> “Outside his online play, Hans is the fastest rising top player in Classical [over-the-board] chess in modern history,” the report says, while comparing his progress to the game’s brightest rising stars. “Looking purely at rating, Hans should be classified as a member of this group of top young players. While we don’t doubt that Hans is a talented player, we note that his results are statistically extraordinary.”<p>I basically made the argument that, in any sport, when a player does statistically much, much better than their previous performance would predict, that in and of itself should be considered evidence of cheating - perhaps not <i>conclusive</i> evidence, but definitely evidence warranting further investigation: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32990022" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32990022</a><p>> All this talk of "Carlsen accused him of cheating with no evidence" reminds me of the blowback against some athletes in the 70s and 80s who accused rivals of taking PEDs "with no evidence".<p>> Sometimes the evidence of someone doing monstrously better than can be expected by their history is sufficient IMO. I mean, look at this article about swimmer Shirley Babashoff [1], dubbed "Surly Shirley" at the time by the media, for suggesting the East German women were on PEDs in the 70s. Nowadays we look back on those images of the East German women, looking more manly than any dude I've ever seen, and wonder how we considered with a straight face that they weren't on a boatload of drugs. Similarly, it completely baffles me how any sane person can think that Flo Jo wasn't on PEDs in the runup to the 1988 Olympics - her 100m dash record still stands today.<p>> I'm not saying Carlsen went about it in the right way, because now Niemann is basically in an indefensible position, but I'm also not willing to quickly dismiss it because Carlsen has "no evidence".
The fact that an athlete in a competitive sport was allowed to partake in an event even after admitting to cheating not only once, but twice, is outrageous in itself.
It's a real red flag that he plays stronger moves after the browser window loses focus. I'd argue that's much less circumstantial than anything else so far.
The next <i>'move'</i> for cheaters is to use chess computers in a way that passes <i>'Chess Turing Test'</i> and makes cheating indistinguishable from normal human play under analysis.<p>When there is money in the game, there is incentive to cheat.<p>> The report says dozens of grandmasters have been caught cheating on the website, including four of the top-100 players in the world who confessed.<p>There are probably smart cheaters already playing who are able to evade detection.
I believe the critical aspect here is not the specific cheating that chess.com found, but that this appears to contain written statements by Niemann himself which contradict his public statement.<p>And if it now turns out that he lied in his confession, too, then that's a really bad look w.r.t. his trustworthiness.
This is the most interesting part for me:<p><pre><code> Computers have “nearly infallible tactical calculation,” the report says, and are capable of beating even the best human every single time. The report says dozens of grandmasters have been caught cheating on the website, including four of the top-100 players in the world who confessed.
</code></pre>
I can't really comment it, but I leave it here if you haven't read the article.
Gift link - <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/chess-cheating-hans-niemann-report-magnus-carlsen-11664911524?st=z6xstlbc9rm5lnv&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink" rel="nofollow">https://www.wsj.com/articles/chess-cheating-hans-niemann-rep...</a>
Serious question: why isnt online play excluded at this level of competition? Why not restrict these "pro" matches to regulated conditions as in any other pro competition?<p>We dont generally place full trust in online job interviews so why lower the bar to "honor system" when it comes to the most cheat-friendly competition in the universe?
So, I'm not much of a chess person, much less a competitive chess person.<p>Can the "over the board" cheating potential be reduced with a 5 minute "tape delay" of broadcasting the game? Is that enough time to thwart the influence of an external signal?<p>Seems to me the only way this person can redeem himself is through over the board play under strict conditions ("Come dressed in shorts, a t-shirt and sandals").<p>But I don't know if how long they're allowed per move, and if 5 minutes is enough time to thwart external influence.
here's an analysis someone did of Niemann's record in in-person games where the board positions were broadcasted to the internet vs games where they weren't (making it harder to cheat): <a href="https://talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?t=80630&start=100#p933597" rel="nofollow">https://talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?t=80630&start=100...</a>
Just to make sure I read this right: he most likely cheated in 11 online tournaments from 2015 - 2020.<p>Why not analyze his recent and over-the-board games?
Why don't cheaters just use two machines or even just their phone and a laptop? The evidence is often around other processes or browser tabs running on their device (and in this case also focus loss) but an immediate thought must be to simply use multiple devices.
One of the reporters adds a detail that several from the WSJ article means 6 (which we all would have immediately known had chess.com simply published on their site instead of leaking the 72-page report):<p>>The report made no conclusions about Niemann's in-person games. But it also flagged his play from six over-the-board events, saying those merit further investigation.<p><a href="https://twitter.com/andrewlbeaton/status/1577380477807300626" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/andrewlbeaton/status/1577380477807300626</a>
It is a premature conclusion that Hans was cheating in this game. Let the proper process play out, whatever that may be. Magnus has not presented any actual evidence. Chess.com is not an impartial player here in this drama and cannot be considered source-of-truth (they just purchased Magnus' startup for ~$80M; their fortunes are linked and would be subject to similar biases). WSJ article has not really done a deep dive.
"I would never, could even fathom doing it, in a real game" .. well, that's a lie, considering he already admitted to doing it in games with monetary prizes when he was younger.
Noob here: how did he cheat without getting caught? did he memorize chess engine responses? Or did he have a secret computer somewhere feeding him the moves?
GothamChess coverage on YouTube [1]. Part of this is showing and reading the article itself so if the WSJ paywall is getting in your way you can read it in the video.<p>Hikaru coverage on YouTube [2].<p>[1] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1DCqoBjR4s" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1DCqoBjR4s</a><p>[2] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VptbNKbHQiM" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VptbNKbHQiM</a>
How is this person like at all able to even compete over the board? Seems like this type of history and even a history of cheating at all should just be a permanent nix.
Why don't they just put the players into a Faraday cage with wired cameras on the inside? No communication out of the box by any means in that case.
In case you’re looking for whether this says anything about the butt plug allegations, this report does not. It only concerns cheating on an online platform, not in person cheating
The chess.com campaign continues. 100 games are nothing online, Carlsen/Firouzja play that in a single night. The headline is pure propaganda and omits the word "online".<p>In fact, the article tries to paint Niemann as a liar while the purported facts pretty much match what he admitted to. One cheating in a titled tournament at age 12 and multiple cheats at the beginning of 2020. He said he was 16, so he was barely 17 according to the article. That isn't a lie, that can easily happen in an interview.<p>If that is all that chess.com has, their behavior is extremely poor. Also, what about all those other cheating titled players who did not have the misfortune to win against multi-million asset Carlsen?<p>It is time for Europeans to send GDPR requests for cheating scores etc. and terminate their accounts. The risk is too great.
Cheating at 3+2 games while streaming? How's it is even possible to input all moves/positions into a chess program in parallel too main game and also while commenting? IMO it is impossible without some very specialized software or external assistance who would do the clicks. And how does he cheat in over the board events?
Interesting piece. It highlights how it's hard to differentiate between someone genuinely playing at a level higher, and a cheater. A few things I noted from this article:<p>1. The driving force behind the original accusations is that Magnus felt his opponent wasn't "exerting" himself enough, compared to other young prodigies.<p>2. Chess.com's case is that his results are "statistically extraordinary."<p>3. There is a history of cheating<p>4. Allegations that he admitted cheating privately (though it's not clear to whom)<p>1, 2, and 3 could easily be cause for suspicion; however, that's not the same as evidence. The one crucial piece absent from this article is any suggestion of <i>how</i> he cheated.<p>Without providing a means, I find this piece premature and questionable. That said, I don't know anything about chess, lot alone cheating at the master level. So maybe the "how" is common sense and not difficult?<p>And of course, there's also this:<p>> The report also addresses the relationship during the saga between Carlsen and Chess.com, which is buying Carlsen’s “Play Magnus” app for nearly $83 million.