OT: Magnus Carlsen brouhahas

[JujitsuFlip]

Not sure why but thought this thread was about Magnus Samuelsson, lol

[Dr Aki]

[BoatsNZones]

OK, what are you extrapolating off of these?

[Dr Aki]

OK, what are you extrapolating off of these?

That there is no discernable pattern

Literally all noise

[WarriorGM]

OK, what are you extrapolating off of these?

That there is no discernable pattern

Literally all noise

You're plotting against opponent rating. What insight is that supposed to give? If someone cheated against everyone similarly why would one expect there to be a pattern based on opponent rating?

The data of concern is the frequency of occurrences of computer correlations above 87% or so. Was Keymer selected as a comparison randomly or because he was the player who best illustrates your argument?

[BoatsNZones]

OK, what are you extrapolating off of these?

That there is no discernable pattern

Literally all noise

You're plotting against opponent rating. What insight is that supposed to give? If someone cheated against everyone similarly why would one expect there to be a pattern based on opponent rating?

The data of concern is the frequency of occurrences of computer correlations above 87% or so. Was Keymer selected as a comparison randomly or because he was the player who best illustrates your argument?

This is more where I am heading with the question. I just don’t see how these validate or otherwise.

[Dr Aki]

OK, what are you extrapolating off of these?

That there is no discernable pattern

Literally all noise

You're plotting against opponent rating. What insight is that supposed to give? If someone cheated against everyone similarly why would one expect there to be a pattern based on opponent rating?

The data of concern is the frequency of occurrences of computer correlations above 87% or so. Was Keymer selected as a comparison randomly or because he was the player who best illustrates your argument?

Hans plays good games against good players, Hans plays poor games against good players, Hans plays good games against (relatively speaking) poor players, Hans plays poor games against (relatively speaking) poor players.

Same with Magnus, same with Keymar

These 3 GMs, play a similar rate of good games and poor games (in a bell curve) against everyone.

Hans doesn't play a significantly higher % of high accuracy games than anyone, Super GMs or normal GMs/IMs.

When people are asserting that Hans is cheating, has cheated (in OTB, since 2020), or cheats against better players because he's overmatched, and there is no evidence that says otherwise, the null hypothesis has to hold

I still don't understand why people straight jump to cheating it could be explained by Hans simply playing more lower quality players across the same timeframe.

Unless Magnus knows something we don't (he probably does), Magnus needs to put up or shut up. At the moment he's shut up because he probably knows what he has isn't evidence

[WarriorGM]

That there is no discernable pattern

Literally all noise

You're plotting against opponent rating. What insight is that supposed to give? If someone cheated against everyone similarly why would one expect there to be a pattern based on opponent rating?

The data of concern is the frequency of occurrences of computer correlations above 87% or so. Was Keymer selected as a comparison randomly or because he was the player who best illustrates your argument?

Hans plays good games against good players, Hans plays poor games against good players, Hans plays good games against (relatively speaking) poor players, Hans plays poor games against (relatively speaking) poor players.

Same with Magnus, same with Keymar

These 3 GMs, play a similar rate of good games and poor games (in a bell curve) against everyone.

Hans doesn't play a significantly higher % of high accuracy games than anyone, Super GMs or normal GMs/IMs.

When people are asserting that Hans is cheating, has cheated (in OTB, since 2020), or cheats against better players because he's overmatched, and there is no evidence that says otherwise, the null hypothesis has to hold

I still don't understand why people straight jump to cheating it could be explained by Hans simply playing more lower quality players across the same timeframe.

Unless Magnus knows something we don't (he probably does), Magnus needs to put up or shut up. At the moment he's shut up because he probably knows what he has isn't evidence

You seem to be saying that playing against lower quality opposition is the reason for the higher numbers of high engine correlation games for Niemann. Why are you assuming such a relationship with lower quality opposition? That's a theory you are presenting and if you look at the charts even the Carlsen and Keymer datapoints do not support it.

Also here's more oddity

Read on Twitter

Apparently Niemann's USCF games saw him playing much stronger and gaining ratings points during tournaments with live games but weirdly losing points when they weren't live games. Being a live game or not correlated stronger for Niemann winning than even the opponents' ratings.

[Dr Aki]

You're plotting against opponent rating. What insight is that supposed to give? If someone cheated against everyone similarly why would one expect there to be a pattern based on opponent rating?

The data of concern is the frequency of occurrences of computer correlations above 87% or so. Was Keymer selected as a comparison randomly or because he was the player who best illustrates your argument?

Hans plays good games against good players, Hans plays poor games against good players, Hans plays good games against (relatively speaking) poor players, Hans plays poor games against (relatively speaking) poor players.

Same with Magnus, same with Keymar

These 3 GMs, play a similar rate of good games and poor games (in a bell curve) against everyone.

Hans doesn't play a significantly higher % of high accuracy games than anyone, Super GMs or normal GMs/IMs.

When people are asserting that Hans is cheating, has cheated (in OTB, since 2020), or cheats against better players because he's overmatched, and there is no evidence that says otherwise, the null hypothesis has to hold

I still don't understand why people straight jump to cheating it could be explained by Hans simply playing more lower quality players across the same timeframe.

Unless Magnus knows something we don't (he probably does), Magnus needs to put up or shut up. At the moment he's shut up because he probably knows what he has isn't evidence

You seem to be saying that playing against lower quality opposition is the reason for the higher numbers of high engine correlation games for Niemann. Why are you assuming such a relationship with lower quality opposition? That's a theory you are presenting and if you look at the charts even the Carlsen and Keymer datapoints do not support it.

Without getting out the tape measure, the range of opponents that he got 85%-100% engine correlation games were against 2180-2650 opponents, most of them against roughly 2400 rated players

It's right there in the graph, Niemann isn't getting 100% games against Super GMs

Also here's more oddity

Read on Twitter

Apparently Niemann's USCF games saw him playing much stronger and gaining ratings points during tournaments with live games but weirdly losing points when they weren't live games. Being a live game or not correlated stronger for Niemann winning than even the opponents' ratings.

I'd like to see the list of opponents he played during those live games.

If I was a broadcaster, the live games I would probably select are games where the players are both (relatively speaking) stronger, and wins/draws (except for the USCF school nationals), doesn't specify if he was winning, or if he was playing strong players to a draw

It would also be nice to see a control, which doesn't let me know how much better than the competition Niemann played relative to his elo rating

[Lou84]

Another video from a data scientist (not Hikaru lol) about Niemann. Enjoy!

https://youtu.be/VihNMR9_Uw8

Sent from my Pixel 3a using RealGM mobile app

[JonFromVA]

Another video from a data scientist (not Hikaru lol) about Niemann. Enjoy!

https://youtu.be/VihNMR9_Uw8

Hikaru is pretty generous wondering if Hans is just an outlier who simply lacks the consistency of play of other grand master level players - when we know he's cheated in the past.

Cheaters lose any right to the benefit of the doubt.

[ReasonablySober]

Read on Twitter

[Richard Miller]

Lol of course

[Lou84]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/chess-cheating-hans-niemann-report-magnus-carlsen-11664911524

Boom!

Sent from my Pixel 3a using RealGM mobile app

[JonFromVA]

Not everyone here subscribes to the WSJ, so perhaps you guys could share something about what they reported?

[Roger Murdock]

OK, what are you extrapolating off of these?

That there is no discernable pattern

Literally all noise

You're plotting against opponent rating. What insight is that supposed to give? If someone cheated against everyone similarly why would one expect there to be a pattern based on opponent rating?

The data of concern is the frequency of occurrences of computer correlations above 87% or so. Was Keymer selected as a comparison randomly or because he was the player who best illustrates your argument?

It is MUCH easier to have higher engine correlated moves vs worse players because once you break the game open the moves are easy.

I'm rated like 1100 and I occasionally have engine correlated games between 90-95% and its always because I'm stomping my opponent.

So yes, if Hans was a bad chess player and cheated always against everyone, you are right, the rating doesnt matter much.

But if Hans *isnt* cheating then the opponents ELO matters a ton because its much easier to have a good engine score when you are comfortably winning.

[Lou84]

Not everyone here subscribes to the WSJ, so perhaps you guys could share something about what they reported?

Sorry I could read it and I don't have a subscription either.

Hikaru is reading it on YouTube as well.
https://youtu.be/VptbNKbHQiM

Sent from my Pixel 3a using RealGM mobile app

[mpoo_sin]

no

[Lou84]

Most important points from the article.

There is a 72 pages long report about Hans from chess.com. Probably sent to Fide? Maybe will be published one day? Nobody knows yet.

- Hans "likely" cheated 100 times instead if 2 times like he said. He even admitted to it on the phone and in messages with chess.com. The word "likely" for sure is used because of legal reasons.
- He cheated in games where prize money was involved. Kind of funny he cheated in games against Nepo, who was already convinced that Hans cheated against him when all this drama started. He was right all along it seems.
- Hans rise in strength from age 11-19years is the biggest in chess history. Better than Magnus, Garry, Bobby Fischer or anyone else.

All that comes to light one day before the us national championship, more drama will follow for sure. From the videos of Fabiano I gathered that he was super sceptical about Hans as well. He always kept it professional in his videos but just from his facial expressions you could see that he had the same opinion as Magnus and Nepo imho. Doubtful if him and other GM's want to play Hans now. Could be wild.

What I found most interesting from the video of the YouTuber from Brasil was that Hans level of play seems to be at ~2500 Elo (which is very strong for us mere mortals but nothing compared to +2700 GM's) but because of his cheating he is at ~2700. When super GM's play a 2500 they know it and obviously they don't get in a lot of trouble. Now imagine you are a super GM and you get beaten by the worse player and you simply have no explanation why. He cannot explain his moves, he plays way better against good competition, he makes moves that make no sense to humans, he is a known cheater, his coach as well etc. That is what happened with Magnus. Dude loses here and there against others (and from his perspective everyone is a worse player really) but than along comes Hans. I think Magnus simply snapped after the tournament. In the end it could be the best thing that has happened to professional chess in a while. Nobody really gave a thought about cheating before, now organizers have to act accordingly.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using RealGM mobile app

[Cubbies2120]

Offtopic but there's a pretty big Poker cheating accusation going around as well, last few days.

Tl;Dr - Woman who has jack high makes an all-in call for $110k on the turn. This lady was playing $100 tournaments and then all of a sudden appears on livestream games buying in for $100k+ and having winning sessions out of nowhere. Players suspect cheating due to another livestream that had a cheater (Mike Postle) who could see the hole cards on his phone.

Watch on YouTube