Niemann - Carlsen

[Vlad Drkulec]

Hi Aris. No need for concern. Vlad and I have a bit of a history of 'edginess'. If he gives me a push he knows I'll push back and vice versa. Re my questions to Vlad, I'm genuinely curious about what his qualifications are for dealing with matters of online cheating. For example, does he have a degree in some related technical field or in stastical analysis? Or maybe he's just a smart guy who has taken it upon himself to acquire a detailed knowledge of the matter. Whatever the answers are, Vlad of course is free to answer me, or not.

I have a diploma in electrical-electronic engineering technology. Among several other courses there was a memorable one where we had to do machine language programming which was not fun but whenever faced with a difficult task after that that involved a great deal of complexity I knew that a solution was possible. I have undergrad degrees in psychology with a high concentration of natural sciences and business and an MBA with my studies mostly concentrated in finance and marketing. I spent most of my life working with computers or selling or servicing complex software. More recently I have taught children and adults how to play chess and sometimes improve rapidly. I have been interested in and read many books on flow, athletic performance,and peak performance. I read anything that I can find on these areas.

My first cheating case came at the beginning of the pandemic when everything had moved online, the CFC had established a rule for cases of cheating and we had our first test of the rule and I had my first encounter with chess.com's handling of alleged cheating. Chess.com had suspended the youngster (1900 CFC) who had beat a 2100 FIDE player in a game where the higher rated player had made many mistakes culminating in a blundered piece. The opening was a queen pawn open centre meaning that two pawns were exchanged on each side. I had studied this pawn structure with Victor Gavrikov, (my chess coach until he had passed away in 2016). I had also taught this pawn structure to several of my advanced students.

The youngster had worked with multiple grandmaster coaches one of whom had worked with him on this particular opening structure. He played well but not perfectly. I could find improvements to his play based on what Viktor had taught me and what I had taught my students. There was nothing special about his play in any of the other games in the CFC tournament. Chess.com was not offering any evidence that he had cheated. They just said that he had violated fair play rules at some point in the past. There was nothing indicating that he had cheated in the games that would be of interest to the CFC. He was the first in a series of cheating cases that we would have brought to our attention over the course of the next two years. The panel that looked at this case could not come to an agreement and it was kicked up to the executive of the CFC. The CFC executive weighed the arguments and in the absence of evidence we had to conclude that we did not believe that he had cheated in those CFC games. He was not suspended and later at the request of his mother I wrote a letter to that effect.

He was the first instance of an improving junior that beat a higher rated player in a spurt of chess improvement that was suspended by chess.com.

There were several other cases where I looked at the games where I concluded that the player was cheating or not cheating. In the instances where I concluded the player was cheating there was usually a confession.

I was involved in discussions with chess.com about several cases and where some evidence was presented which was quite problematic including grandmaster opinion that was clearly nonsensical. Aris was also privy to some of that same information.

Chess.com had me sign a non-disclosure and explained details of its anti-cheating protocols and procedures. I can't talk about any of that and I won't beyond saying that they have a robust system for detecting cheating.

There are cases where I can't talk about details because of non-disclosure agreements. Chess.com offered me the opportunity to sit on an arbitration panel but I didn't think that was advisable as one of the players was someone that I knew fairly well and whose parents were friends. I did act as a expert for the defense in that case. I can't talk about that case.

I had previously been granted standing as an expert witness in a case involving a computer that had maliciously been wiped of its data which I was able to recover and determine when the computer had been wiped and how.

I had also once acted as an expert witness doing some financial analysis concerning business valuation some years ago when I was teaching finance at the University of Windsor in the early 1990s.

I have always been pretty good with computer troubleshooting, creating complex financial spreadsheets that interacted with databases, and getting finicky automation software to work. Most of my work life has been as a computer consultant, a system analyst, IT coordinator or a software specialist for automation software.

I am a national master, a national arbiter, a FIDE instructor. I had multiple computer certifications and one or two certifications in the area of factory automation software. I had a few courses in statistics where I usually got an A+. I have read several books on statistics. I am good at reading the fine print. When I go to court or to tribunals I always win with only one or two exceptions which required refiling the paperwork and winning a month later.

I was consulted in a case at the Canadian Open where an unknown player upset several known players. I looked at the games and concluded that there was nothing suspicious about the games. I gave a similar report to the one Ken Regan made a few hours later and I was pleased that we came to identical conclusions.

I attended the FIDE Fair Play Commission meeting in Chennai, India this past summer.

[Pargat Perrer]

Here are some thoughts for anyone to respond to. If, as a number of people have stated or implied, cheating at online chess is something that is relatively easy to allege but relatively difficult to prove conclusively, then what is the point of all this bullshit? Why not dispense with all of the costly (?) monitoring and just allow online chess to devolve into the wild west where anything goes? My theory: companies like chess.com and icc are actually not selling online chess as their primary product; they're selling the concept of a secure environment where people can feel safe from cheaters while they play. And people are willing to pay for that feeling of security. Did I not read recently that Chess.com is acquiring PlayMagnus for about US$80 million? Clearly there's a lot of money at stake here. And so I wonder if part (maybe a big part) of the reason for a 72-page report on Niemann is to convince Chess.com's customers that Chess.com really is effective at what they claim to do. They don't want the chess playing public to find out that the emperor has no clothes.

Well, this is certainly a change from a few days ago ... have you had an epiphany Peter? Do you still think Niemann is as guilty as this chess.com study seems to imply?

[Peter McKillop]

I have a diploma in electrical-electronic engineering technology. Among several other courses there was a memorable one where we had to do machine language programming which was not fun but whenever faced with a difficult task after that that involved a great deal of complexity I knew that a solution was possible. I have undergrad degrees in psychology with a high concentration of natural sciences and business and an MBA with my studies mostly concentrated in finance and marketing. I spent most of my life working with computers or selling or servicing complex software. More recently I have taught children and adults how to play chess and sometimes improve rapidly. I have been interested in and read many books on flow, athletic performance,and peak performance. I read anything that I can find on these areas.

My first cheating case came at the beginning of the pandemic when everything had moved online, the CFC had established a rule for cases of cheating and we had our first test of the rule and I had my first encounter with chess.com's handling of alleged cheating. Chess.com had suspended the youngster (1900 CFC) who had beat a 2100 FIDE player in a game where the higher rated player had made many mistakes culminating in a blundered piece. The opening was a queen pawn open centre meaning that two pawns were exchanged on each side. I had studied this pawn structure with Victor Gavrikov, (my chess coach until he had passed away in 2016). I had also taught this pawn structure to several of my advanced students.

The youngster had worked with multiple grandmaster coaches one of whom had worked with him on this particular opening structure. He played well but not perfectly. I could find improvements to his play based on what Viktor had taught me and what I had taught my students. There was nothing special about his play in any of the other games in the CFC tournament. Chess.com was not offering any evidence that he had cheated. They just said that he had violated fair play rules at some point in the past. There was nothing indicating that he had cheated in the games that would be of interest to the CFC. He was the first in a series of cheating cases that we would have brought to our attention over the course of the next two years. The panel that looked at this case could not come to an agreement and it was kicked up to the executive of the CFC. The CFC executive weighed the arguments and in the absence of evidence we had to conclude that we did not believe that he had cheated in those CFC games. He was not suspended and later at the request of his mother I wrote a letter to that effect.

He was the first instance of an improving junior that beat a higher rated player in a spurt of chess improvement that was suspended by chess.com.

There were several other cases where I looked at the games where I concluded that the player was cheating or not cheating. In the instances where I concluded the player was cheating there was usually a confession.

I was involved in discussions with chess.com about several cases and where some evidence was presented which was quite problematic including grandmaster opinion that was clearly nonsensical. Aris was also privy to some of that same information.

Chess.com had me sign a non-disclosure and explained details of its anti-cheating protocols and procedures. I can't talk about any of that and I won't beyond saying that they have a robust system for detecting cheating.

There are cases where I can't talk about details because of non-disclosure agreements. Chess.com offered me the opportunity to sit on an arbitration panel but I didn't think that was advisable as one of the players was someone that I knew fairly well and whose parents were friends. I did act as a expert for the defense in that case. I can't talk about that case.

I had previously been granted standing as an expert witness in a case involving a computer that had maliciously been wiped of its data which I was able to recover and determine when the computer had been wiped and how.

I had also once acted as an expert witness doing some financial analysis concerning business valuation some years ago when I was teaching finance at the University of Windsor in the early 1990s.

I have always been pretty good with computer troubleshooting, creating complex financial spreadsheets that interacted with databases, and getting finicky automation software to work. Most of my work life has been as a computer consultant, a system analyst, IT coordinator or a software specialist for automation software.

I am a national master, a national arbiter, a FIDE instructor. I had multiple computer certifications and one or two certifications in the area of factory automation software. I had a few courses in statistics where I usually got an A+. I have read several books on statistics. I am good at reading the fine print. When I go to court or to tribunals I always win with only one or two exceptions which required refiling the paperwork and winning a month later.

I was consulted in a case at the Canadian Open where an unknown player upset several known players. I looked at the games and concluded that there was nothing suspicious about the games. I gave a similar report to the one Ken Regan made a few hours later and I was pleased that we came to identical conclusions.

I attended the FIDE Fair Play Commission meeting in Chennai, India this past summer.

Very interesting!! Thank you for sharing that, Vlad. I hope the panel discussion at the Marshall Club will be a productive event.

[Peter McKillop]

Well, this is certainly a change from a few days ago ... have you had an epiphany Peter? Do you still think Niemann is as guilty as this chess.com study seems to imply?

Actually, Pargat, you got me thinking about this following our last exchange where you brought up the word 'likely'. It got me wondering, why a 72-page report? Sure there's lots of interesting stuff in there for people who are into things like stats and detail, but for me and maybe many others, 72 pages seems like overkill. Even if potential litigation was a big concern for them, was it wise to spill all their beans upfront? That in turn got me wondering whether Chess.com was trying to convey an additional message, something beyond the simple 'Niemann is a liar and an online cheater'.

Yes, I still think Niemann is as guilty as Chess.com alleges.

[Brad Thomson]

Yes, I still think Niemann is as guilty as Chess.com alleges.

This refers to online cheating only, which the man has admitted to. What do you think about the suggestion that he had some way to cheat over the board in Saint Louis when he beat Carlsen?

[Peter McKillop]

This refers to online cheating only, which the man has admitted to. What do you think about the suggestion that he had some way to cheat over the board in Saint Louis when he beat Carlsen?

I don't believe it. Early on I was willing to cut Carlsen some slack (not that Carsen needs slack from me :) ) on the assumption that Carlsen was a decent person who was standing up for the integrity of the game, and that details of Niemann's alleged/implied OTB cheating at Sinquefeld would be out shortly. That never happened and I now agree with you that it was a highly irresponsible move on Carlsen's part to drop out of a tournament (whose patron has been extremely generous with the U.S. and international chess communities) and leave everyone thinking that Niemann had cheated OTB.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Very interesting!! Thank you for sharing that, Vlad. I hope the panel discussion at the Marshall Club will be a productive event.

I hope so too. At some point closer to the date we will publicize it but in the last month or so I have had an unprecedented series of interviews, with four of the seven being about the Niemann situation. Most involved exchanging emails and multiple conversations. The non-Niemann interviews were about support for chess by government, a pair of interviews about women's chess and one player in particular and chess in general around 2012 to 2014 and later. The third non-Niemann interview was about Shawn Rodrigue-Lemieux's winning at WYCC. The last month or so has seen about a year's worth of interviews. I had to turn down CBC radio for a last minute appearance on their radio network that would have been three hours long from 6 am to 9 am last Monday which would have conflicted with a critical series of appointments the day before an elderly family member was going for surgery.

My default is to do the interviews and events when I can and publicize when I have time.

Next week I am off to the Sports Tourism Canada conference in Edmonton where I will meet with communities interested in bidding for chess tournaments and officials from other sports federations. Sports Tourism Canada is paying for my flight, hotel and most of my meals. I will not be doing any media interviews for the next week as I expect to be kept pretty busy at the conference.

[Sid Belzberg]

So this is the first article I have seen that attempts to explain why Hans's average centipawn loss chart, while he climbed from 2500-2700, is very different than from other players that achieved this.

https://en.chessbase.com/post/the-ha...-do-not-reveal

They state:

"Most of the top grandmasters like to avoid risks when possible. Niemann seems more willing to take the game into murky territory, and especially to sacrifice material". Other chess experts have even compared Niemann’s style of play to Tal’s. In any case, such a risky style is of course prone to inaccuracies and mistakes and, even when successful – as it clearly is in Niemann’s case – would by all means increase the player’s ACPL."

I would like to see Tal's early games when he was up and coming to the top of the ratings run through the same analysis to test this theory. Kasparov's also would be interesting. if their patterns are the same as other players already listed, then I still remain skeptical until a counter-example can be produced. At least this is the first remotely plausible explanation I have read.

[Peter McKillop]

It is not too late to read up on the subject. I suggest dialogues. Plato is the ultimate master, but both Hume and especially my favourite thinker, Berkeley, wrote some wonderful .....

Just happened across this. Thought you might enjoy it given your philosophical bent.

[Brad Thomson]

The theory that all time, or all events in al of time, always exist, and thus there is no change from the full perspective, is the view of some thinkers, many Scholastics, and Spinoza. Berkeley rejects these thinkers as atheists and fatalists. If time does not include change, then we are not free, all is determined, and God does not exist.

[Neil Frarey]

The theory that all time, or all events in al of time, always exist, and thus there is no change from the full perspective, is the view of some thinkers, many Scholastics, and Spinoza. Berkeley rejects these thinkers as atheists and fatalists. If time does not include change, then we are not free, all is determined, and God does not exist.

The exsistence of God and Niemann cheating OTB are one in the same, ha!

[Neil Frarey]

The exsistence of God and Niemann cheating OTB are one in the same, ha!

Innocent until proven guilty.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Brad:

Conceptually you are in the realm of the philosopher, North Whitehead, I think:

Whitehead argued that reality consists of processes rather than material objects, and that processes are best defined by their relations with other processes, thus rejecting the theory that reality is fundamentally constructed by bits of matter that exist independently of one another.

Wikipedia

Alfred North Whitehead OM FRS FBA (15 February 1861 – 30 December 1947) was an English mathematician and philosopher. He is best known as the defining figure of the philosophical school known as process philosophy,^[21] which today has found application to a wide variety of disciplines, including ecology, theology, education, physics, biology, economics, and psychology, among other areas.

In his early career Whitehead wrote primarily on mathematics, logic, and physics. His most notable work in these fields is the three-volume Principia Mathematica (1910–1913), which he wrote with former student Bertrand Russell. Principia Mathematica is considered one of the twentieth century's most important works in mathematical logic, and placed 23rd in a list of the top 100 English-language nonfiction books of the twentieth century by Modern Library.^[22]

Beginning in the late 1910s and early 1920s, Whitehead gradually turned his attention from mathematics to philosophy of science, and finally to metaphysics. He developed a comprehensive metaphysical system which radically departed from most of Western philosophy. Whitehead argued that reality consists of processes rather than material objects, and that processes are best defined by their relations with other processes, thus rejecting the theory that reality is fundamentally constructed by bits of matter that exist independently of one another.^[23] Today Whitehead's philosophical works – particularly Process and Reality – are regarded as the foundational texts of process philosophy.

Whitehead's process philosophy argues that "there is urgency in coming to see the world as a web of interrelated processes of which we are integral parts, so that all of our choices and actions have consequences for the world around us."^[23] For this reason, one of the most promising applications of Whitehead's thought in recent years has been in the area of ecological civilization and environmental ethics pioneered by John B. Cobb.^[24][25]

[Aris Marghetis]

Just happened across this. Thought you might enjoy it given your philosophical bent.

LOL, thanks!

[Bob Armstrong]

good one Aris!