halfnine wrote: ↑Sat Sep 10, 2022 9:43 am
Our justice system also reserves the right to try a child as an adult. Depending on how trivial or not so trivial Niemann's cheating was will likely dictate how severely he is treated. If it turns out he is misdirecting people about the extent of his cheating as now a nineteen year old it will likely indicate he has never learned his lesson. Ultimately, now as an adult, he will have to take accountability for that. But, none of us know until he releases the data. If there was nothing to see he likely would have released it already. However, he could be seeking legal advice or waiting until the end of the tournament. Both would certainly be reasonable as well.
As to Chess.com, well once Niemann discussed them in his interview they had little choice but to make a corporate response. They have a brand image to protect.
And if Carlsen was targeting cheating he has been anything but ineffective. At the end of this changes will be made.
Niemann discussed them in his interview because Carlsen & chess.com uninvited Niemann from some online tournament.
This is totally a cheap shot; I don't necessarily think Carlsen is trying to distract Niemann, but the end result is exactly that. Very unsportsmanlike conduct I must say. Carlsen can withdraw from the Sinquefield but he should not distract Niemann who is still in the tournament.
It's rather obvious. People like Danya kept talking how OTB cheating is "possible," but they fail to discuss why they think Niemann cheated vs Carlsen.
If Niemann were making one godly move after another and beat Magnus, that's different. But the game in question wasn't a high-quality game as far as I understood.
This is just endless strawmen from you. Danya, Hikaru, etc. did not accuse Niemann of cheating against Carlsen. Even Carlsen has not accused Niemann of cheating against Carlsen. It's not worth engaging with you any further on this. The truth will eventually come out one way or the other.
Somebody smarter than me can maybe assess whether there are holes here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AG9XeSPflrU&t=6s (video is a Ukrainian FM analyzing critical games in tournaments when Niemann was pursuing his GM norms)
We are early days in this.
Last edited by canadianbacon on Sun Sep 11, 2022 7:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
Bulls make money, bears make money, pigs get slaughtered.
It's rather obvious. People like Danya kept talking how OTB cheating is "possible," but they fail to discuss why they think Niemann cheated vs Carlsen.
If Niemann were making one godly move after another and beat Magnus, that's different. But the game in question wasn't a high-quality game as far as I understood.
The Chief Arbiter did not say "no cheating". The Chess Arbiter said there is currently "no indication that any player has been playing unfairly". So the question then becomes what does playing unfairly mean. It typically means (a) player was caught red-handed and/or (b) probability analysis has determined a 99.x % probability that a player cheater. If, for instance, a player is deemed to be 95% likely to have cheated no violation will have occurred. And, like I mentioned previously, this is one of the inherent problems with how chess is run. People, likely yourself, are using this as an example of proof of innocence (no cheating) which it is not. Chess is pretending via clever marketing that they have a handle on cheating and cheating is futile as it will be caught. However, one could make an argument based on probability anaylsis that cheaters can get away with it far more often than not.
So, we do not know the statistical probability cheating actually occurred. Nor will this information be released. Although, I have heard (unofficially) that nothing put Niemann near the levels of others who have been busted.
canadianbacon wrote: ↑Sun Sep 11, 2022 5:38 am
This is just endless strawmen from you. Danya, Hikaru, etc. did not accuse Niemann of cheating against Carlsen. Even Carlsen has not accused Niemann of cheating against Carlsen. It's not worth engaging with you any further on this. The truth will eventually come out one way or the other.
Somebody smarter than me can maybe assess whether there are holes here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AG9XeSPflrU&t=6s (video is a Ukrainian FM analyzing critical games in tournaments when Niemann was pursuing his GM norms)
We are early days in this.
You weren't really engaging with me in the first place so I don't understand your statement here.
Also, while no one literally said Niemann was cheating, plenty of GMs (including Magnus) & streamers implied he was and you know that. It's disingenuous to suddenly only accept literals and call everything else strawman when you know darn well everyone is talking about the implied context.
Last edited by Marseille07 on Sun Sep 11, 2022 10:36 pm, edited 4 times in total.
halfnine wrote: ↑Sun Sep 11, 2022 6:46 am
The Chief Arbiter did not say "no cheating". The Chess Arbiter said there is currently "no indication that any player has been playing unfairly". So the question then becomes what does playing unfairly mean. It typically means (a) player was caught red-handed and/or (b) probability analysis has determined a 99.x % probability that a player cheater. If, for instance, a player is deemed to be 95% likely to have cheated no violation will have occurred. And, like I mentioned previously, this is one of the inherent problems with how chess is run. People, likely yourself, are using this as an example of proof of innocence (no cheating) which it is not. Chess is pretending via clever marketing that they have a handle on cheating and cheating is futile as it will be caught. However, one could make an argument based on probability anaylsis that cheaters can get away with it far more often than not.
So, we do not know the statistical probability cheating actually occurred. Nor will this information be released. Although, I have heard (unofficially) that nothing put Niemann near the levels of others who have been busted.
That's true. And it is a difficult problem because unless we catch Niemann red-handed, we can't be for sure if he cheated on one move or 10 moves or not at all.
So, the data-mining exercises continue -- as I expected, this is early days. What we have seen so far:
The Twitter account Atlanta Kings tweeted that an analysis of Niemann's results in 2019-2020 showed a higher USCF rating during games with live broadcasts than those without. The methodology used here has been questioned by another Twitter account named "Strong Chess", whose own analysis argues nothing suspicious (and who am I to argue with "Strong Chess"?)
The Youtube account "Chess fan MWP", a Ukrainian FM, posted a video that shows exceptional, engine-level performance at key moments of a tournament where Niemann won a GM norm. He only looked at parts of games after the opening and where the outcome was still in doubt (eval is between +3 and -3). It has been extensively discussed on Reddit and there are some questions about methodology. Many would like to see a similar analysis done of other top juniors in their best tournaments, or of Magnus-level players facing strong IM/low GM competition, to compare.
A reddit user posted a thread showing centipawn loss per move in online chess comparing Niemann's last 4000 games to those of several other top players. While there are many methodological issues with this analysis, including that he didn't control for time control, and that his table starts at 1 centipawn loss moves (no comparison of 0 centipawn), it could be the starting point for a better exercise. In a sense, it's the opposite of the FM's analysis, in that it looks at a larger number of games, which were played online, and does a more superficial analysis. Reddit mods have now deleted the thread, but you can find the charts here. We already know something was going on on-line, so the only question is the extent of it.
The Ukrainian FM is back with a new video looking at Niemann games from the Capablanca memorial tournament this year. Again, it would be interesting to see a comparison to other top players to see how likely a performance like this would be.
Bulls make money, bears make money, pigs get slaughtered.
I am finding more and more computers take the joy out of winning. More often than not, I play over a win where I thought I'd played well and the computer finds a much simpler line or worse. points out my line was unsound. I beat a 2350 player today in 3-2, thought I'd attacked brilliantly but the computer showed the key move of my attack, a piece sac, was unsound. I played well before and after the sac, but it's hard to take any joy from the win.
sigh.
Last edited by gips on Wed Sep 14, 2022 8:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
gips wrote: ↑Wed Sep 14, 2022 7:56 pm
I am finding more and more computers take the joy out of winning. More often than not, I play over a win where I thought I'd played well and the computer finds a much simpler line or worse. points out my line was unsound. I beat a 2350 player today in 3-2, thought I'd attacked brilliantly but the computer showed the key move of my attack, a piece sac, was unsound. I played well before and after the sac, but it's hard to take much joy from the win.
sigh.
Anything can happen in 3-2 though, no? Even the GMs do not play accurately under the time control.
gips wrote: ↑Wed Sep 14, 2022 7:56 pm
I am finding more and more computers take the joy out of winning. More often than not, I play over a win where I thought I'd played well and the computer finds a much simpler line or worse. points out my line was unsound. I beat a 2350 player today in 3-2, thought I'd attacked brilliantly but the computer showed the key move of my attack, a piece sac, was unsound. I played well before and after the sac, but it's hard to take much joy from the win.
sigh.
Anything can happen in 3-2 though, no? Even the GMs do not play accurately under the time control.
yes, when I watch the coffee chess crew the advantage often jumps back and forth, side to side, as caluclated by the computer. I don't mind not finding the best move but starting with a terrible move is, for me, not satisfying.
gips wrote: ↑Wed Sep 14, 2022 7:56 pm
I am finding more and more computers take the joy out of winning. More often than not, I play over a win where I thought I'd played well and the computer finds a much simpler line or worse. points out my line was unsound. I beat a 2350 player today in 3-2, thought I'd attacked brilliantly but the computer showed the key move of my attack, a piece sac, was unsound. I played well before and after the sac, but it's hard to take much joy from the win.
sigh.
Anything can happen in 3-2 though, no? Even the GMs do not play accurately under the time control.
yes, when I watch the coffee chess crew the advantage often jumps back and forth, side to side, as caluclated by the computer. I don't mind not finding the best move but starting with a terrible move is, for me, not satisfying.
Blitz chess probably isn't for you then. It's to some extent about egregious attacks, tricks and deceit knowing full well one's opponent does not have enough time to figure out the refutation. And an error on their part will lead to mate while an error on your part often can still lead to a game. I've become more of a fan of rapid chess. Short enough that poor play generally isn't rewarded but not so long that one can hide their weaknesses.
gips wrote: ↑Wed Sep 14, 2022 7:56 pm
I am finding more and more computers take the joy out of winning. More often than not, I play over a win where I thought I'd played well and the computer finds a much simpler line or worse. points out my line was unsound. I beat a 2350 player today in 3-2, thought I'd attacked brilliantly but the computer showed the key move of my attack, a piece sac, was unsound. I played well before and after the sac, but it's hard to take much joy from the win.
sigh.
Anything can happen in 3-2 though, no? Even the GMs do not play accurately under the time control.
yes, when I watch the coffee chess crew the advantage often jumps back and forth, side to side, as caluclated by the computer. I don't mind not finding the best move but starting with a terrible move is, for me, not satisfying.
Blitz chess probably isn't for you then. It's to some extent about egregious attacks, tricks and deceit knowing full well one's opponent does not have enough time to figure out the refutation. And an error on their part will lead to mate while an error on your part often can still lead to a game. I've become more of a fan of rapid chess. Short enough that poor play generally isn't rewarded but not so long that one can hide their weaknesses.
well, i’ve been playing blitz for over 50 years and enjoy it. it’s the advent of post-game computer analysis that ruins it for me. maybe i’ll just stop looking at my blitz games unless I lose.
i was told by a friend who is a master that I attack like a master and defend like a patzer, against players in the 2200-2400 range i know I have to steer the position into an open, attacking position.
Apologies for being slightly off topic: http://go.davepeck.org/get-going/ is the best equivalent for Go to lichess.org, by all account on the internet. However, when I try to start a game there, I get:
"Sorry, an unexpected error occured. Please try again in a minute or two."
Tried with several different browsers on several days. Anyone have experience with this?
Carlsen knew he was in a losing position after c4.
Seriously, is he going to present his case or just drag on these antics in perpetuity? Niemen is no on-line angel for sure with two marks against him (he was pretty young the first time so perhaps forgiveness is required there), but it HAS to be more than that. If not, Carlsen is off form, as they like to say.
RM
I figure the odds be fifty-fifty I just might have something to say. FZ
Random Musings wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 7:49 pm
Carlsen knew he was in a losing position after c4.
Seriously, is he going to present his case or just drag on these antics in perpetuity? Niemen is no on-line angel for sure with two marks against him (he was pretty young the first time so perhaps forgiveness is required there), but it HAS to be more than that. If not, Carlsen is off form, as they like to say.
RM
It's disturbing for sure. This resignation is difficult to defend, as Carlsen can't possibly say Niemann was cheating by move 2. Needless to say, resigning in this fashion is unsportsmanlike, and most likely violates some policy of FIDE & whatever tournaments he partakes in.
Random Musings wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 7:49 pm
Carlsen knew he was in a losing position after c4.
Seriously, is he going to present his case or just drag on these antics in perpetuity? Niemen is no on-line angel for sure with two marks against him (he was pretty young the first time so perhaps forgiveness is required there), but it HAS to be more than that. If not, Carlsen is off form, as they like to say.
RM
It's disturbing for sure. This resignation is difficult to defend, as Carlsen can't possibly say Niemann was cheating by move 2. Needless to say, resigning in this fashion is unsportsmanlike, and most likely violates some policy of FIDE & whatever tournaments he partakes in.
I don't like the title of an article so I won't link here, but Magnus will speak more after the tournament:
It wasn't until Sept. 21 when Carlsen -- who is still competing in the event -- finally said something about the situation, although it wasn't much. He kept his answers very general, avoided his thoughts on the cheating speculation, and said he will say more at the conclusion of the tournament, which will wrap up on Sept. 25.
Niemann and Carlsen are in different brackets and won't meet till the final.
you may have been kidding but as aronian said, that was an odd game niemann played. obviously aronian is a million times better to analyze the game but if i had lost a game like that, i’d have had some reservations about my opponents play.
gips wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 3:59 am
you may have been kidding but as aronian said, that was an odd game niemann played. obviously aronian is a million times better to analyze the game but if i had lost a game like that, i’d have had some reservations about my opponents play.
Maybe Niemann played an A-game. At this point we all have to wait for the tournament to complete & Magnus to speak more about the situation.
Magnus did mention Maxim Dlugy who is apparently another suspected cheater and coached Niemann. So there is another insinuation that Niemann is cheating.
I removed a post and reply questioning the relevance of this topic as a consumer issue. Chess is on-topic as a hobby / leisure activity. As a reminder, see: Personal Consumer Issues
This subforum is focused on making informed decisions about consumer goods and services (other than investing or financial).
Acceptable topics include:
- consumer goods and services (e.g., dress shirts, laptops, software)
- home maintenance
- vehicle purchases and maintenance
- leisure and recreational activities: travel, sports, entertainment
Note that topics must be directly connected to your (or your friend's or family's) life as a consumer. General comments or complaints about these topics will be removed.
Note that this subforum has a much lower threshold for locking or removing posts than the financial and investing subforums. In general, controversial, offensive, pointless, divisive or mean-spirited posts or topics may be locked, edited or deleted (with or without notice) at the discretion of the moderating staff even if they do not otherwise violate forum policies.
If there are any other concerns, please PM me. Don't post here. See: Member Rights in a Dispute , 2nd paragraph.
To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.
...We propose to launch a dedicated Panel, that would include representatives of the leading chess platforms, Grandmasters, anti-cheating experts and FIDE officers, in order to fight this risk and prevent it becomes a real plague...
This to me was Carlsen's endgame all along. FIDE has been sitting around with their head in the sand. Say whatever you want about Carlsen's method but within 3 weeks he managed to get FIDE's attention. There has been a lot of talk that Carlsen should have done it differently but nobody has ever indicated what exactly he should have done, nor what FIDE would have done had he approached them indepently (pretty much nothing), nor how long it would have taken FIDE if they actually were going to do something (years?).
halfnine wrote: ↑Sun Sep 25, 2022 2:52 am
Via Fide Statement
...We propose to launch a dedicated Panel, that would include representatives of the leading chess platforms, Grandmasters, anti-cheating experts and FIDE officers, in order to fight this risk and prevent it becomes a real plague...
This to me was Carlsen's endgame all along. FIDE has been sitting around with their head in the sand. Say whatever you want about Carlsen's method but within 3 weeks he managed to get FIDE's attention. There has been a lot of talk that Carlsen should have done it differently but nobody has ever indicated what exactly he should have done, nor what FIDE would have done had he approached them indepently (pretty much nothing), nor how long it would have taken FIDE if they actually were going to do something (years?).
I think we will have to see how rigorously they will monitor cheating. I was watching a video of Hikaru yesterday in which he said they don't do much except the top-level tournaments (Sinquefield, Candidates etc etc) due to cost on the organizers to finance security measures.
How much they can do on online tournaments like the Generation Cup, I'm not so sure. I also think it's difficult to justify resigning on move 2.
Unfortunately, at this time I am limited in what I can say without explicit permission from Niemann to speak openly.
It's very passive-aggressive by Carlsen because he makes it sound like he's prevented by Niemann to speak openly but I don't think Niemann prevented anything. But Carlsen's aim is to paint Niemann as a cheater who tries to hush-hush on Carlsen.
I wonder what'd happen to Niemann - basically Carlsen's accusation that Niemann cheated more than 2012 & 2016 got an enormous boost here, though still no conclusive evidence of him cheating OTB.
I wonder what'd happen to Niemann - basically Carlsen's accusation that Niemann cheated more than 2012 & 2016 got an enormous boost here, though still no conclusive evidence of him cheating OTB.
I think, chess now boils down to who can memorize the most engine moves these days.
rockstar wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 10:50 am
I think, chess now boils down to who can memorize the most engine moves these days.
Given chess is a zero-sum game with perfect information, I don't think there are "engine moves" per-se. And those are difficult to memorize because humans can't comprehend why they are good moves (if you comprehend why they are good moves, you'd be playing them instead of memorizing).
I wonder what'd happen to Niemann - basically Carlsen's accusation that Niemann cheated more than 2012 & 2016 got an enormous boost here, though still no conclusive evidence of him cheating OTB.
I think, chess now boils down to who can memorize the most engine moves these days.
Carlsen's endgame technique is extremely strong. That is a big differentiator. Plus, the great players are playing novelties that are far more plies into the "book" than in the past. Yes, it requires memorization, but pattern recognition is very important as well.
RM
I figure the odds be fifty-fifty I just might have something to say. FZ
I wonder what'd happen to Niemann - basically Carlsen's accusation that Niemann cheated more than 2012 & 2016 got an enormous boost here, though still no conclusive evidence of him cheating OTB.
I think, chess now boils down to who can memorize the most engine moves these days.
Carlsen's endgame technique is extremely strong. That is a big differentiator. Plus, the great players are playing novelties that are far more plies into the "book" than in the past. Yes, it requires memorization, but pattern recognition is very important as well.
RM
My understanding is that due to computers it is now fairly easy to equalize as black. Because of this players are looking for novelties as white. These novelties are inferior to the main lines in the sense that they give equality. However, black has to prove this over the board which can lead to either mistakes or time trouble. These novelties are pretty much a "one and done" so players tend to hold them tight until the big tournaments.
To some extent this is why Carlsen has become disgruntled the WC format. Particularly when one has to spend months at a time preparing for classical time controls against just one other opponent. The future of chess may very well be shorter time controls versus more opponents which will go a long way towards negating engines and memorization.
I wonder what'd happen to Niemann - basically Carlsen's accusation that Niemann cheated more than 2012 & 2016 got an enormous boost here, though still no conclusive evidence of him cheating OTB.
I think, chess now boils down to who can memorize the most engine moves these days.
Carlsen's endgame technique is extremely strong. That is a big differentiator. Plus, the great players are playing novelties that are far more plies into the "book" than in the past. Yes, it requires memorization, but pattern recognition is very important as well.
RM
My understanding is that due to computers it is now fairly easy to equalize as black. Because of this players are looking for novelties as white. These novelties are inferior to the main lines in the sense that they give equality. However, black has to prove this over the board which can lead to either mistakes or time trouble. These novelties are pretty much a "one and done" so players tend to hold them tight until the big tournaments.
To some extent this is why Carlsen has become disgruntled the WC format. Particularly when one has to spend months at a time preparing for classical time controls against just one other opponent. The future of chess may very well be shorter time controls versus more opponents which will go a long way towards negating engines and memorization.
The future is already here as most of the top guns are playing more rapid and blitz games (plus online stuff) besides the usual classical games. The usual suspects are at the top with reshuffling. However, there are a few people like Artemiev who really excel at Blitz compared to their classical rating, which has dropped to about 2,700 from 2,750. Seems like he is putting more of his energy currently into blitz where he is #4.
RM
I figure the odds be fifty-fifty I just might have something to say. FZ
He was also wanded in last month's tournament, prior to the allegation. No credible suggestion has been made as to how he could've cheated. Magnus noted that Hans didn't have the appropriate facial expressions during their game. That's the evidence with which he rested his case.
Marseille07 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 4:14 pm
Niemann loses yet again and is now 2.5/7 at the US Chess Championship in St. Louis.
If he was cheating before, he certainly isn't now as he thoroughly gets wanded.
jbk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 5:55 pm
He was also wanded in last month's tournament, prior to the allegation. No credible suggestion has been made as to how he could've cheated. Magnus noted that Hans didn't have the appropriate facial expressions during their game. That's the evidence with which he rested his case.
Marseille07 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 4:14 pm
Niemann loses yet again and is now 2.5/7 at the US Chess Championship in St. Louis.
If he was cheating before, he certainly isn't now as he thoroughly gets wanded.
Carlsen would be an idiot if he accused Niemann of cheating at the Sinquefield when the fateful game wasn't even of high quality. I think his main accusation line is that Niemann has cheated online therefore he doesn't want to play Niemann online or OTB. Carlsen also wants to improve security measures to prevent cheating.
I personally think Niemann has cheated OTB too, but whatever he was doing doesn't work in St. Louis.
jbk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 5:55 pm
He was also wanded in last month's tournament, prior to the allegation. No credible suggestion has been made as to how he could've cheated. Magnus noted that Hans didn't have the appropriate facial expressions during their game. That's the evidence with which he rested his case.
Marseille07 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 4:14 pm
Niemann loses yet again and is now 2.5/7 at the US Chess Championship in St. Louis.
If he was cheating before, he certainly isn't now as he thoroughly gets wanded.
Carlsen would be an idiot if he accused Niemann of cheating at the Sinquefield when the fateful game wasn't even of high quality. I think his main accusation line is that Niemann has cheated online therefore he doesn't want to play Niemann online or OTB. Carlsen also wants to improve security measures to prevent cheating.
The problem is Carlsen knew Niemann cheated online before he played him at the Sinquefield Cup and knew he would be playing Niemann there. If he had concerns about playing Niemann, he could've chosen not to play in the tournament and/or made a statement about cheating PRIOR to getting beat by Niemann. Instead, Carlsen got beat, dropped out and strongly implied Niemann cheated in their game. He doubled down a week later by saying Niemann didn't look like he was concentrating during the game and had outplayed him as very few players can. The accusation is clear. The evidence? Not so much.
jbk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 6:29 pm
The problem is Carlsen knew Niemann cheated online before he played him at the Sinquefield Cup and knew he would be playing Niemann there. If he had concerns about playing Niemann, he could've chosen not to play in the tournament and/or made a statement about cheating PRIOR to getting beat by Niemann. Instead, Carlsen got beat, dropped out and strongly implied Niemann cheated in their game. He doubled down a week later by saying Niemann didn't look like he was concentrating during the game and had outplayed him as very few players can. The accusation is clear. The evidence? Not so much.
That's true. Ben Finegold has a similar take as yours.