Niemann - Carlsen

[Brad Thomson]

Hi Brad: Conceptually you are in the realm of the philosopher, North Whitehead, I think:

Whitehead argued that reality consists of processes rather than material objects, and that processes are best defined by their relations with other processes, thus rejecting the theory that reality is fundamentally constructed by bits of matter that exist independently of one another.

Thanks Bob, I have never studied Whitehead. Certainly, I agree with him when he contends that no matter exists (for Berkeley the word is unintelligible "jargon"), but I am not sure what his concept of processes means. I am very much a proponent of the philosophers Berkeley and Hegel. Only minds and their contents exist, as both of them would contend, but I side with Hegel in that God is not in my view fully developed or fully self-understanding or actualized from the beginning, S/he/it is rather in a state of becoming (a process?) over Time in and through human History. Thus, Time itself is Substance (the only thing permanent is change). Does this sound like Whitehead? I do not know. :)

[Aris Marghetis]

good one Aris!

It was Peter McK who posted it!!

[Sid Belzberg]

I had an interesting discussion with the author of this article on ChessBase https://en.chessbase.com/post/the-ha...-do-not-reveal
that you can see in the comments section of the article. He took the trouble to try to reproduce the flat STDCPL chart that claimed Nieman's was unique. His findings were that all of the players had the same flat chart, which actually came as a surprise.
At this point, in my opinion, even statistically, unless the original author can prove otherwise, Ken Regan is correct in no evidence of OTB cheating.

[Vlad Drkulec]

https://time.com/6227677/magnus-carl...=pocket-newtab

[Brad Thomson]

Regan presents nonsense. Great players play more and more like computers all the time. This was inevitable once they surpassed humans as chess players. So now the better copiers of the way computers play are going to be labelled as cheaters without any evidence? This is totally nuts.

The term "fideism" comes up in the article. Do not confuse this with FIDE. Fideism as a philosophical theory contends that reason will always lead to contradictions and conundrums that can only be resolved by faith, specifically fair in the inconceivable, or faith in the incomprehensible. To be sure one needs to be a fideist to believe the junk that Regan barfs.

[Brad Thomson]

Implicit in Regan's sickening drivel is the preposterous assumption that humans are not capable of watching computers play, learning from them and then emulating their play. Only thus may Regan conclude that the more a top-level grandmaster plays like a computer the more likely it is that he is cheating. This idiotic hogwash jeopardizes careers without any evidence whatsoever. Regan should be ashamed of his stupidity, and he should disavow his own bullshit immediately.

[Pargat Perrer]

Implicit in Regan's sickening drivel is the preposterous assumption that humans are not capable of watching computers play, learning from them and then emulating their play. Only thus may Regan conclude that the more a top-level grandmaster plays like a computer the more likely it is that he is cheating. This idiotic hogwash jeopardizes careers without any evidence whatsoever. Regan should be ashamed of his stupidity, and he should disavow his own bullshit immediately.

I have for quite some time believed it is possible for a young junior who has great potential and is being propelled towards professional chess by his parents might be for a year ot two held out of human tournaments and spend all his or her time playing against nothing but the top computer engines. Maybe even 2 years or 3 years. Then, the parents may bring him or her back onto competitive chess, and see if this "training" has turned their prodigy into an absolute monster who can defeat even the top level super-GMs.

So far it hasn't happened. I haven't heard anything about Neimann going through such a training. But surely some parents somewhere should figure this out. Why go through all the trouble and hassle of sending their prodigy around the world to play GMs and IMs when there are computer engines so much stronger?

Well, Brad, you are elucidating the reason. It is because if the training succeeds and the prodigy does indeed play like a computer, the only result will be accusations of cheating and being blacklisted from tournaments. I guess the parents have figured that out too.

The result is that no young promising player SHOULD learn to play like a computer, even if it does result in the best improvement in their play. They will only be removed from competitive chess.

Perhaps this is even what the whole cheating thing is really about. If it is possible for all young chess prodigies to learn to play like a computer, the result could be the end of competitive chess, because the draw rate plus the lack of dynamic play would reach levels that would remove all interest from competitive chess. In fact, this has basically already happened in competitive correspondence chess.

But we do have to ask, is this a bad thing? If humans are coerced into NOT playing like computers, they will continue to play more "dynamic" and "risky" chess and competitive chess will survive. As Hans Jung pointed out in another recent thread, competitive chess has apparently never been so good at the top levels.

[Brad Thomson]

Interesting ideas Pargat. I believe that most if not all promising young player are already learning to play like computers. Everyone is plugging their games into computers; therefore it only stands to reason that over time even bad chess players will become more computer-like in their play. How much more must this apply to the elite players? Why would they not try to learn from and play like computers when computers player better than people? And so now we get idiots who want to accuse anyone who plays "too much" like a computer of cheating on the basis of the absurd and untenable implicit assumption that humans by themselves are not capable of learning from and emulating computers?! I hope/suspect that chess will wake up and only accuse people of cheating when there is legitimate evidence and not simply because a certain player is good at learning from computers and is able to outplay other humans by playing like a computer. Regan, Carlsen and anyone supporting these clowns is doing serious damage to chess.

[Sid Belzberg]

Interesting ideas Pargat. I believe that most if not all promising young player are already learning to play like computers. Everyone is plugging their games into computers; therefore it only stands to reason that over time even bad chess players will become more computer-like in their play. How much more must this apply to the elite players? Why would they not try to learn from and play like computers when computers player better than people? And so now we get idiots who want to accuse anyone who plays "too much" like a computer of cheating on the basis of the absurd and untenable implicit assumption that humans by themselves are not capable of learning from and emulating computers?! I hope/suspect that chess will wake up and only accuse people of cheating when there is legitimate evidence and not simply because a certain player is good at learning from computers and is able to outplay other humans by playing like a computer. Regan, Carlsen and anyone supporting these clowns is doing serious damage to chess.

Implicit in Regan's sickening drivel is the preposterous assumption that humans are not capable of watching computers play, learning from them and then emulating their play. Only thus may Regan conclude that the more a top-level grandmaster plays like a computer the more likely it is that he is cheating. This idiotic hogwash jeopardizes careers without any evidence whatsoever. Regan should be ashamed of his stupidity, and he should disavow his own bullshit immediately.

Your interpretation of Ken Regan's work is incorrect. The idea is to look for statistical anomalies and variances from the norm. Ken Regan actually posted in this thread, and your insulting tone is uncalled for.

[Brad Thomson]

Your interpretation of Ken Regan's work is incorrect. The idea is to look for statistical anomalies and variances from the norm. Ken Regan actually posted in this thread, and your insulting tone is uncalled for.

Searching for "statistical anomalies" proves nothing. Sometimes people have hot runs, sometimes they have cold runs, sometimes they get better, sometimes they get worse. Regan is an insult to anyone with half a brain if he thinks we are going to buy into his cockamamie theories. You, Sid, have long been one of the most insulting people in this forum. And your insults are normally directed toward other posters, mine in this case are directed toward a fraud who is doing terrible damage to the game of chess.

[Sid Belzberg]

Searching for "statistical anomalies" proves nothing. Sometimes people have hot runs, sometimes they have cold runs, sometimes they get better, sometimes they get worse. Regan is an insult to anyone with half a brain if he thinks we are going to buy into his cockamamie theories. You, Sid, have long been one of the most insulting people in this forum. And your insults are normally directed toward other posters, mine in this case are directed toward a fraud who is doing terrible damage to the game of chess.

Searching for "statistical anomalies" proves nothing

And that is based on what exactly? Yes, let's abandon all principles that science is based on because the great philosophical genius Brad Thomson says so! Those that dare to have a different view on this are labeled a "fraud' by Brad.
As far as insults go, on this forum, for the last two years, the insults have been responses to insults that have been in line with your great hero Crime Minister Trudeau who labeled all; COVID dissidents "racist, misogynist, unacceptable views, take up space, and should not be tolerated" for having dissenting views on COVID. You yourself said I should be permanently banned for responding in kind to one of those insults. What a vile little hypocrite you are.

[Tom O'Donnell]

"... A player who cheats only once or twice per game could still gain an advantage without tripping his wires. Likewise, a single game doesn’t contain enough data to catch a cheater; Regan typically needs to review at least four games to spot a pattern. (It’s not unusual for a top-level player to have a “perfect game,” in which every single move matches the computer’s.) Regan says that as a general rule, he could catch someone who cheats three times per game over the course of nine games. However, he says, if there’s any pattern to the cheating, no matter how occasional, he’ll discover it in the long run. ..."


The obvious thing to take this from the theoretical to the practical is to run a test.

Example:
10 player RR at a time control of say 30+5.
Have 1-3 players cheat using computer aid for say four to six moves per game on average. They would not be hiding this, as all players would know this in advance, and it could be verified on-site by the organizer/arbiter.
Submit all games to the cheating detectors.
Their job is to find out who cheated.

The purpose of the tournament would be creating a suitable sample for testing, not the results of the tournament.

[Brad Thomson]

And that is based on what exactly? Yes, let's abandon all principles that science is based on because the great philosophical genius Brad Thomson says so! Those that dare to have a different view on this are labeled a "fraud' by Brad.
As far as insults go, on this forum, for the last two years, the insults have been responses to insults that have been in line with your great hero Crime Minister Trudeau who labeled all; COVID dissidents "racist, misogynist, unacceptable views, take up space, and should not be tolerated" for having dissenting views on COVID. You yourself said I should be permanently banned for responding in kind to one of those insults. What a vile little hypocrite you are.

Thank you, Sid.

I did not suggest that we abandon all principles of science. I only called Regan a fraud. I do not like Justin Trudeau and have voted against him in every election. I am not little. Learn to read, stop accusing without any reason, stop speculating when you have no idea what you are talking about, and you might gain respect. With respect to your racist comments, it is true that the other racist started it, but two wrongs do not make a right. I am an anglophone who has been living in Quebec for 15 years. I have been subject to racist comments from French people a number of times. I never responded with racism of my own, I rose above it.

I agree, I can be vile when I want to be.

[Brad Thomson]

Tom, suppose a cheater looks at a computer analysis and rejects it. This is still cheating. The police will not be able to detect that the person cheated. I will never accept fanciful mathematical theories as an acceptable means of accusing cheaters. Catch them in the act.

[Sid Belzberg]

Thank you, Sid.

I did not suggest that we abandon all principles of science. I only called Regan a fraud. I do not like Justin Trudeau and have voted against him in every election. I am not little. Learn to read, stop accusing without any reason, stop speculating when you have no idea what you are talking about, and you might gain respect. With respect to your racist comments, it is true that the other racist started it, but two wrongs do not make a right. I am an anglophone who has been living in Quebec for 15 years. I have been subject to racist comments from French people a number of times. I never responded with racism of my own, I rose above it.

I agree, I can be vile when I want to be.

respect to your racist comments

I only called Regan a fraud

I never responded with racism of my own, I rose above it.

Up your ass Brad, I never made a "racist" comment to anyone in my life. Someone that makes comments to me that are antisemitic slurs will be called a Nazi by me.
I had several relatives who were persecuted during WW2, including my Dad's cousin, who spent a year in a nice place
called Auschwitz. Many more were flat-out murdered. Don't lecture me about turning the other cheek in the face of antisemitism
because your life experience is not even remotely applicable. NEVER AGAIN!

You call a distinguished professor of computer science a "fraud" and many other terrible comments who also is a member of this forum and has been for many
years without properly understanding his work.

By the way, I happen to have a good memory. Here on chess talk, you took a swipe at the Jewish religion by implying that Jewish people consider themselves ethnically superior because of the phrase "chosen people." Just like with Ken Regan, you did not take the time to study the subject matter in detail but instead only superficially and then proceeded to open with your invective and hateful vitriol. For your information,

"While the concept of "chosenness" may be understood by some to connote ethnic supremacy,^[3] the status as a "chosen people" within Judaism does not preclude a belief that God has a relationship with other peoples—rather, Judaism held that God had entered into a covenant with all humankind, and that Jews and non-Jews alike have a relationship with God. Biblical references as well as rabbinic literature support this view: Moses refers to the "God of the spirits of all flesh",^[4] the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) also identifies prophets outside the community of Israel and the prophet Yonah (Jonah) is explicitly told to go prophesize to the non-Jewish people of Nineveh":

Good on you that you don't support Trudeau, but you are still a vile hypocrite that made a libelous statement about another member of this
forum, Ken Regan.