Uri Blass wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 8:08 pm
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...
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.
During Gata Kamsky's times, IE in 1989, FIDE didn't have many players hence it was very easy to climb to higher threshold of the rating scale faster.
He just needed a few draws and wins with the likes of Nigel Short, Ivanchuk, Anand, Kramnik and he's all set right up there.
Nowadays the ladder is really long with several hundreds of players
I do not agree.
There were more than 1500 players above him when he had 2345 based on the data.
Today there are more than 5000 players above 2345 but it does not mean that it was easier to climb from low rating at that time.
Kamsky climbed from place 1588 in the world to place 8 in the world in one year
He played 102 chess games for fide rating in that time.
I do not know about a similiar case in the history of chess
Uri Blass wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 8:08 pm
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...
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.
During Gata Kamsky's times, IE in 1989, FIDE didn't have many players hence it was very easy to climb to higher threshold of the rating scale faster.
He just needed a few draws and wins with the likes of Nigel Short, Ivanchuk, Anand, Kramnik and he's all set right up there.
Nowadays the ladder is really long with several hundreds of players
I do not agree.
There were more than 1500 players above him when he had 2345 based on the data.
Today there are more than 5000 players above 2345 but it does not mean that it was easier to climb from low rating at that time.
Kamsky climbed from place 1588 in the world to place 8 in the world in one year
He played 102 chess games for fide rating in that time.
I do not know about a similiar case in the history of chess
Even with your own data, it seems Kamsky had it more than 3 times easier to climb compared to Niemann/Gukesh.
Rating change factor is slow when facing similar rated players
Rate of growth is also slower
Chances of getting pulled back to go further down the scale is also 3 times higher
5000 players over 2345 are actually accurately rated in 2022, compared to 1500 players in 1989
CornfedForever wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 6:20 am
Kamsky's 2345 to 2650 rating in 1 yr is actually more 'impressive' than Han's leap over 2 yrs, don't you think? I wonder what the Brazilian would find if he investigated those games of Kamsky's?
I hear chess.com has another announcement coming this week. With the US Championship starting Wednesday, anything they look to say would likely be too late to possibly allow Hans to be 'dis-invited'.
I presume the organizers will delay broadcasts more than 15 minutes (which however it probably enough) and have enhanced scanning (along the lines of the recent Candidates) which I know Fabi seemed to find good.
With all that in place...if Hans is a fraud, I wonder how he might score in the 13 games. 4.5 out of 13? Someone should start a poll.
If you look at his performance in the tournament a few weeks before the Sinqfield cup, he struggled in all of his 4 game matches. Carlsen didn’t seem to have any problems playing him there. https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?tid=116587
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".
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".
Actually a sudden rise of ELO for a young and upcoming player from low 2000's to 2400 ELO is quite common and every prodigy will have that. More difficult is when prodigy starts facing other more experienced x prodigies and has to get to 2700 ELO. However that is definetly not the only metric you look at if you suspect cheating. I would put them in this order
1. Previously caught for cheating online and being a serial cheater
2. His reaction when caught cheating online is cringe worthy and obvious denial to the extreme
3. Having a coach and mentor who is also a serial cheater and cheats with the assistance of his students
4. Has very inconsistent games where some he plays like a god and others he plays like a much weaker player
5. Starts beating multiple super GM's with games that are extremely impressive and unusually error free
6. Is unable to explain critical lines and critical choices in his post game analysis of the "wow" games he won or drew
7. Many "miracles" when it comes to opening preparation and stumbling on best moves by "good intuition"
8. Top super GM's like Magnus Carlsen, Nepo, Giri, Caruana, So ... and many others ... think he is cheating
9. Has an unusual score on the Let's check analysis from Chessbase that makes him stick out from all other GM's
10. Has an unusual centipawn score when compared to similar GM's
11. An unusually fast rise to 2700 ELO for a person that has shown very inconsistent play
Probably other things that I missed but I have long stopped looking as I am sure the guy is a fraud and cheater just like I was sure Ivanov was a fraud and a cheater. Any one of these points by themselves can individually be debated and somehow dismissed ... but when you combine all of them together it paints an obvious picture. Thus the duck analogy.
As for Gata Kamsky ... I do remember him as an up and coming player. I think what stunted his growth as a super GM was his father. Poor kid!
Another new metric I was looking at is that there were 8 GM's above 2600 that have been caught cheating by Chess.com. 2 of those must be Dlugy and Hans Nieman ... so actually only 6 other GM's 2600 and above have been caught cheating. I am not sure how many players are above 2600 ELO ... and am not sure if this is Chess.com ELO rating or FIDE ELO rating ... but I know that there are about 1000 players rated at around 2500 ELO FIDE rating ... so whatever one you choose ... the number of GM's that have been caught cheating online is very very small. Hans Nieman is one of this small group. Some are making it out like online cheating is something everyone does ... well guess what ... it is actually very rare! Chess.com says only .02% of the people who are registered have been flagged for cheating! You cannot deny that it is strange that the 2 very rare birds are actually player and coach!
Uri Blass wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 8:08 pm
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...
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.
During Gata Kamsky's times, IE in 1989, FIDE didn't have many players hence it was very easy to climb to higher threshold of the rating scale faster.
He just needed a few draws and wins with the likes of Nigel Short, Ivanchuk, Anand, Kramnik and he's all set right up there.
Nowadays the ladder is really long with several hundreds of players
I do not agree.
There were more than 1500 players above him when he had 2345 based on the data.
Today there are more than 5000 players above 2345 but it does not mean that it was easier to climb from low rating at that time.
Kamsky climbed from place 1588 in the world to place 8 in the world in one year
He played 102 chess games for fide rating in that time.
I do not know about a similiar case in the history of chess
Even with your own data, it seems Kamsky had it more than 3 times easier to climb compared to Niemann/Gukesh.
Rating change factor is slow when facing similar rated players
Rate of growth is also slower
Chances of getting pulled back to go further down the scale is also 3 times higher
5000 players over 2345 are actually accurately rated in 2022, compared to 1500 players in 1989
I found the Kamsky tweet which reads:
" Talking about rating jumps, some people dont know chess history well. I had an elo of 2345 July 1989. July 1990, my elo was ....2650. Just a little bit of a perspective when discussing of what's possible and not."
I 'don't have a dog in the hunt' (save for perhaps that Blue Tick Hound named 'Caution') regarding the Hans thing and perhaps the coffee hasn't kicked in just yet, but I instinctively feel that Kamsky gaining roughly 100 points more than Hans in half the time (and a lot fewer games) is even more impressive. Perhaps that is his point.
Regardless, I don't see Larry K's " He just needed a few draws and wins with the likes of Nigel Short, Ivanchuk, Anand, Kramnik and he's all set right up there" as automatically accounting for the rapid increase. A quick perusal of Kamsky's games in Mega2022 for just 1989 and it's got a lot more people rated in the 2300-2400 than not. He was well underrated at that time is all one can conclude there...underrated and a 'force of nature'.
Uri Blass wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 8:08 pm
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...
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.
During Gata Kamsky's times, IE in 1989, FIDE didn't have many players hence it was very easy to climb to higher threshold of the rating scale faster.
He just needed a few draws and wins with the likes of Nigel Short, Ivanchuk, Anand, Kramnik and he's all set right up there.
Nowadays the ladder is really long with several hundreds of players
I do not agree.
There were more than 1500 players above him when he had 2345 based on the data.
Today there are more than 5000 players above 2345 but it does not mean that it was easier to climb from low rating at that time.
Kamsky climbed from place 1588 in the world to place 8 in the world in one year
He played 102 chess games for fide rating in that time.
I do not know about a similiar case in the history of chess
Even with your own data, it seems Kamsky had it more than 3 times easier to climb compared to Niemann/Gukesh.
Rating change factor is slow when facing similar rated players
Rate of growth is also slower
Chances of getting pulled back to go further down the scale is also 3 times higher
5000 players over 2345 are actually accurately rated in 2022, compared to 1500 players in 1989
I found the Kamsky tweet which reads:
" Talking about rating jumps, some people dont know chess history well. I had an elo of 2345 July 1989. July 1990, my elo was ....2650. Just a little bit of a perspective when discussing of what's possible and not."
I 'don't have a dog in the hunt' (save for perhaps that Blue Tick Hound named 'Caution') regarding the Hans thing and perhaps the coffee hasn't kicked in just yet, but I instinctively feel that Kamsky gaining roughly 100 points more than Hans in half the time (and a lot fewer games) is even more impressive. Perhaps that is his point.
Regardless, I don't see Larry K's " He just needed a few draws and wins with the likes of Nigel Short, Ivanchuk, Anand, Kramnik and he's all set right up there" as automatically accounting for the rapid increase. A quick perusal of Kamsky's games in Mega2022 for just 1989 and it's got a lot more people rated in the 2300-2400 than not. He was well underrated at that time is all one can conclude there...underrated and a 'force of nature'.
"He just needed a few draws and wins with the likes of Nigel Short, Ivanchuk, Anand, Kramnik and he's all set right up there"
is by swami and not by larry k
" Talking about rating jumps, some people dont know chess history well. I had an elo of 2345 July 1989. July 1990, my elo was ....2650. Just a little bit of a perspective when discussing of what's possible and not."
I 'don't have a dog in the hunt' (save for perhaps that Blue Tick Hound named 'Caution') regarding the Hans thing and perhaps the coffee hasn't kicked in just yet, but I instinctively feel that Kamsky gaining roughly 100 points more than Hans in half the time (and a lot fewer games) is even more impressive. Perhaps that is his point.
Regardless, I don't see Larry K's " He just needed a few draws and wins with the likes of Nigel Short, Ivanchuk, Anand, Kramnik and he's all set right up there" as automatically accounting for the rapid increase. A quick perusal of Kamsky's games in Mega2022 for just 1989 and it's got a lot more people rated in the 2300-2400 than not. He was well underrated at that time is all one can conclude there...underrated and a 'force of nature'.
"He just needed a few draws and wins with the likes of Nigel Short, Ivanchuk, Anand, Kramnik and he's all set right up there"
is by swami and not by larry k
Uri Blass wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 8:08 pm
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)
