Chess discussions
- Thread starter Danny1982
- Start date
Hans got beaten so that's the drama over within the context of this tournament.
FIDE and Magnus to talk more next week. To be honest I struggle to imagine what they're going to say that is in addition to what we already know. I think we'll probably get two non statements. Short of having a smoking gun, which is very unlikely, it's hard to say much more.
Fabi made a very interesting point on his podcast which is that Magnus voiced concerns about Hans playing prior to the Sinquefeld Cup, so it wasn't just to do with his loss, his suspicions predated that. He also said they were cordial and playing each other/doing promotions the week prior. He theorised that something changed in that interim period, but it's hard to say what.
FIDE and Magnus to talk more next week. To be honest I struggle to imagine what they're going to say that is in addition to what we already know. I think we'll probably get two non statements. Short of having a smoking gun, which is very unlikely, it's hard to say much more.
Fabi made a very interesting point on his podcast which is that Magnus voiced concerns about Hans playing prior to the Sinquefeld Cup, so it wasn't just to do with his loss, his suspicions predated that. He also said they were cordial and playing each other/doing promotions the week prior. He theorised that something changed in that interim period, but it's hard to say what.
Also worth noting that Magnus wasn't the only one with concrete concerns before the tournament:
Incidentally, the Carlsen v Levon games yesterday were good.
Carlsen made Arjun look like a novice, dominant from start to finish, would have won all 5 games if it wasn’t for a miscalculation in the end game.
Sound like chess.com will finally give us something (more) tangible. If that's the case, if it turns out he lied on top of the already admitted online cheating, then I hope Niemann's career is over.
I'm not sure about that. I don't think there is a lot that could come out that would see me write off a 19 year old's whole career. There are potentially some very stern punishments and deterrents necessary but that feels a bit much - chess can be a career for an entire lifetime in various forms, we'd be talking a 40 year ban!
Well.. he probably won't get a lifetime ban by FIDE, but big tournaments not inviting him would suffice.
I'm on the fence on this one. On one hand I believe that he is talented and never needed to cheat so I can't help but think that he was misguided more than malicious, on the other hand I have a big issue with someone potentially cheating during prize money tournaments because the reality of Chess is that only few of them will make a living out of it and a cheater is taking money out of someone else's pockets, money that can be life and career changing. Many talented chess choose to focus on school during their prime because it is the smart move from a long term standpoint, prize money can allow some of them to have both a great career and also have the means to have an education later.
Why is the way in which this is being “released” so cryptic? It would imply there is a lot more to this than simply a 19 year old cheating?
There are risks of being sued for slander. Everyone needs to be careful with the words they use.
How do you cheat at chess?
Using an engine running on an electronic device is the bottom line.
Many ways this information could possibly be transmitted during a match. Ear pieces, people going into toilets, "cough" signals from an accomplice that will tell a player there is some key move available, some sort of Morse code based receiver that will transmit moves. Not all of these are still possible due to increased measures but some probably still is.
But online it's pretty simple, unless it's a high profile tournament with deterrents in place it's as simple as loading up the software.
With a chess engine, a simple phone can easily run one vastly superior to the best humans. In high level over the board tournaments it's probably not that feasible to check your phone on your toilet breaks, so it would be with the help of an outsider giving you signals, either about specific moves or just to inform you that the position is critical and you have to look for something. One example I remember was a coach or someone else signalling moves to a player by standing behind certain boards in the playing hall.
After seing this video, I 100% think he has cheated a lot. 
For anyone that's interested in the real nitty gritty of some of Hans games over the last few years that have caught some attention (including those mentioned in the above analysis) Fabi looks at them in the latest C-Squared Podcast. Probably way more useful than non-statisticians looking at stats from a database and potentially drawing bad conclusions as you get the human aspect of the actual thought processes and how likely they are.
He stopped short of outright accusing Hans, but I think mostly out of caution. I think he believes Hans cheated in a few of these games.
He stopped short of outright accusing Hans, but I think mostly out of caution. I think he believes Hans cheated in a few of these games.
I think by now the question is: at what point is circumstantial evidence enough? It's probably impossible to find hard proof against a clever cheater unless you catch them red handed, but we have a confession for online cheating, chess.com is apparently convinced of cheating that goes beyond that on their platform and there's a host of world class chess players from all over the world that called BS on Niemann, some even before Magnus took action.
You think tournents can make cheating impossible? Even the Sinquefield Cup, an elite tournament with a hand full of participants, showed they could realize considerable improvement over night after Magnus dropped out. And they still introduced a streaming delay, which implies they still weren't entirely confident.
What do you think the situation was like at all the "random" tournaments Niemann played before, with dozens or hundreds of participants?
This seems pretty damning if you ask me.
Can you clarify who were cordial and what is "doing promotions"?
Please, this drama is so juicy.
They were doing stuff for chess24, advertisements for events, footage. Theres the infamous beach picture of Magnus and Hans playing which was really just for the purposes of footage but they played a couple blitz. This is just Fabis opinion that they seemed cordial in the weeks before the drama began and maybe can be taken with a pinch of salt, but it suggests that maybe Magnus caught onto something or something was presented to him in the interim as we know he had reservations about playing that tournament when Hans was named as a replacement for Rapport.
Anish has a video talking about the games they played on the beach which shows the insane level these guys operate at. He was recalling two Blitz games that he didn't even witness himself. Apparently Magnus crushed Hans in the the beach games, not that it means much! Perhaps Hans wasn't correctly set up for the games...
Side point but one of the things that makes this story interesting is the sheer amount of credibility Carlsen carries. The nature of chess is such is that he is effectively the foremost expert on the game on the planet and, by extension, in the history of the game. I'm not sure there are many other sports where the highest profile player also carries that assumed level of expertise.
Yep heard about the chessbase analysis. Pretty cut and dry even if some genius players are butchering statistics and probability as they try to explain.
Thanks a lot! What did you make of the anal sextoy rumour? It was mentioned on Dutch state news
I guess maybe you could make the fully cheat proof theoretically, but in reality you will have certain constraints - money and time for one. Going by a certain rumor you might need cavity searches, too and I don't see "bend over, Mr
Carlsen" becoming a thing. Maybe even that wouldn't be enough, since people could could inject small devices into their arms or legs, like some companies do with "keycard chips": "We'll just take a quick look at what's underneath that scar Mr. Carlsen"? When the incentives are high enough we could be looking at some spy stuff and when the players are good enough the smallest bit of information, even just a binary 1/0 signal will give you a considerable edge.
Which is why I think once you actually catch a cheater, even if it's "just online" (a point I find mind boggling, since serious online chess could easily be the future, maybe it already is) there can be no mercy.
Last edited:
It depends on a number of factors that aren't accounted for in the tweet. Not saying it's not suspicious but statistical analysis is very easy to feck up and my questions would be as follows:
1. Did Carlsen and Niemann play a similar number of games over the sample period? Rule 101 of statistical analysis is to express this type of comparison in terms of a rate - using absolute numbers tells us very little on its own. If Carlsen played 100 games and Niemann played 1,000 then Carlsen's 100% rate would be twice that of Niemann's despite the headline number being 2 vs 10.
2. Were their opponents of a similar stature? My intuition would be that it is easier to play closer to perfect when the opponent plays badly. My thesis is that your opportunities would be more plentiful, often more obvious and the path forward often simpler to infer/deduce. My suspicion is that Niemann's pool of games probably contains a greater proportion of open tournaments than Carlsen's - who likely plays more frequently in invitationals against fellow SuperGM's. I'd contend that because of this Hans likely has a greater number and proportion of games involving inferior opponents against whom it was easier to "play well". For me this single difference might fundamentally skew the two datasets and for this reason I'd suggest Magnus might be a less than ideal point of comparison
3. What were the parameters of the analysis and are we sure they were the same for both? As far as I can work out ChessBase uses a random number of cloud sourced chess engines in order to compute the games and does so according to some number of predefined user constraints. I *think* that in order for a move to count as 'engine correlated' it must be the top suggested line on any one of the 15-25 random engines of differing abilities currently providing the analysis. This is already quite a broad net. Given that the engines ChessBase uses constantly change in real time it's clear that no two analyses can ever be truly identical even if they use identical inputs on identical data (though it would probably be quite close). I've also heard tell (not sure) that the definition of what counts as 'engine correlated' might be expanded by the user to include the top 3 lines - this would obviously have the effect of greatly expanding the number of moves counting as such. At any rate, what is certain is that the tool's sensitivity can be manipulated by the user in multiple other ways prior to its run (engine depth, time constraint, use of opening book etc). Given that the analysis of Niemann was done by a different person at a different time with unclear user defined parameters it's difficult to know to what extent that analysis can be compared to the one done here on Carlsen.
In short, far more rigour needs to be employed in the production and comparison of the analyses for us to be able to derive meaning from them.
Last edited:
1. 98 for Carlsen, 278 for Niemann.
2. Niemann's rating in early 2020 was lower so it's likely he played slightly worse opposition. But it's not like his 100% games are quick ones against bums - he beat Cornette (2560) in a 36 move 100% game, Ostrovsky (2450) in a 28 move 100% game, Rios (2470) in a 45 move (!!!!!!) 100% game, Gretarsson (2540) in a 37 move 100% game, etc. He's either cheating or he's suddenly become the best player ever.
3. Top 3 lines are included for both - this analysis was done as broadly as possible.
I take your point that this analysis doesn't stand up to full statistical rigour and wouldn't be worthy of publication in any reputable journal (scientific or otherwise), but at a certain point we are talking about Occam's Razor here. This isn't a borderline case - even just looking at a basic histogram of Niemann's accuracy score is incredibly suspicious:
Slightly off-topic but it's fascinating how stats are being used to solve the most high-profile scandals in drastically different fields now. Just last year, I think, there was a huge controversy regarding one of YouTube's biggest content creators, Dream, and his speedrun record at Minecraft (a statistical model showed that his run was faked, he even tried to rebut it with some statistical analysis of his own before silently admitting to "making a mistake" a few months later)... and now Niemann with the evidence against him being overwhelming even with all the technical questions about the details of the analysis (the same were raised regarding the analysis of the Dream incident).
I think the abovementioned video does a better job at explaining it, taking in account only Niemann's tournament performances and the very best streaks of Magnus/Fischer's career. And his average over 6 consecutive tournaments is significantly higher than the best ever streaks of similar length by Magnus (70%) and Fischer (72%). As @TheMagicFoolBus says, in the end it's a clear case of the Occam's Razor principle — unless we're talking about a potential legal case against Niemann, where you'll need to prove not the fact that he did it instead of eliminating any reasonable doubt in the probability of it happening without cheating.
I do find it funny that you would try and cheat at a game played by gigabrains, as if they won't suss you out.
I don't even know why the burden of proof should be particularly high with Niemann, he's been caught twice on chess.com, got another chance both times and it seems like he's been banned for cheating a third time now. At some point you have to take that as evidence against one's character.
If this computer correlation holds up he's been obvious about it. A more subtle approach, a hint at one or two critical positions would be infinitely harder to spot.
If this computer correlation holds up he's been obvious about it. A more subtle approach, a hint at one or two critical positions would be infinitely harder to spot.
Can someone explain to me how one can cheat only occasionally on this level?
If I boost my ELO in chess/go by using an engine, I'll get rolled over the second I stop using it. Its a bit different if you are already able to compete at the highest level and than use engines in some games, but that doesn't seem to be the situation, that Niemann is in. Its at least insinuated, that his fast rise was helped by engines. Even in the Sinquefield Cup, Hans was competitive in most games. So in short: wouldn't Hans be forced to cheat always if he plays these super GMs or risk getting exposed?
If I boost my ELO in chess/go by using an engine, I'll get rolled over the second I stop using it. Its a bit different if you are already able to compete at the highest level and than use engines in some games, but that doesn't seem to be the situation, that Niemann is in. Its at least insinuated, that his fast rise was helped by engines. Even in the Sinquefield Cup, Hans was competitive in most games. So in short: wouldn't Hans be forced to cheat always if he plays these super GMs or risk getting exposed?
Last edited:
The issue with dismissing the analysis is why Niemans and Feller are such outliers? Let's say that the analysis is wrong and Niemans' incredible accuracy is coincidental then why no super GM is remotely close to it?
A GM is supposed to generally hold his own against super GMs. And Caruana mentioned it in one of his podcasts, at Niemann's level he doesn't need to cheat all the time, a few plays in a game are enough to make the difference. It's not as if Niemans is a bad chess player, he is a top chess player his floor is very high. Anyway, the issue with Hans is that it's not a new question:
Last edited:
Maybe not using the engine sometimes is his way of trying to hide the cheating?
One thing to consider is that a draw is by far the most likely outcome in the majority of top level games, usually occurring somewhere between 50-60% of the time.
So when it comes to cheating and rising quickly as a result, you don't need to dramatically turn a lot of losses into wins. Rather you're eeking more wins out of games that you'd likely have drawn otherwise and edging some losses into draws. In a context where people are generally drawing with each other, that relatively marginal change in results can have a lot of impact.
Which in turn means that if someone like Niemann (who is still a very high level player) stopped cheating it wouldn't neccessarily see him start getting smashed regularly in a highly noticeable way. Most of his games are probably still going to be draws regardless.
Thanks for that. Yeah - to be clear I think on the balance of probabilities Niemann is likely a cheater. He's admitted cheating, he's been called out further by Chess.com and there are now these weird statistical anomalies. It's just I'm naturally cautious about using data to reach stronger conclusions than should be. Science is littered with observations which appear at first glance to be statistically significant but turn out not to be once more rigour has been applied.
To your points. If the net was drawn as widely as possible for Magnus then that's great - it must have picked up as many 90%+ games as is possible so yeah, that lessens my concerns.
I do think that 100% in longer games is a lot less defensible than those just out of known theory or what have you. So again, suspicious. I just think it's probably a lot easier to play 100% against a 2600 than against a 2750. Obviously you'd have to play way above 2600 to do it, but while unlikely it's not without the realm of possibility that Niemann can play to those standards on occasion. I guess I'd just prefer it if analyses were done on similar up and comers with similar opponents. I guess this has already been done or is being done as I type.
A minor quibble with your first point. After a quick eyeball of Deleng's histogram I'd suggest his dataset contains far more than 278 games. At a guess I'd say 380+ games went into producing that. Not sure if it's the same dataset or what though. Edit: This seems to be the original Niemann dataset. I computed 407 games listed (but I might be misunderstanding/miscalculating).
Last edited:
I watched one of Hikaru's videos about this and he was examining similar data. He then decided to pull up some of his own games and picked what he considered to be the 2 greatest games he ever played and ran the correlation. Both games came in around 80%. He was actually quite disappointed that he hadn't done better.
I'll definitely watch it later. I'm just acutely aware that an enormous number of eyes are staring at Niemann's games right now with the single endeavour of finding out anything and everything remotely suspicious. This leads to a greater degree of confirmation bias than usual. We have to make sure that whoever's coming up with the results are competent and disinterested - not just bandwaggoning Texas sharpshooters. I guess if multiple different sources are coming to the same results then that makes a difference.
Like if this Johannes fella also conducted the same analysis on Niemann and a bunch of other GMs on the rise then published the parameters and results so anyone with ChessBase could have a go then I'd be a lot more comfortable. I guess that something like this must be in the process of being done so it won't take that long to find out.
I agree the blokes probably cheating, I'm just not (yet) convinced he's cheating.
It has been done already for some like Erigaisi who is himself on an incredible rise.
At the moment no one is close to Niemann's stats. Give it a week or two and we will have more exhaustive set of data but currently Niemann is better than all super GMs and also Bobby Fisher.
Last edited: