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.
His name is Ken Regan, not Ken Rogan, which you typed in twice.
As someone who has spent considerable time (using my Game Performance Rating [GPR] methods) on analyzing top-level games and compared moves to moves chosen at high search depth (anywhere from 32 to 50 ply depth) by the latest Stockfish engine, I can say a few things about all this.
100% correlation may not mean as much as you think. For example, the situation in which neither player is playing for a win. At the top levels of chess, many games fit into this category. The players might not admit it, and the game may have gone 40 or more moves, giving the appearance both players were trying for an edge, but the reality is they were not.
In this situation, it can be easy to achieve very high correlation because a game can have many plies where there is only 1 or 2 or 3 solid moves, and the other moves that are not outright bad are at least risky and would only be played by someone trying to create complexities (and thus trying to win by forcing a mistake out of their opponent, at the risk of the opponent not making a mistake and achieving an advantageous position).
So in not playing for a win, both players simply choose these solid moves, ply after ply, and the game results in a colorless draw. Very high correlation to an engine like Stockfish is then likely, as I have seen firsthand. I have had to disqualify some games from GPR rating altogether.
This to me is as big a problem at the top levels of chess as cheating. And if cheating is not really happening (over the board), which i still consider possible with all the top 100 or so players, then this problem is bigger than cheating and threatens the long-term viability of top-level chess.
What is possible is that Neimann could be cheating on only specific moves, key moves that can dramatically change a game's direction. So let's say for 30 moves, each player is playing the solid moves and each player knows this and can sense that the game is going to be an agreed draw. Then suddenly Hans, IF he is cheating, decides (at a moment when a solid move would rank 2nd to a really strong move) to engage his cheating method and find the really strong move, and plays it.
I am not claiming this is happening. But I will say that in a court of law, DNA matching is not absolutely 100% certain, but is strong enough to justify a verdict based on that matching. Therefore there must be a number of correlations at which Hans COULD be considered guilty of cheating, and similarly a number at which he could be considered innocent of cheating.
I think 6 consecutive tournaments is a large enough sample size... BUT if there was indeed 100% correlation in ALL the games of the 6 tournaments, we would have to disqualify the games which could be considered a colorless draw, i.e. an entirely risk-free game from BOTH players.
I don't know if Ken Regan considers this in his methods, but I would bet he does
Here is another way of analyzing. The difference between the best move on stockfish and what a player plays is called "centipawn" loss. A 2300 player will typically show an average centipawn loss of 40. A 2300 player that improvers his game and ascends to 2500 will drive down his average centipawn loss to around 22.
Here is a program that you can get on GitHub that allows you to scrape all games of any player has ever played and run the centipawn analysis on all their games. https://github.com/rafaelvleite/fide_crawler
Every titled player that has ascended from master to Grandmaster has the same decreasing average centipawn score as described above. Now, when we take a look at Hans Niemann's game and analyze all the games he played from when he was 2300 up to his ascension of 2700 the average centipawn score never changes. He has a unique pattern compared to all other ascending Gm rated players in the world.
I hate to say it, but I personally have no doubt he is cheating on the basis of this analysis.
I sent this post to Ken Regan, who I happen to be friends with on facebook, and asked for his opinion.
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Monday, 3rd October, 2022, 01:20 PM.
Peter, Magnus tossed a game after one move, this does little for the integrity of the game, and is cheating. Two wrongs do not make a right. All of this could have/should have been done quietly, but by airing the dirty laundry in public all of chess has disgraced itself. Yes, chess needs to do all it can to avoid cheating...
.... The only thing we know about all of this is that Carlsen has disgraced himself ......
I disagree (surprise!!). I would say, Carlsen's methods may not have been perfect but he deserves a lot of credit and respect for standing up for the integrity of the game in such a public way! And let's not forget that Carlsen is putting his money where his mouth is. He would have had a good shot at six-figure prize money in St. Louis if he hadn't decided to make a big statement on cheating.
This thread is staying fairly respectful of others, this is good. :)
I confess that the "evidence" tends toward the possibility that Niemann may have cheated over the board, but to me it falls short of any "proof", and we must be considered as innocent until proven guilty. I really do think that chess needs to clean up its act here in a very serious way, as there are a lot of would-be chess parents who will say no to their children over this scandal, and the game will suffer as a result. Sid has suggested some kind of actual implant that is state sponsored, and I do not consider this to be outrageous at all, though I am not convinced that this is the most likely explanation. The only thing we know about all of this is that Carlsen has disgraced himself and tossed at least one game.
Here is extremely incriminating evidence showing that Hans Neiman cheated. The analysis showed that for a period of over six entire tournaments, the correlation of Hans Neimans moves to a computer were over 75%, with multiple games at a 100% correlation. No GM has ever even had a single game with 100 percent correlation. When Bobby Fisher, at his peak, won twenty games in a row on his way to the World Chess Championship, his correlation was 72% and no 100% correlations.
Most games with top GMs will show an average correlation of 60%-65%..
The problem with Ken Rogan's analysis is he looked at all of Hans Neiman's games instead of this specific "magical period" of these recent tournaments. The probability of Hans Neimans not cheating and getting this result would be like getting a royal flush in poker several times in a row,
His name is Ken Regan, not Ken Rogan, which you typed in twice.
As someone who has spent considerable time (using my Game Performance Rating [GPR] methods) on analyzing top-level games and compared moves to moves chosen at high search depth (anywhere from 32 to 50 ply depth) by the latest Stockfish engine, I can say a few things about all this.
100% correlation may not mean as much as you think. For example, the situation in which neither player is playing for a win. At the top levels of chess, many games fit into this category. The players might not admit it, and the game may have gone 40 or more moves, giving the appearance both players were trying for an edge, but the reality is they were not.
In this situation, it can be easy to achieve very high correlation because a game can have many plies where there is only 1 or 2 or 3 solid moves, and the other moves that are not outright bad are at least risky and would only be played by someone trying to create complexities (and thus trying to win by forcing a mistake out of their opponent, at the risk of the opponent not making a mistake and achieving an advantageous position).
So in not playing for a win, both players simply choose these solid moves, ply after ply, and the game results in a colorless draw. Very high correlation to an engine like Stockfish is then likely, as I have seen firsthand. I have had to disqualify some games from GPR rating altogether.
This to me is as big a problem at the top levels of chess as cheating. And if cheating is not really happening (over the board), which i still consider possible with all the top 100 or so players, then this problem is bigger than cheating and threatens the long-term viability of top-level chess.
What is possible is that Neimann could be cheating on only specific moves, key moves that can dramatically change a game's direction. So let's say for 30 moves, each player is playing the solid moves and each player knows this and can sense that the game is going to be an agreed draw. Then suddenly Hans, IF he is cheating, decides (at a moment when a solid move would rank 2nd to a really strong move) to engage his cheating method and find the really strong move, and plays it.
I am not claiming this is happening. But I will say that in a court of law, DNA matching is not absolutely 100% certain, but is strong enough to justify a verdict based on that matching. Therefore there must be a number of correlations at which Hans COULD be considered guilty of cheating, and similarly a number at which he could be considered innocent of cheating.
I think 6 consecutive tournaments is a large enough sample size... BUT if there was indeed 100% correlation in ALL the games of the 6 tournaments, we would have to disqualify the games which could be considered a colorless draw, i.e. an entirely risk-free game from BOTH players.
I don't know if Ken Regan considers this in his methods, but I would bet he does.
I have never stated my beliefs with respect to chess engines. I stated a fact that chessbases analyzer has a much higher correlation for games then other GM's using the same analyzer.
Apparently, Nakumarsa and Carlsen, and many others have a problem with that. So ii am not alone in this.
Many people like @adad8m @acherm or @NikolaosNtirlis have correctly pointed out that my calculation based on Regan's ROI of the probability of the 6 consecutive tournaments was false. And I now get it.
Yosha Iglesias
Kasparov is on Niemann's side of 'innocent until proven guilty' regarding his (Niemann's) win over Carlsen. But Niemann's online cheating sure makes life more interesting, ha!
Sure hope Hans didn't need to cheat to beat Magnus.
The author of this video attempts to define what the Chessbase analysis of correlation is. He quoted another author that says if even one of many engines used correlates, then that is the definition. He then asks the author of the video and Nakumars for clarification on this point. Sorry, but he did not claim an "aha!": moment. Furthermore, even with ChessBase's definition of correlation, the other GMs are significantly lower using the identical ChessBase analyzer.
The so-called "flaw" does not address that issue.
Originally posted by Neil Frarey
Again since you seem to believe so deeply in chess engines .
I have never stated my beliefs with respect to chess engines. I stated a fact that chessbases analyzer has a much higher correlation for games then other GM's using the same analyzer.
Apparently, Nakumarsa and Carlsen, and many others have a problem with that. So ii am not alone in this.
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Sunday, 2nd October, 2022, 04:20 PM.
Humans use these engines to study and prepare, it is reasonable to assume that sometimes the games will simply fall into their preparation. Maybe Niemann is very well computer prepared and had a run where many of his games followed lines, or at least patterns that he had already studied with the computers.
If that were the case, you would expect similar results from the other GM's. Niemans is off the charts in comparison. Keep in mind we are not talking g about opening preparation only. We are talking about 45 move games where every move correlates using the ChessBase correlation algo. Using the same chessbase algo with other players no GM has 100% correlation in any game, never mind several games. Not even close.
Hopefully you have watched the video as it is a really interesting.
The author of this video attempts to define what the Chessbase analysis of correlation is. He quoted another author that says if even one of many engines used correlates, then that is the definition. He then asks the author of the video and Nakumars for clarification on this point. Sorry, but he did not claim an "aha!": moment. Furthermore, even with ChessBase's definition of correlation, the other GMs are significantly lower using the identical ChessBase analyzer.
The so-called "flaw" does not address that issue.
What is not speculation is that the moves are there for all to see with a statistically impossible correlation and we have no idea how it was done.
Humans use these engines to study and prepare, it is reasonable to assume that sometimes the games will simply fall into their preparation. Maybe Niemann is very well computer prepared and had a run where many of his games followed lines, or at least patterns that he had already studied with the computers.
Here is extremely incriminating evidence showing that Hans Neiman cheated. The analysis showed that for a period of over six entire tournaments, the correlation of Hans Neimans moves to a computer were over 75%, with multiple games at a 100% correlation. No GM has ever even had a single game with 100 percent correlation. When Bobby Fisher, at his peak, won twenty games in a row on his way to the World Chess Championship, his correlation was 72% and no 100% correlations.
Most games with top GMs will show an average correlation of 60%-65%..
The problem with Ken Rogan's analysis is he looked at all of Hans Neiman's games instead of this specific "magical period" of these recent tournaments. The probability of Hans Neimans not cheating and getting this result would be like getting a royal flush in poker several times in a row,
Sid, I did not argue anything, as you quoted, I said "if". You have not offered an opinion as to why Niemann is the stupidest cheater in the world. Which state may have sponsored this?
It is irrelevant as to "why" or "who", that is speculation. What is not speculation is that the moves are there for all to see with a statistically impossible correlation and we have no idea how it was done.
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Sunday, 2nd October, 2022, 02:27 PM.
Brad, why are you saying "if", I posted the results that are part of the ChessBase database. You can run it yourself and it will show you the correlation. Would you like to argue that the sun does not rise in the east next?
By the way, we have no idea what type of technology he deployed or how it works. What we do know is that the correlation between his moves to the computers was statistically, for all practical purposes, impossible.
I suspect it could be a state-sponsored experiment with chip implants replete with CPUs and memory storage and even visual pattern recognition
capabilities.I am not at all convinced that transmitting and receiving is how this thing works.
Sid, I did not argue anything, as you quoted, I said "if". You have not offered an opinion as to why Niemann is the stupidest cheater in the world. Which state may have sponsored this?
Leave a comment: