Carlsen withdrawal after loss to Niemann

[glennsamuel32]

Caruana explains it well...



Hans was a last minute replacement for Rapport.
Magnus was upset when he knew Hans was playing.
Super-GMs have a small private circle where *stuff* is discussed.
Hans was well known already in the circle, way before the tournament.
On more than 6 occasions, Hans was discussed for obvious reasons.
FIDE uses the Regan model to detect cheating.
Chess.com uses cheat detection developed in part by Kenneth Regan.
Regan's model is not conclusive -- a player who was cheating with a high certainty, was exonerated by his model.
Without concrete evidence, players and organizers are reluctant to take action.
Players in the top 50, have been caught cheating, and faced no negative repercussions.

44:05 -- Hans says he cheated between the ages of 12 and 16
Regan should run analysis on those years to detect cheating !!

So much for cheating detection models **sigh**

[AdminX]

Caruana explains it well...



Hans was a last minute replacement for Rapport.
Magnus was upset when he knew Hans was playing.
Super-GMs have a small private circle where *stuff* is discussed.
Hans was well known already in the circle, way before the tournament.
On more than 6 occasions, Hans was discussed for obvious reasons.
FIDE uses the Regan model to detect cheating.
Chess.com uses cheat detection developed in part by Kenneth Regan.
Regan's model is not conclusive -- a player who was cheating with a high certainty, was exonerated by his model.
Without concrete evidence, players and organizers are reluctant to take action.
Players in the top 50, have been caught cheating, and faced no negative repercussions.

44:05 -- Hans says he cheated between the ages of 12 and 16
Regan should run analysis on those years to detect cheating !!

So much for cheating detection models **sigh**

Excellent piece, Thanks for sharing it as it adds even more light on the matter.

[dkappe]

Caruana explains it well...



Hans was a last minute replacement for Rapport.
Magnus was upset when he knew Hans was playing.
Super-GMs have a small private circle where *stuff* is discussed.
Hans was well known already in the circle, way before the tournament.
On more than 6 occasions, Hans was discussed for obvious reasons.
FIDE uses the Regan model to detect cheating.
Chess.com uses cheat detection developed in part by Kenneth Regan.
Regan's model is not conclusive -- a player who was cheating with a high certainty, was exonerated by his model.
Without concrete evidence, players and organizers are reluctant to take action.
Players in the top 50, have been caught cheating, and faced no negative repercussions.

44:05 -- Hans says he cheated between the ages of 12 and 16
Regan should run analysis on those years to detect cheating !!

So much for cheating detection models **sigh**

Excellent piece, Thanks for sharing it as it adds even more light on the matter.

One factual error in the piece: chess.com has not worked with Regan. Like most “articles,” this one is weak on facts and reasoning.

I don’t know whether Niemann cheated, but I’m not tempted to manufacture a case out of gossip, logical fallacies and innumeracy.

[swami]

18 years old Vincent Keymer Just stated in an interview, that he studied 75% of Carlsen games and he was just waiting for a chance to see how he would play against the Champ. That is the disadvantage of being the Champion, that everybody who wants to become the World champion someday, study your games in detail with top engines looking for ways of how to improve it

Studying one's games works only when they play specific set of openings, but that doesn't work with Carlsen who keeps changing openings system so frequently, and sometimes doesn't even play any known variation at all.

[CornfedForever]

His reaction to the chess cheating was unusual for him, so I am sure he thinks something is up with Hans.

Unusual...and the proverbial 'pot calling the kettle black' would fit given the livestream video which shows Magnus saying he is "still confused"...and David Howell saying "you can trap it"...Magnus asking David "How?" and then realizing he could trap Daniel Naroditsky's Queen...and playing the move to do so. Titled Arena December 2021. Yes, it was a prize $$ tourney the winner (DrChampionstein - Magnus) getting $500.

I am sure you probably know most of that and somehow you want to use this to equate to the cheating that Hans did ... so if MC did it then Hans also can do it and it is no big deal.

Me, I try to not live a life built on rationalization. So, to answer that, I am reminded of an old joke:

Man meets woman on the street.
Man says, “If I gave you a million dollars, would you sleep with me?”
Woman, considers her situation, looks at man and says “Sure, why not?”
Man says, “Okay, here is $20 will you sleep with me?”
Woman says “Of course, not! What do you think I am, a common whore?”
Man says, “We have already established that, now we are just haggling over the price”.

Neither the size of the cheating nor the reason for it has anything to do with the principle.

Magnus asks David, “How?” (to trap the piece)…takes a moment (this is a 1 min game you know) then finds and plays it. Honorable would have at least been to make a different move. There were other moves.

But 95% of the debate on these internet forums seems to crystalize along the simple either/or line of "Hans or Magnus? - pick a side!" - this in a world of imperfect information... largely, I mean, we DO actually see Magnus cheating in a money game. They are not about things like 'honor' or 'doing what's right'. It's mostly about 'cheerleading' or the all too often default mode humans slip into of doubling down on statements/opinions they have felt compelled to 'throw out there' and the rationalization which often ensues, rather than...well, the 'Joe Friday approach' and reserving judgement for now.

[M ANSARI]

It is not about picking a side ... it is rather about if chess will survive as a spectator sport in the future or at least whether it will be taken seriously in the future. I think many want to have a definitive 100% proof of cheating ... or it doesn't exist. Unfortunately it does not look that in chess this is possible. I am sure Chess.com cannot say with 100% proof that someone is cheating ... they just go by metrics which provide information that makes it highly likely that someone is cheating. They might say it is with 99.99% that someone is cheating ... and that is good enough for them. But if enough people play there will be that .01% that gets flagged for cheating and he was innocent. I think it is the same in real life ... if you look at all the people that got exonerated for murder due to DNA advances ... some people were innocent. So the idea that it has to be 100% or nothing at all will simply not be a workable plan for chess. That is why I am becoming pessimistic for the future of chess as a major spectator sport. But maybe it is not so bad ... although Caruana said that there was a lot of talk between GM's about Hans cheating, he did say that Pragg and all the new young GM's that have been really impressive in their play ... did not have one person suspect them of cheating. Personally I think Hans is cheating ... how much or how often ... really don't know. But some of the games he wins just seem too good for even a 2700 GM ... not many errors and if there is an error it is not a big error. Then you have his very large inconsistenc in his play ... sometimes like a machine ... sometimes like a 2400 IM. Maybe for one game it is possible you can have an inspired day, but there are just too many games like that. Then you have his online cheating which seems to have been according to Caruana not a few times. If you accept cheating and try several times to circumvent the cheating protocols ... that puts you in a suspicious catergory.
Then you have just a bunch of other weird stuff that just doesn't add up. Is it 100% proof? ... no of course it is not. But is it enough to not invite him into a prestigious tournament ... I think so. It is just unfair to the other players if they think that they might be playing a person who can turn on a 3800 ELO engine at any given point. Remember that even GM Hikaru did not do too well at pawn odds against Komodo 3 years ago ... humans are just too weak in comparison.

I do remember a similar story a while back with Ivanov on this forum. We also had a back and forth with people picking sides. I don't think he ever was caught red handed that he was cheating. It was just that he refused to take off his shoes so they could be inspected and thus he was disqualified. I thought was funny that he mentioned he had smelly feet and didn't want to take his shoes off! He retired later from chess but never admitted he cheated. I think he had to retire when over 40 GM's simply refused to play against him in any tournament. Was he unjustly accused then ... I don't think so but there is that .01% chance ... he certainly had a lot of people on this forum saying he was innocent.

[dkappe]

But 95% of the debate on these internet forums seems to crystalize along the simple either/or line of "Hans or Magnus? - pick a side!" - this in a world of imperfect information... largely, I mean, we DO actually see Magnus cheating in a money game. They are not about things like 'honor' or 'doing what's right'. It's mostly about 'cheerleading' or the all too often default mode humans slip into of doubling down on statements/opinions they have felt compelled to 'throw out there' and the rationalization which often ensues, rather than...well, the 'Joe Friday approach' and reserving judgement for now.

Well put. M ANSARI is a classic example of this, rationalizing away furiously to justify the side he’s picked.

[M ANSARI]

But 95% of the debate on these internet forums seems to crystalize along the simple either/or line of "Hans or Magnus? - pick a side!" - this in a world of imperfect information... largely, I mean, we DO actually see Magnus cheating in a money game. They are not about things like 'honor' or 'doing what's right'. It's mostly about 'cheerleading' or the all too often default mode humans slip into of doubling down on statements/opinions they have felt compelled to 'throw out there' and the rationalization which often ensues, rather than...well, the 'Joe Friday approach' and reserving judgement for now.

Well put. M ANSARI is a classic example of this, rationalizing away furiously to justify the side he’s picked.

Yes and I suggest you do the same!

[dkappe]

But 95% of the debate on these internet forums seems to crystalize along the simple either/or line of "Hans or Magnus? - pick a side!" - this in a world of imperfect information... largely, I mean, we DO actually see Magnus cheating in a money game. They are not about things like 'honor' or 'doing what's right'. It's mostly about 'cheerleading' or the all too often default mode humans slip into of doubling down on statements/opinions they have felt compelled to 'throw out there' and the rationalization which often ensues, rather than...well, the 'Joe Friday approach' and reserving judgement for now.

Well put. M ANSARI is a classic example of this, rationalizing away furiously to justify the side he’s picked.

Yes and I suggest you do the same!

If I may quote myself:

I don’t know whether Niemann cheated, but I’m not tempted to manufacture a case out of gossip, logical fallacies and innumeracy.

I haven’t picked a side. I just don’t like the way this social media circus with its whores (Hikaru) and cheerleaders (like yourself) has degenerated.

[Peter Berger]

One factual error in the piece: chess.com has not worked with Regan. Like most “articles,” this one is weak on facts and reasoning.

I don’t know whether Niemann cheated, but I’m not tempted to manufacture a case out of gossip, logical fallacies and innumeracy.

No, there was no factual error "in the piece" claiming chess.com had worked together with Regan at all.

I admit that "the piece" is very long and complicated to follow for foreigners, but youtube offers subtitles (that are sometimes wrong and funny, but greatly help keeping your focus while listening).

What Fabiano is saying is that FIDE is working with Regan while chess.com is using their own (different) kind of cheating detection system. By his own admission Hans Niemann has been cheating on chess.com in the (maybe distant) past. Hans Niemann has also claimed himself that chess.com's anti-cheating-system is the best. Fabiano suggests that Regan's system should be verified by checking the period of time and game history where Hans Niemann admittedly cheated on chess.com, and Fabiano wonders if Regan's method would be able to catch him. The reason Fabiano is sceptical about this is that he knows of one case where he himself came to the definite conclusion someone had cheated in some kind of FIDE event but Regan decided he was not (we can't verify this as no further details were given).

Fabiano Caruana is your serious guy - he is pretty clear and you don't get the impression that he'd do this kind of interview for selfish reasons.