Niemann - Carlsen

[Brad Thomson]

What evidence? The correlation claims are silly based on how they are constructed. Read Ken Regan’s posts and the blog he references which exposes the problems with those claims.

I have never said there is any evidence. I reject the comparison of Niemann's games to computers as possible evidence. I want to be shown how and that he did it, or I will assume nothng.

[Sid Belzberg]

What evidence? The correlation claims are silly based on how they are constructed. Read Ken Regan’s posts and the blog he references which exposes the problems with those claims.

I read Ken Regan's articles and as I previously posted, he criticized average centipawn loss as a reliable barometer of strength however he failed to address how the same open source analytic methodology flawed or not, produced identical results of a group of players that climbed from 2500- 2700 but did not address the fact that Han's is somehow entirely different and we are supposed to believe that this statistically impossible result is a coincidence.
It warrants further investigation. As I said the discovery process will seek out evidence of possible ways he could have obtained receiving and transmitting equipment etc.

[Alex Ferreira]

I get the sense that, most people who I discuss this topic with, have made up their mind one way or another in the first 2-3 days of this fiasco. Arguments presented after seem to be either used to reinforce their stance, or seem to be dismissed. Pity.

[Vlad Drkulec]

A reasonable response, but I am not prepared to ruin a person's entire career based upon a preponderance of evidence in this case. However, if opportunity is demonstrated then I will certainly reconsider my opinion.

What evidence? The correlation claims are silly based on how they are constructed. Read Ken Regan’s posts and the blog he references which exposes the problems with those claims.

[Neil Frarey]

Well, let's see what happens in the discoveries. I have already pointed out at least one scenario of how this could work. I am very skeptical that the one who is
under scrutiny, just happens to be the "outlier.".

Carlsen was well aware of Niemann's rise OTB and also was well aware of Niemann's online cheating.

And yet ...

Prior to when Carlsen snapped after losing to Niemann during the Sinquefield Cup in St. Louis ... Niemann was named as a brand ambassador for Play Magnus and Chessable.

A partnership involving Niemann playing in the Carlsen Champions Chess Tour and producing lessons under a subsidiary of Play Magnus, Chessable, while he receives support to play.

... so again, where was all this global mega-persecution / mega-analyzing of Hans Moke Niemann prior to his wonderful win over Carlsen at the Sinquefield Cup in St. Louis???


Where was it?
Simple question for a judge to ask, no?


Don't forget ... in his filing Niemann has requested Trail by Jury.


.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Anyone who claims cheating by Niemann in the original Carlson -Niemann game has not looked at the game. Carlson played poorly (0.63 per move centipawn loss) and Niemann played okay for a grandmaster (0.21 centipawn loss) going from memory. Relative to the engines Magnus lost two more pawns every three moves. There is a lot of nonsense being published about Niemann and his supposed accuracy. You have to go a bit deeper and you soon realize that it is nonsense. The acknowledged world authority on chess cheating (Ken Regan) has rendered the opinion that Niemann did not cheat in that game nor in his OTB games. I would tend to trust that opinion more than those others which do not display the same academic and mathematical/statistical rigour.

I am typing this on a tablet which is being very annoying and “correcting” my spelling.

[Sid Belzberg]

That's the whole point. I don't understand what the author is trying to imply. Playing less "computer-precise" than other players of your rating could indicate any number of things, some of which I mentioned in my previous post. The one thing I don't think it indicates is cheating with a computer. If you think otherwise, it's up to you to make that case.

Well, let's see what happens in the discoveries. I have already pointed out at least one scenario of how this could work. I am very skeptical that the one who is
under scrutiny, just happens to be the "outlier.".

[Brad Thomson]

Young players DO often play more like computers than the older generations. The younger generation learned from watching the way computers play, the older generation learned from looking at the games of the greatest humans. Therefore, to accuse a young player of cheating because he plays like a computer is very dangerous and needs to be considered carefully. Twenty years from now every good player will play like a computer. Carlsen is likely the last world champion who learned by looking at the games of humans. I do not accept any of the arguments based upon comparing Niemann's moves to those of computers. Show me opportunity, and prove it, or leave the man alone.

[Patrick Kirby]

That's the whole point. I don't understand what the author is trying to imply. Playing less "computer-precise" than other players of your rating could indicate any number of things, some of which I mentioned in my previous post. The one thing I don't think it indicates is cheating with a computer. If you think otherwise, it's up to you to make that case.

[Sid Belzberg]

Just because he may be an outlier isn't an indicator of cheating. There aren't that many people who have reached 2700, so your sample size is too small to get any real idea of anything. Not to mention that the game had changed greatly in the last 10 years with better training tools, greater opportunities to improve via online play, etc.

Usually people claim cheating when a person performs at an unusually high level compared to their rating. You're arguing that Hans performed at a lower level than his rating suggests, and this is somehow evidence of cheating. I believe the onus is on you to explain how this makes sense.

Patrick, read this article very carefully, and then tell me if you think that is what the author is stating.
https://medium.com/@rafaelvleite82/h...l-bea9485055de

[Patrick Kirby]

Hans Neiman's Average Centipawn loss pattern, as compared to many other players that rose from 2500-2700, is unique, whilst the other players are the same.
Show me a single counter-example, and I would buy what you are saying.

Just because he may be an outlier isn't an indicator of cheating. There aren't that many people who have reached 2700, so your sample size is too small to get any real idea of anything. Not to mention that the game had changed greatly in the last 10 years with better training tools, greater opportunities to improve via online play, etc.

Usually people claim cheating when a person performs at an unusually high level compared to their rating. You're arguing that Hans performed at a lower level than his rating suggests, and this is somehow evidence of cheating. I believe the onus is on you to explain how this makes sense.

[Pargat Perrer]

A reasonable response, but I am not prepared to ruin a person's entire career based upon a preponderance of evidence in this case. However, if opportunity is demonstrated then I will certainly reconsider my opinion.

I share this viewpoint in this matter. I think it is entirely possible that Carlsen just doesn't LIKE Neiman and decided to derail Neimann's career.

And I think if Peter McKillop traded places with Carlsen, Peter might just do the same thing. Peter is on record here as detesting the fact that Neimann did once get caught cheating, when he was much younger and was playing online chess. For Peter, this seems to be an indicator of guilt in the current situation, and so Peter, maybe I should put it to you as a question: would you do (in Carlsen's place) just what Carlsen did? i.e. the 1-move resignation, and the insinuations of OTB cheating?

I don't bring up Peter to troll him, but to demonstrate that strong opinions about online cheating even at a young age and even considering how easy it is to cheat at online chess CAN BE influential in how one in Carlsen's position at the top of the chess playing pyramid can behave towards one who did get caught cheating in online chess. And we all have to take that into account.... Carlsen could be a "hater".

[Neil Frarey]

Great, but that does not answer the question I have pointed out that undoubtedly. Magnus's counsel will bring it up in court. I hope
they do not settle out of court, as I would like to see a refutation to the correlation analysis if there is one.

But perhaps even more telling ...

Where was all this global mega-persecution / mega-analyzing of Hans Moke Niemann prior to his wonderful win over Carlsen at the Sinquefield Cup in St. Louis???

Where was it? Seriously, where was it?

There wasn't any to my knowledge ... not at the deafening volume we now have post Carlsen's loss.

Simple question for a judge to ask, no?

Niemann's court case(s) seems so easy to win on that merit alone ... along with the chess communities GM validation of Niemann's current playing strength.

[Sid Belzberg]

Both GMs MVL and Caruana have said that after having played against Niemann several times, Niemann plays at 2700 level.

Even Carlsen himself said he was impressed that Niemann is doing a great job, ha!

I wonder how quickly these lawsuits will be settled out of court?

Great, but that does not answer the question I have pointed out that undoubtedly. Magnus's counsel will bring it up in court. I hope
they do not settle out of court, as I would like to see a refutation to the correlation analysis if there is one.

[Brad Thomson]

This is not a criminal case, it is a civil case. In order to win a civil case, a "preponderance of evidence" is all that is required to win it. At a minimum, Magnus certainly has enough evidence that it would arouse suspicion hence the allegation that this is malicious defamation based on NO evidence is incorrect. I think this is actually good for chess as it is possible a novel new way of detecting cheating has come to light, and I have no doubt that Magnus will have no problem finding data scientists as professional witnesses that will discuss the merits of this approach.
It is very possible, as I described, that in the discovery they may even be able to find evidence of opportunity.

A reasonable response, but I am not prepared to ruin a person's entire career based upon a preponderance of evidence in this case. However, if opportunity is demonstrated then I will certainly reconsider my opinion.