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.
I love this stuff, Bob! It's fascinating. I wish I'd taken some philosophy courses at school.
It is not too late to read up on the subject. I suggest dialogues. Plato is the ultimate master, but both Hume and especially my favourite thinker, Berkeley, wrote some wonderful dialogues. His are titled Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous. Roughly translated, Hylas means "matter" in Greek, Philonous means "love of mind". Hylas represents all opponents to Berkeley who believe in the existence of matter, Philonous represents Berkeley himself who does not. For Berkeley only minds and their contents exist, and his arguments against the existence of matter are very compelling. Personally, I am convinced by them. In my reading of Berkeley, which I recently presented in my Master's thesis (completed when I was 63 and accepted for degree when I was 64, proving it is not too late for you) I argued a rather Buddhist sort of reading of Berkeley contending that for him God (in his case the Christian God) IS Time. Rather than quibbling with Pargat, reading Berkeley might be a more rewarding use of your TIME. :) Recherche uO Research: Berkeley, God and the Succession of Ideas (uottawa.ca)
Last edited by Brad Thomson; Thursday, 27th October, 2022, 11:31 AM.
It is not too late to read up on the subject. I suggest dialogues. Plato is the ultimate master, but both Hume and especially my favourite thinker, Berkeley, wrote some wonderful dialogues. His are titled Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous. Roughly translated, Hylas means "matter" in Greek, Philonous means "love of mind". Hylas represents all opponents to Berkeley who believe in the existence of matter, Philonous represents Berkeley himself who does not. For Berkeley only minds and their contents exist, and his arguments against the existence of matter are very compelling. Personally, I am convinced by them. In my reading of Berkeley, which I recently presented in my Master's thesis (completed when I was 63 and accepted for degree when I was 64, proving it is not too late for you) I argued a rather Buddhist sort of reading of Berkeley contending that for him God (in his case the Christian God) IS Time. Rather than quibbling with Pargat, reading Berkeley might be a more rewarding use of your TIME. :) Recherche uO Research: Berkeley, God and the Succession of Ideas (uottawa.ca)
Thanks, Brad. Good advice. I'm going to take it!
"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
For me (as if my opinion matters), I had never heard of Niemann before this happened, and I was a big Carlsen fan. When this happened I was struck by Carlsen's reliance on innuendo rather than simply saying nothing. I also thought that chess.com pulling Niemann's account that same day, that "spoke for itself". When their report came out, that's when I joined Team Niemann. I've had the benefit of cross-examining an expert or two over the years, and seen dozens of expert's reports. This one wasn't that. They say there's no evidence he cheated OTB, then spend ten pages giving all the reasons why the reader should discount that conclusion, and then finish with "but like we said, no evidence that he cheated OTB". What the F?
The final straw was Ken Regan's interview a couple of weeks ago where he said that Chess.com's accusation that Niemann cheated in online tournaments in 2020 was "bupkis". Not "we disagree on that". It wasn't close. Most of the matches, he was with them, the tournaments as a kid, he was with them. But the tournaments, not close.
Having seen evidence provided by chess.com in a number of cases which did not include signing a non-disclosure document (which I have done in other cases), it did not seem to me that the "evidence" was such that a competent attorney with the help of a chess expert would not be able to shred it.
Niemann's memory failed him during what was otherwise a persuasive denial on Sept. 6th. It seems clear that "a few random games" was not accurate. Did he lie? I don't know I'd go that far. Memories are selective, and it's not like chess.com ever told him specifically what he was accused with; apparently they never tell anyone, according to the emails they disclosed. I've seen clearer examples of lying that were given a pass.
I would not read too much into Niemann being a bit incoherent right after playing a high pressure game. I experienced a similar situation once when I had a very good tournament and a very good game and in the post mortems I was only able to access the memories of what I was thinking with some difficulty likely because I had slipped into a state of flow during the game. When you access that state your normal memory and thought processes become scrambled but you are capable of performing well beyond what you might have thought were your limitations.
Chess.com reveals their evidence only when they go to court or to an arbitration panel.
I would not read too much into Niemann being a bit incoherent right after playing a high pressure game. I experienced a similar situation once when I had a very good tournament and a very good game and in the post mortems I was only able to access the memories of what I was thinking with some difficulty likely because I had slipped into a state of flow during the game. When you access that state your normal memory and thought processes become scrambled but you are capable of performing well beyond what you might have thought were your limitations.
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.
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):
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".
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.
"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
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.
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.
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.
"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
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!)
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.
"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
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.
"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
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.
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.
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).
Tweet
Comment