Carlsen withdrawal after loss to Niemann

[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...

My own son Raymond went from about 900 (USCF rating) at age 12 to about 2200 at age 15 in the 1990s, a 1300 elo gain! I know it's not the same reaching 2200 as 2600 or 2700, but my point is that huge rating gains in a couple years as a teenager are quite possible and not suspicious. What would really convince me of cheating is a properly done comparison, using identical engines and time limits, of Niemann's centipawn loss in the short time interval under the most suspicion (OTB, standard time controls only) compared to the same for other teenage players who were similarly rated and active over a similar interval around the same general time. If Niemann's mean CP loss was clearly lower than all the other players being compared, that would be pretty convincing. Has anyone done a study like this yet?

If one lives eats and breathes chess as a teenager (I was blessed with the Prompt Corner within walking distance), chess rating can climb fast, especially below IM level. Mine went from BCF 160 (first ever actual rating) to 190 in about one year and then to 221 in the next year. 30 BCF incremental points is I think 240 Elo points. (Elo = BCF x 8 + 600)

This is clearly good but no exception when the final level is not more than 2600.

160*8+600=1880
221*8+600=2368
Some teenagers did better than it from the time they were 1880.
For example Jonas Buhl Bjerre

1.2.2013 1689 initial fide rating
1.2.2014 1899
1.2.2015 2216
1.2.2016 2424

[Chessqueen]

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...

My own son Raymond went from about 900 (USCF rating) at age 12 to about 2200 at age 15 in the 1990s, a 1300 elo gain! I know it's not the same reaching 2200 as 2600 or 2700, but my point is that huge rating gains in a couple years as a teenager are quite possible and not suspicious. What would really convince me of cheating is a properly done comparison, using identical engines and time limits, of Niemann's centipawn loss in the short time interval under the most suspicion (OTB, standard time controls only) compared to the same for other teenage players who were similarly rated and active over a similar interval around the same general time. If Niemann's mean CP loss was clearly lower than all the other players being compared, that would be pretty convincing. Has anyone done a study like this yet?

If one lives eats and breathes chess as a teenager (I was blessed with the Prompt Corner within walking distance), chess rating can climb fast, especially below IM level. Mine went from BCF 160 (first ever actual rating) to 190 in about one year and then to 221 in the next year. 30 BCF incremental points is I think 240 Elo points. (Elo = BCF x 8 + 600)

This is clearly good but no exception when the final level is not more than 2600.

160*8+600=1880
221*8+600=2368
Some teenagers did better than it from the time they were 1880.
For example Jonas Buhl Bjerre

1.2.2013 1689 initial fide rating
1.2.2014 1899
1.2.2015 2216
1.2.2016 2424

According to Gary Kasparov, in regard to GM Hans cheating, there was no evidence of any wrong doing here is what he said
"...leaving the tournament was unacceptable. Even if he had proof, and as to the specific game Magnus lost there was no evidence of any wrongdoing, I think that was really bad for chess, it was bad for St. Louis."

[CornfedForever]

According to Gary Kasparov, in regard to GM Hans cheating, there was no evidence of any wrong doing here is what he said
"...leaving the tournament was unacceptable. Even if he had proof, and as to the specific game Magnus lost there was no evidence of any wrongdoing, I think that was really bad for chess, it was bad for St. Louis."

Bad things can result in Good things happening. Even if incidences of those 'bad' things might sometimes turn out to be imagined. Bad things can also...just be bad things.

Regarding St. Louis however, if they do NOT step up the quality of their scanners and have a delay for this weeks US Championship (I think 15 min is enough...but 30 is good...might make after game interviews a bit odd since players may want to leave) they deserve to 'look bad'.

[M ANSARI]

Actually would be interesting to see if Hans is allowed to play in the US championships. I think a lot depends on what Chess.com releases. Certainly I would think they would have security at highest ever.

As for Garry Kasparov, I think he had pretty much the same opinion as most of us initially. But lot of damning evidence now … would be interested to see what he thinks now.

[Graham Banks]

Actually would be interesting to see if Hans is allowed to play in the US championships. I think a lot depends on what Chess.com releases. Certainly I would think they would have security at highest ever.

As for Garry Kasparov, I think he had pretty much the same opinion as most of us initially. But lot of damning evidence now … would be interested to see what he thinks now.

I find it hard to accept that that one could be convicted of cheating over the board, based on statistics alone, with no physical evidence.

And no, I do not condone cheating..

[M ANSARI]

Hard to imagine that anyone will want to be paired against Hans Nieman in the US Chess championships now!

https://www.wsj.com/articles/chess-chea ... 1664911524

If you can't see the top article you can see the youtube video of one of Hans victims.

[emadsen]

Chess.com just posted the Hans Niemann Report.

[dkappe]

An important line from the report: “…while Hans has had a record-setting and remarkable rise in rating and strength, in our view there is a lack of concrete statistical evidence that he cheated in his game with Magnus or in any other over-the-board (“OTB”)—i.e., in-person—games.”

[Chessqueen]

Chess.com just posted the Hans Niemann Report.

This video is talking about the same thing ==>

[emadsen]

[Hans] seems to be playing a character: the wild-eyed, misunderstood genius who cannot suffer fools and is impatient with the unimaginative, bourgeois chess establishment.

Whether this is based on...

1) Derogatory comments Hans endured while stuck in the 2400s (not smart enough, not talented enough, etc) that inspired him to seek revenge by doubling-down his efforts, leading to a legitimate rise to the elite level, or...

2) Hans realizing there's no audience for the bad-boy, trash-talking villain in the 2400s; that no one cares unless the villain rises to the top and knocks the kings and princes off their thrones; so Hans decided to leverage computer assistance to get himself on the stage.

... is unclear to me at this time.

I read the entire Hans Niemann Report. I am leaning towards explanation #2. The evidence of Hans cheating online is damning. As a consequence, I question the man's motivations. Does he want to improve his skill or does he want attention and adulation? On the other hand, the Over The Board (OTB) evidence demonstrates serious abnormalities but is not conclusive.

I just can't get past the man's cocky attitude, snarky interviews, and rage and bravado. I can't reconcile it with his incoherent post-game analysis. Especially when compared to Vassily Ivanchuk's famous post-game analysis of an entire game completely from memory with no visual board to prompt him. I'm skeptical that Hans' zest for put-downs and reticence to discuss details of his OTB thought process are simply an odd personality quirk or a manifestation of some-can-do-but-can't-explain.

It's looking more and more likely he simply shifted arenas for his devious conquest from online to OTB. Perhaps for vengeance, fame, money, or a taste of each. Or maybe just for the amusement of punking us all, satisfying some psychological need known only to provocateurs, as I suggested with my earlier reference to Andy Kaufman.

Having achieved a respectable degree of proficiency professionally and in my chess engine hobby, I have come to appreciate the hard-won knowledge earned by a long slog up the learning curve. I respect expert opinion. So I find it exceedingly difficult to toss aside the concerns of Magnus Carlsen, Ian Nepomniachtchi, Fabiano Caruana, Hikaru Nakamura, and other high-caliber players who have stated or insinuated there's something suspect with Hans' chess. It's erratic, disjointed, alien.

I realize what I've expressed here is subjective opinion. While I spend most of my professional time and energy on more objective matters of software development, I live in a world of human beings. In my experience it's personally and professionally valuable to form opinions of people's character. I- we all- must navigate their idiosyncrasies, disguised motivations, veils of personal mythology, calculations of political expediency, etc.

I'd stay the hell away from a character like Hans Niemann.