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.
After watching the video on the computer analysis I'm starting to think he was cheating. The evidence seems convincing but the big question for me anyways is how did he cheat? I'm only asking in regards to the live games. That's what I can't wrap my head around.
in post #104 of this thread, Sid provided this link:
"Many people are trying to figure out how a player could be cheating in an Over The Board Tournament. Even Elon Musk tweeted about this, saying he could be using anal beads to communicate with someone and get the best moves by some kind of code vibrations."
Of course! Anal Beads Code Vibrations! ABCVs!!!!
Homer Simpson: "Mmmmmmm .... anal beads code vibrations .... "
No, the interpretation of the result shows that Nieman's average centipawn loss and standard deviation during his ascent from 2500-2700 is entirely different from other GMs with similar rating increases during the 2500-2700 period. Because the general quality of his moves was lower than other GMs during their ascension, it could be interpreted that he received assistance at critical junctures hence the general quality of his moves was comparatively poor compared to his peers, but the odd critically important move pushed him over the top.
TBH similar to what Pargat indicated, this seems unlikely to be a successful strategy to reach 2700 to me. If you're making generally inferior moves at that level, I would expect it to be very difficult to reach a "critical juncture" because you're just going to have the worse position. If he's not showing an unprecedently exceptional level of play, and just having results that beat expectation based on the quality of his play, to me, that's more likely an indication of not cheating than cheating.
It is possible that there's something about him (maybe his play style, maybe they just dislike him personally, maybe it's the cheating allegations that have other players seeing monsters under the bed) that cause people to play worse than normal against him; I'm sure we all remember "Fischer Fever" where normally elite GMs including unbeatable former World Champions like Petrosian suddenly and inexplicably started playing worse against him.
TBH similar to what Pargat indicated, this seems unlikely to be a successful strategy to reach 2700 to me. If you're making generally inferior moves at that level, I would expect it to be very difficult to reach a "critical juncture" because you're just going to have the worse position. If he's not showing an unprecedently exceptional level of play, and just having results that beat expectation based on the quality of his play, to me, that's more likely an indication of not cheating than cheating.
It is possible that there's something about him (maybe his play style, maybe they just dislike him personally, maybe it's the cheating allegations that have other players seeing monsters under the bed) that cause people to play worse than normal against him; I'm sure we all remember "Fischer Fever" where normally elite GMs including unbeatable former World Champions like Petrosian suddenly and inexplicably started playing worse against him.
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.
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Wednesday, 5th October, 2022, 12:20 AM.
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.
Sid, maybe you can mention to Ken Regan that if this is indeed what is happening with Niemann, it should be easy to spot by the following method (quoting from my last post): do a move-by-move score assessment of each of his games and graph it .... you should see that he falls behind in every game, and then "miraculously" makes a single move to either get back to equality or even get ahead. This should be EASY to detect, and it should be happening like a repeating and regular cycle in EVERY ONE of his games.
Even if he is playing 2500 level moves against a 2700+ super-GM, he should keep falling behind, centipawn by centipawn so to speak, then "miraculously" make it all up with a critical juncture move where he utilized his Anal Beads Code Vibrations (LOL) cheating device.
Perhaps no one has thought to look for this signal? If there really is an undetectable cheating method, and a player is only using it at critical junctures, then every game he plays against a superior rated player should show this repeating pattern of falling behind ... them suddenly with one move getting back to equality or even moving ahead.
This is a pattern that can be found! I wonder if Ken Regan has thought of it....
If this repeating signal were found in all of Neimann's games of the recent past, for example those 6 tournaments you mentioned Sid, then I would think that is strong evidence of using this cheating strategy (even if the actual device is never found).
And if the pattern is NOT found, then I think it clears Neiman for good.
Last edited by Pargat Perrer; Wednesday, 5th October, 2022, 05:37 AM.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by Peter McKillop; Wednesday, 5th October, 2022, 05:44 PM.
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey
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?
Tweet
Comment