Finally there is overwhelming evidence that Hans has cheated OTB!! You should check the spanish GM Miguel Illescas analysis. For those who dont know, he is also computer analyst and worked 10 years detecting cheaters in online platforms. He is completely neutral in this situation, to the point he defended Hans when this drama started. In his opinion, in previous videos he couldnt find anything conclusive about the game against Carlsen or in the Sinquefield cup. He even was kind of skeptical about Yosha's analysis . BUT now he analysed OTB games from 2020 and shows there is absolutely no doubt that Hans cheated. Hans may or may not may not have cheated in 2022, we dont know. But it is guaranteed he cheated OTB in 2020. The evidence is insane, check by yourself. https://youtu.be/BJ4pa8Gerxk
Hans confirmed to be cheating by chess.com (CONCLUSIVE PROOF AND DAMNING EVIDENCE)
I don't know who to thank more, Hans or Magnus. Probably both deserve shared credit (for very different reasons) in bringing the problem of cheating in chess mainstream. Hans will be remembered as the cheater, Magnus will be remembered as the one who came forward and said it's a problem. It doesn't matter who you like, or for what reason. This is how it's actually unfolding.
It is very hard to guess if you are just trolling or talking seriously.
Right now there is absolutely no proof, not even a weak circumstantial one that Hans ever cheated OTB.
(My personal guess would be that probably yes, he cheated in some game before. Also my personal guess is that he certainly did not cheat in the Sinquefield against Magnus).
How is his sportsmanship bad if he protested against letting Hans Niemann (who cheated not once, not twice, but 100 times in the past)'s actions slip by.
He has breached many fair play guidelines. His actions are wrong even if he is right.
You should not leave a round-robin tournament just because you suspect someone is cheating. What you should do is to report to the authorities, and let them deal with it.
You should not resign after move 1 as a "protest". What you should do is to decide before the tournament is you want to play or not. If you think that anti-cheating measures are inadequate, you say so and not enter the tournament to begin with.
The actions of Magnus are not only unethical, they are incredibly, mind-blowingly stupid. If you suspect that someone cheats, you don't warn the guy. You warn the arbiter in secret, and let him catch the cheater who suspects nothing.
I’m sure the world champion would appreciate your counsel.
How is his sportsmanship bad if he protested against letting Hans Niemann (who cheated not once, not twice, but 100 times in the past)'s actions slip by.
He has breached many fair play guidelines. His actions are wrong even if he is right.
You should not leave a round-robin tournament just because you suspect someone is cheating. What you should do is to report to the authorities, and let them deal with it.
You should not resign after move 1 as a "protest". What you should do is to decide before the tournament is you want to play or not. If you think that anti-cheating measures are inadequate, you say so and not enter the tournament to begin with.
The actions of Magnus are not only unethical, they are incredibly, mind-blowingly stupid. If you suspect that someone cheats, you don't warn the guy. You warn the arbiter in secret, and let him catch the cheater who suspects nothing.
So according to you leaving a Round-Robin is against the rules? I don't think so.
Magnus had his right to do what he did. Whether necessary or not, it is not breaching guidelines.
...What you should do is to report to the authorities, and let them deal with it.
If you think that anti-cheating measures are inadequate, you say so and not enter the tournament to begin with.
... You warn the arbiter in secret, and let him catch the cheater who suspects nothing.
Caruana (and others) have said that they have been requesting stronger anti-cheat measures for quite some time now, at the top level, yet nothing satisfactory has been done.
To paraphrase Fabiano: the anti-cheating measures in place, before Carlsen withdrew, were more or less only for show. He compared the scanners that they used to cheap "e-bay" devices, and suggested that they would've caught nothing sophisticated.
Carlsen used his prominence and influence to publicly force something to be done.
Even if the FPL finds nothing and Carlsen is reprimanded/sanctioned over the whole issue, he (and other top players) might still view this controversy as a win for chess - as there is now an intense spotlight on anti-cheating procedures.
That contributes 0 to the case and it's a non-source. Define 'likely' and what is the instrument of measurement. Thanks.
...What you should do is to report to the authorities, and let them deal with it.
If you think that anti-cheating measures are inadequate, you say so and not enter the tournament to begin with.
... You warn the arbiter in secret, and let him catch the cheater who suspects nothing.
Caruana (and others) have said that they have been requesting stronger anti-cheat measures for quite some time now, at the top level, yet nothing adequate has been done.
To paraphrase Fabiano: the anti-cheating measures in place, before Carlsen withdrew, were a joke. He compared the scanners that they used to cheap "e-bay" devices, and suggested that they would've caught nothing sophisticated.
Carlsen used his prominence and influence to publicly force something to be done.
Even if the FPL finds nothing and Carlsen is reprimanded/sanctioned over the whole issue, he (and other top players) might still view this whole controversy as a win for chess - as there is now an intense spotlight on anti-cheating procedures.
FANTASTIC! I wonder if those that "request" these greater security measures which
cost $ 100K or so would be willing to PAY for them?? FACT- Chess (anyway for most
clubs IS NOT a net revenue-producing sport. Payment for these "extras" comes from
generous benefactors. The way it is!! I have been a TD for a good number of high
risk $$ events (for the organizer). Most of what they do is for the love of the game.
They truly hope to break even. Many clubs have "elite" sensors for cheat-detection.
The problem is that technology enables cheaters to be "more sophisticated" at an
alarming rate. Hard for a non-revenue sport to keep up.
It isn't as big of a problem with local chess clubs where many go to just enjoy playing chess. In the elite world of chess where big money is involved there is no excuse for not having the latest technology to prevent cheating.
Basically, what it said was he cheated in over 100 games, and 4% of the top 100 are cheating.
Yeah...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/chess-cheating-hans-niemann-report-magnus-carlsen-11664911524
there's my source.
Did you know it all along?
Inconclusive evidence to demonstrate that Hans is cheating OTB. We all knew he had cheated before online.
Source: page 1
It isn't as big of a problem with local chess clubs where many go to just enjoy playing chess. In the elite world of chess where big money is involved there is no excuse for not having the latest technology to prevent cheating.
Utterly FANTASTIC!! So when exactly can these chess clubs and organizers expect your
check to pay for what you desire?? What about chess tournaments (even elite) being for
the most part either marginally prfitable or without donor $$ not profitbale whatsoever did you not get?? I have been a TD at many high level events-I know
the often EXTREME risks as to profitability taken by many passionate organizers.
I played in quite a few chess tournaments over the board up to 1993 and won money in several. The prize money for all the tournaments I played in was no more than maybe 25 to 50 dollars for my class barely paying for the tournament fees and of course I had to belong to the USCF. There were no cell phones or computers to consult so cheating wasn't as big a problem then. Since it has been many years since I have been in an over the board tournament I assume you don't allow cell phones or smart watches during the games. I don't believe you need all the sophisticated equipment that would be required in elite tournaments. I do understand what you are saying though.
Since it has been many years since I have been in an over the board tournament I assume you don't allow cell phones or smart watches during the games. I don't believe you need all the sophisticated equipment that would be required in elite tournaments. I do understand what you are saying though.
Cell phones are required to be powered off and put away (out of sight)
In larger tournaments, national level, no electronic devices are allowed to be in the playing area.
I don't know who to thank more, Hans or Magnus. Probably both deserve shared credit (for very different reasons) in bringing the problem of cheating in chess mainstream. Hans will be remembered as the cheater, Magnus will be remembered as the one who came forward and said it's a problem. It doesn't matter who you like, or for what reason. This is how it's actually unfolding.
It is very hard to guess if you are just trolling or talking seriously.
Right now there is absolutely no proof, not even a weak circumstantial one that Hans ever cheated OTB.
(My personal guess would be that probably yes, he cheated in some game before. Also my personal guess is that he certainly did not cheat in the Sinquefield against Magnus).
I didn't say anything about Hans cheating otb, did I? I don't recall saying anything about whether or not Hans cheated in any specific game at the Sinquefield. Maybe you are bringing that up for some other reason, I don't know.
I said I don't know who to thank more, Hans or Magnus. Other top players have had concerns about cheating, probably for quite a while. But I think if Magnus Carlsen makes an issue out of it, the concern is raised to a whole different level. And it appears Magnus only made an issue out of it generally because of Hans specifically.
I think increased concern about cheating is good, and additional measures taken to prevent it are good. If you agree, who would you thank more, Hans or Magnus? Because it sure appears nothing would have happened without both.
"He has breached many fair play guidelines. His actions are wrong even if he is right". Yrs ago, when things were simple, it was black & white....right & wrong. But today, Hans can shoot someone on 5th Ave and not lose any votes.
Making an inference that someone cheated OTB without a shred of evidence (his only evidence is that he lost a game) made many take Hans side in OTB.
Curiously Magnus was willing to play Hans and wouldn't have said a peep or quit the tournament or made baseless accusations had he beaten Hans.
Don't get me wrong, I generally like Magnus so I'm not a hans fanboi or Magnus hater.
Basically, what it said was he cheated in over 100 games, and 4% of the top 100 are cheating.
Yeah...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/chess-cheating-hans-niemann-report-magnus-carlsen-11664911524
there's my source.
Did you know it all along?
And your lying
what? are you accusing the wall street journal, chess.com, and Magnus Carlson of lying?
Magnus just lost, simple as that, he did not have the skills to win.
That's too many names that start with the letter a.
Yeah, it is, names that start with the letter "a" are surprising common.
I don't know who to thank more, Hans or Magnus. Probably both deserve shared credit (for very different reasons) in bringing the problem of cheating in chess mainstream. Hans will be remembered as the cheater, Magnus will be remembered as the one who came forward and said it's a problem. It doesn't matter who you like, or for what reason. This is how it's actually unfolding.
It is very hard to guess if you are just trolling or talking seriously.
Right now there is absolutely no proof, not even a weak circumstantial one that Hans ever cheated OTB.
(My personal guess would be that probably yes, he cheated in some game before. Also my personal guess is that he certainly did not cheat in the Sinquefield against Magnus).
I didn't say anything about Hans cheating otb, did I? I don't recall saying anything about whether or not Hans cheated in any specific game at the Sinquefield. Maybe you are bringing that up for some other reason, I don't know.
Oh, so you are trolling. I see it now. Thank you.
I don't know who to thank more, Hans or Magnus. Probably both deserve shared credit (for very different reasons) in bringing the problem of cheating in chess mainstream. Hans will be remembered as the cheater, Magnus will be remembered as the one who came forward and said it's a problem. It doesn't matter who you like, or for what reason. This is how it's actually unfolding.