Magnus Hans Niemann & Hikaru At Rapid blitz Champs

[Chessqueen]

Hans wins a game: he must be cheating.

Hans loses a game: he must have been cheating before.

How's he supposed to prove his innocence?

Answer: he doesn't have to. The burden of proof lies with the accuser.

Yes I guess everyone is picking on him for no reason at all !!! Of course his prior admitted cheating has nothing to do with it . Also his amazing and incredible games where he seems to have played engine moves that even 2800 ELO super GM's considered "above their level" ... that has nothing to do with it. Having statistical accuracy of moves played or centi pawn loss in moves played ... no human on earth is even close to his accuracy. Yet he seems to play like a mortal 2500 to 2600 ELO GM when cheating checks are vigorous and more difficult to circumvent. I think we have passed the burden of proof a very long time ago and as we can see ... with time ... it will become more obvious that Hans Nieman is a total fraud, cheater and disgusting human being that should be banned from participating in any competitive chess tournament.

I also think everyone is picking on him, and Christopher Yoo is a very strong Rapid and Blitz player, and I do NOT believe GM Hans Niemann used any cheating device, and look how he destroyed GM Yoo

Note: If you check the last 5 Moves of GM Niemann, starting with Rxc6, 4 of them were chosen by top engines like latest Stockfish and Dragon 3.2, I guarantee you that if this game was against Carlsen he would accuse Niemann of cheating again

[Chessqueen]

Hans wins a game: he must be cheating.

Hans loses a game: he must have been cheating before.

How's he supposed to prove his innocence?

Answer: he doesn't have to. The burden of proof lies with the accuser.

Yes I guess everyone is picking on him for no reason at all !!! Of course his prior admitted cheating has nothing to do with it . Also his amazing and incredible games where he seems to have played engine moves that even 2800 ELO super GM's considered "above their level" ... that has nothing to do with it. Having statistical accuracy of moves played or centi pawn loss in moves played ... no human on earth is even close to his accuracy. Yet he seems to play like a mortal 2500 to 2600 ELO GM when cheating checks are vigorous and more difficult to circumvent. I think we have passed the burden of proof a very long time ago and as we can see ... with time ... it will become more obvious that Hans Nieman is a total fraud, cheater and disgusting human being that should be banned from participating in any competitive chess tournament.

I also think everyone is picking on him, and Christopher Yoo is a very strong Rapid and Blitz player, and I do NOT believe GM Hans Niemann used any cheating device, and look how he destroyed GM Yoo

Note: If you check the last 5 Moves of GM Niemann, starting with Rxc6, 4 of them were chosen by top engines like latest Stockfish and Dragon 3.2, I guarantee you that if this game was against Carlsen he would accuse Niemann of cheating again

Hans Niemann stunt the commentator with this amazing move, and he broke the 2700 rating

[M ANSARI]

I think with Hans Nieman it is no longer about "IF" he cheated but rather "HOW" he cheated. I know a lot of people want to give him a benefit of the doubt as statistically nothing is 100% proven unless the person is caught in the act .. but there is more than enough evidence than would have been required to prove that a person is guilty of murder. According to FIDE, if there is even .001% chance that a person did not cheat then that is good enough ... this is ridiculous just like FIDE is ridiculously corrupt.

Yesterday I watched the new Netflix series with Bernie Madoff and how even a decade before he was outed, many were showing that it was mathematically impossible that his system was bringing in the returns he was giving with several financial investigators flat out saying that the only way those returns were possible was if Madoff was running a Ponzi Scheme. The SEC investigated him but somehow they said they couldn't find a "smoking gun" and let him off the hook. By letting him off the hook the SEC actually ended up convincing thousands of people that Madoff was legit. In the next 10 years after that he managed to increase his Ponzi Scheme by $25 billion and thousands more people were devastated out of their life savings. While Hans cheating in chess cannot be compared to Madoff cheating thousands of people of their life's savings, however the human element is very similar. You have a cheat and a fraud who somehow manages to convince enough people that he is legit ... and this allows the cheat to perpetuate his scheme and still be considered legitimate. The obvious red flags and markers are brushed away as insignificant and the fraud continues.

Watch this game where Hans is playing against a 2500 ELO player probably just making it into the top 500 rated players. The player manages to take Hans out of book and completely outplay him. What happened to the incredible chess intuition that allowed Hans to navigate complicated positions such as against Firouzja and Mamydyarov ... where he played only moves without really being able to explain them. This is the same guy that buried his Knight in obscurity in a game only to reap the reward some dozen moves later ... moves that even Caruana thought were "above his level". Same player who totally outplayed MC in a dry grind where MC took Hans out of book but then got totally outplayed with white. Hans Nieman is a fraud and cheat just like Bernie Madoff was ... he should be banned from competitive chess for life and no honest chess player needs to have to deal with him.

[Chessqueen]

I think with Hans Nieman it is no longer about "IF" he cheated but rather "HOW" he cheated. I know a lot of people want to give him a benefit of the doubt as statistically nothing is 100% proven unless the person is caught in the act .. but there is more than enough evidence than would have been required to prove that a person is guilty of murder. According to FIDE, if there is even .001% chance that a person did not cheat then that is good enough ... this is ridiculous just like FIDE is ridiculously corrupt.

Yesterday I watched the new Netflix series with Bernie Madoff and how even a decade before he was outed, many were showing that it was mathematically impossible that his system was bringing in the returns he was giving with several financial investigators flat out saying that the only way those returns were possible was if Madoff was running a Ponzi Scheme. The SEC investigated him but somehow they said they couldn't find a "smoking gun" and let him off the hook. By letting him off the hook the SEC actually ended up convincing thousands of people that Madoff was legit. In the next 10 years after that he managed to increase his Ponzi Scheme by $25 billion and thousands more people were devastated out of their life savings. While Hans cheating in chess cannot be compared to Madoff cheating thousands of people of their life's savings, however the human element is very similar. You have a cheat and a fraud who somehow manages to convince enough people that he is legit ... and this allows the cheat to perpetuate his scheme and still be considered legitimate. The obvious red flags and markers are brushed away as insignificant and the fraud continues.

Watch this game where Hans is playing against a 2500 ELO player probably just making it into the top 500 rated players. The player manages to take Hans out of book and completely outplay him. What happened to the incredible chess intuition that allowed Hans to navigate complicated positions such as against Firouzja and Mamydyarov ... where he played only moves without really being able to explain them. This is the same guy that buried his Knight in obscurity in a game only to reap the reward some dozen moves later ... moves that even Caruana thought were "above his level". Same player who totally outplayed MC in a dry grind where MC took Hans out of book but then got totally outplayed with white. Hans Nieman is a fraud and cheat just like Bernie Madoff was ... he should be banned from competitive chess for life and no honest chess player needs to have to deal with him.

That was long time ago, but look at this great game ==>

[CornfedForever]

That was long time ago, but look at this great game ==>

Looking more and more like Hans belongs in the 2700 club. 2750...might prove elusive, those openings need some work.

[Fritz 0]

Artemiev, who is only 107 elo below him in Rapid (this was a Rapid event), and 158 below him in Classical.

This question is a little off topic: I think you have previously given your estimates for the elo loss (of a "typical"* grandmaster) going from Classical to Rapid, and from Rapid to Blitz; can you repeat them here? I mean, of course, the strength of the moves (e.g. if two equal players play each other, one with Classical time control, the other with Rapid, what is the elo difference with that time handicap, etc.?).

[* e.g. Magnus is not "typical"; his drop-off in quality with shrinking time is smaller than the normal GM.]

I don't remember exactly what I said a while ago, but it was probably something like losing 150 elo from Classical to Rapid (15' + 10"), and another 200 from Rapid to Blitz (3' + 2"). At least those numbers are in the right ballpark.

I think we discussed this topic a few times, and I'm pretty sure we agreed that without pondering time the Elo loss is somewhat bigger: about 200 points from Classical to Rapid and 250 or even 300 from Rapid to Blitz. Did you give 150 and 200 numbers assuming pondering time? That is, player A plays 90+30, while player B plays 15+10, but player B uses the opponent's thinking time?

[Chessqueen]

That was long time ago, but look at this great game ==>

Looking more and more like Hans belongs in the 2700 club. 2750...might prove elusive, those openings need some work.

I wonder if GM Niemann can beat Stockfish or Dragon 3.2 with a Knight Odds at Rapids 15 Minutes + 10 Seconds increment

[lkaufman]

That was long time ago, but look at this great game ==>

Looking more and more like Hans belongs in the 2700 club. 2750...might prove elusive, those openings need some work.

I wonder if GM Niemann can beat Stockfish or Dragon 3.2 with a Knight Odds at Rapids 15 Minutes + 10 Seconds increment

Neither Stockfish nor Dragon 3.2 is better at giving knight odds than the dragon version that did give knight odds to GMs Perelshteyn and Finegold at that time control. Since they both won their matches by a 2/3 score (though failing to actually win half the games), and since Niemann at 2577 FIDE Rapid is roughly 100 stronger than Perelshteyn and Finegold (est. since they don't have FIDE Rapid ratings), Niemann should win such a match quite easily, assuming he really has the indicated strength. The best engine is still just in the low 2400s FIDE when giving knight odds in 15' + 10" Rapid.

[lkaufman]

Artemiev, who is only 107 elo below him in Rapid (this was a Rapid event), and 158 below him in Classical.

This question is a little off topic: I think you have previously given your estimates for the elo loss (of a "typical"* grandmaster) going from Classical to Rapid, and from Rapid to Blitz; can you repeat them here? I mean, of course, the strength of the moves (e.g. if two equal players play each other, one with Classical time control, the other with Rapid, what is the elo difference with that time handicap, etc.?).

[* e.g. Magnus is not "typical"; his drop-off in quality with shrinking time is smaller than the normal GM.]

I don't remember exactly what I said a while ago, but it was probably something like losing 150 elo from Classical to Rapid (15' + 10"), and another 200 from Rapid to Blitz (3' + 2"). At least those numbers are in the right ballpark.

I think we discussed this topic a few times, and I'm pretty sure we agreed that without pondering time the Elo loss is somewhat bigger: about 200 points from Classical to Rapid and 250 or even 300 from Rapid to Blitz. Did you give 150 and 200 numbers assuming pondering time? That is, player A plays 90+30, while player B plays 15+10, but player B uses the opponent's thinking time?

I can't say that you are wrong, I was going mostly from memory, but one argument in favor of my lower numbers is the performance of Kasparov in four board clock simuls vs. GMs (with each color once per opponent). This is roughly like Rapid vs Classical time odds with a relatively long Rapid TC like 25' + 10" or so. Kasparov did very well in these events, performing not very far below his actual rating, even with no Ponder time due to simul.

[CornfedForever]

That was long time ago, but look at this great game ==>

Looking more and more like Hans belongs in the 2700 club. 2750...might prove elusive, those openings need some work.

I wonder if GM Niemann can beat Stockfish or Dragon 3.2 with a Knight Odds at Rapids 15 Minutes + 10 Seconds increment

You do have an...'odd('s)' obsession.