Carlsen withdrawal after loss to Niemann

[M ANSARI]

Brazilian Youtuber, owner of the biggest chess channel in Brazil on YouTube and who is also a programmer, seems to have managed to prove that Hans Nielman has cheated since 2018.

Video in english:


His YouTube channel (Xadrez Brasil, only portuguese): https://youtube.com/c/XadrezBrasil

That is very interesting, especially once we see how other young new upcoming GM's fared using the same metric. The most important thing is for it to be fair, the same system must be used for all ... same engine and depth... same protocols. I always believed that in the games database a cheater will have some sort of signature ... what this signature is and how to get that signature is something a lot of very smart people are working on. Chess.com does seem to have a very sophisticated system and apparently even Hans Nieman agrees it is the best cheat detection in the world. He must know as when he was banned for cheating on Chess.com online, he immediately said he would switch to Lichess. I don't think Lichess ever banned him and if he cheated on Chess.com chances are that he also cheated on Lichess.com.

The only problem with the mentioned centipawn check is how to account for time control scrambles. I guess if enough games are played things will even out. Also how about preparation ... obviously some lines are prepared for moves up to 15 or more! Anyway, I think it is one metric that can be used along with many other metrics to come up with a possible view that someone cheated. For chess to be a viable competitive sport it has to be able to find a system where cheaters are weeded out. If the only proof that is accepted for cheating is actually catching the person with a physical electronic device (as some have requested) then this is a nonstarter as that will not be possible. But maybe there will be an agreed system where if someone can be shown to be statistically cheating ... and that the person will not be allowed to play in tournaments ... maybe that is a good option. For sure there will always be the possibility that .001% will be falsely accused ... but even in murder cases the rate of falsely accused is much higher.

One thing also I would like to point out is that even without an engine ... if you are very strong ... say 2500 ELO ... you can get a huge increase in ELO strength by simply having a large database of openings at your disposal. I know this hasn't been mentioned before, but human memory is very weak when compared to a very well-prepared database that is tuned to your opponent. You can play the opening very quickly and avoid pitfalls and create pitfalls for your opponent. No engine is needed ... just the database of best moves for that opening. A micro SD card today can hold up to 1TB of data ... that is a huge amount of data. I don't know how much opening theory can be put on 1TB ... but I imagine it is a LOT. Also the micro SD cards are so small that you can have multiple micro SD cards on one device. If you are 2500 ELO level and you get a good position out of the opening without wasting any time on your moves ... you would get a very big advantage that is probably worth a few hundred ELO points. Of course if you also have an engine that is 1000+ ELO helping you that helps as well ... but that would be obvious. It is very hard to accuse someone of good home preparation. I mean how would you know if by "by a miracle" your opponent just happened to prepare for the exact line that was played!

[M ANSARI]

By the way ... I saw this speech by the founder of Lichess and I thought it was very interesting. I had no idea that Lichess was just a bunch of volunteers providing a service. Really nice to see! There is a very interesting part where he discusses the problems they have with cheating and cheaters and how he deals with it. I thought it was especially funny when cheaters are (without their knowledge) put in a system where they only see other cheaters online and to challenge and play them . So you have a bunch of cheaters playing each other and going at it.

[Collingwood]

Hi guys, I watched the video of round 3 on youtube. Niemann is a genius or a cheater.

Carlsen didn't play well, but: Niemann almost never looked at the board, he played almost blind. You can see that in the video at 2h, then at 3.15h and at the end. Haha that was awesome. Unbelievable.

Did it have continuous video of the whole game, i.e. without any breaks?

[M ANSARI]

Xadrez Brasil has a video where the centi pawn loss is correlated with the strength of the player. Really interesting !!! I had no idea there was a linear relationship between strength and centi pawn loss to SF to create an ELO strength profile. They come up with Hans Nieman rating of 2500 ELO !!!

I don't know the exact methodology but is interesting nevertheless!

[dkappe]

If that is the case, why wouldn't it apply pretty much equally to Gukesh? Why the huge disparity between Gukesh's declining error rate and Niemann's steady error rate while both were making similar progress in their teen years? But then I don't have a better explanation for the similar rating climb with highly dissimilar error rate histories. It is a puzzle.

1) Niemann crossed the 2300 level in February of 2016, then, with this low aCPL, languished below 2400 until September of 2018, over two and a half years later. Note that he dips below 2300 quite a number of times. Could it be that our budding data scientists filtered those high 2200 games out?
2) Then, with this consistently low aCPL, he crossed into 2500 territory in February of 2021, a year and 5 months later.
3) Again, with this low aCPL, he crosses 2600 in August of 2021.
4) He continues to improve until the present day where he stands at 2699.

One thing worth noting is that we’re talking about SSS and an uneven number of games played.

Also, still no clear evidence that there is a strong correlation between aCPL and rating.

[Uri Blass]

I would like to see a similiar analysis about Mikhail Tal's games when he got better.

I know that he made unsound sacrifices.
A strong player may make wrong moves that cause the opponent also to go wrong and
I am not sure if the assumption that always a strong player improve his accuracy when he gets better is correct.

[dkappe]

I would like to see a similiar analysis about Mikhail Tal's games when he got better.

I know that he made unsound sacrifices.
A strong player may make wrong moves that cause the opponent also to go wrong and
I am not sure if the assumption that always a strong player improve his accuracy when he gets better is correct.

It may in fact be true, but like the validity of fingerprint identification, there’s nothing (NOTHING) in the scientific literature on that topic.

[CornfedForever]

I would like to see a similiar analysis about Mikhail Tal's games when he got better.

I know that he made unsound sacrifices.
A strong player may make wrong moves that cause the opponent also to go wrong and
I am not sure if the assumption that always a strong player improve his accuracy when he gets better is correct.

It may in fact be true, but like the validity of fingerprint identification, there’s nothing (NOTHING) in the scientific literature on that topic.

I would point out another player: Gata Kamsky. Gata recently said he gained about 300 rating points in (think he said) about a year. That puts Hans to shame...

[Uri Blass]

I would like to see a similiar analysis about Mikhail Tal's games when he got better.

I know that he made unsound sacrifices.
A strong player may make wrong moves that cause the opponent also to go wrong and
I am not sure if the assumption that always a strong player improve his accuracy when he gets better is correct.

It may in fact be true, but like the validity of fingerprint identification, there’s nothing (NOTHING) in the scientific literature on that topic.

I would point out another player: Gata Kamsky. Gata recently said he gained about 300 rating points in (think he said) about a year. That puts Hans to shame...

Here is Gata kamsky's rating history

https://www.olimpbase.org/Elo/player/Ka ... 0Gata.html

2380 1.1.1988 when he entered fide rating list with 25 games
2345 1.1.1989 got down in the rating based on 16 games
2345 1.7.1989 did not play for fide rating between 1.1.1989 and 1.7.1989
2510 1.1.1990 played 51 games and increased his rating by 165 elo
2650 1.7.1990 played 51 games and increased his rating by 140 elo

Note that Kamsky's rating got down later before getting up again.

[CornfedForever]

I would like to see a similiar analysis about Mikhail Tal's games when he got better.

I know that he made unsound sacrifices.
A strong player may make wrong moves that cause the opponent also to go wrong and
I am not sure if the assumption that always a strong player improve his accuracy when he gets better is correct.

It may in fact be true, but like the validity of fingerprint identification, there’s nothing (NOTHING) in the scientific literature on that topic.

I would point out another player: Gata Kamsky. Gata recently said he gained about 300 rating points in (think he said) about a year. That puts Hans to shame...

Here is Gata kamsky's rating history

https://www.olimpbase.org/Elo/player/Ka ... 0Gata.html

2380 1.1.1988 when he entered fide rating list with 25 games
2345 1.1.1989 got down in the rating based on 16 games
2345 1.7.1989 did not play for fide rating between 1.1.1989 and 1.7.1989
2510 1.1.1990 played 51 games and increased his rating by 165 elo
2650 1.7.1990 played 51 games and increased his rating by 140 elo

Note that Kamsky's rating got down later before getting up again.

Kaspersky warns me not to open the link you posted. But, yes, I think it was from 2345 to 2650 in 1 yr. Pretty darn impressive.