Niemann - Carlsen

[Pargat Perrer]

.

Perfect!!!! I would buy that T-shirt!!!!!

I guess it is ch-ch-ch-ch-Checkmate if you get the beads inserted all the way beyond the King and turn on the power switch! LOL

[Neil Frarey]

Well put, Patrick, I for one agree with you on this.

Since Neimann is a confessed cheater at online chess from some years ago, he is playing top level chess with a target on his back. Thus it seems doubly unlikely to me that he would engage in a much more sophisticated* and dangerous cheating method in OTB play at super-GM events.

I liked your comparison, Patrick, but here's a way to really put it into perspective: Niemann if he is a cheater right now at OTB events would be like a person who in high-school was CONVICTED of selling pot to his fellow students (before pot became legal) and who is now WORKING AS A DEA AGENT while secretly running a heroin / cocaine / fentanyl dealing network across the whole country.

It's several orders of magnitude jump in both the scrutiny he is under PLUS the complexity needed to pull it off.

Just doesn't pass the smell test to me. Ohhhh I just realized that could be taken literally .... Anal Beads Code Vibrations!!!!!!

or as the Canadian military would refer to it, ABCVs.

Neil Frarey, can you make Anal Beads Code Vibrations into a viral Internet meme?

T-shirts? Coffee mugs? Stocking stuffers for Christmas? (sold at Dollarama, little plastic anal beads powered by watch batteries) .....


EDIT: perhaps what is really going on here is that Magnus sees Niemann and a real threat, perhaps a chess genius, and is trying to use Niemann's online cheating from the past to DERAIL his career at the top levels!

.

[Pargat Perrer]

He paid the price for his cheating by being banned from Chess.com and having to forgo opportunities as a result. And justifiably so.

What I'm saying is that online cheating is a very weak indicator of propensity to cheat over-the-board, and cheating in low-stakes online games is a very weak indicator of overall moral character. Cheating in a super-tournament is another level of criminal sophistication, another level of moral depravity. It's like saying "I'm not surprised that guy got busted for smuggling cocaine, he used to smoke pot in high-school." Maybe the majority of people who go on to become serious criminals do use drugs in high-school, but the reverse is not true.

Well put, Patrick, I for one agree with you on this.

Since Neimann is a confessed cheater at online chess from some years ago, he is playing top level chess with a target on his back. Thus it seems doubly unlikely to me that he would engage in a much more sophisticated* and dangerous cheating method in OTB play at super-GM events.

I liked your comparison, Patrick, but here's a way to really put it into perspective: Niemann if he is a cheater right now at OTB events would be like a person who in high-school was CONVICTED of selling pot to his fellow students (before pot became legal) and who is now WORKING AS A DEA AGENT while secretly running a heroin / cocaine / fentanyl dealing network across the whole country.

It's several orders of magnitude jump in both the scrutiny he is under PLUS the complexity needed to pull it off.

Just doesn't pass the smell test to me. Ohhhh I just realized that could be taken literally .... Anal Beads Code Vibrations!!!!!!

or as the Canadian military would refer to it, ABCVs.

Neil Frarey, can you make Anal Beads Code Vibrations into a viral Internet meme?

T-shirts? Coffee mugs? Stocking stuffers for Christmas? (sold at Dollarama, little plastic anal beads powered by watch batteries) .....


EDIT: perhaps what is really going on here is that Magnus sees Niemann and a real threat, perhaps a chess genius, and is trying to use Niemann's online cheating from the past to DERAIL his career at the top levels!

[Patrick Kirby]

I'm not sure I understand what point you're trying to make but if it's what I think it is then I disagree with you. All of us have known people who did something illegal or unethical and, when they were caught, their first words were something like this: "Hey c'mon, what's the big deal? It was only ...." Are you suggesting, Patrick, that we should let Niemann get away with, "Hey c'mon man, what's the big deal? It was only online blitz. Who cares?" Niemann cheated online, a large number of times according to chess.com, and then lied about it. We should care.

p.s. While there is something tragic about all of this (a young man potentially putting the kibosh on his own career due to stupid decisions), the fact is that Niemann did this to himself. He shot himself in both feet dozens of times, scores of times. I'm finding it really difficult to work up any sympathy for him.

He paid the price for his cheating by being banned from Chess.com and having to forgo opportunities as a result. And justifiably so.

What I'm saying is that online cheating is a very weak indicator of propensity to cheat over-the-board, and cheating in low-stakes online games is a very weak indicator of overall moral character. Cheating in a super-tournament is another level of criminal sophistication, another level of moral depravity. It's like saying "I'm not surprised that guy got busted for smuggling cocaine, he used to smoke pot in high-school." Maybe the majority of people who go on to become serious criminals do use drugs in high-school, but the reverse is not true.

[Joshua Guo]

Hahaha, after Yoo-Hans R1 game at US Championship, Hans refused to do any analysis in post-game interview (with Yasser and GM Cristian Chirila) and just walked away.

The whole interview lasted 20 seconds, Hans just said "chess speaks for itself" again. The game was 0-1, Yoo blundered with 36.e6?

Very entertaining :-)

[Peter McKillop]

The thing is that cheating in online Blitz is more or less like giving into a momentary urge to switch on an engine, maybe combined with some rationalizations like "I would have found that move anyway" or "I'm just doing it to get my rating back up after I played for two hours yesterday when I was drunk."

It's not in the same ball-park as concocting a super-advanced cheating scheme to beat the World Champion in a live game.

To use maybe a dumb analogy, this is like the difference between smoking a cigarette and running an international drug smuggling gang.

I'm not sure I understand what point you're trying to make but if it's what I think it is then I disagree with you. All of us have known people who did something illegal or unethical and, when they were caught, their first words were something like this: "Hey c'mon, what's the big deal? It was only ...." Are you suggesting, Patrick, that we should let Niemann get away with, "Hey c'mon man, what's the big deal? It was only online blitz. Who cares?" Niemann cheated online, a large number of times according to chess.com, and then lied about it. We should care.

p.s. While there is something tragic about all of this (a young man potentially putting the kibosh on his own career due to stupid decisions), the fact is that Niemann did this to himself. He shot himself in both feet dozens of times, scores of times. I'm finding it really difficult to work up any sympathy for him.

[Patrick Kirby]

The thing is that cheating in online Blitz is more or less like giving into a momentary urge to switch on an engine, maybe combined with some rationalizations like "I would have found that move anyway" or "I'm just doing it to get my rating back up after I played for two hours yesterday when I was drunk."

It's not in the same ball-park as concocting a super-advanced cheating scheme to beat the World Champion in a live game.

To use maybe a dumb analogy, this is like the difference between smoking a cigarette and running an international drug smuggling gang.

[Neil Frarey]

Did Niemann cheat in online blitz?
Yes.

Did he lie about the extent of it? Probably.

Is he trustworthy?
No.

Must we presume innocence?
Yes.

Did he beat Magnus fairly?
Yes.

Was Magnus wrong to withdraw?
Yes.

Did Chess,com make the story about themselves?
Yes.

GM Jonathan Rowson

https://mobile.twitter.com/Jonathan_...16131673628672

[Brad Thomson]

David, I agree. I do not know what to believe, so I abstain. But I will not convict without absolute physical proof.

[David Ottosen]

Should this guy be watched like a hawk, yes. We have a chance with the United States championship. If they are intelligent, they will delay the game broadcasts to rule out many possible theories about how Niemann is cheating by eliminating the possibility of someone on the outside getting the moves in real time, assessing the positions with engines and then communicating back to Niemann quickly enough to allow him to look like he is playing at a normal pace.

To be honest, I don't know that I'll draw any conclusions. Even if we assume they implement the most stringent anti-cheating methodologies available, Niemann might just have a bad tournament due to fatigure/stress from the whole incident even if he's a legitimate 2700 (similar to how Carlsen played poorly against Niemann in their first game, possibly because he couldn't get it out of his head that he was playing someone he considered a cheater).

I doubt any of us will know the truth and we can only decide for ourselves what we believe.

[Patrick Kirby]

I am not so sure if it is far-fetched, if the thing suddenly offers up a move that shows an evaluation of a 1.5+ advantage, a 2500-rated player even 200 points less than his opponent likely could make short work of the rest of the game.
In the famous game with HN and Carlsen e3! looked like a perfect example of a decisive move, once seen the rest is straightforward.

True, but it's also not a move that is impossible for a 2500 GM to find on his own. Let's say that being prompted to play e3 by an accomplice increased Hans's chance of finding it from 50% to 100%, and playing it increased his likelihood of winning the game from 50% to 100%. The overall impact of this cheating is not so great, and not every game is going to present opportunities like this.

This is what I mean by "having a really smart accomplice." You'd need an accomplice who was really good at identifying situations:
1. When Hans is unlikely to find the best move on his own strength;
2. When finding the best move has a big impact on the result of the game;
3. When knowing just the first move gives a big advantage, without further prompting.

Is it possible? Sure. Is there any real evidence for it? I don't think so.

Also I don't think it could be done without being detectable in some way on all the statistical tests that Niemann's games have been subjected to.

[Brad Thomson]

The fact that Sid, Patrick and others are engaged in legitimate debate demonstrates that Niemann cannot be convicted without actual physical evidence. There is no way to prove the dude cheated simply and only by looking at his games and coupling this with the presumption that he is not that good at chess. If you want to accuse legitimately, show the physical evidence, do not just espouse your theories about how good you think the man is at chess in comparison to the engines. Sid has suggested a state-sponsored implant, maybe. But this is still only a theory. The proof has got to be in the pudding.

Should this guy be watched like a hawk, yes. We have a chance with the United States championship. If they are intelligent, they will delay the game broadcasts to rule out many possible theories about how Niemann is cheating by eliminating the possibility of someone on the outside getting the moves in real time, assessing the positions with engines and then communicating back to Niemann quickly enough to allow him to look like he is playing at a normal pace.

[Sid Belzberg]

I doubt it's really possible to gain 200 rating points just by being prompted the best move in a few positions a game. There are lots of variations where knowing just the first move doesn't help too much, you'd need to know all the rest of the moves to be able to justify it. I'm not saying it wouldn't make you a better player, and maybe if you had a really smart accomplice you could work out a good system, but it all seems far-fetched.

Also, as I've pointed out, doing this would still leave a statistical trace, either in the distribution of mistakes, as Pargat mentioned, or in the overall average, since mistakes in critical positions likely have an oversized impact on a player's overall result.

I am not so sure if it is far-fetched, if the thing suddenly offers up a move that shows an evaluation of a 1.5+ advantage, a 2500-rated player even 200 points less than his opponent likely could make short work of the rest of the game.
In the famous game with HN and Carlsen e3! looked like a perfect example of a decisive move, once seen the rest is straightforward.

[Patrick Kirby]

Kenneth and others argued against centipawns normally being a good metric in this way, once you're up, say a Queen in a position, the centipawn score becomes irrelevant as all kinds of moves win other than the machine-generated move. Keep in mind that no one is arguing that Hans is not a strong player in his own right. So even 2500-level move choices are probably good enough to survive, and if he finds an advantage in a critical position, then he can cruise along to a win with 2500-level moves without caring too much about the centipawn score.

I doubt it's really possible to gain 200 rating points just by being prompted the best move in a few positions a game. There are lots of variations where knowing just the first move doesn't help too much, you'd need to know all the rest of the moves to be able to justify it. I'm not saying it wouldn't make you a better player, and maybe if you had a really smart accomplice you could work out a good system, but it all seems far-fetched.

Also, as I've pointed out, doing this would still leave a statistical trace, either in the distribution of mistakes, as Pargat mentioned, or in the overall average, since mistakes in critical positions likely have an oversized impact on a player's overall result.

[David Ottosen]

Kenneth and others argued against centipawns normally being a good metric in this way, once you're up, say a Queen in a position, the centipawn score becomes irrelevant as all kinds of moves win other than the machine-generated move. Keep in mind that no one is arguing that Hans is not a strong player in his own right. So even 2500-level move choices are probably good enough to survive, and if he finds an advantage in a critical position, then he can cruise along to a win with 2500-level moves without caring too much about the centipawn score.

I don't think either of us are good enough players to determine whether the hypothesis that 2500 level moves are good enough to survive vs a 2700 but my impression would have been that they aren't. I always try to remember that when most of us play in tournaments, a 200 point rating difference is kind of big but well within the realm of upsets (1700s lose to 1500s all the time). At the top level, I think 200 point difference is a chasm that is rarely overcome.

It also raises the question of how to identify that crucial position where he should ask for that help.

If he's doing it, now the cheating has to involve two way communication (making the operation that much more complex and susceptible to detection

If someone else is making that determination, they have to be at least as strong as he is, if not stronger.