If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
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.
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?
In my opinion the onus would be on you to show that it is feasible to cheat in this way. I.e., to selectively cheat in such a way that you gain rating points while making your play look like someone rated 200 points lower. You could probably run some simulations with chess engines to see if there is a feasible cheating strategy that would achieve this sort of result.
meanwhile it is totally feasible that this could happen without cheating:
-if Hans went on a lucky run for a few tournaments
-if he Is very good at the psychological "meta-game" and provokes bad play from his opponents
-if he is a young player on the rise and his opponents tend to underestimate him
-if he has an unorthodox style that his opponents have not yet adapted to.
meanwhile it is totally feasible that this could happen without cheating:
-if Hans went on a lucky run for a few tournaments
-if he Is very good at the psychological "meta-game" and provokes bad play from his opponents
-if he is a young player on the rise and his opponents tend to underestimate him
-if he has an unorthodox style that his opponents have not yet adapted to.
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.
Ken Regan offered up issues with average centipawn loss itself as a barometer of correlation however, the blunt fact is the identical methodology replete with issues
described was applied to a group of players when they climbed from 2500 rating to 2700 rating, with only Hans Nieman having a unique pattern of essentially
no statistical change in this metric compared to all other OTB players who achieved these lofty heights.
Statistically, this is an impossible result. Many have been both exonerated and convicted of far worst crimes even though the body, figuratively speaking, is absent.
It would be interesting during the discoveries to subpoena all of Han's financial transactions, ie, credit card purchases, to track all purchases of things like implanted transmitters and receivers, medical procedures, etc.
If a single counter-example could be found of a player who climbed from 2500-2700 with a pattern similar to Hans, this would be enough to acquit him. In my opinion, I doubt if such a counterexample exists.
In my opinion the onus would be on you to show that it is feasible to cheat in this way. I.e., to selectively cheat in such a way that you gain rating points while making your play look like someone rated 200 points lower. You could probably run some simulations with chess engines to see if there is a feasible cheating strategy that would achieve this sort of result.
meanwhile it is totally feasible that this could happen without cheating:
-if Hans went on a lucky run for a few tournaments
-if he Is very good at the psychological "meta-game" and provokes bad play from his opponents
-if he is a young player on the rise and his opponents tend to underestimate him
-if he has an unorthodox style that his opponents have not yet adapted to.
Thanks Sid. Argument by analogy is in my view not effective because one has to prove the analogy to be demonstrative, which is essentially impossible. Now, I do admit that the evidence you refer to arouses suspicion, but it does not in my view prove, nor does it in my view demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt. The concept of reasonable doubt is subjective and reasonable people can disagree on what is reasonable doubt and what is not. And I am not at all convinced that Niemann has cheated over the board. Of course he may have, but this has not in my view been shown beyond a reasonable doubt. And again, the reason that I feel this way is because opportunity has not been demonstrated. You have posited a theory about opportunity, and I admit that maybe that is how he did it, but again...
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.
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Monday, 24th October, 2022, 04:41 PM.
Thanks Sid. Argument by analogy is in my view not effective because one has to prove the analogy to be demonstrative, which is essentially impossible. Now, I do admit that the evidence you refer to arouses suspicion, but it does not in my view prove, nor does it in my view demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt. The concept of reasonable doubt is subjective and reasonable people can disagree on what is reasonable doubt and what is not. And I am not at all convinced that Niemann has cheated over the board. Of course he may have, but this has not in my view been shown beyond a reasonable doubt. And again, the reason that I feel this way is because opportunity has not been demonstrated. You have posited a theory about opportunity, and I admit that maybe that is how he did it, but again...
Which is why it seems wrong to me that Niemann is still allowed to play online and win money at it. But over the board is in my view a different animal, and unless one can show how Niemann could possibly cheat over the board given the protocols in place, then one should keep one's mouth shut and not accuse without demonstrating opportunity, or any convincing proof at all.
Ken Regan offered up issues with average centipawn loss itself as a barometer of correlation however, the blunt fact is the identical methodology replete with issues
described was applied to a group of players when they climbed from 2500 rating to 2700 rating, with only Hans Nieman having a unique pattern of essentially
no statistical change in this metric compared to all other OTB players who achieved these lofty heights.
Statistically, this is an impossible result. Many have been both exonerated and convicted of far worst crimes even though the body, figuratively speaking, is absent.
It would be interesting during the discoveries to subpoena all of Han's financial transactions, ie, credit card purchases, to track all purchases of things like implanted transmitters and receivers, medical procedures, etc.
If a single counter-example could be found of a player who climbed from 2500-2700 with a pattern similar to Hans, this would be enough to acquit him. In my opinion, I doubt if such a counterexample exists.
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Sunday, 23rd October, 2022, 01:21 PM.
Niemann has admitted that he cheated to inflate his rating so that he could play against stronger players. Maybe other players had the same aspiration but were denied because Niemann effectively stile rating points from them. Plus, haven't seen the details, but some of Niemann's online cheating reportedly occurred in events with prize money.
Which is why it seems wrong to me that Niemann is still allowed to play online and win money at it. But over the board is in my view a different animal, and unless one can show how Niemann could possibly cheat over the board given the protocols in place, then one should keep one's mouth shut and not accuse without demonstrating opportunity, or any convincing proof at all.
Peter, you can't be serious (?). I am trying not to take sides here but... if Niemann has not cheated OTB, what Carlsen is doing / has done, is very much harmful to Niemann's career prospects.
Has Carlsen come out and outright call him a cheater OTB? Maybe not, but his actions and insinuations are very clear. Carlsen is treating Niemann like a cheater, and the chess world has reacted to it. If you or I said Niemann was cheating, nobody would have cared, or known about our thoughts.
I bet there are several organizers (top ones) out there who are probably weighing their options. And Peter, if they decide it's not worth the trouble, we won't hear about it. You will not have an organizer come and tell you "we're not inviting Niemann because... ", lets get real. Why would a closed event organizer invite Niemann? Sounds like more trouble than it's worth. Never mind the anti-cheating measures, the searches, the concerns, the media hype and the possible fiasco and him being caught and the whole tournament story becoming about that. Other top players may (or outright will refuse) not want to play in an event that features Niemann in the line-up. Or won't feel comfortable / play their best chess. On the flip-side, pre-Sinquefield Cup, Niemann looked like a great possible invitee to all the top tournaments, as an up-and-coming rising super star.
----
I don't know if Niemann was cheating. If he did cheat, he should be made an example of, healthy ban, the works. But if he was not...?
Truth is, it was Carlsen's behavior that caused this entire thing.
I would certainly be in agreement though, that lawsuits / etc are unlikely to bring any good out of this. This whole thing has been totally blown out of proportion, and chess is making mainstream news for the wrong reasons.
Alex F.
Hi Alex. Carlsen, or any other chess player, organizer, sponsor, etc., has every right to be concerned about whether Niemann, a liar and self-confessed online cheater, might also cheat in OTB tournaments. How much of this concern they may express publicly is, apparently, now up to the courts. Good luck to Niemann with his lawsuit (sarcasm). It took them 10+ years to nail Alex Jones in what has to be one of the nastiest defamation suits in any of our lifetimes. Can you imagine publicly pushing the lie that the Sandy Hook parents were, among other things, responsible for the deaths of their own children?? And yet, despite Jones' malicious intent (padding his own pockets with the profits from increased attention and product sales) it took a decade to nail him - and he still has appeal privileges. What sort of malicious intent will Niemann be able to prove against Carlsen?
To your point that Carlsen's behaviour caused this entire thing, I don't see it that way at all. Niemann is the cheater. Trying to argue that he hasn't cheated OTB (or been caught, yet) and so his online cheating shouldn't matter because he didn't really hurt anyone by cheating online, and he was just a kid, doesn't fly with me. Niemann has admitted that he cheated to inflate his rating so that he could play against stronger players. Maybe other players had the same aspiration but were denied because Niemann effectively stole rating points from them. Plus, haven't seen the details, but some of Niemann's online cheating reportedly occurred in events with prize money. So, Carlsen's behaviour may have been a primary factor in all of this coming to a head but it's all based on Niemann's self-admitted behaviour. Niemann is responsible for his own problems.
Last edited by Peter McKillop; Saturday, 22nd October, 2022, 03:40 PM.
As I have stated earlier, as entertaining as this may or may not be, it is very bad for chess. Like some of the other posters on this forum, I have a large amount of experience with chess parents of children who play, and many of them will shun chess because of this fiasco. If they think their child may get cheated, they will look to other activities. Some will not, but lots will. Carlsen is a dimwitted shortsighted coward. He is now very bad for the future of the game we love.
In my experience, for the most part, chess parents are only in it for what their kids can get out of chess, and don't contribute much to the long term future of the game. Let me give a super quick example; it's 2022. The 2012 Canadian junior championship had 12 participants; I looked at how much chess those kids are still playing by seeing how many classical games they've played in the last 5 years.
As I have stated earlier, as entertaining as this may or may not be, it is very bad for chess. Like some of the other posters on this forum, I have a large amount of experience with chess parents of children who play, and many of them will shun chess because of this fiasco. If they think their child may get cheated, they will look to other activities. Some will not, but lots will. Carlsen is a dimwitted shortsighted coward. He is now very bad for the future of the game we love.
Assuming all of his cheating online were committed when he was a minor, should he not be given a chance as an adult? Even in cases where minors commit murder they are not generally treated like adults. Why should this relatively small offense be different?
You may be right. This is of course an ongoing debate in society. Personally, I think we are too lenient on young offenders. There are many cases of young people committing various crimes knowing that they will not be held responsible due to their age. Our personalities are generally developed by the time we are five or six years old, at least most so-called experts contend. Yes, people can reform, and depending upon the circumstances of their infractions they should be given a second chance. Has Neimann reformed? Who knows? I do not think he should be allowed to play in money events online without a monitor in the room watching him as he plays. It is not fair to the other players if he is allowed to play online without proper scrutiny, it seems to me.
In support of those who take the side of Carlsen and the others against Niemann, I will say that he should already have been banned for life from competing in online events. Why he has not been is a question that seems relevant to me. There is no way he should be allowed to compete in a mode of chess wherein cheating is relatively easy and cannot be policed adequately short of monitors being placed in the room of every player in the various parts of the planet where they are playing from. Niemann, I believe, has already disqualified himself from the right to compete online. So why do not Carlsen and his cronies focus on this? To accuse Niemann of cheating over the board without offering any explanation as to how he could possibly do it, and simply saying "well, ah, we do not think he is that good", is not good enough, not even close. Tell us how Niemann pulls it off, or shut up and simply try to get him removed from online play, which is reasonable, and quite possibly something that should already have been done.
Assuming all of his cheating online were committed when he was a minor, should he not be given a chance as an adult? Even in cases where minors commit murder they are not generally treated like adults. Why should this relatively small offense be different?
Leave a comment: