well. Draw your own conclusions.”

i’m sorry for getting testy. To me this kind of thing is serious. I’ve had many situations where I’m staring at my computer thinking, “If I click this button, this guy’s life is over. He’ll be in the papers, on the internet, he’ll lose his job and probably his marriage and he’ll have to sell a kidney to pay the $40,000 it will cost for a proper defence. So how much do I believe that one witness?”

And if I get police report where the facts are as cherry picked as the chess.com report, I just wonder, “what do you idiots think your job is?”

Haha, ok no point debating with you.
You are as hilarious as Hans today, trying to flag a 2650 opponent in a lost position when he still had 1hr 15 min. on the clock. Maybe try to put up some resistance like a normal GM?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQU33IpcnS4&t=4m11s

Again, if you believe Hans only cheated online 2x as he claimed, then by all means stick with your view...

[Roger Patterson]

Another loss for Niemann today at US Championship.
After the anti-cheating measures were implemented after R3 of Sinq Cup, Hans has scored 1 Win, 7 Draws, and 5 Losses in St. Louis.
15 min. broadcast delay at Sinq Cup after R3, 30 min. broadcast delay at US Championship.
Draw your own conclusions.

You must think Aronian (same score, even higher rated) is a goof too.

[Aris Marghetis]

Exactly, particularly when a room has video cameras everywhere.

I’m a prosecutor. If police send me a bank robbery charge, and the only evidence is video footage of the guy sitting in a chair for an hour, and the bank is saying “well we lost $3,000 during that hour, and he was there the whole time so he must have done it”, I would label that a below-average case, and suggest that maybe it was the bank that lost the money all by themselves.

It’s been five weeks since this happened, there has been nothing new. And we’re still reading ridiculous stuff like “after his first three games at Sinq, where his performance rating was 3100, he hasn’t continued to do that well. Draw your own conclusions.”

i’m sorry for getting testy. To me this kind of thing is serious. I’ve had many situations where I’m staring at my computer thinking, “If I click this button, this guy’s life is over. He’ll be in the papers, on the internet, he’ll lose his job and probably his marriage and he’ll have to sell a kidney to pay the $40,000 it will cost for a proper defence. So how much do I believe that one witness?”

And if I get police report where the facts are as cherry picked as the chess.com report, I just wonder, “what do you idiots think your job is?”

Thanks J, solid post.

[Brad Thomson]

Again, if you believe Hans only cheated online 2x as he claimed, then by all means stick with your view...

I believe you are missing the point, please correct me if I am wrong. Neither J nor I necessarily believe that Niemann did not cheat over the board, we are simply saying that until you demonstrate opportunity you have not made a sufficient case to accuse and to convict. The obligation is on you to say how the hell he does it, or else you can prove nothing. We are deemed innocent until proven guilty, we are entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

Does this situation look fishy? Sure, but it proves nothing.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Dlugy's article implies (or states pretty close to directly) that there's no such thing as a third option of:

3) Deny you cheated and have your case re-examined

The third option is used from time to time, and the ban is reversed.