Yesterday, also discussed:<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32901249" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32901249</a>
Magnus Carlsen has basically been a model champion for close to a decade now. He's not known for controversy and the odd situations where he dealt with less-than-classy opponents, he's taken it on the chin and moved on, usually with nothing more than brief statement. And he has been very positive about other younger GM's. So him coming out and "accusing" Niemann is akin to a nobel prize winning scientist accusing a graduate student of plagiarism... even if chess cheating isn't very provable, I have to take Magnus seriously and give him a giant benefit of the doubt, he's earned it.
For context, Magnus withdrew from a major tournament last month after losing to Hans. He has not made a statement, but it is understood that he suspects Hans of cheating. Hans has admitted to cheating online, though he denies cheating in person.<p>As more evidence comes out, it seems that Hans has cheated a lot more than he admitted, and potentially over the board as well (for example, this analysis [1] shows that he's playing at superhuman levels in some games.) This all helps Magnus's case. I think it is likely that Hans will be slowly barred, silently or openly, from tournaments and venues all over the world.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pwtC0bH--A" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pwtC0bH--A</a>
Applying sound statistical methods to thousands of Niemann games, cheating expert Ken Regan finds no evidence of cheating [1].<p>> The verdict<p>> Dr. Regan analyzed all of Hans Niemann's games over the last two years, including online games, such as played on Chess.com and their events, and his conclusion is there is no reason whatsoever to suspect him of cheating. The wide range of results in a bell curve, with some good and some bad, is actually a sign of a healthy distribution of results. Many of the so-called points of suspicion are in fact quite normal and suspicion is really the result of faulty analysis by zealous amateurs. Even online his play has been quite devoid of anything unusual.<p>[1] <a href="https://en.chessbase.com/post/is-hans-niemann-cheating-world-renowned-expert-ken-regan-analyzes" rel="nofollow">https://en.chessbase.com/post/is-hans-niemann-cheating-world...</a>
I don't follow chess. I've heard of Carlsen in passing but that's about it.<p>As far as I can make up from this story, Niemann admitted to cheating online as a child (not exactly uncommon) but as of yet there's not an ounce of proof that he cheated against Carlsen.<p>What I don't understand is that people just take Carlsen's side without any proof. Some guy beat Carlsen so he must be cheating? What kind of reasoning is that? Surely the hyper-analytical chess community can provide some kind of statistic to prove that he cheated in the match against Carlsen? A comparison with Stockfish and friends in various combinations, perhaps? _Something_ more than "he beat the best of the best that one time therefore he's a cheating liar".<p>Until Carlsen and his friends can provide proof of cheating, I can only conclude that Niemann is now the superior chess player. He has now beaten Carlsen twice; once for real, once by Carlsen's resignation.
I found the speculation about anal beads hilariously entertaining.<p>Now whenever a colleague stumbles to find an answers I have to suppress the urge to say something to the effect of "Did the anal beads' batteries run out?"
Even Karpov said he played badly in the Sinquefield game. Personally I think Hans didn't cheat in this game ...... but:<p>my best theory is that Carlsen is afraid to play against people who HAVE cheated once, because there mere thought that he COULD be cheating right now is enough to derail him from clear thinking. I think this because it's exactly what he declared in an interview ABOUT cheating on 2021.<p>So basically he's boycotting someone as a message for other cheaters and, even if hans is innocent, and keep Chess clean. It's of unfair for Hans if he's not cheating but ... what is a fair justice anyway ? There's always a message sent by a sentence.
Two peculiar side notes here:<p>1) The first three and only moves of this game at Julius Bär Generation Cup with Niemann as white is <i>the same</i> opening as the first controversial game (2022-09-05) at the Sinquefield Cup but with flipped sides (Magnus white).<p>2) Chess.com, the organization that decided to ban Niemann [1] sometime between these two games based on his online play behaviour on that platform, just bought Play Magnus (a competitor to chess.com that Magnus formed) less than a month ago and is in the state of merging. [2]<p>- [1] <a href="https://twitter.com/chesscom/status/1568010971616100352" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/chesscom/status/1568010971616100352</a><p>- [2] <a href="https://www.chess.com/news/view/chesscom-playmagnus" rel="nofollow">https://www.chess.com/news/view/chesscom-playmagnus</a>
I just don't know how this can possibly be resolved. It's not possible to prove Niemann cheated, especially after the fact, and you can't ban him if he's not been proven to cheat. I think the only productive thing going forward will be an absurd level of checks to deter cheats. I mean literally you would have to have airport style security for Chess matches. I don't think that's going to happen. So what's going to happen? Just Magnus always resigning against this one player? And if he really is cheating then Chess is going to turn into Cycling - a sport where everyone is cheating, it's an open secret and the whole thing is pointless.
Note: I know little about chess but this story captivated me.<p>I think basing most of the argument on the fact that Niemann has cheated as a kid is not very solid. Even our laws take age into account. Plus from my _personal_ experience highly gifted kids are known to "push boundaries" during their upbringing to test their capacity.<p>I also don't weigh too much into the "he doesn't analyze like a 2700" argument. I know a very good chess player that could never explain very well why things should be done a certain way. Plus the analysis referred to is in a quite unnatural setting for a chess player.<p>A final point I want to bring up is that I also instinctively saw this as Carlsen "throwing a tantrum". However, others have been quick to point out that Carlsen has routinely been humble in defeat, praising his opponents. What nobody has mentioned though is that having retired from the world championships, his new stated goal is to reach 2900. With a rating-based goal like such, losing to a sub-2700 player is not only a blow to the ego but also the Elo, which is something that could tip someone over the line. That one loss put Magnus back significantly from his goal, if my understanding is correct.<p>Anyway, I recognize the chess community gives Magnus the benefit of the doubt, and I can see how he might deserve it. But this certainly needs more than just speculation.
I love what Magnus is doing. Of course can't accuse Hans of cheating, because AlphaZero works much more similar to humans than alpha-beta search.<p>The article shows the amount of pressure tournament organizers are putting on him, but nowdays the money is in streaming more than in tournaments.
A possible explanation I haven’t seen yet is that Magnus his second move is meant as a test. It reminds me of the old days where a chess computer would take much longer for an uncommon move at the start than a common move. Maybe Magnus was testing the response of Hans to his uncommon move and wasn’t pleased with the result? I don’t think that Magnus his behaviour is random. I mean he is literally a chess player.
More context: <a href="https://old.reddit.com/r/LivestreamFail/comments/xii9dz/champions_chess_tour_magnus_resigned_a_game/ip3f9p0/" rel="nofollow">https://old.reddit.com/r/LivestreamFail/comments/xii9dz/cham...</a>
I mean, it's a personal decision of Magnus not to play someone who cheated before. Maybe he got to know something about Hans after the game he lost. Possible theories: cheating impossible to prove or prep leak.
I need to know a lot more about this before I make up my mind.
There is definitely something amiss.<p>Carlsen might be over reacting but he seems to have very strong suspicions.<p>Look forward to the sequel, chess is in an exciting space.