Carlsen withdrawal after loss to Niemann

[chrisw]

Looks like chess.Com was lying when it stated only four top players cheated online.

[M ANSARI]

a person is an admitted pedophile child rapists in Thailand

Are you the guy fascinated with the anal beads? Dude, let it go.

What does anything in my post have to do with anal beads ?????

[M ANSARI]

Looks like chess.Com was lying when it stated only four top players cheated online.

Yes ... Chess.com has come out as this "money first" american chess company that "protects" certain american players when they know they are cheating and outs non american players with even the slightest infraction. This really is a scandal and Chess.com is acting like a god that can decide who it wants to strike down at will. There is an article where the Norwegian Chess president admits to cheating online in the same tournament where Hans Nieman was playing and caught cheating. Apparently, that was in some chess league tournament with $20,000 prize fund. Hammer, who was in charge of the Norwegian team was informed that Nielsen was being suspected of cheating (which he now admits he was) ... but somehow they did not give any information on Hans who was playing on the same team (who was also cheating and flagged) and allowed Hans to continue the tournament as if nothing happened ???? Something is wrong there! I am guessing they handled Hans differently as he was considered a minor ... but still ... why allow him to continue playing in the tournament when they know he cheated?

Chess.com should reveal every cheater on their list and publicly shame them. I think that would go a looooong way in preventing online cheating ... at least for titled players who hope to have a future in chess!

[Uri Blass]

Looks like chess.Com was lying when it stated only four top players cheated online.

They cannot know the number of top players who cheated online.
You probably do not catch most cheaters online.

[chrisw]

Looks like chess.Com was lying when it stated only four top players cheated online.

They cannot know the number of top players who cheated online.
You probably do not catch most cheaters online.

You can be sure that any algorithm they use is going to be massaged to ensure the cheating percentage is in single figures or less. Or, simply, the design of a cheat detect algorithm is going to assume a low positive rate.
Aside from flawed process, there’s no way a detection algorithm can find someone with a second PC that transmits move data via audio (advantage cheater that this uses another part of brain, disadvantage detection algorithm that it can’t watch for eye movements). All they can do is maybe catch dumb cheaters (who will soon wise up and use another device) while masking the overall cheat percentage which is probably quite high, because incentive and because they can).
I guess the real truth would destroy the online business model since the games can’t be taken seriously.

[Alexander Schmidt]

Several people here are not convinced by the evidences so far, and defend a person who cheated massively and repeatedly lied about that in the past.

Well, that's OK. But would you mind to explain how this statistically relevant differences in ACPL and STDCPL compared to top players as shown in the Brazilian video are possible?

The only explenation that I have is: The opponents play 200-300 ELO weaker against Niemann. So if Niemann really doesn't cheat OTB, he benefits from his cheating history because opponents are not concentrated on the game but on the question: "Does he cheat right now".

Anyway, I can't believe that all the opponents are playing so weak because of that. So how is this possible? Especially the standard deviation of his move quality is not explainable for me.

And please, try it without the words "stupid" and "anal beads"...

[dkappe]

But would you mind to explain how this statistically relevant differences in ACPL and STDCPL compared to top players as shown in the Brazilian video are possible?

I have corresponded with Rafael Milk aka Milky Chess, the author of the “Brazilian video.” My main criticism to him was that the correlation between rating and aCPL was shown to be extremely weak by those who had investigated it previously. You can find the article references further up in this thread. He improved his work slightly by including more top players (8 or so, if I recall). While his work remains promising, its still at odds with those who have investigated with hundreds or thousands of players.

I hope he develops his research further. Thus far it is still incomplete.

[chrisw]

Several people here are not convinced by the evidences so far, and defend a person who cheated massively and repeatedly lied about that in the past.

Well, that's OK. But would you mind to explain how this statistically relevant differences in ACPL and STDCPL compared to top players as shown in the Brazilian video are possible?

The only explenation that I have is: The opponents play 200-300 ELO weaker against Niemann. So if Niemann really doesn't cheat OTB, he benefits from his cheating history because opponents are not concentrated on the game but on the question: "Does he cheat right now".

Anyway, I can't believe that all the opponents are playing so weak because of that. So how is this possible? Especially the standard deviation of his move quality is not explainable for me.

And please, try it without the words "stupid" and "anal beads"...

And several people believe (important word) bad things about outsiders because authorities tell them so.
Magnus is overloaded with bias and it may well be that what he can’t understand is actually new genius from the NN chess age.

Chess.Com is overloaded with bias because it is very much in their interest to just have one or two “cheaters” detected and punished rather than admit their online model is fatally flawed by extreme ease of undetectable cheating by online users In their bedroom.

The YouTube presentations so far did their work to fatally smear Hans before each presentation was debunked. Several people just go with the original headline.

OTB evidence does not exist at present and there’s good reason to believe that there is no technical solution that can separate OTB cheaters from OTB non-cheaters that isn’t unacceptably invasive or can handle, let’s say, pending technology such as direct-neural-link.

Statistics are based on what has been normal and will fail with new genius in the process of discovering a new normal.

It’s not acceptable to add up Headline reports which then fail under closer analysis and claim “it all adds together”. It doesn’t.

Once there’s a target victim, almost anybody can and will, deliberately or unconsciously, put some “data” together to “prove” anything they want.

The present shambolic interweb chaos is the worst possible space to write any conclusion on any wall. Conclusions really are for idiots (your word).

Magnus (and chess.Com) have behaved appallingly. There are ways of dealing with suspicions that actually fall into criminal status (cheating to make prize money), and with good reason.

[Alexander Schmidt]

Statistics are based on what has been normal and will fail with new genius in the process of discovering a new normal.

There is a direct correlation between good moves and playing strength. This is not just normality, but also the only logical conclusion. You can't be a genius by playing bad moves. The correlation between rating and playing strength depends on the opponents, so they are the weak point in this statistics.

My main criticism to him was that the correlation between rating and aCPL was shown to be extremely weak by those who had investigated it previously. You can find the article references further up in this thread. He improved his work slightly by including more top players (8 or so, if I recall). While his work remains promising, its still at odds with those who have investigated with hundreds or thousands of players.
I hope he develops his research further. Thus far it is still incomplete.

The previous attempts included lower rated people if I didn't miss something. I think the correlation increases with the playing strength.

I would say the data is quite convincing, because the correlation gives consistent picture between different players and different periods.

But I agree that it is necessary to do this for more players, to be sure other players don't match Niemanns values. I just don't see a conclusive reason why this should be the case. Yes, if Niemann would play unsound sacrifices, this could be an explenation, but I don't see them so far.

[dkappe]

My main criticism to him was that the correlation between rating and aCPL was shown to be extremely weak by those who had investigated it previously. You can find the article references further up in this thread. He improved his work slightly by including more top players (8 or so, if I recall). While his work remains promising, its still at odds with those who have investigated with hundreds or thousands of players.
I hope he develops his research further. Thus far it is still incomplete.

The previous attempts included lower rated people if I didn't miss something. I think the correlation increases with the playing strength.

I would say the data is quite convincing, because the correlation gives consistent picture between different players and different periods.

But I agree that it is necessary to do this for more players, to be sure other players don't match Niemanns values. I just don't see a conclusive reason why this should be the case. Yes, if Niemann would play unsound sacrifices, this could be an explenation, but I don't see them so far.

You think? Care to share any references?

I’m guessing you are not a statistician or data scientist.