I think the simplest answer to all of this is a cage match.
Specifically, a Faraday Cage.
Magnus believes that Niemann is cheating via communication with a computer. Fine, let's completely remove the ability to communicate with a computer. Both men are searched on the way in. Heck, for fun lets have them play in tight sporting outfits so it's very clear what they are carrying and doing.
If Magnus destroys Niemann, he'll be able to pretty handily claim that Niemann can't win without communication to computers. If Niemann is competitive, or wins, it will be hard for Carlsen to make any more such claims.
And also, the sport will have a spectacle like we've never seen before. Tell me you wouldn't pay to watch that match!
How many milliwatts would you need to run Stockfish at ~2900 strength under classical time controls, and what's the smallest extant gadget in that power range?
(I'm assuming the I/O power would be negligible compared to compute, since it'd run at very low duty cycle).
it's absolutely doable, especially for someone with the commitment of a chess grandmaster, but the main here issue wouldn't be having the processing power to calculate the moves, it'd be the input bandwidth to update the computer with the moves.
yes a cheater could have - for example - a subdermal implant that vibrates to update them with a killer mid-game line to go down, but, without the internet, it would be a huge uphill struggle to update the board with the moves. certainly not impossible, especially if you were very dedicated, but very, very hard to get right, especially without getting caught under such scrutinous circumstances
The set up of the board at the start is static, so even a very naive approach of "piece at square (nibble, nibble) moves to square (nibble, nibble)" only requires two bytes per turn. I would expect there to be IMMENSELY better ways to encode this state update if I wasn't a dunce, and the people making cheating hardware are very good at that style of compression.
> piece at square (nibble, nibble) moves to square (nibble, nibble)
Chess notation is very compact, you don't even need to say where the starting piece was in most cases because it's implied by the move.
If you have 2 rooks on A1 and H1, and the move says rh4, only one of your rooks can legally make that move. However if the move was rc1, both rooks could make that move so you do need to disambiguate.
presuming that the cheater communicates with the system through some form of physical pressure, they could probably use a modified Morse code re-optimised for the frequency of letters in chess notation. according to wikipedia[1] this already exists and was developed for telegraph and radio transmission of chess games, although I have no idea how well optimised it is
this is one of the reasons it may be best to find another method.
one I thought of is to rank all the squares from most-used to least-used, then assign each of them a Morse code, simplest first. 64 squares is 2^6, so the maximum length input you would ever need is six. given a usage frequency for each of the squares, you could calculate your average input length by the sum of all len(square_code) * square_frequency divided by 64.
assuming all squares are the same frequency (1/64), it's just the sum of all len(square_code) divided by 64, which I believe comes out at 322/64 = 5.03125, although I could be wrong about that.
this makes your maximum necessary input per move 12 bits, but your average will be lower, depending on the frequency distribution of squares. (ignoring castling and en-passant for a moment) this is 2 bits more than using a piece+target square technique
>t's absolutely doable, especially for someone with the commitment of a chess grandmaster,
would that same someone be able to pull something like this off on their own, or would they need assistance building/programming/etc? At that point, how many people need to be involved before it becomes a secret too big to keep, or dead bodies start showing up within the cheater's orbit?
I'm almost certain that if you gave me a month and a half decent budget I could whip something together. I sincerely doubt this is beyond the scope of one committed and somewhat intelligent person
Communication could be done entirely invisibly from an outsiders perspective. For example, embedded electrodes sensing when one clenched their jaw muscles.
My brother and I did this magic trick and convinced our grade school we had ESP... the mark tells brother a secret number. I put my hands on brothers head and without communicating I tell what the secret number was. It was just the number of times he clenched his jaw.
Put them in a room without window or any exterior interactions, 4 cameras in each corner, wifi/radio signal jammer, 10 minutes delay with livestream, I would honestly pay respect to Hans if he can still cheat in those conditions
If one was willing to go as far as devices implanted into the body, it's somewhat easy to imagine inputs via normal-looking fidgeting: toe taps, even perhaps clenching some body part.
While not trivial, it doesn't feel like the hardest part of that particular engineering challenge.
Chess turns can take 20+ minutes sometimes depending on the time limit of the game, so that would be quite a delay, and then you would still have a problem with a live audience.
Well if there's 3 rapid fire exchanges (trading Queens & Rooks for example) lasting 10 seconds total, followed by a 20 min move, then the broadcast would have to freeze frame on the 1st move in the rapid fire sequence, so as to stay 3 moves behind, with the last 2 "hidden" moves evident to all that the pieces will be traded.
In tournaments that have broadcast without delay you don't even need a computer. You can have a script reading the game and calculating at home. You just need to receive signals which is a way easier task. As you don't need to do input nor the actual computation.
You joke, but the only tournaments Hans has performed well in (2700+) are coincidentally the ones where the boards are sharing the moves live online. He performs at a 2400 level when the games aren't available online.
The same happend at Sinquefield cup: 3050+ performance with no delay in broadcast. About 2640 performance once security measures were introduced (and he was very very lucky to score 2/6 as he was completely lost in 2 of drawn games but his opponents has unusual mental lapses allowing him to escape).
It's a small sample size of course but it's a pattern, not an exception.
I think the answer is not that difficult really. All Hans Niemann's moves, all his games, are public information.
People can analyze them and form their own opinions about whether he has been cheating or not. The question "how" need not even be considered.
Carlsen has of course already looked at the games, with the experience of having preiviously looked at millions of games between humans, and millions of analyses from computer engines. And he must have realised that Niemann has achieved something unique, he has conducted many absolute masterpieces, sometimes one after the other in the same tournament, while being rated 2400-2500. Performances so perfect, that no other human has ever accomplished.
Also from a game theory point of view, it doesn't make much sense. Magnus would have nothing to win from such an encounter but a lot to lose. In his position I would never take such a deal.
Whether he is cheating or not, it doesn't make much sense for Hans either. Only one and unlikely outcome would be in his favor.
Cheater or not, he is A LOT more likely to lose to the current best player in the world. He won't gain anything from it. If he is a cheater odds are even lower. If he is honest and loses it would be devastating. If he is a cheater, it is a lot better for him to not take the deal and deny any wrongdoing.
With chess, at that level of play, you can't decide which player is better or worse by judging from a single game. Only the aggregate between many players playing between each other can tell you that - ELO system achieves that. So them sitting in a faraday cage naked after an X-ray and playing a single match would not tell much. If they played a whole lot of games against each other, it would more or less work but that is impractical and ridiculous.
This comment is beyond playing fast and loose with reality. It’s actually counter factual.
Pr Kenneth Regan who is the leading expert when it comes to cheating in chess did indeed do a statistical analysis of Niemann performance during the past two years [0]. He found no indication of cheating whatsoever.
As I wrote in another comment, I find it ridiculous to consider some Pr Kenneth Regan (a weak chess player actually) a leading expert on cheating, and to hold his opinion above the opinion of Magnus Carlsen, who has analysed Niemann's games and also faced him in tournaments.
He is not some Pr Kenneth Regan. He is actually a recognised expert on statistical analysis when it comes to cheating in chess and has worked for FIDE multiple times. Plus it’s not like it’s only his words. He actually published a very valid engine based analysis of Niemann performance in the last two years. Is the issue that it’s showing the opposite of what you would like it to?
Meanwhile Magnus is actually a player in the game involved and the losing one at that. He has zero claim to objectivity.
Hypothetically speaking, why doesn’t someone make a proof of concept. Cheat. Have an exhibition and try to get away with cheating. Best way to tackle cheating is to invite people to give it your best shot.
Thanks for the link! I agree there needs to be many more safeguards from cheating but I'm really not behind Magnuson on this one. Poor sportsmanship at the very least going on.
> If Magnus destroys Niemann, he'll be able to pretty handily claim that Niemann can't win without communication to computers. If Niemann is competitive, or wins, it will be hard for Carlsen to make any more such claims.
I don't think that's very conclusive.
The thing is, there's still an element of luck[1] in chess. A lower-rated player can beat a higher-rated player, and a higher-rated player can dominate an even match.
I attended the EM wave propagation lectures years ago at my Uni, so my knowledge is rusty, and the following might not be something that is true in practice.
The faraday cage tries to equalize electrical field potential over space. It does so by allowing electrons to move more or less freely, typically inside a metal mesh.
But
a). metals (unless we use superconductors) have electrical resistance
b). electrons themselves have rest masses (i.e. don't accelerate infinitely quickly in response to force).
So, the movement of electrons is not instantaneous, therefore the electrical field cannot be equalized ideally. in effect we achieve attenuation of the signal, and not its complete blockage.
Secondly, the mesh must have some relation to the signal frequency (the wave-length), probably at 1:1 or 1:2 ratio. At some frequencies (terahertz, infra-red, visible, xray) you'll need pretty much a solid box to attenuate those.
And there's obviously tech which you cannot block/attenuate, like neutrinos. Producing and receiving such signals is however non-trivial and requires particle accelerators and large cavities filled with mineral oil and bulky detectors, so we can probably skip this :). Gravity waves belong to the same category.
You can also probably try to send and receive particles, like electrons or alpha particles if you use non-solid meshes.
Electron rest mass is negligible to other effects. Notably electron rest mass adds to the same effect as inductance. You can calculate the effective inductance of a piece of wire coming from the electron's rest mass, and it is several magnitudes smaller coming from the actual inductance coming from generated magnetic of the same electrons.
> You should realize that aluminum foil blocks visible light signals.
Yup, I mentioned the solid box earlier - a non-mesh metal container.
Reading through some more material, it seems that there are ways around it - one can use a static electric field to send signals, e.g. switching it on/off or changing its intensity. I suppose the differing el. charge of the opposing walls of such a cage/box would create en electrical field gradient within such box, which is easy to detect, if one's goal is sending some low-bitrate signals.
It's detectable (i.e. the fact of using it), but the communication scheme itself can be encrypted or encoded, so plausible deniability can be employed.
This is a terrible mythbusters way to test a hypothesis. What’s the variance and how many samples are needed for say 95% confidence in disproving null hypothesis?
WCC is a dozen+ rounds. Even then if you were watching it in the 9th game, it may appear the one player is stronger than the eventual champion.
The funny thing is that at this level, if a player is told they are losing or winning in a very complex position, they are often capable of figuring out how they are losing or winning precisely. The bits of information a top player needs to cheat are so few that for the average viewer it is inconceivable.
Why not just let him play and run analyses on the moves? Surely they can, for example, input all the moves into known chess engines and see if there's a match with the alledged cheater's moves. Then the match will be annulled and the guy ousted.
It's much harder than it sounds. Firstly a top level player will match the top engine move 65+% of the time when playing legit, so it isn't that unusual to have a run of quite a few engine moves in a row (especially since they aren't independent, some positions are easier to play than others).
Second, as Magnus has said in the past, if he has the ability to consult an engine at a single point in the game (of his choosing) he would be unstoppable. The reason is that in each game there are relatively few 'critical points' at which the result is decided.
That'd be really funny. Chess then became all about making a good move, but not too good, lest it may accidentially match with a chess engine and get you disqualified.
The meta would then to put the opponent in a spot with only one viable move option: They either get disqualified on the spot, or slowly suffer because they now lost an important piece.
I was never really good at chess, but even when playing async games with friends over gameknot(?) I'd often used the "if opponent does X, do Y" feature because some moves were just obvious.
Also, from what I gathered, you can instruct most chess engines to supply you with a list of moves for the current board state. So instead of picking the best move all the time, pick another good enough move to avoid your suggestion.
Faraday cages don't block many types of communication, for example visible light, sound or low freq magnetic fields. And there are organic non metal receivers for that (eye, ear, bird magnetic navigation)
How much of all this could be just building-up the hype that'll end with a bigger payday for both?
You may gladly pay, and I'll bet they'll happily take the money you'll now pay.
It's unclear how, or even if, Niemann cheated. The evidence is, at best, circumstantial: a win by a slightly weaker player, playing black, in a line that should have been impossible to prepare for.
So some see him as throwing a tantrum after an unexpected loss, and blaming it (implicitly) on cheating. We can't know if he's right, and we may never actually know. In the absence of confirmation, some people will think less of him for that.
Carlsen is seen as having drawn unwilling participants into his drama (he withdrew from a Swiss style tourney this forfeiting several games), he is seen as passive-aggressive for not making any direct allegations, and there is an arrogance around Magnus believing he knows better than the chess community and organizers about how to deal with former cheaters when they have quite obviously chosen to forgive and trust Hans.
I’m sure some people think Magnus is very brave and courageous for what he’s doing but my general impression is most people don’t approve of Magnus’s methods.
Okay now that Magnus has made a direct allegation and is telling everybody clearly about how he doesn't want to play with Hans in any future tournaments, everybody loves him again. The negativity you saw towards him I think was purely just that he was being passive aggressive and not talking to anybody and just dropping out of tournaments randomly. It was just a bad way to go about things.
Now you'll see the Magnus hero worship you expected.
He ruined two tournaments in a row, first by withdrawing from the middle of a round robin tournament and second by intentionally throwing a game. If Niemann now ends up qualifying by less than 3 points the guy in 9th will justifiably be extremely upset.
>I would have thought that chess fans would have seen this as a brave and perhaps even virtuous move?
There were many people who defended him withdrawing from Sinquefield but throwing a game is just embarressing, especially in the qualification stage.
This is a meta-game for Carlsen. He likes playing games with rules, and he is probably enjoying himself. How do we tell the difference between HN comments by people ignorant of this particular meta-game, and insightful commentary by highly skilled meta-players?
Wikipedia about Carlsen: “he reached the No. 1 spot on a Fantasy Premier League game, ahead of seven million other players, before eventually finishing the season in 10th place. In April 2022, Carlsen played poker at the Norwegian Championships Main Event and finished 25th out of 1050 players”.
Yeah but, why not just continue playing, lose, and have the analysts come up with the evidence the other guy is cheating? It sounds like he's just being rebellious now, refusing to play in the first place. If he loses against a computer, that's fine; if it provides evidence that the other guy is cheating, great. I'm sure Carlsen knows how to play in a way that makes known chess engines behave in a certain way.
There have been instances in chess where cheaters get caught and they receive light bans and many top players say the punishment is too weak. It's intuitive, if you've been caught cheating then you should be banned from competitive chess. I think that's more likely what Magnus thinks.
It should suffice that you can be proven not to be cheating right here and right now. Unlike doping, getting assistance helps you only exactly as long as you continue getting it.
I don't agree with the person you're replying to; it's unfair to permanently ban people from competitive play for online cheating they did when they were younger (although not that much younger in this case).
however, without overly expensive and invasive methods of detection, plus unpleasant rule changes, what you describe isn't feasible. there are too many ways to cheat, and people who are already smart enough to play at a grandmaster level are not only going to find these ways, but excel in them.
I don't have any evidence to back this up, but I would be extremely willing to believe that plenty of high-level OTB cheating has gone on over the years, especially with money on the line
Good sportsmanship is important in any competitive game or match. When you cheat you should be banned. Maybe not forever but for a significant amount of time. Say 2 years in chess would seem reasonable. Enough to sting but not enough to end a career.
I've been trying to follow chess events for the last couple years and I enjoyed it. Right now I have completely lost all the interest in chess because of this 16 and Pregnant level of drama.
I feel that Magnus has become so important in the world of chess that other top level chess players are too afraid to intervene in this "cheating" scandal. Even Hikaru who seemingly has equal(if not bigger) media share of the chess world chooses to make silly videos instead of actually having strong stance against this bullying.
> Now Magnus is required to play 1 move before resigning so he did so. He's basically saying: "I won't play with a known and admitted cheater, so I'm going to resign any game I'm forced to play with him" rather than doing a weird dance about skipping tournaments or forcing tournaments to not include Hans if they want Magnus to attend.
Note that the text you copied is not a quote of Magnus Carlsen. It's just a "fake" quote that a Reddit user imagined.
It will be interesting to see what Magnus does with other players around that 2600-2650 level who have been made to occasionally take breaks from online tournaments, e.g. Maghsoodloo. Or if this stance is only reserved for those who win against him as black.
The reddit comment posted in this post says the following:
"...Now Magnus is required to play 1 move before resigning so he did so. He's basically saying: "I won't play with a known and admitted cheater, so I'm going to resign any game I'm forced to play with him" rather than doing a weird dance about skipping tournaments or forcing tournaments to not include Hans if they want Magnus to attend." - enfrozt
I'm not an expert, but I understand chess well enough to know that if a person at that level is going to cheat, they can't just play their own game and then let the computer tell them what moves will save them. They have to use the computer throughout the whole game and slyly use a combination of their moves along with computer-suggested moves. Early moves that are off the mainline but suggested by a computer would provide an interesting and safe avenue for a cheater to get his opponent off their game.
So yes, IF he was cheating, he likely would have started cheating on move 1.
The first 5-10 moves are extremely explored and chess players at this level have memorized which is the best reply in each case, what are the possible alternatives that are better for their own game style, what are the alternatives that are worse for the opponent game style, what are the unusual but not bad alternatives that can surprise the opponent. There are whole books about that. Whole libraries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_opening
Probably cheating after the 5 or 10 or 15 move if the opponent did something interesting may give someone an edge, but getting help in the first of second move it's unbelievable at this level.
It's not at all material to the point you're making, but to nitpick: Hans's first move was actually 1. d4 and thus the Wikipedia article you should be linking to is that of the Indian Defence [0], not Alekhine's Defence!
Even at a very low intermediate level of chess, you can easily know an opening like this for 8 - 10 moves across 2 - 5 variations. I know cause I do.
Master Level Prep of the Kings Indian goes 20 moves deep across 5 - 8 possible variations. This has been demonstrated over the board several times.
It's trivial to find opening theory lessons on youtube on playing the kings indian defence covering 5+ counter lines going 10+ moves deep, even on weird lines. And then there are books about this opening.
There is zero value in starting to cheat on move 1.
Definitely not great or an expert at chess but I don't think you're correct.
I've definitely heard that knowing that puzzles are much easier for GMs/etc because they know there is a winning move in that situation. Checking the board periodically with an engine to know the evaluation would also let you know when there is a very good move to play.
Good gawd, that's some horrible video coverage. The commentators are not even talking about the game at hand. The person blabbering on has to be interrupted and told what has happened. The actual players are but a side bar to whatever this commentary is.
This was not a good introduction for me to this world.
There's not much to comment on in chess about the first few moves. Around move 3 or 4 you maybe can say "wow, looks like Magnus is going for such-and-such opening."
There are two possibilities. Either Hans Niemann cheated, or he didn't. If he cheated, we will never know, unless he confesses. If he didn't cheat, it would be humiliating for Carlsen.
In any case, chess tournaments need to increase their security to make even the mere appearance of cheating impossible.
One person is talking about how accusations which affect credibility ought to be handled. The other person is noting that credibility has already been damaged by prior to this event.
Yes, engine analysis shows that Magnus played extremely poorly. Niemann doesn’t even play that well, it’s just that Magnus plays worse.
The most surprising fact for me from this whole controversy is discovering that Carlsen actually has a rabid fan base who will gladly ignore reality if it goes against him. Chess is actually not that different from football.
Do you have a good source?
If you analyze Carlsen‘s games versus weaker players, you will find situations where he willingly plays suboptimal lines to take the weaker opponent out of his prep.
The reason being that a draw is not enough for Carlsen in these situations.
I‘m curious to see their game analyzed with this taken into account.
I don’t really see what you mean by "this taken into account". Magnus likes to play lines with little advantage and theory on purpose to try to score points against weaker opponents. Even played on purpose these lines remain quite poor. When the opponent plays somewhat accurately that leads to draw-ish to losing positions.
If he deliberately plays suboptimal moves as part of his strategy, then an analysis of one of his games, showing that he played suboptimal moves at times, doesn't yield much information.
I was under the impression it's really hard to have a communication device that's not discoverable on you.
In Vegas you could make a lot of easy money playing poker if you can communicate with the other players, people have done just this and got caught. which leads me to believe a tournament of this much importance could also prevent it.
The difference with chess compared to casino games is that at this level of play, you only need 1 or 2 BITS of outside information to gain a huge advantage. You can decrease it to 1 bits if you agree on the meaning of the signal beforehand.
It is enough for a high level player to receive a signal that signifies that the current board position is critical. They will be able to find the correct move themselves. So cheating at this level is not like an engine giving you moves to play. It is more like a signal that says "your opponent blundered, if you take advantage you will win", or "if you find the critical move in this position you'll most probably win". Just have that signal at the correct moment and a 2500+ ELO player will, with little effort, figure out the winning move. That single bit of information can change the entire outcome.
I mean in theory you could, but there are time limits, mental limits, psychological effects in play. That opportunity is not always there so you can't expend the mental energy (and time) to treat every position as an entirely new chess puzzle by making yourself believe that it has a winning solution. Most of the time there isn't but you can't know that there isn't so most moves would consist of you giving up (because there is no such move). Then you'd get used to giving up. Yet you don't know when to give up exactly and move on because there may or may not be a valid answer.
When you know there is a valid answer though, your strategy for time planning changes, your psychological approach changes because you know there is a solution. When you know there is a solution, you can afford to expend the mental energy that produces hyperfocus which is costly and can't be sustained for the entirety of the game. Your dopamine circuitry kicks in and you search for the solution that you know exists.
A programming analogy may be: When you are programming you are solving problems but you don't approach it with the assumption that every line of code can be buggy. You just assume things are right and keep on writing best you know how - or you'd never make progress. Sometimes there are bugs, only later you can find and fix them. Asking a chess player to assume every position is critical is like checking every line of code for bugs each time you read them just in case. If you know there is a bug you have methods to search for it, but you can't program while checking every line over and over again by assuming they introduce bugs.
To add to the sibling: if you have infallible advice that there's a solution, but you have ruled out all possible solutions, you know you've made a mistake, and you can review your logic. It basically serves as a checksum on your thinking.
If the advice isn't infallible (worst case of which is the stuck bit you describe), then you don't have that checksum.
In a casino, they only have to suspect cheating to ask you to leave. In a GM tournament I don't think the judges or sponsors could just say someone's playing better than usual and is therefore banned. There needs to be a little more evidence than a one-in-twenty win happening. Less likely things happen every day.
Well casinos also have the much much much easier task of not having to keep gaming pure, but simply to keep it profitable. They don't have to prove you are cheating, because if you are taking in more money than you should be statistically, they can make you leave and ban you, no recourse. They only have to prove you cheated when they want to put you in prison for it and take their money back.
That could possibly mean that the public info on casino cheating trends towards very advanced and profitable cheating instead of average cheating, but I am not a statistician.
I don't know much about chess so maybe I've got this all wrong, but I don't see how this can be anything but a dick move by Magnus. What information could he possibly have obtained in that amount of time that would informed him of whether Has was cheating? And if he didn't obtain that information in real time, why did he agree to the match in the first place? It makes no sense.
Answering my own question (just for the record): I'm pretty sure now that I've looked into this some more that Magnus was contractually obligated to play this game, and so this is hist way of refusing to play without technically breaching the contract.
This is so interesting in many ways. One there may be no cheating in IRL games so there's a new up challenger for the crown. Two we're seeing a "prove you're not an AI" being asked of a human who doesn't seem to adequately explain their play in a way that seems convincing to other experts. Thirdly, it brings up the whole Deep Blue vs Kasparov rematch which may not have been adequately resolved depending on which circles you speak.
Will artists also have to prove that their artwork is not machine-assisted (how?) or else become devalued? Where is this all heading?
Besides that, chess.com made a statement that Hans was not divulging the full extent of the truth
I think at this point Magnus doesn't care whether Hans is cheating in any particular game. Magnus plays chess for fun, & he doesn't find it fun to play against someone who has previously cheated
I think it is worth pointing out that Chess.com did sign a contract to buy the Play Magnus Group last month.
I dunno what to make of that, but this whole thing could have been handled a bit more professional...
He was a minor in the other cases he's admitted to. Chess.com has since asked him for comment on more recent accusations. There's no news on whether he's answered those accusations.
Yup and Magnus probably knows exactly how much Hans cheated on chess.com since Magnus is a large shareholder in chess.com.
So the way I interpret this situation is that Magnus and chess.com is pressuring Hans and waiting for Hans to make a statement either refuting or admitting to even more cheating.
That's an accusation far more serious than accusing someone of cheating at online chess. But it's not impossible and I had considered the thought. Ultimately I have difficulty believing that the controlling powers of chess.com would go along with a scheme like that - they're not hard up for money.
Here's an article from earlier this year about General Atlantic buying into the company.
I'm surprised he's allowed to compete at that level anymore, especially in online tournaments. I'd think that would disqualify you permanently.
I suppose there are examples of athletes in other sports who've been caught cheating and not kicked out of the sport. But one way in which those examples are different than this one is that in online chess, cheating could mean essentially letting a computer do everything for you. In other sports, for example baseball, a player who takes performance enhancers still has to play the game. Online chess allows for complete cheating, in other words.
While true in the extreme case, other comments have made the point that at this level, cheating can consist of very few bits of information: simply getting a “this particular move is very important” indication is enough to cause an upset; this is very much in line with your “still has to play the game” as you still have to be a strong enough player to figure out why this particular move is important.
He has been suspended from chess.com online tournaments due to cheating in the past.
Furthermore, when analyzing the game in the post-game interview he claimed he had happened to look at this exact line on his computer earlier the same day, a line that Magnus has never played in his career. And when analyzing he suggested alternative moves that lost on the spot.
> And when analyzing he suggested alternative moves that lost on the spot.
IIRC it was during a live interview. During a real game, he has like 5 or 10 minutes to think about the move. In a live interview, he has like ¿2 seconds?. The interview would be extremely boring if he keep taking 5 minutes to give a reply. (It's somehow like throwing a ball to a tenis player and expecting him to give a perfect devolution using the microphone.)
The issue is there isn't even a cheating accusation. Magnus conceded here and quit another tournament but hasn't actually said he thinks Hans is cheating.
Magnus kinda has, in a way. Chess.com published a statement refuting Hans' claim that Hans only cheated twice. Hans has yet to respond. Magnus is 20% shareholder of chess.com
That's a pretty concerning statement to make. You are basically saying people never change and we should never forgive people for mistakes made in the past.
This isn't about life and making illegal choices and going to prison and reforming. This is a competition with rules.
Should be that if you cheat- lifetime ban. Period.
Stop cheating dead except by the most desperate. Temporary bans are something cheaters are willing to take.
Lifetime bans are not.
We see time and again that when cheating is not rooted out it becomes endemic, as the only way to compete becomes to cheat. At that point the rules are suggestions.
There's a difference between not forgiving someone and trusting them. Just because you forgive someone for cheating and telling lies doesn't mean you should now trust them and forget it ever happened.
If you don't trust them yet you have not fully forgiven them. The definition of forgive is to no longer punish someone as you saw it fit to forgive what they did. If you still act differently towards that someone because of an act then you simply haven't forgiven them. You might have accepted the act but that's not forgiveness.
>The definition of forgive is to no longer punish someone as you saw it fit to forgive what they did. If you still act differently towards that someone because of an act then you simply haven't forgiven them.
We fundamentally disagree on the definition of forgiveness. Forgiveness doesn't mean wiping clean your memory of the past. For example, I have a friend with a drug problem. This friend has on numerous occasions told lies and has otherwise been unreliable in other ways that drug addicts often are. I have forgiven this person for their transgressions and love them just as much as I love anyone else, and would lay down my life for them without hesitation. However, that doesn't mean I'm going to now simply accept their statements without doubt - I would be a fool to do so despite the fact that I have forgiven then completely for their previous lies and don't judge them, or look down on them, for the previous behavior. For better or worse, we are all the sum of our actions.
Then we indeed disagree. In my view that's not forgiveness. That's acceptance. Forgiveness doesn't mean you forget the past transgression. It only means you have moved past them and no longer treat the person according to the transgressions. Since you no longer trust your friend you haven't really forgiven them, I'd say.
Perhaps Magnus (center of the chess world) knows more than we do, and this is his form of silent protest to force the hands of the people that can actually do something about it (FIDE).
I say this, because there are some pretty insidious rumors at the highest levels of chess concerning coverups and numerous examples of suspicious things happening over the past two years (not just from Hans). I can see a scenario where Magnus is up against something larger than himself.
They scan bicycles for hidden motors any more, before and after important bicycle races. Maybe X-Rays are needed for chess, such as for airplane boarding?
I think this is absolutely disgraceful. There is zero proof that Niemann cheated across the board. Kasparov made a great analysis, he said Carlson made a bad opening and paid for it. He got mad and embarrassed. He should be stripped and suspended.
Magnus either needs to come forward with evidence that Hans cheated against him at St. Louis or take his L and move on. I like Magnus but this behavior is just embarrassing.
It is curious to see so many people who normally have gung-ho attitudes about "innocent until proven guilty" and "false accusations can ruin a life" and "don't make accusations without evidence" leave that behind in this case.
There are incentives for the non-top-player peanut gallery to pile on here. It makes you look smart and chess savvy to say "I looked at the games and clearly he was cheating."
Top athletes have a history of having mental breakdowns as they realize they've aged and no longer can dominate as they once had. Famously, Mike Tyson bit Evander Holyfield's ear off during a match, but there are other examples like Serena Williams' berating of the umpire during her loss to Naomi Osaka. It's always a bit sad / pathetic to see adults lose their cool when losing to a child.
What a ridiculously ignorant take. Magnus is far and away still the greatest chess player in the world. The gap between him and everyone else has narrowed, but its still a significant cap. Compared to Hans, they're not even in the same universe in terms of chess talent.
The issue isn't his belief. It's that he's throwing a tantrum and has ruined two Chess tournaments (so far). He's free to believe whatever he likes, but to resign in a match in a tournament is not fair to all the other players.
The top 8 players in the tournament get invited to the next tournament. Hans Niemann got a free point from the game Carlsen resigned. That impacts the standings for all the other players. It’s hard to see how they’re not impacted.
In addition to that one, very concrete impact, the situation may also have subtle effects. Players may be going into matches against Hans being down a point when they would have been tied, changing the psychology of their play style. Similarly, Hans may play more confidently being up a point. Even spending a single second thinking about the situation is an unnecessary impact forced on the other players by Magnus. Pretty unsportsmanlike.
The only thing is, I don't think Magnus is losing to anyone else at a disproportionate rate. The only pattern I saw identified is Hans winning at a disproportionate rate when the match was streamed live. Or am I wrong?
Hans beat Magnus once at the Sinquefield Cup, and technically here though it was Magnus resigning. Meanwhile at the Crypto Cup which was the last time they played before this Hans got trounced by Magnus. Keep in mind based on their ratings Hans had a 5% chance of beating Magnus while playing black, unlikely but not a particularly shocking upset.
> Fully deserved, after a performance that showed great resilience, determination, and quality. As for me, I am happy to (barely) be younger than the second and third place finishers combined
GP is wrong because Magnus won this tournament – but he did lose to Pragg three times along the way. But I don't think you can say you are "losing well" when you congratulate the silver medalist while holding gold.
You're wrong because, what flex? Pragg is 17 and Alireza Firouzja (the third place finisher) is 19. His comment reads more as a hat tip to two young rising stars than anything else.
What ruins tournaments is inviting a guy who plays at 2900 level with little security measures and barely at GM level once those are introduced (happened at Sinquefield cup). It doesn't help has cheated in the past and plays his best chess consistently when there is live broadcast going on.
Magnus isn't yet feeling his age chess wise either. He wins most tournaments he enters, including demolishing 4-0 a guy who won the Candidates twice in a row (the most important tournament in chess for every player who isn't currently a world champion) and he is league above others rating wise.
being the top chess grandmaster is no guarantee of sanity.
to take the most famous 3, Fischer, Kasparov and Carlsen:
- Fischer was always a bit of a paranoid arsehole, but he went completely off the rails after he retired. I won't go into specifics, but it's a quite interesting read
- Kasparov has never seemed the world's most sane man, but then he's from a radically different culture
- Carlsen is as far as I know quite sane, but from watching his streams I never really got the impression that he was particularly level-headed, or even just a pleasant person. take for example this whole debacle; even if he is right, which he may well be, he hasn't been exactly mature or sportsmanlike in dealing with it
if you have the singularity of mind to get to such a high level in anything - especially a solo sport like chess - I would speculate that there's a high chance of other things being missing. even if there isn't, the environment of fame and power once you get there seems pretty harsh on the mind
Fischer was a reasonable, intelligent person. His manners got a lot milder once he got old.
Kasparov is probably the most mature of them all. He got into politics in the worst possible country and somehow survived, which tells me that he knows how to negotiate with people who are hostile towards him and he still beats super GMs to this day.
Magnus likes to joke around claiming that he is the best, but overall he is/was the nice kid of chess, always kind and respectful towards everyone. And even humble and level headed when he loses. This whole cheating scandal revealed a face of him that the world had never seen before.
Fischer was a raving paranoid anti-semite who couldn't maintain a human relationship of any variety for practically his entire life. intelligent, yes. reasonable, no.
Kasparov I don't know too much about, but I know he's taken some very odd stances and positions over the years, and as far as I know concluded that he wasn't cut out for politics because he (in more or less words) lacked the social skills
Magnus is actually the best, so is it really a joke if he says it? but that's not really what I'm talking about. I've watched his streams, and it's always seemed like just below the surface is a cocky, dismissive guy that doesn't suffer fools gladly
> it's always seemed like just below the surface is a cocky, dismissive guy that doesn't suffer fools gladly
If this is how he feels and he suppresses it 'just below the surface', isn't that good enough? If he naturally feels that way but tries not to act on it, and to top it off, actually is the best, is dismissing things that deserve to be dismissed, and is dealing with fools, then I would say that is an admirable trait.
I am not here to decide whether Magnus is a good or admirable person or not. I am simply attempting to observe the mental states of the people at the top level of chess. I would say Magnus is not out of the ordinary for what he is, which is a top-level sportsman, but compared to a regular person, he's probably a little odd. as is Kasparov and as was Fischer especially.
however, with these three being the most famous, perhaps they are a skewed sample. on the other hand, that skewedness is part of the data because, by being famous, the mental impact on them is and was probably larger.
My point was more that it is not odd at all to be that way if you actually right about it (are the best, etc). Plus the fact that he is trying to suppress it shows that he knows it is the right thing to not be a dick. These things combined make your asserting that he somehow out-of-bounds statistically (personality wise) invalid, in my view.
as the top chess player, you're allowed to say and do and be things that others aren't. your defence of him is evidence of this. your judgment is rarely questioned. you're allowed to think of yourself as the best. people don't mind - even expect - a level of aloofness. however, his behaviour is different from the average person's. whether that is correct or not isn't the point. whether there is justification for that is not the point. justifications in fact make the point further.
also, it's not just his streams, he's also dealt with this whole cheating mess pretty immaturely, and I'm sure I could easily pull 3 other examples of odd behaviour out of google
You argument is tautological 'they cannot act average because they are exceptional'. You cannot separate one from the other -- either put an 'average' person in their position and judge how they react to it (in which case Magnus would be a good example), or say that people who are seen as exceptional could never have been 'average'.
It seems to me you are arguing for the latter, which makes your whole argument pointless. Am I mistaken?
EDIT -- To clarify: your argument is tautological because any example that is brought up will be someone who has become famous and idolized, and thus negated by your 'a normal person wouldn't act like that' retort. It is impossible to hold up a non-famous chess genius because we can't know who they are.
Failing to come up with any statement while making awkward allegations in this manner is hardly cool, I think. Especially in the position Magnus is in.
Carlsen needs to be banned. I cannot see how this does anything for anyone and it's a ridiculous power move against a young player, whose only impact will be to discourage other players.
For Carlsen to act like this without giving a single explanatory statement despite now just having the widest platform any chess player can, but literally owning most of the biggest platforms, is ridiculous.
Chess.com, Carlsen's major sponsor (who just bought PlayMagnus), put out the following statement after banning Hans from the platform:
>The last few days have been tumultuous for many in the chess community. At this time, we have reached out to Hans Niemann to explain our decision to privately remove him from Chess.com and our events. We have shared detailed evidence with him concerning our decision, including information that contradicts his statements regarding the amount and seriousness of his cheating on Chess.com. We have invited Hans to provide an explanation and response with the hope of finding a resolution where Hans can again participate on Chess.com. We want nothing more than to see the best chess players in the world succeed in the greatest events. We will always act to protect the integrity of the game that we all love.
Seems like Chess.com has evidence of cheating and Hans hasn't responded to this directly.
Maked sense. Imagine that your a kid who never cheats and try it once at age 12, and just happen to get caught, then never cheat again until one time when your 16 and trying to build a famous stream, which is going absolutely great without any cheating you think “hmm, might as well cheat just once to get a bigger crowd” and unlucky stars, you happen to get caught that one time again.
IMO that's just as bad as Carlson's lack of comment. How can the other guy possibly clear his name when people aren't even "charging" him? Instead of giving us this evidence they have, they're basically saying "Oh we know he did bad things in the past, just trust us, we should never trust him again"
Like it might be true, but that is a really gross way to put pressure on someone.
It is ridiculous, but chess history has a lot of silly drama at the top levels, so whatever. It's less silly to me than Carlsen throwing his title by refusing to play the next world championship, but again, whatever.
He hasn't even made a statement. The entire chess world has accused Niemann of cheating at this point, and Carlsen hasn't said a word.
It's f'ing embarrassing.
Further, Carlsen isn't just the #1 GM, and the most popular chess player in the world, his company also owns and partially owns 2 of the biggest chess platforms in the world.
At this point for him to not even have made a statement is inexplicable.
I am a complete outsider when it comes to chess. I know the basics and can play, but I've spent very little time on it and have no idea about the dynamics of the "chess world".
All that is to say, is that as an outsider looking in at this controversy, I think it's utterly insane for anyone to be taking sides on this issue while Carlsen has said nothing, nor tried at all to shed light on anything. The additional context in this comment chain (and thread) definitely hurt his trustworthiness as well.
Edit: Always happy to learn and adjust my perspectives. I don't mind the downvotes, but in the interest of personal growth I don't mind chatting about why I might be wrong. I also straight up admitted I'm likely to be ignorant on the subject, so hey - point me in the right direction!
Carlsen didn’t actually say nothing. That’s the heart of the issue.
He posted a semi-cryptic tweet then resigned after one move during their next game.
He is manifestly trying to imply something which greatly impacts another player while avoiding actually saying it which most people tend to find frankly disrespectful and a bit childish.
One possible explanation is that cheating is a serious charge, and he's a chess player and probably wants to avoid getting involved in rules enforcement.
I'm not seeing what's embarrassing about any of this (or how it's related to him having stake in a chess website), or why you think it's so important that he makes a statement but I don't think I'll change your mind about it.
Didn’t he make a statement on Twitter? I’m not saying Twitter is formal or anything but are we gatekeeping what is a statement? Or did I just hear wrong?
There's analysis showing very few blunders and mistakes, not just for his rating, but in general and there are games of his with very strong correlation between his moves and the then best versions of Stockfish.
This guy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AG9XeSPflrU&t=2s) isn't an IM, only an FM, but I don't think the skill matters, it's a matter of statistical analysis, which I don't think has been performed fully systematically, but from what I've seen I am fully convinced that Niemann cheated and I am convinced that the matter will become very clear once a careful analysis is finally performed.
I agree it's a matter of statistical analysis, as well as being an IM Dr. Ragan is a professor at University of Buffalo, has published numerous papers on his methodology, and a former member of the Anti-Cheating Committee of the World Chess Federation. You say you want an analysis but you also say you are already convinced he's guilty and are just looking for something to confirm that.
Carlsen intentionally throwing games against Niemann hinders his ability to advance his chess career and be recognized, and it makes him unsavoury to sponsors and organizations who favour Carlsen
In chess, people don't care as much about who won or lost, as they do about... I'm not sure exactly. It might be the specific tactic they used, or prescient intuition somebody showed, or the possibility of a move they saw but nobody else did, etc. But the point is they care about the playing of the game. It's a much different affair with most physical sports. There are so many possibilities, so many "moving parts", so much room for randomness to set in, that you can't really care nearly as much about exactly "how" anybody played a physical game. The winning and the loosing is really all you're left with.
In chess, games are recorded move by move. You can literally buy a book and read exactly how dozens (hundreds?) of major chess games played out. And you'll be reading exactly how they played out. Every single relevant detail of the entire match is there, in a textual format, that you or anyone else can learn from. In physical sports you rarely get more than who won X major tournament each year, or what a team's win / loss ratio was. That's it. There are so vastly many more variables going in on a physical sports game that it is inconceivable to record exactly how they played out.
Anyway, I think this and similar reasons, are why somebody "giving" away a win is hardly relevant. Who it was that won is hardly worth knowing. How they won, what strategy they employed, or what mental weakness the loser exhibited, are what everyone is really hankering for. By throwing the game he robbed everyone of what they are really after: knowledge. And not knowledge like "who won" but knowledge of "how do you win at chess against the best player in the world". Because in chess, and other games of pure mental gymnastics, anybody can employ that same knowledge in their next game.
Banning the world champion is a farce and so long as he resigns individual games instead of dropping out and thus affecting other players he can knock himself
out.
As long as Magnus is unwilling to play a game against Hans, he should outright refuse to play in any tournament where Hans is known to participate.
Entering with the intention to throw a game is a dick move that causes unnecessary drama, unfairness in the results, and biases in rating computations.
There are other players in a tournament besides Hans and Magnus. It's not unfair to those other players for Magnus to give Hans a point for free but make them work hard to try to earn a point from him.
If it keeps up there will be tournaments where Hans beats out someone else for prize money where his free point from Magnus is what puts him ahead of that other person.
It's become so easy to cheat that honor is very important. I don't blame Magnus for shunning Niemann, he's been caught cheating twice already and I don't know why anyone would expect him to have "learned from his 'mistakes'".
Wow, the cookie pop-up in that second link is something else. The toggle options are between orange and blue, with the default choices being orange. Which one means on and which one means off? They're both equally saturated. The switch points to the left on orange and to the right on blue.
Then, the button choices at the bottom are "Got it!", "Deny" and "Save preferences."
It seems like if I choose Deny, I am safe but I can't be sure! What am I denying exactly? And if I click Deny, does it matter how I set the switches above?
He would get a hell of a lot more flak for accusing him of cheating. Instead, he just makes it obvious what he thinks by refusing to play with him. I think it's classier.
Honestly, this is a surprising statement. I imagine it comes from someone younger, and who has been through much strife?
A human brain isn't fully developed at 19, just because we send 19y olds off to kill in wars doesn't mean they are adults and it certainly doesn't indicate infantilizing a young adult by allowing them growth. If we're talking about a 39y old man, then you can start proselytizing and comparing.
Most of mid-life -> older is validating the "youth is wasted on the young" quote and turning into an old fart. A fudge-ton of humans never had this chance, that doesn't mean we can't grow and allow for it now where circumstances allow.
I find this similar to the student loan forgiveness/free State College conversation in the US. It is almost as ridiculous as "originalism" in interpreting the U.S. Constitution. A document made to be updated at the will of the people, yet we must just adhere to what a 18th century aristocratic male landowner would have thought if presented with the question of <INSERT ANYTHING POST 1789>"
Investigate him if there is cause, but not because of Magnus' tweets. Freely admitting to your mistakes and trying to learn from them is something to be encouraged.
How people on HN pirated software or did gray-hat stuff when young, and where did it take you?
Neiman is a new young adult, in a completely abnormal situation for normal humans, being harassed by all sorts of people for things that happened in his past, speculation, and wild ass guessing.
Maybe taking carlson at his non-word is sufficient to harm this young man for you, but it is not for me.
What could Magnus say that would satisfy you, exactly? "Niemann is definitely not cheating" would be silly. "I think he's cheating" would be terrible. "Let's allow the governing bodies to investigate" would be the status quo.
Let's assume he thinks that (unlikely as FIDE isn't a very trustworthy or respected institution). Before saying so he asks his lawyer if it might get him on legal trouble. The answer is "yes it will". Magnus thus stays silent.
It's not classy in the least, it's cowardice. This isn't just a game, it's Hans career/future/livelihood. I have no idea if he cheated OTB. I know his history but that doesn't mean it happened in this instance. As for Magnus, what he's doing is just bullying. He knows he's big enough and can throw his weight around. He can probably end Hans top level career without saying a word just by refusing to play in events Hans is at. It's a joke and completely unsporting. If you are going to do that, have the decency to actually make a statement or bring forth evidence instead of just making the rules yourself and how you see fit.
Oh please. How many times does Hans need to cheat before he is banned? I've been playing chess for a long time and never felt compelled to cheat, let alone in tournament, let alone cheat again after already being caught once.
Hans also had this to say after he beat Carlsen: “It must be embarrassing for the world champion to lose to me. I feel bad for him!” Who is the bully here?
According to his own account, Niemann was 12 and 16 when he cheated online and it was to bump twitch views and beef rating quickly to play better players.
Doesn't excuse him, but he has acknowledged it and his shame and there is absolutely no evidence he has cheated over the board.
>According to his own account, Niemann was 12 and 16 when he cheated online and it was to bump twitch views and beef rating quickly to play better players.
Chess.com seems to have additional evidence of Hans cheating:
You're right. I forgot Chess tournaments are blindfolded, so you don't know who is participating, and who you will be playing.
Oh wait, that's totally not the case and Carlsen absolutely knew who he would be playing and knew the exact measures the tournament was taking and still hasn't had the balls to release a statement actually accusing Niemann of cheating, despite the fact that this is something everyone knows.
Our brave Carlsen is too scared to make the claim that Hans is cheating despite this being something as obvious as the sky appearing blue.
I'm not sure how this makes Carlsen look any better.
I'm sure you'd be a lot happier with him if he accused the guy of cheating with no evidence. Carlsen thinks he's cheating and doesn't want to play with him; it might be soap opera, but it's not assault. If you don't want to be accused of cheating with no concrete evidence, don't get caught cheating.
It's obvious that he's a world-class player, but it's his responsibility alone to get past that bad reputation. Even after time passes and he gets away from it, people will still use it as a pretext to screw with him. But he earned that black mark just as much as he earned his playing skill.
The smart move for Niemann is to be absurdly graceful about this, and eventually, hopefully, get Carlsen on his side (or at least neutral.)
Magnus has technically cheated in online by getting advice from his friends who were sitting with him which is against the rules. If you are going to have a strict cheating = lifetime ban policy then Magnus needs to go as well. If you think there should be proportion with things then we need some sort of system for punishments, which is what exists and Magnus should go through that instead of messing up the standings for everyone else.
As far as I know he never gave a detailed description of how he cheats when playing online, he only admitted that he did it, and only admitted two instances, though from the recent chess.com response it sounds like it was more consistently than he admits.
My best guess would be that he has a friend shadow playing the game on AI and uses that info to figure out when Poot une moments arise.
Rather than effectively forfeiting a game like this, Carlsen should not have played in the tournament if he was dissatisfied with the anti-cheating measures used. Carlsen is a great player who is dishonoring himself.
