Carlsen withdrawal after loss to Niemann

[IanKennedy]

A hard evidence for one game is impossible beside catching one red handed. Everything is possible in one game.

But you can generate hard evidence by analyzing many games and by statistical analysis of his moves. That's what is done right now, and what is published so far don't look good for Niemann. It's not just the feeling of Carlsen in one game. It's the reasonable skepticism of several other GM's. It's Niemanns inability to explain his own games, a chess commentator who outplays Niemann in his analysis of his own game, the "average cp loss", the standard deviation of the quality of his moves, his cheating history, his dishonesty, his "coach" and so on. I am not talking about the analysis of single moves. It might be reason for skepticism and more research, but never an evidence.

If there is no hard evidence - then let's not write stupid things. Statistics and analysis are not enough. I remind everyone once again before they start writing nonsense - please read about the case of the FIDE champion Patrycja Waszczuk.

+1
To Graham's point, I am also reminded of another quote about Statistics...Mark Twain if I recall, "Statistics are like ladies of the night, once you get them down, you can do anything with them."

And some of you are.

In any case, I feel almost ashamed posting on this thread sometimes as some of the adults have left the room leaving the children run it. Perhaps I like lost causes...

I think Reddit has pretty much killed off all this engine correlation analysis and it even provoked its own parody thread



resulting in this

[CornfedForever]

https://chess24.com/de/lesen/news/FIDE- ... -ermitteln

From Klaus Deventer, a member of the FIDE FairPlay commission.

Gibt es genügend Fakten, die einen Betrugsvorwurf rechtfertigen? Wenn wir zu dem Ergebnis kommen, dass das der Fall ist, würden wir entsprechend Anklage bei der Ethik- und Disziplinarkommission der FIDE erheben. Wir würden aber auch prüfen, ob eine falsche Beschuldigung vorliegt. Auch das würden wir dann gegebenenfalls zur Anzeige bringen.

In English:

Are there enough facts to justify an allegation of fraud? If we come to the conclusion that this is the case, we would file suit with the FIDE Ethics and Disciplinary Committee. But we would also check whether there was a false accusation. We would also report that if necessary.

So, there is some risk to Carlsen. If Niemann hasn’t cheated OTB, then Carlsen will have to deal with the ethics and disciplinary committee for making false accusations. Time will tell.

If I remember correctly, his 'statement' was to 'double down' on the online cheating...not to actually accuse Niemann of OTB cheating...but to strongly hint something 'was not right'. Wiggle room. I'm sure a lawyer approved his choice of words.

[dkappe]

A hard evidence for one game is impossible beside catching one red handed. Everything is possible in one game.

But you can generate hard evidence by analyzing many games and by statistical analysis of his moves. That's what is done right now, and what is published so far don't look good for Niemann. It's not just the feeling of Carlsen in one game. It's the reasonable skepticism of several other GM's. It's Niemanns inability to explain his own games, a chess commentator who outplays Niemann in his analysis of his own game, the "average cp loss", the standard deviation of the quality of his moves, his cheating history, his dishonesty, his "coach" and so on. I am not talking about the analysis of single moves. It might be reason for skepticism and more research, but never an evidence.

If there is no hard evidence - then let's not write stupid things. Statistics and analysis are not enough. I remind everyone once again before they start writing nonsense - please read about the case of the FIDE champion Patrycja Waszczuk.

+1
To Graham's point, I am also reminded of another quote about Statistics...Mark Twain if I recall, "Statistics are like ladies of the night, once you get them down, you can do anything with them."

And some of you are.

In any case, I feel almost ashamed posting on this thread sometimes as some of the adults have left the room leaving the children run it. Perhaps I like lost causes...

I think Reddit has pretty much killed off all this engine correlation analysis and it even provoked its own parody thread



resulting in this

+1

Very amateur statisticians pooping their pant.

[Alexander Schmidt]

If there is no hard evidence - then let's not write stupid things.

You stopped reading after half of my first sentence. It's impossible to find a hard evidence in one game, but it is possible in many games.

I'm not really comfortable without physical evidence.
Like the old adage goes - there are statistics, statistics and damned lies.

You can lie with statistics, but statistics don't lie. You just have to read them correctly.

In any case, I feel almost ashamed posting on this thread sometimes as some of the adults have left the room leaving the children run it. Perhaps I like lost causes...

Try it with reasoning instead of polemic denigration. Then you don't have to be ashamed.

I think Reddit has pretty much killed off all this engine correlation analysis and it even provoked its own parody thread

You can't kill a dead thing. The over all correlation was from the beginning a point that spoke for Niemann. At the beginning people looked at single moves from Niemann, but this can never be a valid evidence for cheating.

[M ANSARI]

A hard evidence for one game is impossible beside catching one red handed. Everything is possible in one game.

But you can generate hard evidence by analyzing many games and by statistical analysis of his moves. That's what is done right now, and what is published so far don't look good for Niemann. It's not just the feeling of Carlsen in one game. It's the reasonable skepticism of several other GM's. It's Niemanns inability to explain his own games, a chess commentator who outplays Niemann in his analysis of his own game, the "average cp loss", the standard deviation of the quality of his moves, his cheating history, his dishonesty, his "coach" and so on. I am not talking about the analysis of single moves. It might be reason for skepticism and more research, but never an evidence.

If there is no hard evidence - then let's not write stupid things. Statistics and analysis are not enough. I remind everyone once again before they start writing nonsense - please read about the case of the FIDE champion Patrycja Waszczuk.

Before starting calling people stupid you idiot why don't you look at the data. Blabbering your mouth like an imbecile because one of your 2000 Elo friends got accused of cheating has nothing to do with this ... go complain to polish chess federation. You are welcome to have an opinion but there is no reason to call people stupid because they don't agree with you. The stupid one is you!

[CornfedForever]

A hard evidence for one game is impossible beside catching one red handed. Everything is possible in one game.

But you can generate hard evidence by analyzing many games and by statistical analysis of his moves. That's what is done right now, and what is published so far don't look good for Niemann. It's not just the feeling of Carlsen in one game. It's the reasonable skepticism of several other GM's. It's Niemanns inability to explain his own games, a chess commentator who outplays Niemann in his analysis of his own game, the "average cp loss", the standard deviation of the quality of his moves, his cheating history, his dishonesty, his "coach" and so on. I am not talking about the analysis of single moves. It might be reason for skepticism and more research, but never an evidence.

If there is no hard evidence - then let's not write stupid things. Statistics and analysis are not enough. I remind everyone once again before they start writing nonsense - please read about the case of the FIDE champion Patrycja Waszczuk.

Before starting calling people stupid you idiot why don't you look at the data. Blabbering your mouth like an imbecile because one of your 2000 Elo friends got accused of cheating has nothing to do with this ... go complain to polish chess federation. You are welcome to have an opinion but there is no reason to call people stupid because they don't agree with you. The stupid one is you!

You, sir, may need to brush up on your English. Saying "let's not write stupid things" is most definitely NOT the same as calling someone stupid. This while in the same breath YOU actually DO call someone an 'idiot' and 'stupid'...

Yes, I'm beginning to feel dirty just seeing this stuff...I'll beg off the thread for a while and maybe come back if more adults come back and have something rational to say. If I don't...I don't think I will be missing anything.

[Chessqueen]

A hard evidence for one game is impossible beside catching one red handed. Everything is possible in one game.

But you can generate hard evidence by analyzing many games and by statistical analysis of his moves. That's what is done right now, and what is published so far don't look good for Niemann. It's not just the feeling of Carlsen in one game. It's the reasonable skepticism of several other GM's. It's Niemanns inability to explain his own games, a chess commentator who outplays Niemann in his analysis of his own game, the "average cp loss", the standard deviation of the quality of his moves, his cheating history, his dishonesty, his "coach" and so on. I am not talking about the analysis of single moves. It might be reason for skepticism and more research, but never an evidence.

If there is no hard evidence - then let's not write stupid things. Statistics and analysis are not enough. I remind everyone once again before they start writing nonsense - please read about the case of the FIDE champion Patrycja Waszczuk.

Before starting calling people stupid you idiot why don't you look at the data. Blabbering your mouth like an imbecile because one of your 2000 Elo friends got accused of cheating has nothing to do with this ... go complain to polish chess federation. You are welcome to have an opinion but there is no reason to call people stupid because they don't agree with you. The stupid one is you!

You, sir, may need to brush up on your English. Saying "let's not write stupid things" is most definitely NOT the same as calling someone stupid. This while in the same breath YOU actually DO call someone an 'idiot' and 'stupid'...

In the movie, Forrest Gump, the main character was asked several times if he was stupid. Forrest Gump replied “Stupid is as stupid does or say”, meaning that a person should be judged by his action.

[Krzysztof Grzelak]

You, sir, may need to brush up on your English. Saying "let's not write stupid things" is most definitely NOT the same as calling someone stupid. This while in the same breath YOU actually DO call someone an 'idiot' and 'stupid'...

Yes, I'm beginning to feel dirty just seeing this stuff...I'll beg off the thread for a while and maybe come back if more adults come back and have something rational to say. If I don't...I don't think I will be missing anything.

I agree with you CornfedForever.

[Krzysztof Grzelak]

Before starting calling people stupid you idiot why don't you look at the data. Blabbering your mouth like an imbecile because one of your 2000 Elo friends got accused of cheating has nothing to do with this ... go complain to polish chess federation. You are welcome to have an opinion but there is no reason to call people stupid because they don't agree with you. The stupid one is you!

Data doesn't interest me, I'm interested in facts.

[supersharp77]

This Is A Generational Issue Now....Hans Niemann Is Seen An Anti- Hero by "Generation Z" Some Say Niemann Is The "New Face Of Chess"..."More Well known Than Magnus Carlsen"....

While reading these posts, I will write this - either people do not understand something or they do not have a mind. Please write down if Niemann cheating was proven during the game against Carlsen. If not, then why all this discussion.


To make that clear: The community has to avoid false accusations. There are a lot of hints that Niemann was cheating OTB, even the Carlsson game is suspicious because of his behaviour during the game, and the weired analysis after the game.

But this thread is not exclusively about OTB cheating, but also online cheating. Would you like to play in a serious tournament against someone who is a known online cheater? I won't. And even if Niemann doesn't cheat OTB, he has to take the responsibility for the discussion because of his and his trainers history.

With Chess.com you have to pay

Do you? You can get a free account with adds and some restrictions. But you can play rated games.

He doesn't want to analyze because he cannot analyze without the help of an engine and doesn't want people to see that. Whethere it is a strange quirk in his personality or it is because he is cheating ... that is the question. I sure hope that he is not still cheating ... because if he is, then we can kiss Chess as a viable spectator sport ... goodbye. Due to his past he will always be suspect ... I guess he earned that and I really feel zero sympathy for such a creep. Hikaru mentions something very reasonable ... either he is the best player in the history of chess or he is a cheater. Cheating and not getting caught doesn't mean it didn't happen .

With All The Debate & Chat on The Magnus vs Hans Niemann situation I was in the US Chess Championship Chat for a while yesterday...Based on The Comments...Mr Hans Niemann is a "Phenom"..."A Chess God"...."A Generational Talent" "Wrongly Accused"..."A Strong Player Greater Than Fischer"...etc...Regardless Of What We (Mostly Baby Boomers?) Think Of Mr. Hans Niemann He has elevated/ascended in the eyes of the Casual fans/Young Fans/General Public/USA Fans...I don't think the Chess Community (including Hikaru..Gotham Chess..Finegold.. Anand..Ashley..FIDE..USChess & Others) have a good grasp on where this 'Train' is heading at the moment..... .