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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.".
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.
Last edited by Vlad Drkulec; Tuesday, 25th October, 2022, 01:00 PM.
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.
.
Last edited by Neil Frarey; Tuesday, 25th October, 2022, 01:05 PM.
Tweet
Comment