Niemann - Carlsen

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Peter McKillop
    replied
    Originally posted by Pargat Perrer View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Peter McKillop
    replied
    Originally posted by Vlad Drkulec View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pargat Perrer
    replied
    Originally posted by Peter McKillop View Post
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Vlad Drkulec
    replied
    Originally posted by Peter McKillop View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vlad Drkulec
    replied
    Originally posted by Aris Marghetis View Post

    Peter, why be so rough on Vlad? In my opinion and experience, on this subject, Vlad knows his stuff, and has what I consider a superior ability to apply his evaluations to DIFFERENT skill levels. That's not as easy as it might sound, for example, some GMs repeatedly demonstrate sheer inability to "lower" their thought patterns to that of lesser players, like fast-rising Juniors. And Dr.Regan is THE MAN when it comes to statistical analysis. Yes, some of the people in these conversations are "just other guys", but not THOSE two guys (which is prolly why they're invited to the Marshall!)
    Ken Regan is a world class authority on catching chess cheating. The work he is doing is amazing. The analysis that he is able to provide is truly eye-opening. At the Canadian Open, John Upper and I spent some quality moments that were all too brief as he explained some of his work and this was after he had spent an hour with the arbiter staff and organizers expounding on his work. He really loves what he is doing and is very much able to communicate it to an audience of varying technical ability. It was my highlight of the tournament even more than playing one of our Olympiad players to a draw and playing what the computer said was a flawless game (thank you Chessable).

    Leave a comment:


  • Vlad Drkulec
    replied
    Originally posted by J. Crowhurst View Post

    I was a witness a couple of years ago, and had to give a statement. One of the witness in MY case had threatened to get a shotgun and wait for the accused in the bushes at his house. Then - in the courtroom, seconds before the judge comes in, he says something similar. We go outside. I tell him "you can't say that, now I have to tell the police", and he's like, "what? What did I say?" He truly didn't remember making these threats moments later. So then I'm giving a statement, and I tell you the way I was speaking into that tape recorder, I made Niemann sound like Abraham Lincoln giving the Gettysburg Address. Just pure babble. My job is basically public speaking, in a courtroom to a judge and sometimes jury on a daily basis. And listening to the tape you'd swear English was my fourth or fifth language.

    These two characters had been around the block a few times in court, so I knew them both pretty well, and ultimately nothing happened. But this whole thing where people remember stuff and speak clearly in high-adrenaline situations? Completely foreign to me.
    Sounds like you didn't hear many death threats before that incident.

    The adrenaline is geared towards making you able to take action or to run away (fight or flight) and not to help you talk. Time is slowed down. Senses are heightened. In that instant you are focused on the moment and what is happening. Fully alive and fully present and ready to take action or in some cases to freeze depending on how you handle the internal dialog awaiting your instructions to act or not act.

    Leave a comment:


  • Brad Thomson
    replied
    Excellent Peter! I think you are absolutely correct in your assessment of Chess.com's motivations and intentions. This is why Neimann is being unfairly and ruthlessly targeted. Their "evidence" is bullshit. And Carlsen is a total disgrace. I still say that he deliberately threw the game in Saint Lous in order to have a pretext to set all of this in motion.

    I am of the opinion that there will always be cheaters online, just as there will always be cheaters in all walks of life, and therefore there should never be chess events with prizes, especially cash prizes, offered online. If people are going to cheat for meaningless online rating points, so what? Let the wild west prevail. Exceptions might be made for top level events IF all players have independent monitors in their rooms watching them play in person.
    Last edited by Brad Thomson; Friday, 28th October, 2022, 05:34 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Peter McKillop
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Peter McKillop
    replied
    Originally posted by Aris Marghetis View Post

    Peter, why be so rough on Vlad? In my opinion and experience, on this subject, Vlad knows his stuff, and has what I consider a superior ability to apply his evaluations to DIFFERENT skill levels. That's not as easy as it might sound, for example, some GMs repeatedly demonstrate sheer inability to "lower" their thought patterns to that of lesser players, like fast-rising Juniors. And Dr.Regan is THE MAN when it comes to statistical analysis. Yes, some of the people in these conversations are "just other guys", but not THOSE two guys (which is prolly why they're invited to the Marshall!)
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aris Marghetis
    replied
    Originally posted by Peter McKillop View Post

    And thank you, Vlad, for reminding me that I don't have a crystal ball. As CFC President, shouldn't something noteworthy like this be included in the news section at the CFC website? It's not any old joe blow who gets an invitation like this. So how sbout sharing? What are your qualifications in the area of chess cheating?

    p.s. Most discussions anywhere, including chesstalk, are fruitless! And yet here you are. But thanks, Captain Obvious.
    Peter, why be so rough on Vlad? In my opinion and experience, on this subject, Vlad knows his stuff, and has what I consider a superior ability to apply his evaluations to DIFFERENT skill levels. That's not as easy as it might sound, for example, some GMs repeatedly demonstrate sheer inability to "lower" their thought patterns to that of lesser players, like fast-rising Juniors. And Dr.Regan is THE MAN when it comes to statistical analysis. Yes, some of the people in these conversations are "just other guys", but not THOSE two guys (which is prolly why they're invited to the Marshall!)

    Leave a comment:


  • Peter McKillop
    replied
    Originally posted by Vlad Drkulec View Post

    Just another guy that will be discussing fair play on the Marshall Chess club panel presentation that includes Dr. Ken Regan and USCF President Randy Bauer.

    Thank you Peter for reminding me why most discussions on chesstalk are fruitless.
    And thank you, Vlad, for reminding me that I don't have a crystal ball. As CFC President, shouldn't something noteworthy like this be included in the news section at the CFC website? It's not any old joe blow who gets an invitation like this. So how sbout sharing? What are your qualifications in the area of chess cheating?

    p.s. Most discussions anywhere, including chesstalk, are fruitless! And yet here you are. But thanks, Captain Obvious.
    Last edited by Peter McKillop; Friday, 28th October, 2022, 10:51 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vlad Drkulec
    replied
    Originally posted by Peter McKillop View Post

    And here we have another element of your style, Pargat: nitpicking. You've caught me on a technicality - yes, I should have included the word "likely" in my sentence. Chess.com, obviously, is dealing in probabilities. They don't have anyone posted in Niemann's house looking over his shoulder. They're using their software, various engines, and their substantial experience to try to create a fair playing environment for their clients. Chess.com has to acknowledge that they're dealing in probabilities but, regardless, they must be pretty damned sure that they're right or they wouldn't have published a 72-page report on the matter.

    As for Vlad, until such time that I see Vlad's legal degree(s) and hear about his practical experience dealing with similar matters in court, then Vlad is no different than you and me, Pargat. He's just another guy with an opinion.
    Just another guy that will be discussing fair play on the Marshall Chess club panel presentation that includes Dr. Ken Regan and USCF President Randy Bauer.

    Thank you Peter for reminding me why most discussions on chesstalk are fruitless.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vlad Drkulec
    replied
    Originally posted by Pargat Perrer View Post

    But you did write that Neimann "was caught cheating online more than 100 times" whereas the chess.com study says only that he likely cheated more than 100 times, and many here including Vlad Drkulec are saying the evidence in that study wouldn't pass scrutiny from a decent lawyer.

    I'm going to guess from the data I have that you, Peter, have been caught convicting someone without sufficient evidence more than 100 times.

    Maybe you should google "innocent until proven guilty".
    I believe that I said that the presented evidence in other cases where I have not signed any non-disclosure agreement would not pass scrutiny of a court. This is important for the CFC as any discipline that we impose has to be based on giving the accused due process which they do not really get from the usual chess.com process. I am aware of multiple instances of accused cheating of minors on chess.com where I am convinced that the accused are not guilty of cheating though I have not seen all of the evidence.

    A fast improving junior that beats a higher rated player even if that higher rated player played a totally ridiculously bad game full of obvious blunders is likely to be flagged as cheating.

    Leave a comment:


  • Peter McKillop
    replied
    Originally posted by Pargat Perrer View Post

    But you did write that Neimann "was caught cheating online more than 100 times" whereas the chess.com study says only that he likely cheated more than 100 times, and many here including Vlad Drkulec are saying the evidence in that study wouldn't pass scrutiny from a decent lawyer.

    I'm going to guess from the data I have that you, Peter, have been caught convicting someone without sufficient evidence more than 100 times.

    Maybe you should google "innocent until proven guilty".
    And here we have another element of your style, Pargat: nitpicking. You've caught me on a technicality - yes, I should have included the word "likely" in my sentence. Chess.com, obviously, is dealing in probabilities. They don't have anyone posted in Niemann's house looking over his shoulder. They're using their software, various engines, and their substantial experience to try to create a fair playing environment for their clients. Chess.com has to acknowledge that they're dealing in probabilities but, regardless, they must be pretty damned sure that they're right or they wouldn't have published a 72-page report on the matter.

    As for Vlad, until such time that I see Vlad's legal degree(s) and hear about his practical experience dealing with similar matters in court, then Vlad is no different than you and me, Pargat. He's just another guy with an opinion.

    p.s. Let's not forget that Niemann has admitted to cheating online. The primary differences between Niemann and Chess.com seem to be related to the amount of cheating and how serious it was.
    Last edited by Peter McKillop; Friday, 28th October, 2022, 10:25 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pargat Perrer
    replied
    Originally posted by Peter McKillop View Post
    Pargat, if you're going to participate in a thread, rather than just jumping in and shooting your mouth off, don't you think you have a responsibility to at least do a little bit of reading so that you have a basic familiarity with the matters being discussed? The number of online games in which Niemann is alleged to have cheated has been common knowlege for at least 3 weeks. Do you have access to Google, Pargat? Why don't you google something like 'how many times did Niemann cheat'?

    p.s. Here, Pargat, this will save you some time (note the date of the article):

    https://en.chessbase.com/post/wall-s...likely-cheated
    But you did write that Neimann "was caught cheating online more than 100 times" whereas the chess.com study says only that he likely cheated more than 100 times, and many here including Vlad Drkulec are saying the evidence in that study wouldn't pass scrutiny from a decent lawyer.

    I'm going to guess from the data I have that you, Peter, have been caught convicting someone without sufficient evidence more than 100 times.

    Maybe you should google "innocent until proven guilty".

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X