Carlsen withdrawal after loss to Niemann

[lkaufman]

The real question has for sometime been: any evidence of OTB cheating? Frankly...it sounds like Magnus has none and is doubling down on the 'online cheating' idea. I can't say he 'wins' with that argument.

I think the real question is if Hans' rating is anywhere close to his chess ability.

If he is really around 2700, why would he cheat online (or OTB).

I think that the general opinion of those who believe Niemann cheated OTB is that his real level is in the 2500 to 2600 FIDE range. The difference in what a young player can earn with a 2700 FIDE rating vs a 2600 FIDE rating is enormous, so there is no question about the motivation to cheat, it is much greater than say for a 2300 or 2400 player wanting to add 100 to his rating. I think it is very unlikely that anyone can get away with cheating enough to raise his rating (at a high level) by more than 200 elo, it would be too obvious. There is also not much reason for someone to cheat just to go from 2650 to 2660 (for example); the risk would outweigh the benefit, and anyway it would not be normal for a cheat to stop with such a small gain. So in general, when cheating is suspected, look for signs of play 100 to 200 above the real strength of the player. Of course determining that is not easy.

[gaard]

If someone wants their protest to be taken seriously of someone else cheating, but not after they have suffered a loss by the supposed 'cheater', then they should do it before they have suffered a loss by said cheater, and not after, else, it seems like sour grapes, when no evidence can be presented otherwise

[M ANSARI]

Last night I watched on Youtube Caruana on the C-squared podcast where they were discussing MC letter and then Caruana analyzes some of Hans Niemans games. It was long but I couldn't stop watching it! It is amazing to see how a 2800+ GM shows how he thinks about a position. What is certain is that he found many of the games "strange" and some moves "like an alien" and some moves "above his level". Although he makes it clear that he is not accusing Hans of cheating, he does think that some of the games are just hard to explain. Very interesting podcast!

The interesting part is at 1:05.00 ... that is where the games are analyzed.

[AdminX]

Last night I watched on Youtube Caruana on the C-squared podcast where they were discussing MC letter and then Caruana analyzes some of Hans Niemans games. It was long but I couldn't stop watching it! It is amazing to see how a 2800+ GM shows how he thinks about a position. What is certain is that he found many of the games "strange" and some moves "like an alien" and some moves "above his level". Although he makes it clear that he is not accusing Hans of cheating, he does think that some of the games are just hard to explain. Very interesting podcast!

The interesting part is at 1:05.00 ... that is where the games are analyzed.

Thanks, I enjoyed the interview.

[M ANSARI]

The real question has for sometime been: any evidence of OTB cheating? Frankly...it sounds like Magnus has none and is doubling down on the 'online cheating' idea. I can't say he 'wins' with that argument.

I think the real question is if Hans' rating is anywhere close to his chess ability.

If he is really around 2700, why would he cheat online (or OTB).

According to Carlsen latest interview, he mentioned that GM Hans was coming with great moves and he wasn't really concentrating during the game, that is when he knew that he must be cheating ==>https://en.chessbase.com/post/carlsen-s ... on-niemann

NOTE: All that I have to say is that if a Patzer like me can memorize an analyzed game previously played by Carlsen, but analyzed up to 28 moves by stockfish or Dragon I really do NOT have to be fully concentrated, and there is nothing wrong by using your memory

I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK? It's like incredible!

This was a quote from Donald Trump as he campainged for the US Presidency ... and he was absolutely right!

[Chessqueen]

The real question has for sometime been: any evidence of OTB cheating? Frankly...it sounds like Magnus has none and is doubling down on the 'online cheating' idea. I can't say he 'wins' with that argument.

I think the real question is if Hans' rating is anywhere close to his chess ability.

If he is really around 2700, why would he cheat online (or OTB).

According to Carlsen latest interview, he mentioned that GM Hans was coming with great moves and he wasn't really concentrating during the game, that is when he knew that he must be cheating ==>https://en.chessbase.com/post/carlsen-s ... on-niemann

NOTE: All that I have to say is that if a Patzer like me can memorize an analyzed game previously played by Carlsen, but analyzed up to 28 moves by stockfish or Dragon I really do NOT have to be fully concentrated, and there is nothing wrong by using your memory

I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK? It's like incredible!

This was a quote from Donald Trump as he campainged for the US Presidency ... and he was absolutely right!

Anyway, is this proof enough that GM Hans was cheating? Lets watch this by GM Nakamura

[M ANSARI]

Yes I saw GM Hikaru's video on the subject this morning. I think a lot of Super GM's will refuse to play Hans from now on ... or at least they will want to know how he managed to cheat OTB and how to prevent that from happening in the future. It seems funny that an obscure function of Chessbase software is able to see something that others couldn't. I always felt that the data base of games played will always have some useful data if looked at en masse. One game at a time is impossible to tell if someone cheated ... even if he scored 100%. But when Bobby Fischer in his career cannot get in the 90% and some 18 year old kid can show 23 games in the 90's and over 10 games in the 100% ... all in a matter of 2 years! That just seems too difficult to ignore. I know that this Chessbase Let's check is maybe not a good way to check for cheating in a game ... but boy oh boy ... it really is a good way to compare how different players score against each other over a large range of games. I guess even trying to obfuscate things by not using the best engine moves was foiled in this system ... also the fact that forced moves and book lines are truncated is very useful. Now Chessbase is not known for its anti cheating algo but it really does look like they have something compelling. My guess is Chess.com has something a lot more sophisticated, but unfortunately they will probably not share it as it would make cheaters better equiped to circumvent their algo.

[dkappe]

Yes I saw GM Hikaru's video on the subject this morning. I think a lot of Super GM's will refuse to play Hans from now on ... or at least they will want to know how he managed to cheat OTB and how to prevent that from happening in the future. It seems funny that an obscure function of Chessbase software is able to see something that others couldn't. I always felt that the data base of games played will always have some useful data if looked at en masse. One game at a time is impossible to tell if someone cheated ... even if he scored 100%. But when Bobby Fischer in his career cannot get in the 90% and some 18 year old kid can show 23 games in the 90's and over 10 games in the 100% ... all in a matter of 2 years! That just seems too difficult to ignore. I know that this Chessbase Let's check is maybe not a good way to check for cheating in a game ... but boy oh boy ... it really is a good way to compare how different players score against each other over a large range of games. I guess even trying to obfuscate things by not using the best engine moves was foiled in this system ... also the fact that forced moves and book lines are truncated is very useful. Now Chessbase is not known for its anti cheating algo but it really does look like they have something compelling. My guess is Chess.com has something a lot more sophisticated, but unfortunately they will probably not share it as it would make cheaters better equiped to circumvent their algo.

We’ll leave aside the problem with this ChessBase function as a method for cheat detection. You clearly didn’t read my analysis of the game against Mishra. It wasn’t a 100% match and over half the black positions had only one good move.

Now we have social media whores like Nakamura (and cheerleaders such as yourself) piling nonsense on top of nonsense.

[CornfedForever]

But when Bobby Fischer in his career cannot get in the 90% and...

People keep repeating this!

Correct me if I am wrong (and I may well be) , but the Chessbase function only begins AFTER LEAVING CURRENT THEORY, Right? So to "judge" or "compare" Fischer's games/stats 50-60 years later with this specific function is an abomination to the word 'analysis'. More of the game(s) were played 'out of book' than they are today. To do so...only proves, one thing... and if I am right (hint): it isn't what you are looking for.

Furthermore, people play a lot stronger at 'competency levels' these days and that is not even open to question.
Also, many of those old lines were...suspect or bad and would not be played today. That would just bring down Fischer's 'level' on its own.

There is more I could say, but...let me just end by saying that one can't judge Babe Ruth by the standard of play today in Baseball.

[M ANSARI]

But when Bobby Fischer in his career cannot get in the 90% and...

People keep repeating this!

Correct me if I am wrong, but the Chessbase function only begins AFTER LEAVING CURRENT THEORY, Right? So to "judge" or "compare" Fischer's games/stats 50-60 years later with this specific function is an abomination to the word 'analysis'. To do so...only proves, one thing... and (hint): it isn't what you are looking for.

Furthermore, people play a lot stronger at 'competency levels' these days and that is not even open to question.
Also, many of those old lines were...suspect or bad and would not be played today. That would just bring down Fischer's 'level' on its own.

There is more I could say, but...let me just end by saying that one can't judge Babe Ruth by the standard of play today in Baseball.

The metric Chessbase uses does not include opening theory or forced moves ... so the fact that Bobby Fischer did quite well does seem fascinating as it means he played lines that today are theory and so he would be at a disadvantage. I really don't know how exactly it works ... but it is a metric that compares players against each other rather than checking a single game and seeing if there is cheating information. It is IMPOSSIBLE to check one game and tell if someone is cheating ... even if it is a wild tactical game that humans are terrible at ... because that one day a person can just see all the tactical shots. But when you correlate many games together, and then use a metric that is the same for all players ... the information is certainly valid! Hans in 2022 played in the Turkish league and was scoring about 40% ... all of a sudden he is playing 90%+ games and even 100% games ???!!!! Hikaru started pulling out his best games and was curious how they would do ... then he looked up Caruana's game where he had probably the most impressive run of wins in Classical chess ... and Caruana's score was in the. Hikaru couldn't find any game of Magnus or himself or Caruana ... at close to 90% ever. Yet we have Hans Nieman that has over 23 games over 90% in just 2 years and over 10 at 100%. I mean of course you can argue that unless you catch the guy with a phone or with a gadget then he isn't cheating. But I don't agree with that. If chess is going to be viable it has to find a way to weed out cheaters. In atheletics they use blood and urine samples ... sometimes they keep the samples for years and many atheletes that were cleared intially were stripped of their medals when the testing technology caught up with their cheating systems. I think with chess it is the same ... you can't take blood samples or urine samples, but you should be able to use statistics and metrics that are updated to catch cheaters. The probability that Hans did not cheat is becoming astronomically small ... add to that the fact that he has cheated before and it becomes hard to act like there is nothing there. I think even the most sceptical people that intitially thought that Hans is not a cheater are really finding it difficult to ignore the facts. Most people tend to think that everyone is honest and give them the benefit of the doubt, but the world is full of people that are dishonest!