Chess.com on Niemann ban

https://en.chessbase.com/post/is-hans-niemann-cheating-world-renowned-expert-ken-regan-analyzes

"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."

And yet Hans himself says the opposite. That there is reason to suspect him of cheating. How do we know this? Because Hans himself (after being caught) admitted to cheating. More than once. 

Perhaps Mr. Regan needs to look again at those online games. Maybe broaden his criteria for suspicious activity. 

It seems Regan is dismissive of this, and defends both Niemann's rapid OTB rise (comparing him against known cheaters and honest players like Caruana) and defends Niemann's chess.com online play from September 2020 to present day.

Which means chess.com had no reason to lock him out of his account other than Carlsen quitting that tournament.

That behavior by chess.com is absurd.

What? Hans said what? Did you follow the thing? He said he cheated with 12 and 16, now he is 19 (born June 20, 2003). He was therefore 17, when the analyse started.

Also  interesting  is  at  12:22  he seems to say the "prior bayesian probability" of online cheating is 1-2%. Meaning it's reasonable to assume 1-2% of people are cheating.

!!

But looking at chess.com's monthly reports, they ban 0.2% to 0.3% of accounts they analyze.

Meaning their success rate of catching cheaters is, at best, only 20-30%... presumably due to an overzealousness to not close honest players, or I'm misunderstanding one of the pieces of data...

Yes. And my suggestion is that he should broaden his criteria for suspicious activity. A known cheater who is still a teenager, who has suspicious rating fluctuations. Add on top of that his odd comments about his games and there is good reason to believe there is a story there. 

Alternatively, their cheat detection algorithm is crap.

This leads me to think (as a software engineer) that chess.com could provide a visual metric evaluation for each game to rate "how much like a bot did each player play" and it could break down why (deep move calculation in inhuman time, statistically excessive link to computationally optimal or obscure lines, etc). It would be nice as a user and for historical record if all chess.com games came with that kind of analysis. Also, maybe instead of banning, users could be classified according to their bot-like behavior. As we evolve toward cybernetics, I think this might be necessary...

Making it easily available would help cheaters avoid detection, and data would be misinterpreted by a horde of ignorant people... we already get accusations like "the CAPS score was 90 therefore my opponent definitely cheated."

In any case, seeing such analysis after every game servers no purpose. It's not nearly as useful to know your opponent played like an engine in one game as it is that they play like an engine on average.

Also, people would complain that they're being unfairly judged, while others complain that users under the banning threshold aren't banned... and the threshold would have to be quite high to avoid false positives, so, you know, be prepared for accounts that are 95% engine-like to be unbanned and a PR headache.

Carlsen probably told them to ban him

Also, checking if a player played like an engine is a computationally expensive process. It isn't performed on every match.

https://shop.chessable.com/products/hans-niemann-jobava-london-framed-poster?variant=42654760141040

Support Hans

It's getting more out of hand now that he has dragged Maxim Dlugy into this as well, by his usual innuendo method it seems.

This Maxim Dlugy ??

"Dlugy caught notorious cheater Boris Ivanov, well, cheating, by showing feet and challenging Ivanov to do the same. When he refused, because he almost certainly had a phalangeal cheating device in his shoes, Ivanov was forced to forfeit. "

Who is next ?

This was published over two weeks ago:
Chess.com published the official statement, explaining the decision to remove Hans Niemann from the platform: “Dear Chess Community, the last few days have been tumultuous for many in the chess community. At this time, we have reached out to Hans Niemann to explain our decision to privately remove him from Chess.com and our events. We have shared detailed evidence with him concerning our decision, including information that contradicts his statements regarding the amount and seriousness of his cheating on Chess.com. We have invited Hans to provide an explanation and response with the hope of finding a resolution where Hans can again participate on Chess.com. We want nothing more than to see the best chess players in the world succeed in the greatest events. We will always try to protect the integrity of the game that we all love“.

I think MC should be banned for cheating.  I must be.  He beats everyone with ease.  He consistently plays the top computer move more often than any other player.  How is it that one player can beat the best human players in the world?  It appears that MC is the one cheating.  We have more evidence that he cheated than anyone else.  99.7 is one of his last games.  Yeah right.

See.  Two can play this stupid game.  Prove it or you got nothing!

Context: GM Bok shows that Dlugy was banned from titled Tuesday twice with two different profiles, once in 2017 and once in 2020

And if Carlsen had a history of cheating, had admitted cheating in the past, then yes, everything you said would make sense. 

The evidence (and suspicion) exist for Hans, but not for Carlsen. That's the difference. Plus there is one thing you may not be considering. Carlsen is not only very good at regular chess, but he is also one of the very best at speed chess. Where it's basically impossible to cheat. So, how do you propose that he is able to do that?

You are trying to play "the game" (which ain't a game), but you are doing so very badly, by crudely mimicking the moves of the strongest players without understanding them at all.

If this were not so, you would not be making claims about a player who no-one with genuine expertise has found any reason to suspect. Unlike Niemann, who has not only been suspected but also caught for cheating on multiple occasions, admitted the cheating, explained his motivation for cheating, was coached by a multiple time cheat, and is under suspicion at present for reasons that are quite separate from his general standard of play.

Agreed. It's hard to ignore the fact that Niemann has a history of cheating at chess. Not just once, but on multiple occasions (by his own admission).

And he cheated in prize-money tournaments, no less - using engine assistance against other chess professionals.

Whether it's fair or not to hold this past against him, Maya Angelou's quote comes to mind: "When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time."