OT: Magnus Carlsen brouhahas

[Gusto1903]

isnt Carlsen saying in his statement, that he cant speak, until he gets explicit permission of Niemann?

If Niemann didnt do anything wrong, why doesnt he just let Carlsen explain his suspicions? Just go out there and say publicly, that Carlsen should go ahead and explain his theories. If you didnt do anything, you can probably easily debunk anything he accuses you of. Of course, if you know you did mess up, you live in fear, that he might fantasize and possibly hit the softspot, that is your cheating strategy.

Carlsen isnt acting nicely and probably doesnt know the real cheating strategy, but i believe he is on to something, and Niemann knows that he cheated and is scared of getting exposed bigtime. Theres just too many things that hint at somethings not right with Niemann

[Buckets22]

If Niemann figured out how to cheat without being caught - good for him. If Carlsen doesn't want to play against him - even better - automatic win for Niemann.

[magee]

Simply put: if Carlsen has an idea and it "leaked" out of his "camp," he knew that if word got to Niemann, he would know what he wanted to do ahead of time. By having no coherent explanation of it and just "guessing" a response shows his hand. It's pretty clear: he read his options ahead of time, chose a couple Magnus never calculated and realized dude **** up.

I don't blame Magnus. To be consistently the smartest man at a game with repetitive variations has got to be draining. And if this is the straw that broke the camel's back, hat's off to him for seeing what life is like after Chess.

There is Go, after all.

The fact we've already created engines that can beat the world's best Go players is scary in and of itself.

[Wagonband]

Meh... People that don't play chess shouldn't really comment on how Magnus is a sore loser etc... He is probably the best player of all time, played thousands and thousands of games vs the best players in the world, and never accused anyone of cheating until now. He has also lost in the past and he never implied any cheating happened.

Also Nieman has a history of cheating, he was working with a coach with a history of cheating, and has had a very weird rise compared to everyone else, and at times plays impossibly complex lines without thinking about it too much while having a hard time explaining them later on. He also played some games with 100% computer accuracy which is weird to say the least.

Magnus also mentioned that he is not allowed to speak about everything he knows. Could be there's an investigation or perhaps some lawyers involved. We will not know for some time.

But as said, i really doubt Magnus is just a sore loser lol. He keeps smashing everyone and has done so for the last 10 years, while only getting better. I think his ego can handle a loss. Not only that, usually losses make him go all out and be even better. He is actually lacking motivation at this point, probably hoping that someone becomes good enough to realistically challenge him (Alireza basically), so that he is finally forced to play at 100% again. So if he thought Nieman legit beat him, he would probably happy for a new challenger. But he has reason to believe he cheated, and i'm quite sure he is right

It's the principle. Cheating on the board is a very serious allegation. So if he wants to make that sort of accusation he needs to have some better justification than "Hans wasn't tense enough", he needs actual evidence.

The not being allowed to speak is just him more or less asking for permission to publicly defame Hans. If something is truthful, it's not defamatory. So if Magnus had actual proof/evidence that Hans cheated over the board, he wouldn't need any permission to "speak freely"

All this amounts to is that he's upset he lost and doesn't think someone who has previously cheated should be invited to these tournaments, which is a different discussion.

Like i said, we can't know the details. If Magnus is 100% sure that Nieman cheated but doesn't have proof that would hold in the court of law, i still believe in Magnus. People know their spouses are cheating on them without actually seeing the act, doesn't mean it's not true. It's not quite the same, but it has to be a similar feeling.

I don't blame Magnus. To be consistently the smartest man at a game with repetitive variations has got to be draining. And if this is the straw that broke the camel's back, hat's off to him for seeing what life is like after Chess.

What are you talking about? He never mentioned anything about retiring, he actually absolutely crushed the generation cup a couple of days ago.

[DutchManDanFan]

It's the principle. Cheating on the board is a very serious allegation. So if he wants to make that sort of accusation he needs to have some better justification than "Hans wasn't tense enough", he needs actual evidence.

The not being allowed to speak is just him more or less asking for permission to publicly defame Hans. If something is truthful, it's not defamatory. So if Magnus had actual proof/evidence that Hans cheated over the board, he wouldn't need any permission to "speak freely"

All this amounts to is that he's upset he lost and doesn't think someone who has previously cheated should be invited to these tournaments, which is a different discussion.

Carlsen has the right to do what he wants. Leave a tournament, resign after one move. If he breaks a contract he has to pay for the consequences. The problem is: he gets questions about his reasons. His reasons are obvious whatever he says about it. He could have continued like nothing happened and ask for an investigation. But he made another choise, which I can understand if the game means so much to you.

I think his reasoning is the investigation should have been done before Niemann was invited to play in a tournament like the sinquefield cup (with all the top GM's). And/or that the level of security to prevent cheating should have been better.

[Long2_noD]

There wasn't any direct proof in Lance Armstrong's case for years and years. Until there was.

He was able to dupe the system despite numerous reports showing his performance levels are impossible to achieve w/o blood doping.
People who spoke up were ridiculed or destroyed by his propaganda machine.

We all know the rest of the story.

[Fencer reregistered]

Can someone with more knowledge help me understand the difference in the numbers above my post and these?

I don't know for sure but I think the difference can be in valuating the categorie 'how many top moves (moves that matched the engine's top choice or were equal in score to that choice)'.

To understand this I have to explain the following first. Chess engines value positions in chess. Roughly if white is a pawn up the value is +1. If black has a good position, the valuation can be 0.5. So little but not enough compensation for the pawn.

As humans we can only guess the exact valuation by knowledge of and feel for the game. Computers calculate the valuation.
The valuation changes after every move, unless the best possible move is played.
The starting position is valued as +0.2 or so.
A value of +1 or better (pawn up) is seen as a winning position for GM's.
Positions with a valuation between - and + 0.5 (minus is better for black) should end in a draw between 2 GM's in the top 20 in the world.
When Carlsen has +0.5 most opponents are in trouble. Because they can't afford the smallest mistake (with the valuation going up). That's why he's the best.

In many positions there are different moves with small differences in valuation. If the best move give +0.35, the 2nd, 3rd and 4th move can give +0.30 and so on. So a single move not being the best does not have a direct influance on the result (should still be a draw). With CAPS this is not seen as a mistake. So the best GM's score 95% or better.
If you compare every move with the best possible move, a game of 70% is extremely good.

You phrased that as if computers are always right, which is a reasonable assumption.

But if that assumption is in fact incorrect, then 100% correlation with computer recommendations would be even more damning.

[DutchManDanFan]

You phrased that as if computers are always right, which is a reasonable assumption.

But if that assumption is in fact incorrect, then 100% correlation with computer recommendations would be even more damning.

The valuation of Stockfish can be incorrect sometimes, but the chance is extremely low. All his games can be investigated and should be enough evidence for suspicion. I'm sure Niemann gets chances to show his real strength, which will provide the evidence that is needed (both ways).

[Fencer reregistered]

Sally Jenkins has an interesting take.

One claim: It is reasonable to think you can read how hard a player is thinking. I haven't played in a tournament for almost 50 years, but I'm pretty sure that wasn't true at the levels I played. Maybe it's different at the top?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2022/09/27/magnus-carlsen-hans-niemann-chess-cheating-controversy/

[DutchManDanFan]

Niemann started playing chess in the Netherlands. The story goes he cried after every game he lost. As a chess teacher I'v seen these kids quite often. Most of these kids quit the game because losing hurts too much.
For kids who play chess it's important they can't stand losing. It gives them an urge to get better and concentrate to avoid making mistakes. If you don't care if you win or lose, you'll make mistakes all the time.
But it doesn't work with kids who overreact (crying out loud). There are exceptions though...

When you really hate to lose, cheating is tempting...

[leolozon]

If Niemann figured out how to cheat without being caught - good for him. If Carlsen doesn't want to play against him - even better - automatic win for Niemann.

"Good for him"???

What a weird take encouraging cheating in competition.

[dooki667]

It is not just the one game against Magnus where he sounds like an idiot afterwards, dude has a history of not being able to explain his moves. There are plenty of anecdotes like this about him.

Anyway, just watched the video I shared earlier. He had many games with 100% engine correlation, e.g. Fischer or Magnus where at +70% correlation at their absolute best. We are talking about the ultimate prodigies at what they do. There was just one player with a very high correlation of 98% and he was convicted of cheating in the end. What strikes me the most is that Niemann had a game with 45! moves with 100% engine correlation. That is way beyond a theoretical preparation until move ~20 that the super GMs can do. That is ridiculous!

Sent from my Pixel 3a using RealGM mobile app

We may need to slow down on this a bit. In the video you can see for at least one game being checked there was over 25 engines. what this means is every move Hans made matched the top (1,2,3,5,-10 we don't know her setting) from one of the 25+ engines. that's a lot of options and we don't know are setting the same for all games. Another person ran the first game from her list and got this.https://im.ge/i/12.16d5CX
Hans 70% correlation vs Cornette 83% correlation. which is a huge difference. I'm outa my depth so idk one way or the other but we may need to slow down on this being foolproof. ps the feature she used actually disclaims this is not a method of cheat detection.

Watch the video of Nakamura. If Hans has these kind of numbers, statistically others top players should have similar numbers as well. At least sometimes, or at all. But it seems there isn't anyone. Fisher for example does not have a single 100% game, EVER! Niemann has 10 in the last 3 years and three years ago he cheated admittedly. That's the problem.

More research will be done in the next few weeks, that's for sure.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using RealGM mobile app

If Niemann figured out how to cheat without being caught - good for him. If Carlsen doesn't want to play against him - even better - automatic win for Niemann.

"Good for him"???

What a weird take encouraging cheating in competition.

I saw his video buddy the issues they seem to be bringing up is we don't know the parameters used to check the games. you can tell the program how many engines what engines and how much time to take analyzing the moves. the one clip shows 25 engines but we don't know if all the games were checked like that or if they had different parameters. This method scares me because it's way to easy to manipulate data. a game with 25 engines would be much easier to get a higher coralation because there's more acceptable moves same with giving it less or more time or using an old vs new engine. These Are the criticisms Im seeing I'm just reporting them cause I'm outta my depth here but I think it's important to be critical so in the future we're not relying on unaccurate cheat detection measures.

[KrAzY3]

There wasn't any direct proof in Lance Armstrong's case for years and years. Until there was.

He was able to dupe the system despite numerous reports showing his performance levels are impossible to achieve w/o blood doping.
People who spoke up were ridiculed or destroyed by his propaganda machine.

We all know the rest of the story.

There was suspicions.

There also wasn't any proof Barry Bonds was cheating, until there was. But there was suspicion.

Now Albert Pujols at the ripe old age of 42 has found the fountain of youth, hitting like he hasn't for the past 10 years and ironically back in the place where he used to put up monster numbers coming out of the steroids era. But no proof of course.

Some interesting longevity in basketball even, but no proof...

I don't know at what point you can point out the obvious or not. I knew Roger Clemens was juicing before it came out because his career trend was all wrong, but yet again no proof. But... in this case we do actually have proof that this player used to cheap. So it isn't if he's cheating, it's just if he's cheating again.

[Lou84]

We may need to slow down on this a bit. In the video you can see for at least one game being checked there was over 25 engines. what this means is every move Hans made matched the top (1,2,3,5,-10 we don't know her setting) from one of the 25+ engines. that's a lot of options and we don't know are setting the same for all games. Another person ran the first game from her list and got this.https://im.ge/i/12.16d5CX
Hans 70% correlation vs Cornette 83% correlation. which is a huge difference. I'm outa my depth so idk one way or the other but we may need to slow down on this being foolproof. ps the feature she used actually disclaims this is not a method of cheat detection.

Watch the video of Nakamura. If Hans has these kind of numbers, statistically others top players should have similar numbers as well. At least sometimes, or at all. But it seems there isn't anyone. Fisher for example does not have a single 100% game, EVER! Niemann has 10 in the last 3 years and three years ago he cheated admittedly. That's the problem.

More research will be done in the next few weeks, that's for sure.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using RealGM mobile app

If Niemann figured out how to cheat without being caught - good for him. If Carlsen doesn't want to play against him - even better - automatic win for Niemann.

"Good for him"???

What a weird take encouraging cheating in competition.

I saw his video buddy the issues they seem to be bringing up is we don't know the parameters used to check the games. you can tell the program how many engines what engines and how much time to take analyzing the moves. the one clip shows 25 engines but we don't know if all the games were checked like that or if they had different parameters. This method scares me because it's way to easy to manipulate data. a game with 25 engines would be much easier to get a higher coralation because there's more acceptable moves same with giving it less or more time or using an old vs new engine. These Are the criticisms Im seeing I'm just reporting them cause I'm outta my depth here but I think it's important to be critical so in the future we're not relying on unaccurate cheat detection measures.

Which doesn't change the fact that if he has these high correlations, others should have them as well if they setup everything equally. The coming weeks will show if his perfect games are truly an outlier or not. There are people in the community working on it right now to see if other GM's have such "suspicious" outliers as well. I am betting it will not be the case but only time will tell.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using RealGM mobile app

[dooki667]

Watch the video of Nakamura. If Hans has these kind of numbers, statistically others top players should have similar numbers as well. At least sometimes, or at all. But it seems there isn't anyone. Fisher for example does not have a single 100% game, EVER! Niemann has 10 in the last 3 years and three years ago he cheated admittedly. That's the problem.

More research will be done in the next few weeks, that's for sure.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using RealGM mobile app

"Good for him"???

What a weird take encouraging cheating in competition.

I saw his video buddy the issues they seem to be bringing up is we don't know the parameters used to check the games. you can tell the program how many engines what engines and how much time to take analyzing the moves. the one clip shows 25 engines but we don't know if all the games were checked like that or if they had different parameters. This method scares me because it's way to easy to manipulate data. a game with 25 engines would be much easier to get a higher coralation because there's more acceptable moves same with giving it less or more time or using an old vs new engine. These Are the criticisms Im seeing I'm just reporting them cause I'm outta my depth here but I think it's important to be critical so in the future we're not relying on unaccurate cheat detection measures.

Which doesn't change the fact that if he has these high correlations, others should have them as well if they setup everything equally. The coming weeks will show if his perfect games are truly an outlier or not. There are people in the community working on it right now to see if other GM's have such "suspicious" outliers as well. I am betting it will not be the case but only time will tell.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using RealGM mobile app

yeah not knowing the parameters are the main issue. i still hope we can find a method that would be harder fake or manipulate for the future in case next guy ain't admitted cheat and lier and may actually be innocent.

[dhsilv2]

There wasn't any direct proof in Lance Armstrong's case for years and years. Until there was.

He was able to dupe the system despite numerous reports showing his performance levels are impossible to achieve w/o blood doping.
People who spoke up were ridiculed or destroyed by his propaganda machine.

We all know the rest of the story.

To be fair there was not humanly possible way Lance wasn't cheating and he looked and acted the part. Back in those days I was a very very inactive member on a message board with some reference to chemicals and anarchy, heck might still exist who knows. It wasn't just KNOWN at the time Lance was on steroids, it was a running joke that people thought it was even possible he wasn't.

My point is that while this does give many in the chess world some reasons to question this guy and even think there could be something going on. Right now...I don't think we're even remotely close to Lance levels of obvious beyond any possible debate.

I'd also note that Lance due to his cancer issues was exempt and we actually knew for a fact he WAS on something that masks steroid use. So we'll likely never see another person THAT obvious.

[dhsilv2]

Simply put: if Carlsen has an idea and it "leaked" out of his "camp," he knew that if word got to Niemann, he would know what he wanted to do ahead of time. By having no coherent explanation of it and just "guessing" a response shows his hand. It's pretty clear: he read his options ahead of time, chose a couple Magnus never calculated and realized dude **** up.

I don't blame Magnus. To be consistently the smartest man at a game with repetitive variations has got to be draining. And if this is the straw that broke the camel's back, hat's off to him for seeing what life is like after Chess.

There is Go, after all.

The fact we've already created engines that can beat the world's best Go players is scary in and of itself.

There is certainly the counter case that Magnus was so concerned about his guy cheating he just played poorly....which he did. And some people do have really good natural feel for the game. Just a level of spacial awareness. The fact we're talking about someone on the spectrum as I understand it who likely is never going to be a super articulate guy on how he thought through something...you're kinda running into a losing argument here.

That isn't to say I question Magnus having real concerns or that I think this guy didn't cheat. i have zero idea to be honest. But I don't think this is that simple.

[dooki667]

anyone who wants to laugh at some horrible excuses from hans coach watch this

Watch on YouTube

[Big J]

There wasn't any direct proof in Lance Armstrong's case for years and years. Until there was.

He was able to dupe the system despite numerous reports showing his performance levels are impossible to achieve w/o blood doping.
People who spoke up were ridiculed or destroyed by his propaganda machine.

We all know the rest of the story.

Wouldn't Magnus be the Lance in this scenario though given his dominance over the field?

[Dr Aki]

All these examples posted above is examples of drug doping, in which blood is kept in storage for years on end waiting for technology to catch up.

Niemann, if he cheated, is being accused of using/having external source of information when he isn't allowed.

The closest situation I can think of is the Astros and bin banging to let their batters know what pitches are coming ahead of time.

Because it's literally in person and over-the-board, this practically means the only proof that stands up needs to be catching Niemann in the act.

If he's cheating, then you have explain how. All the "evidence" so far is that:
1. He said he's previously cheated in online play at the ages of 12 and 16 and was banned from chess.com for it.
2. He's been playing really well the last few years, well enough to beat Magnus where Magnus played like ****
3. He's had a meteoric rise as a late teenager, but not anymore meteoric than other similarly aged and experienced GMs
4. Other GMs have suspected him of cheating, but have no proof either.

Magnus' lawyer filtered statement basically means he doesn't have proof and that he can't say anything more unless Niemann drops his (only) resort of defending himself of a defamation suit if Magnus can't prove cheating.