Carlsen withdrawal after loss to Niemann

[Chessqueen]

Is this what you call cheating by losing to a lower rated player rated about 40 rating lower than him, therefore, GM Hans only cheat when he play versus Magnus Carlsen or he just happened to play better than Carlsen in that particular game ? Here is the analysis and interview

[Uri Blass]

OK John Doe ... I mean John Smith ... I mean Brian Smith.

M - Is it...Mark Ansari? Mathew Ansari....Mary Ansari?

Don’t bother. Its confirmed, he’s a troll.

Dude...YOU are the one who started asking about names, saying I was hiding behind a user name...someone pointed out my name was there to be seen...then making fun of it. Yours...I just see M. I don't know what it stands for and asked.

Anyway, since you clearly can't converse as you continue to resort to 'BS' like this...just don't address me, okay (?) and I won't address you. This is...beyond ridiculous. Of course, half of what I see on this thread is. Too often things degenerate to some weird interpersonal squabble...well, anywhere on the internet really; so 'here' is no exception. Adieu.

Check who you are responding to. I’ve never said anything about user names or real names on this forum. Also, I was not calling you a troll.

Yes, so sorry...nasty nested quotes in the thread - I grabbed the quote at the wrong point. Of course... The comments were meant for M. ANSARI.

Now now Mr. Cornfed ... your feathers getting ruffled? Try and read properly before going Picasso on us. You are quite new here and I don't want to discourage you or anyone else from participating in the forum. But once you start calling people clowns and start ridiculing people that don't have the same point of view that you have then you pretty much will get something back. My advice to you is keep any debate civil and avoid making it personal. Everyone is allowed to have an opinion and your opinion is not the only one that matters. You mentioned earlier that you are 2600 or more on Chess.com and that someone was caught cheating against you ... somehow that didn't seem to bother you that much. I know when someone cheats against me online I feel like I want to tear them a new ahole. Would you be kind enough to share that game with us ... it would be interesting to check that game and see what triggered the cheat detection form Chess.com.

As for Hans Nieman and the cheating scandal ... you guys can search back to another very similar thread that had a lot of heated back and forth with regards to Ivanov. With Ivanov it was the same ... no physical proof and the person was never caught red handed. The guy even had CT scan and full body Xray with medical report. All allegations were based on the fact that he was just playing too good and error free and had many computer move matches.Unlike Hand, Ivanov had never been caught cheating and he did not have a coach that had been caught cheating ... so zero history of prior cheating. For me what made it ridiculously clear that he was cheating was he said that he kept playing thousands of games against Rybka 3 ... then realized he was ready when he started beating Rybka 3 .... 10 0 repeatedly. I had done a lot of beta testing for Rybka 3 and to me that was just hilariously ridiculous. But apparently for a lot of people they didn't think it was ridiculous! I mean if you play a game Call of Duty enough hours you can get pretty good at it ... right?? But chess doesn't work that way. Humans think in "plans" not individual moves ... and while a human can look at an engine game and later see a "plan" ... a human cannot see the small minute tactical pitfalls that are very obvious to engines. Sure if you are a sophisticated cheater like Hans seems to be, you can mix and obfuscate ... but there will always be a signature in the database of games you play that will be abnormal. I think this signature is quite clear already ... and most likely more will come. Is it enough to ban Hans from participating in tournaments ... I think so ... but many don't and I can see their point. The thing is that with chess ... if someone finds a way to cheat and not get caught then chess is over as a competitive sport. I mean you can give steroids or other enhancement drugs to an athlete and he will perform slightly better maybe 5% or 10% better than his non cheating competitors. But if anyone of us here would take steroids and try and beat Husain Bolt in 100m sprint ... I doubt it would be successful. However with chess ... anyone ... and I mean anyone ... with just a little training on how to cheat ... he could beat Magnus Carlsen repeatedly. With the inclusion of NNUE in the latest engines ... the gap between humans and engines is now around 1000 ELO points. That is why in Chess we have a huge problem and we have to have zero tolerance or baby handling of cheaters.

Ivanov simply did not agree that people search him.
This is the reason Ivanov could not continue to play in chess tournaments.

It did not happen with hans so hans is allowed to compete.

I do not believe anyone can cheat OTB and beat Carlsen repeatedly
If a weak player start to get good results and cannot talk about the games then people are going to suspect and prevent him to continue to win by cheating.

I think he quit chess because no GM would accept to play if he played ... including many who are from his country! He was disqualified from the tournament because he wouldn't take his shoes off but his reasoning was that it was because his feet smelled bad and that this was not something that they were doing to all the other players (which I would think is valid if true).

As for suspecting people is enough to prevent a weak player from cheating ... with current FIDE rules you can't do that. Suspecting is not enough and you need (according to FIDE) a 99.998% certainty that there was cheating. .002% is a very small margin and unless you catch the person with a device red handed. According to present rules it is impossible to prevent him from joining tournaments and he can continue as if nothing happened.

Of course suspecting is not enough but what I meant is that suspecting may lead to proof of catching the device or that the player does not allow other to search him.

In both cases the player is not allowed to continue to play chess.
In the case of Ivanov he chose the option of not allowing other to search him.
I know that the opponent of Ivanov accepted to do everything that they asked Ivanov to do including taking off his shoes.

[lkaufman]

Is this what you call cheating by losing to a lower rated player rated about 40 rating lower than him, therefore, GM Hans only cheat when he play versus Magnus Carlsen or he just happened to play better than Carlsen in that particular game ? Here is the analysis and interview

I'm pretty sure that no one is cheating in this current U.S. Championship, the anti-cheat measures are quite strong. I'm not saying it's impossible to cheat, only that the cost and risk of detection would make it extremely unlikely. It's also pretty unlikely that anyone cheated in the previous St. Louis event once the delay was introduced in the fourth round. Unfortunately this doesn't tell us anything about whether cheating occurred earlier in that event or in previous OTB events without a delay in broadcasting. Anyone trying to determine whether cheating has occurred should separate games played with delay in broadcast (or no broadcast) from games broadcast without delay, and make comparisons of results and/or move quality based on engines. So far in the 13 games played in those events with the delay, Niemann's results have been pretty far below his rating, though 13 games isn't a big sample. Let's see how it looks at the end of the tournament.

[AdminX]

Current Standings

[mclane]

Without computer Niemann is reduced to his real strength.

[Henk]

Yes give him a computer. We want to see more computer chess. Especially against top grand masters.

[Chessqueen]

Yes give him a computer. We want to see more computer chess. Especially against top grand masters.

I agree with you, since we computer enthusiasts always knew that the Top 20 engines could beat Carlsen, but we did NOT really knew how bad an engine can beat Carlsen, and in how many moves, or how many moves can Carlsen last, therefore, GM Hans did us all a BIG favor and to himself as well, until he really get caught. What I like about all this is that we can get to see Carlsen playing against Top engines without Carlsen getting pay Millions $$$$$$ like Kasparov against Deep Blue

NOTE: Very soon it will be reveal that Elon Musk paid Money to GM Hans to see how bad a top engine can crush Carlsen

[Alexander Schmidt]

Is this what you call cheating by losing to a lower rated player rated about 40 rating lower than him

I could return the question: Is this what you call genius?

No one never ever said Niemann is cheating always and everywhere.

[Alexander Schmidt]

I'm pretty sure that no one is cheating in this current U.S. Championship, the anti-cheat measures are quite strong.

I as well don't think anyone is cheating there, right now the risk to get caught is too high. But I guess we have to prepare cheaters who are able to sidestep the measures.

Time delay is a good thing, but we remember Ivanov who brought his computer to the board. Would the detector in St. Louis detect a hidden computer in the shoe? At the Airport security check it is enough to put a hand over the belt-buckle to hide it from the detector. Do we have to prepare complete body-scans for the players? What about upcoming computer technologies, smaller, maybe under the skin...?

I think a self cleaning system under the GM's is the only real option, and that would include: Zero tolerance to (online) cheaters.

[chrisw]

Is this what you call cheating by losing to a lower rated player rated about 40 rating lower than him, therefore, GM Hans only cheat when he play versus Magnus Carlsen or he just happened to play better than Carlsen in that particular game ? Here is the analysis and interview

I'm pretty sure that no one is cheating in this current U.S. Championship, the anti-cheat measures are quite strong. I'm not saying it's impossible to cheat, only that the cost and risk of detection would make it extremely unlikely. It's also pretty unlikely that anyone cheated in the previous St. Louis event once the delay was introduced in the fourth round. Unfortunately this doesn't tell us anything about whether cheating occurred earlier in that event or in previous OTB events without a delay in broadcasting. Anyone trying to determine whether cheating has occurred should separate games played with delay in broadcast (or no broadcast) from games broadcast without delay, and make comparisons of results and/or move quality based on engines. So far in the 13 games played in those events with the delay, Niemann's results have been pretty far below his rating, though 13 games isn't a big sample. Let's see how it looks at the end of the tournament.

Please remove the extreme psychological pressure/disturbance factor from your little experiment and re-present the innuendo-ed conclusion.