dkappe wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:02 pm
Well, part of this thread has been about who we should believe.
The question whether Hans is cheating or not has nothing to do with Carlsens credibility. so it is completely useless to question his credibility because he said "how" at the wrong time.
Well, its sure was not "Howell" that he was saying (although it is whom the question was directed to)...and he acted on what he had heard to quickly pocket the point, when there were other options. Howell, to his 'credit', seemed to realize what he had done and did not answer.
OK, you convinced me. Niemann clearly did not cheat.
Lol!
Must be my winning personality, because I've never tried to convince anyone of that!
1. Online, obviously he has, there is proof he has multiple times.
2. OTB - he may well have, I don't know...60/40 maybe; but I've seen no evidence worthy of me saying he 'cheated'.
So, if you ever thought I was trying to 'convince you' otherwise...maybe that was just you fooling yourself.
And the earth is flat. Yep.
This forum is pretty much gone.
@ syzygy – I believe you have opined that some believe Carlsen is 'lying' or 'not truthful' in what he says.
I do not think Carlsen is “Not truthful”…in that he doesn’t believe it. People ‘believe’ all sorts of wrong stuff every day. So, I give him the benefit of the doubt when he says he ‘believes it’. Of course, at this point, with producing no evidence of OTB cheating, any good lawyer is surely telling him that he cannot defame someone of OTB cheating without evidence. Probably therefore in his statements we mostly see a ‘doubling down’ on the already admitted provable as well as the chess.com alleged ‘more’ online cheating if only to distance himself from ‘OTB’ claims in possible future litigation That is, his lawyers are surely steering him towards carefully segmenting ‘facts’ (online cheating) from ‘beliefs’ (OTB cheating).
I am afraid you are joining the M ANSARI camp in my eyes with such words as you say above. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but to beg off discussion through mischaracterizing someone words for arguments NOT being made is wrong. Like… saying Hans did not cheat or that I am out to convince you (anyone) that Hans is not a cheater (OTB)…when I have explicitly always taken the Joe Friday approach (just the facts ma’am) is…just tiresome.
Absence of evidence does not always equal evidence of absence…but it is a perfectly reasonable place to live until (possible) further facts avail themselves.
dkappe wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:02 pm
Well, part of this thread has been about who we should believe.
I think you mix up something. It is not Carlsen vs. Niemann, Carlsen is not the only one who speaks out suspicions, also other GM's and different AI cheat detection systems are on the trigger. The question whether Hans is cheating or not has nothing to do with Carlsens credibility. so it is completely useless to question his credibility because he said "how" at the wrong time.
Also, there is no question that Carlsen really believes that Niemann is cheating. He may be mistaken about this, but it takes a flat earther to believe that Carlsen is lying.
Reckless for sure. He may have a gut feeling, and he may have been able to convince himself because peer group plus the chess.Com corporate kind of agreed with him, but he also knows his gut is without solid evidence good enough to stand up in court, so he launched his campaign (to destroy Hans) using plausible deniability and vicarious bullying.
The attack method proves that Carlson does not know for sure (or really believes as you phrase it). Mud throwing, plausible deniability, vicarious bullying, staged escalations. Worse than lying.
M ANSARI wrote: ↑Sat Oct 01, 2022 10:54 am
You are welcome! There are other videos where MC uses only half the time as his opponents also very entertaining. You could say that is NOT FAIR PLAY also by MC and so Hans Nieman is innocent and he did not cheat. Just trying to follow your logic
I’ll repeat it again for your benefit: I don’t know if Niemann cheated OTB or not. The evidence I’ve seen so far is far from proof and, in most cases, is junk. Look at all the “experts” who have embarrassed themselves with the ChessBase “let’s check” feature, for instance.
Fat Titz by Stockfish, the engine with the bodaciously big net. Remember: size matters. If you want to learn more about this engine just google for "Fat Titz".
M ANSARI wrote: ↑Sat Oct 01, 2022 10:54 am
You are welcome! There are other videos where MC uses only half the time as his opponents also very entertaining. You could say that is NOT FAIR PLAY also by MC and so Hans Nieman is innocent and he did not cheat. Just trying to follow your logic
I’ll repeat it again for your benefit: I don’t know if Niemann cheated OTB or not. The evidence I’ve seen so far is far from proof and, in most cases, is junk. Look at all the “experts” who have embarrassed themselves with the ChessBase “let’s check” feature, for instance.
Lets suppose that Niemann is cheating, so when he lose, and there has been several times, his opponents might be cheating using a better chess engine than him, or some of you will argue that there are some closed positions where human can still beat engines
dkappe wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:02 pm
Well, part of this thread has been about who we should believe.
The question whether Hans is cheating or not has nothing to do with Carlsens credibility. so it is completely useless to question his credibility because he said "how" at the wrong time.
Well, its sure was not "Howell" that he was saying (although it is whom the question was directed to)...and he acted on what he had heard to quickly pocket the point, when there were other options. Howell, to his 'credit', seemed to realize what he had done and did not answer.
OK, you convinced me. Niemann clearly did not cheat.
Here is Magnus Carlsen cheating again. He plays the entire tournament where he doesn't allow himself to castle! This must be cheating as the other players are caught off guard . Even Mamydyarov was a victim of this! That is absolutely NOT FAIR PLAY!
At one point he does seem to get help from one of his buddies when he points out to him that he has rooks of opposite color!
Actually, although your above link has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, I find it very interesting! It is the first example I have seen of a top player giving a handicap to grandmasters (exclude the first game, since the opponent declined the handicap, also forfeiting castling). The handicap is much more than just not castling, Carlsen wastes two moves at the start every game to forfeit castling (K-e2-e1 or f3 and Kf2 or the equivalent when Black). He only gave up one draw, and that was due to flagging while mating a lone king! I would judge that the handicaps were on average between pawn (f2) and pawn and move (f7). So it seems pretty clear that Carlsen could given pawn and move (f7) to "threshold" grandmasters at 3 min blitz and still come out well ahead. Perhaps not surprising, but nice to see it demonstrated. Carlsen has brought back the tradition of Paul Morphy of giving handicaps to professional level players; he just does it in this way because he can't easily start the game with a pawn missing. I think it means that he would accept a proposal to play some sort of fast tournament giving pawn and move (or even two moves) to grandmasters. That would be interesting!
dkappe wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:02 pm
Well, part of this thread has been about who we should believe.
The question whether Hans is cheating or not has nothing to do with Carlsens credibility. so it is completely useless to question his credibility because he said "how" at the wrong time.
Well, its sure was not "Howell" that he was saying (although it is whom the question was directed to)...and he acted on what he had heard to quickly pocket the point, when there were other options. Howell, to his 'credit', seemed to realize what he had done and did not answer.
OK, you convinced me. Niemann clearly did not cheat.
Here is Magnus Carlsen cheating again. He plays the entire tournament where he doesn't allow himself to castle! This must be cheating as the other players are caught off guard . Even Mamydyarov was a victim of this! That is absolutely NOT FAIR PLAY!
At one point he does seem to get help from one of his buddies when he points out to him that he has rooks of opposite color!
Actually, although your above link has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, I find it very interesting! It is the first example I have seen of a top player giving a handicap to grandmasters (exclude the first game, since the opponent declined the handicap, also forfeiting castling). The handicap is much more than just not castling, Carlsen wastes two moves at the start every game to forfeit castling (K-e2-e1 or f3 and Kf2 or the equivalent when Black). He only gave up one draw, and that was due to flagging while mating a lone king! I would judge that the handicaps were on average between pawn (f2) and pawn and move (f7). So it seems pretty clear that Carlsen could given pawn and move (f7) to "threshold" grandmasters at 3 min blitz and still come out well ahead. Perhaps not surprising, but nice to see it demonstrated. Carlsen has brought back the tradition of Paul Morphy of giving handicaps to professional level players; he just does it in this way because he can't easily start the game with a pawn missing. I think it means that he would accept a proposal to play some sort of fast tournament giving pawn and move (or even two moves) to grandmasters. That would be interesting!
Magnus does these handicaps quite often and they are fun to watch when he streams because he talks through the moves and shows what he is thinking. He has played entire tournaments with these handicaps and I do remember one rapid game against Wesley So where he played the Bongcloud against him
I also watched the other day SF 15 NNUE play against an older Komodo rated at 3200 to 3300 ELO where a similar opening handicap was made and where SF won. I mean 3300 ELO is about 500 ELO points stronger than the strongest human ... and it seems that with SF 15 NNUE that is enough to give those handicaps against an entity stronger than the strongest human by 500 ELO and still win. I think it is extremely relevant to the cheating thread because it shows how powerful a tool that can be if playing humans! You can pick many areas of the game to avoid playing the top move and the human would still have no chance. Humans will always make small inaccuracies that will eventually be exploited by SF 15. Look at the top super GM games ... even in dry games with few pieces on the board there are many mistakes that are missed by both sides. I think that is what sticks out the most in some of Hans Nieman's games ... just no errors. Many times (not always) nothing spectacular ... but even in positions where the game is "won", the efficiency of how quickly the other side gets outplayed just seems alien. You look at the moves ... and they all can be made to look logical somehow ... but humans don't play like that. A lot of people are scoffing at the "engine correlation" thing with Chessbase ... but you cannot deny that if someone is statistically shown to stick out ... then that is unusual. Of course that is not proof of cheating, but it is really strange. I totally agree with Hikaru when he says that Hans Nieman is either the best chess player in the history of chess (by a long shot) or he is a cheater. Everyone can have an opinion on that and in time we will know the truth! I always have to smile when I read some comments on the youtube threads where some people (that obviously don't play chess) will say that Hans plays against SF so much that he has learned from SF and now plays as good as SF . That also reminds me of another statement by Ivanov many years back where he said that he decided that he could compete in chess tournaments when he started beating Rybka 3 ... 10 - 0 regularly at his home !!!
dkappe wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:02 pm
Well, part of this thread has been about who we should believe.
The question whether Hans is cheating or not has nothing to do with Carlsens credibility. so it is completely useless to question his credibility because he said "how" at the wrong time.
Well, its sure was not "Howell" that he was saying (although it is whom the question was directed to)...and he acted on what he had heard to quickly pocket the point, when there were other options. Howell, to his 'credit', seemed to realize what he had done and did not answer.
OK, you convinced me. Niemann clearly did not cheat.
Here is Magnus Carlsen cheating again. He plays the entire tournament where he doesn't allow himself to castle! This must be cheating as the other players are caught off guard . Even Mamydyarov was a victim of this! That is absolutely NOT FAIR PLAY!
At one point he does seem to get help from one of his buddies when he points out to him that he has rooks of opposite color!
Actually, although your above link has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, I find it very interesting! It is the first example I have seen of a top player giving a handicap to grandmasters (exclude the first game, since the opponent declined the handicap, also forfeiting castling). The handicap is much more than just not castling, Carlsen wastes two moves at the start every game to forfeit castling (K-e2-e1 or f3 and Kf2 or the equivalent when Black). He only gave up one draw, and that was due to flagging while mating a lone king! I would judge that the handicaps were on average between pawn (f2) and pawn and move (f7). So it seems pretty clear that Carlsen could given pawn and move (f7) to "threshold" grandmasters at 3 min blitz and still come out well ahead. Perhaps not surprising, but nice to see it demonstrated. Carlsen has brought back the tradition of Paul Morphy of giving handicaps to professional level players; he just does it in this way because he can't easily start the game with a pawn missing. I think it means that he would accept a proposal to play some sort of fast tournament giving pawn and move (or even two moves) to grandmasters. That would be interesting!
Magnus does these handicaps quite often and they are fun to watch when he streams because he talks through the moves and shows what he is thinking. He has played entire tournaments with these handicaps and I do remember one rapid game against Wesley So where he played the Bongcloud against him
I also watched the other day SF 15 NNUE play against an older Komodo rated at 3200 to 3300 ELO where a similar opening handicap was made and where SF won. I mean 3300 ELO is about 500 ELO points stronger than the strongest human ... and it seems that with SF 15 NNUE that is enough to give those handicaps against an entity stronger than the strongest human by 500 ELO and still win. I think it is extremely relevant to the cheating thread because it shows how powerful a tool that can be if playing humans! You can pick many areas of the game to avoid playing the top move and the human would still have no chance. Humans will always make small inaccuracies that will eventually be exploited by SF 15. Look at the top super GM games ... even in dry games with few pieces on the board there are many mistakes that are missed by both sides. I think that is what sticks out the most in some of Hans Nieman's games ... just no errors. Many times (not always) nothing spectacular ... but even in positions where the game is "won", the efficiency of how quickly the other side gets outplayed just seems alien. You look at the moves ... and they all can be made to look logical somehow ... but humans don't play like that. A lot of people are scoffing at the "engine correlation" thing with Chessbase ... but you cannot deny that if someone is statistically shown to stick out ... then that is unusual. Of course that is not proof of cheating, but it is really strange. I totally agree with Hikaru when he says that Hans Nieman is either the best chess player in the history of chess (by a long shot) or he is a cheater. Everyone can have an opinion on that and in time we will know the truth! I always have to smile when I read some comments on the youtube threads where some people (that obviously don't play chess) will say that Hans plays against SF so much that he has learned from SF and now plays as good as SF . That also reminds me of another statement by Ivanov many years back where he said that he decided that he could compete in chess tournaments when he started beating Rybka 3 ... 10 - 0 regularly at his home !!!
Hans is clearly not the best chess player in the history of chess based on his results.
dkappe wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:02 pm
Well, part of this thread has been about who we should believe.
The question whether Hans is cheating or not has nothing to do with Carlsens credibility. so it is completely useless to question his credibility because he said "how" at the wrong time.
Well, its sure was not "Howell" that he was saying (although it is whom the question was directed to)...and he acted on what he had heard to quickly pocket the point, when there were other options. Howell, to his 'credit', seemed to realize what he had done and did not answer.
OK, you convinced me. Niemann clearly did not cheat.
Here is Magnus Carlsen cheating again. He plays the entire tournament where he doesn't allow himself to castle! This must be cheating as the other players are caught off guard . Even Mamydyarov was a victim of this! That is absolutely NOT FAIR PLAY!
At one point he does seem to get help from one of his buddies when he points out to him that he has rooks of opposite color!
Actually, although your above link has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, I find it very interesting! It is the first example I have seen of a top player giving a handicap to grandmasters (exclude the first game, since the opponent declined the handicap, also forfeiting castling). The handicap is much more than just not castling, Carlsen wastes two moves at the start every game to forfeit castling (K-e2-e1 or f3 and Kf2 or the equivalent when Black). He only gave up one draw, and that was due to flagging while mating a lone king! I would judge that the handicaps were on average between pawn (f2) and pawn and move (f7). So it seems pretty clear that Carlsen could given pawn and move (f7) to "threshold" grandmasters at 3 min blitz and still come out well ahead. Perhaps not surprising, but nice to see it demonstrated. Carlsen has brought back the tradition of Paul Morphy of giving handicaps to professional level players; he just does it in this way because he can't easily start the game with a pawn missing. I think it means that he would accept a proposal to play some sort of fast tournament giving pawn and move (or even two moves) to grandmasters. That would be interesting!
Magnus does these handicaps quite often and they are fun to watch when he streams because he talks through the moves and shows what he is thinking. He has played entire tournaments with these handicaps and I do remember one rapid game against Wesley So where he played the Bongcloud against him
I also watched the other day SF 15 NNUE play against an older Komodo rated at 3200 to 3300 ELO where a similar opening handicap was made and where SF won. I mean 3300 ELO is about 500 ELO points stronger than the strongest human ... and it seems that with SF 15 NNUE that is enough to give those handicaps against an entity stronger than the strongest human by 500 ELO and still win. I think it is extremely relevant to the cheating thread because it shows how powerful a tool that can be if playing humans! You can pick many areas of the game to avoid playing the top move and the human would still have no chance. Humans will always make small inaccuracies that will eventually be exploited by SF 15. Look at the top super GM games ... even in dry games with few pieces on the board there are many mistakes that are missed by both sides. I think that is what sticks out the most in some of Hans Nieman's games ... just no errors. Many times (not always) nothing spectacular ... but even in positions where the game is "won", the efficiency of how quickly the other side gets outplayed just seems alien. You look at the moves ... and they all can be made to look logical somehow ... but humans don't play like that. A lot of people are scoffing at the "engine correlation" thing with Chessbase ... but you cannot deny that if someone is statistically shown to stick out ... then that is unusual. Of course that is not proof of cheating, but it is really strange. I totally agree with Hikaru when he says that Hans Nieman is either the best chess player in the history of chess (by a long shot) or he is a cheater. Everyone can have an opinion on that and in time we will know the truth! I always have to smile when I read some comments on the youtube threads where some people (that obviously don't play chess) will say that Hans plays against SF so much that he has learned from SF and now plays as good as SF . That also reminds me of another statement by Ivanov many years back where he said that he decided that he could compete in chess tournaments when he started beating Rybka 3 ... 10 - 0 regularly at his home !!!
Hans is clearly not the best chess player in the history of chess based on his results.
FIDE should match GM Hans versus 10 players rated between 2350 to 2450 and to play with only a Swimsuit on and he must either win most of his games or draw a few, but he should NOT lose any games, in order to keep his current rating. If GM Hans lose at least one game his rating should be drop by 100 Elo to punish him from previous cheatings.
