Hans Niemann

[Collingwood]

As for the past, Regan said he largely agreed with chess.com's report on Niemann's cheating on that forum.

"Though the full contents of the report remain a secret, one crucial detail is known. FIDE retained a professor of computer science at the University at Buffalo named Kenneth Regan, who has developed what is widely considered the world’s most sophisticated cheating detection algorithm — a way to track how closely a player’s moves mirror those of supercomputers that can outplay anything with a pulse.

Regan was asked by the chess federation to study Niemann’s playing during the Sinquefield Cup and other over-the-board tournaments. Did he find evidence that Niemann had cheated?

“Unequivocally no,” he said in an interview on Wednesday. “And there’s not much more to say about it.”

Regan publicly, i.e. in an interview I can probably find a link for, said he largely agreed with chess.com's report on Niemann's many, many instances of cheating. Regan furthermore, in that same interview, expressed frustration that Niemann's lawyers are trying to make out that he's on their side, when he is not.

[Collingwood]

Anyway, Collingwood makes the salient point: Hans continues to maintain his rating...increasing it slightly with all eyes on him. 'Respect' some would say.

1) He has barely played.
2) In the recent games he has played, he's had some bad losses.
3) So what? It's irrelevant.

You do not need to be very weak in order to cheat.
Repeat: you do not need to be very weak in order to cheat.

Put it another way: strong players can cheat too! A revolutionary idea for some, but do you think that only poor people steal or commit crime? Do you?? Really? Because if you do, I have some bad news for you.

[chrisw]

There are those people in social groups who, when an authority figure says something, or gives an instruction, about something that the person doesn't actually know the answer to, will just go with the authority figure. They're the ones who gave the positive result in the Milgram experiment.

[CornfedForever]

Anyway, Collingwood makes the salient point: Hans continues to maintain his rating...increasing it slightly with all eyes on him. 'Respect' some would say.

1) He has barely played.

I did a quick check...looks like he has played more OTB games this year than either of the top 2 players (3 and 4 just finished playing each other). #5 is Nakamura and he rarely plays.

Anyway, that's the current state of chess among the top - they get all these online tourneys and make theiro livicng that way. Those below the top, have to shlep around the world for OTB tourneys where they play a wide range of players...not the safe ratings cocoon of 'top only' events where your rating will not take great fluctuations.

The only argument with Hans is has he cheated OTB (?). No one has produced any evidence...he keeps getting to play in (some) OTB tourneys and with all eyes on him, no one has accused him of cheating. Some might say...ahem...the 'Chess speaks for itself'.

[towforce]

As for the past, Regan said he largely agreed with chess.com's report on Niemann's cheating on that forum.

"Though the full contents of the report remain a secret, one crucial detail is known. FIDE retained a professor of computer science at the University at Buffalo named Kenneth Regan, who has developed what is widely considered the world’s most sophisticated cheating detection algorithm — a way to track how closely a player’s moves mirror those of supercomputers that can outplay anything with a pulse.

Regan was asked by the chess federation to study Niemann’s playing during the Sinquefield Cup and other over-the-board tournaments. Did he find evidence that Niemann had cheated?

“Unequivocally no,” he said in an interview on Wednesday. “And there’s not much more to say about it.”

Regan publicly, i.e. in an interview I can probably find a link for, said he largely agreed with chess.com's report on Niemann's many, many instances of cheating. Regan furthermore, in that same interview, expressed frustration that Niemann's lawyers are trying to make out that he's on their side, when he is not.

Does anyone know when the last example of "strong evidence" of Niemann cheating on Chess.com was?

I also think that:

1. Someone with the intelligence and inclination would be able to find ways to get outside information without detection at a chess tournament (especially with the help of an accomplice)

2. A GM would be able to cheat without it being flagged by a cheating detection algorithm

However, I've done a little thought experiment: I have imagined myself to be Magnus Carlsen. I suspect that my opponent has cheated. What am I going to do? My answer is that I would write my case, and I would privately mail it to the tournament invigilator, and maybe an official at FIDE. I would ask that the allegation be investigated. I am STONE COLD CERTAIN that I would not make a public announcement about it without compelling evidence. Doing that would be absolutely bloody stupid.

I am struggling to see the case for speaking out in public.

[syzygy]

I am struggling to see the case for speaking out in public.

Well, Magnus did what he did, so that's that.

What are you trying to say... there must be some deep conspiracy going on here?

[CornfedForever]

Does anyone know when the last example of "strong evidence" of Niemann cheating on Chess.com was?

I think that is a non-issue really. Of course he has cheated online...and has admitted so.

The ONLY question of any importance is has he cheated OTB. And the main reason that is relevant is because of Magnus Carlsens personal 'ban' on playing against Hans not just online but OTB. He plays OTB (and online...) against others who admitted cheating online...but not Hans.

[towforce]

I am struggling to see the case for speaking out in public.

Well, Magnus did what he did, so that's that.

What are you trying to say... there must be some deep conspiracy going on here?

The limit of what I'm saying is that Carlsen was foolish to voice his suspicions in public: apart from it being morally wrong, it also represented bad tactics (not what you'd expect from the top human chess player): he's made it an order of magnitude more difficult to catch Niemann in the act if he has been cheating OTB.

Of course I accept that Carlsen having voiced his opinions in public is a factual reality: I'm actually glad that he did - from a neutral point of view, it's jolly good entertainment!

[CornfedForever]

I am struggling to see the case for speaking out in public.

Well, Magnus did what he did, so that's that.

What are you trying to say... there must be some deep conspiracy going on here?

The limit of what I'm saying is that Carlsen was foolish to voice his suspicions in public: apart from it being morally wrong, it also represented bad tactics (not what you'd expect from the top human chess player): he's made it an order of magnitude more difficult to catch Niemann in the act if he has been cheating OTB.

Of course I accept that Carlsen having voiced his opinions in public is a factual reality: I'm actually glad that he did - from a neutral point of view, it's jolly good entertainment!

Well...don't you have that backwards? 'An order of magnitude more difficult to catch' him? I mean, isn't it more an 'order of magnitude' more likely that he would be caught cheating OTB, simply because ALL EYES are upon him OTB, every game...every tourney.

[towforce]

I am struggling to see the case for speaking out in public.

Well, Magnus did what he did, so that's that.

What are you trying to say... there must be some deep conspiracy going on here?

The limit of what I'm saying is that Carlsen was foolish to voice his suspicions in public: apart from it being morally wrong, it also represented bad tactics (not what you'd expect from the top human chess player): he's made it an order of magnitude more difficult to catch Niemann in the act if he has been cheating OTB.

Of course I accept that Carlsen having voiced his opinions in public is a factual reality: I'm actually glad that he did - from a neutral point of view, it's jolly good entertainment!

Well...don't you have that backwards? 'An order of magnitude more difficult to catch' him? I mean, isn't it more an 'order of magnitude' more likely that he would be caught cheating OTB, simply because ALL EYES are upon him OTB, every game...every tourney.

If he's cheating OTB (I'm absolutely not saying that he is), then...

* he might continue to cheat, slip up (easily done), and be caught by someone investigating in a way he wasn't expecting

* more likely, though, he will take extra care over cheating, reduce the amount he does it, take more care over algorithmic cheating detection, choose tournaments at which he knows he has a better chance of getting away with it, and maybe even vary his cheating methods. In short, make himself a lot more difficult to catch

* had Carlsen kept his mouth shut, the invigilators could have quietly increased the ways they were investigating, while Niemann would have (as cheaters usually will) gradually have become more complacent and brazen in his cheating methods