OT: Magnus Carlsen brouhahas

[dooki667]

Shoulda mentioned my post was talking about Over the board cheating not his admired online cheating.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

How do you cheat at chess?

Moreover, how do you understand there was cheating looking at a game?

That's a great question and a huge part of the problem. Unless there following the poker god Mike postles cheating strat which is everything with complete disregard for how absurd his play and winnings are you really can't. One or two moves a game in tough spots could be all it takes and that's gonna be hard to prove. u have to basically catch him in the act.

In Poker an external person has information that is not available to players, but in chess everyone is on the same page. It's just that the computer can be "too smart" but how do you recognize that a particular set of moves was that?
I can assume that people who study the game can retro engineer the logic of each move looking at the development of the game itself, and understand if that particular strategy required to much "processing power" for a human being. Or you can ask a the player to comment and explain. Maybe for those experts is very straightforward, I don't know, it sure sounds fluffy to me and my basic understanding of the game.

[Fencer reregistered]

Its sketchy.
Because Magnus played opening he has NEVER played in his life and Niemann just guessed
When they asked Niemann about it he said he never seen that play something like that. If you never seen it how do you know what to do

Actually, Niemann claimed he knew Carlsen had played it before, but cited a different tournament than the one in which Carlsen really had used it.

[Fencer reregistered]

To be clear, the game in which Niemann supposedly cheated exhibits no particular brilliant moves by Niemann, but rather a series of blunders by Carlsen. So really the only basis for an accusation would be in Niemann's opening preparation. And I haven't actually seen any explanation of how Niemann supposedly got a preparation advantage vs. Carlsen.

[dirkdiggler4177]

How do you cheat at chess?

Moreover, how do you understand there was cheating looking at a game?

If the player does moves that make no sense to anyone, except the simulation computer do the same. I don't watch chess, but I remember watching it one time and all the commentators were confused by the computer prediction, but then it all made sense in the end.

[Braggins]

Get moves messaged to you that have been played out on Chess engines

I thought it was proven that the computers can’t beat humans? Didn’t Bobby Fischer beat the IBM computer

In the 1990s, then world champion Garry Kasparov first beat but later lost to IBM's "Deep Blue". Since then, computers have only gotten better, and now are substantially stronger than any human player.

If anyone is interested in learning more about this.

Watch on YouTube

[Lou84]

Funny thing is Niemann had no idea on how to explain his own moves and calculations when he first won against magnus. You have to understand that these GMs have a ridiculous amount of knowlegde about the game saved in their brains. Just by looking at a certain position they can more or less tell you the best 1-2 moves in a blink of an eye and all kinds of variations that might happen afterwards. After he won against Magnus he gave an interview and he had no idea what he was talking about. That was very suspicious to say the least. You do not beat the World Champion in chess with perfect moves without beeing able to explain certain positions on the board and your thought process behind it. That is unprecedented on this level of play imho. At least I can´t remember anything similar.

A few interesting Infos about this whole situation:

1. Nieman is a known cheater in online chess, he was caught and banned two times from online chess when he was younger.
2. They interviewed all kinds of GMs since the game and there are some very interesting/funny comments in my opinion.
a. Anish Giri said he does not think that Niemann ever cheated against him because Niemann always played really bad against
him.
b. Nepomniachtchi said that it is super weird that Nieman has trouble playing against lesser players but against super GMs he plays
on a totally different level. Like he is another player. Usually players at this level have a very constant skill level. Niemanns
ability to play chess seems to fluctuate heavily, depending on what´s at stake.
c. Nakamura said he understands Magnus not saying anything because he himself was threatened with legal action.
d. Magnus is probably the worst loser of all top GMs (he says so himself). But usually it is him saying something like "i played really
bad, it was my horrible mistake, I made a huge blunder" while beeing super annoyed at himself. He is very critical about his
own play, that is part of why he is such a beast. Him accusing another player of cheating (although inderectly) is not something
he does easily. That guy is very smart and knows exactly what kind of effect his actions have.

In the end we will ever know the whole truth probably. At least it is good for some drama and entertainment.

[therealbig3]

I feel like the stress is getting to him, which I get. Dude has steadily climbed to the top of the chess world since he was a little kid, and it’s a ton of pressure and stress and preparation to stay at that level, and to keep fighting off the younger generation coming up behind you. At the end of the day, dude is in his 30s, but has been playing pro chess for what, like 15-20 years? That’s tough man.

Also, with regards to being the GOAT, Fischer actually made a great point. He said in terms of talent and ability and being able to read the board, you can’t really compare modern players to older players just based off ratings and all that. He said he could have beaten any previous era’s generation Grandmaster blindfolded, because he had the opportunity to study so much more chess theory that they didn’t have the chance to do back then. And that it doesn’t necessarily mean he’s “better”. And similarly, he said it wouldn’t be totally fair to compare him to someone like Kasparov, because Kasparov similarly had much more of an opportunity to study more chess theory, and it’s especially true for Carlsen’s era when he’s had the benefit of growing up and playing against modern chess engines and running through countless simulations that the human mind wouldn’t have been able to do on its own.

It’s the equivalent of today’s NBA players having access to modern training and modern nutrition with modern tech, and having the benefit of looking at previous generations and figuring out what works and what doesn’t. And having a much better understanding of statistical analysis and scouting, which is mainly a benefit of time and experience as the game got older. Which is why transplanting a previous generation’s player to the modern game isn’t really fair, because you’re removing all of the luxuries from that player that modern players heavily benefitted from.

Which is why Carlsen isn’t necessarily the GOAT to me, even though he’s clearly one of them. The context is important.

[jefe]

I write this with all sincerity: I expected more discussion of anal beads in this thread.

[leolozon]

To be clear, the game in which Niemann supposedly cheated exhibits no particular brilliant moves by Niemann, but rather a series of blunders by Carlsen. So really the only basis for an accusation would be in Niemann's opening preparation. And I haven't actually seen any explanation of how Niemann supposedly got a preparation advantage vs. Carlsen.

A "series of blunder" is greatly exaggerated. He did play subpar. Still, Niemann made no sense in his analysis. He claimed he prep for it, yet Carlsen made a move he never played before. When asked about variations, he said something that would have lost him the game.

The situation is weird even if I don't think he cheated. Maybe he got the prep.

But the fact that he did cheat in the past and cheating is really hard to catch, makes me wonder if there shouldn't be harsher punishments for cheating.

[Mr Puddles]

This thread speaks for itself.

[dirkdiggler4177]

After he won against Magnus he gave an interview and he had no idea what he was talking about. That was very suspicious to say the least. You do not beat the World Champion in chess with perfect moves without beeing able to explain certain positions on the board and your thought process behind it. That is unprecedented on this level of play imho. At least I can´t remember anything similar.

Does Carlsen explain his moves? He said he plays on instincts and he can't become a coach because he just sees that something is wrong, but he can't explain it. Most of the time he gets the move straight away but does not pull the trigger of course.

[dhsilv2]

I feel like the stress is getting to him, which I get. Dude has steadily climbed to the top of the chess world since he was a little kid, and it’s a ton of pressure and stress and preparation to stay at that level, and to keep fighting off the younger generation coming up behind you. At the end of the day, dude is in his 30s, but has been playing pro chess for what, like 15-20 years? That’s tough man.

Also, with regards to being the GOAT, Fischer actually made a great point. He said in terms of talent and ability and being able to read the board, you can’t really compare modern players to older players just based off ratings and all that. He said he could have beaten any previous era’s generation Grandmaster blindfolded, because he had the opportunity to study so much more chess theory that they didn’t have the chance to do back then. And that it doesn’t necessarily mean he’s “better”. And similarly, he said it wouldn’t be totally fair to compare him to someone like Kasparov, because Kasparov similarly had much more of an opportunity to study more chess theory, and it’s especially true for Carlsen’s era when he’s had the benefit of growing up and playing against modern chess engines and running through countless simulations that the human mind wouldn’t have been able to do on its own.

It’s the equivalent of today’s NBA players having access to modern training and modern nutrition with modern tech, and having the benefit of looking at previous generations and figuring out what works and what doesn’t. And having a much better understanding of statistical analysis and scouting, which is mainly a benefit of time and experience as the game got older. Which is why transplanting a previous generation’s player to the modern game isn’t really fair, because you’re removing all of the luxuries from that player that modern players heavily benefitted from.

Which is why Carlsen isn’t necessarily the GOAT to me, even though he’s clearly one of them. The context is important.

Hasn't he held the title the longest? I always thought that was his case, not so much that he could beat others.

[Sofia]

You gonna tell me I’ve been cheating at chess all these years and I didn’t even know it?

[mademan]

Here’s a solution. Don’t invite known cheaters to the highest competition.

[AussieBuck]

You gonna tell me I’ve been cheating at chess all these years and I didn’t even know it?

Seems a grey line here between cheating and kink shaming and I'm not sure I'm for it.

[therealbig3]

I feel like the stress is getting to him, which I get. Dude has steadily climbed to the top of the chess world since he was a little kid, and it’s a ton of pressure and stress and preparation to stay at that level, and to keep fighting off the younger generation coming up behind you. At the end of the day, dude is in his 30s, but has been playing pro chess for what, like 15-20 years? That’s tough man.

Also, with regards to being the GOAT, Fischer actually made a great point. He said in terms of talent and ability and being able to read the board, you can’t really compare modern players to older players just based off ratings and all that. He said he could have beaten any previous era’s generation Grandmaster blindfolded, because he had the opportunity to study so much more chess theory that they didn’t have the chance to do back then. And that it doesn’t necessarily mean he’s “better”. And similarly, he said it wouldn’t be totally fair to compare him to someone like Kasparov, because Kasparov similarly had much more of an opportunity to study more chess theory, and it’s especially true for Carlsen’s era when he’s had the benefit of growing up and playing against modern chess engines and running through countless simulations that the human mind wouldn’t have been able to do on its own.

It’s the equivalent of today’s NBA players having access to modern training and modern nutrition with modern tech, and having the benefit of looking at previous generations and figuring out what works and what doesn’t. And having a much better understanding of statistical analysis and scouting, which is mainly a benefit of time and experience as the game got older. Which is why transplanting a previous generation’s player to the modern game isn’t really fair, because you’re removing all of the luxuries from that player that modern players heavily benefitted from.

Which is why Carlsen isn’t necessarily the GOAT to me, even though he’s clearly one of them. The context is important.

Hasn't he held the title the longest? I always thought that was his case, not so much that he could beat others.

Kasparov still holds the record I think.

[Mr Puddles]

Here’s a solution. Don’t invite known cheaters to the highest competition.

Dude admitted to cheating when he was 12 and 16 years old. Not sure if players should be banned from a sport for life because of things they did before even reaching adulthood.

[dhsilv2]

I feel like the stress is getting to him, which I get. Dude has steadily climbed to the top of the chess world since he was a little kid, and it’s a ton of pressure and stress and preparation to stay at that level, and to keep fighting off the younger generation coming up behind you. At the end of the day, dude is in his 30s, but has been playing pro chess for what, like 15-20 years? That’s tough man.

Also, with regards to being the GOAT, Fischer actually made a great point. He said in terms of talent and ability and being able to read the board, you can’t really compare modern players to older players just based off ratings and all that. He said he could have beaten any previous era’s generation Grandmaster blindfolded, because he had the opportunity to study so much more chess theory that they didn’t have the chance to do back then. And that it doesn’t necessarily mean he’s “better”. And similarly, he said it wouldn’t be totally fair to compare him to someone like Kasparov, because Kasparov similarly had much more of an opportunity to study more chess theory, and it’s especially true for Carlsen’s era when he’s had the benefit of growing up and playing against modern chess engines and running through countless simulations that the human mind wouldn’t have been able to do on its own.

It’s the equivalent of today’s NBA players having access to modern training and modern nutrition with modern tech, and having the benefit of looking at previous generations and figuring out what works and what doesn’t. And having a much better understanding of statistical analysis and scouting, which is mainly a benefit of time and experience as the game got older. Which is why transplanting a previous generation’s player to the modern game isn’t really fair, because you’re removing all of the luxuries from that player that modern players heavily benefitted from.

Which is why Carlsen isn’t necessarily the GOAT to me, even though he’s clearly one of them. The context is important.

Hasn't he held the title the longest? I always thought that was his case, not so much that he could beat others.

Kasparov still holds the record I think.

Ah, maybe it's the most consecutive then.

[Lou84]

After he won against Magnus he gave an interview and he had no idea what he was talking about. That was very suspicious to say the least. You do not beat the World Champion in chess with perfect moves without beeing able to explain certain positions on the board and your thought process behind it. That is unprecedented on this level of play imho. At least I can´t remember anything similar.

Does Carlsen explain his moves? He said he plays on instincts and he can't become a coach because he just sees that something is wrong, but he can't explain it. Most of the time he gets the move straight away but does not pull the trigger of course.

Sure he does, all GM's recap their matches in interviews. That's when they call out all kinds of movements from the recent game and probably +90% of the viewership has no idea what the heck they are talking about.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using RealGM mobile app