1 beep at a random time is not useful information
You certainly knocked down that strawman.
One post at a random time containing no useful information does not contribute in any way to the conversation.
Ok, let's vote. React thumbs up if you think Niemann cheated, thumbs down if you think he didn't.
That's too vague. He's admitted to cheating.
Do you mean cheated against Carlsen OTB?
Obviously.
People who complain about cheating need to man up. Who tf cares
Joined 20 min ago
LOL
People who complain about cheating need to man up. Who tf cares
Joined 20 min ago
>pays for chess.com
LOL
People who complain about cheating need to man up. Who tf cares if you played against an engine, playing bots helps you improve.
"But muh elos" LMAO Why do you care so much about virtual Internet points, you get it refunded by the jannies anyway, haha.
We're talking about professionals playing in money tournaments online.
"Manning up" would be posting on your real account.
because I joined recently I'm not allowed to contribute to the discussion? unholy levels of elitism here...
You're not allowed to lie. But you're anonymous so who cares.
because I joined recently I'm not allowed to contribute to the discussion? unholy levels of elitism here...
Your post was a contribution?
my brother in christ you are 1200, if anyones opinion doesnt matter, it's yours
You can't have it both ways. Let's take your logic out for a walk...
- "I'm a brand new poster! My rating is 400! What? People are calling me out for using an alt account? What, posters don't join the site and get all gangsta in the forums 20 minutes after joining? That's elitism!"
- "Check your rating, poster A [it's 5 point higher than yours, btw]. Your opinion doesn't matter because I think your blitz rating is too low, poster B."
You've imploded this alt in record time...rage on.
my friend i think you have misunderstood me. the reason i called out your elo is because you are bad at chess so shouldnt partake in this discussion
i am 2000 blitz 2100 bullet on my main (closed)
Sure you are. Shall we *all* guess why you started a new account and why you are taking the side of the discussion you are?
These top level chess games are usually over 50 moves long. Maybe 10 moves or even 5-6 if the game is relatively simple most of the time, but 3? I'm sure there are more than that many "critical points" in even a world championship game.
Why are you sure GMs are wrong about chess when they know more than you about chess? That's weird.
Carlsen said if he got only 1 hint per game he'd be unbeatable. Hikaru said that for him, the hint wouldn't even have to be a move or a piece, just something as simple as 1 beep for the position is equal and 2 beeps for the position is not.
That's total lunacy. 1 beep at a random time to tell them whether the position is equal or not will not convey any useful information for how to win the game. There are more than 3-5 "critical moves" in any top GM game.
But a top level GM doesn't need a beep for 3-5 critical moves letting him know useful information. He only needs one.
I doubt such a strategy has anything to do with letting him know how to win the game. A top level GM already knows how to win games. He would just need a single hint, a single nudge, a single clue, that the current position is advantageous to him. Give him 20 or 30 minutes (or even 5) with that information, chances are he will find the advantage all on his own.
I look at it this way. I don't play games here anymore, but I do the puzzles because they are challenging. My puzzle rating is over 3000 even though my real rating is only 1700. Why the big difference? I believe it's because when I do a 3000 rated puzzle, I have a huge advantage that I do not have when playing an actual game. That huge advantage is that I KNOW there is an advantage in that position. I just have to find it. In a real game, probably 95% of the time I would never suspect I have that advantage and I'm not good enough to study every move, every position that well.
If that one little clue (knowing there is an advantage) can make a thousand-point difference in a player like me, imagine what a GM could do with it.
They still have to know what the move is though, or why the position is advantageous. Puzzles are different cause you know there is a precise combination or tactic to win material or force mate. The computer could give a side a tiny advantage if it determines the pawn structure is slightly better, or that in 30 moves one side could get a slightly better endgame position. Those determinations rely on long sequences of computer moves. An advantageous position is not a win, and not even a guaranteed draw at top level if you've seen some of the games.
because I joined recently I'm not allowed to contribute to the discussion? unholy levels of elitism here...
That Diog guy trolls all over the forums, don't worry, your point is valid.
That Diog guy trolls all over the forums, don't worry, your point is valid.
Yours isn't, and neither was his.
That's total lunacy. 1 beep at a random time to tell them whether the position is equal or not will not convey any useful information for how to win the game. There are more than 3-5 "critical moves" in any top GM game.
Since GMs disagree, I think it's safe to say you should consider your complete lack of knowledge of how the game works at the highest levels.
Hans Neimman was just a grandmaster, I don't even know if he was top 20 at that point. I also like how when Magnus matches 40 of the top computer moves in a 60-70 move game, he's just Magnus, but when another GM matches 3 of them or wins 1 game with the black pieces, he's accused of cheating. Given that both players are at top level, and how many countless games went back and forth between who was winning and losing, I don't see how just mere knowledge of who has a better position could help in any way.
keep giving your hard earned (thats if youre employed, even) money to our overlords then, cuck
Sounding like @abusedpoorautism now. Got muted just a day ago?
because I joined recently I'm not allowed to contribute to the discussion? unholy levels of elitism here...
That Diog guy trolls all over the forums, don't worry, your point is valid.
SoupSailor said your posts in OD make him believe you're not worth replying to...
Plus this comment about dio (defending a low level troll no less), ok, guess I should ignore you too.
You have no clue what goes on in OD to judge who are trolls or not. I'm not the guy who thinks sporting arenas should determine gender vs genetics.
That doesn't make them psychic. Knowing there is a winning move, or even what the move is, won't help if you don't implement the moves after correctly. As I said a computer could give an advantage because there is a 30 move sequence that simplifies down to a winning endgame (which even the endgame you have to make precise moves). Just the fact that these are top level games mean most winning moves aren't going to be so blatantly obvious. You seem to forget they are playing another GM, or against the world champion in this case. How many gotham recap videos have you watched where the advantage flipped back and forth 5 times or the computer suggested moves you couldn't begin to comprehend? I've watched every single tournament recap video since February 2022 and have seen enough to validate my point. Also, please post your theories on how exactly he cheated OTB? Then we can see who are the trolls.
My estimation is that roughly every 400 points is a new dimension of chess (so to speak). By that I mean the way the players are thinking about the position, and finding moves, and etc is fundamentally different.
The things that you consider really-really hard to figure out during a game they've already mastered and moved to their unconscious, so their conscious thought is spent on solving different kinds of problems.
Just like someone rated 1200 points below you would spend 99% of their energy trying to figure out whether the square they plan on moving to is safe or not, and half the time they even forget to think about that... the things you think about during a chess game have nothing in common with what top players are thinking.
They live in a different world.
Hans Neimman was just a grandmaster, I don't even know if he was top 20 at that point. I also like how when Magnus matches 40 of the top computer moves in a 60-70 move game, he's just Magnus, but when another GM matches 3 of them or wins 1 game with the black pieces, he's accused of cheating. Given that both players are at top level, and how many countless games went back and forth between who was winning and losing, I don't see how just mere knowledge of who has a better position could help in any way.
So you don't understand GMs, or how T3 analysis works, either.
Magnus, like most super GMs, can manage maybe a 70%-75% engine T3 match rate on a pretty good day. I guarantee you that if Hans was busted for cheating by Chess.com, then he went far over that at times that became not just suspicious, but statistically impossible for a human to achieve.
Lots of people think that cheat detection catches players for playing "too well". Nope, it catches them for playing exactly like a engine plays to a degree that is statistically impossible to achieve. Whether the engine is playing better or not is irrelevant.
FWIW, out of 125 rated games I count 7 banned cheaters.
20 of those 125 were against someone I'd played before, so 7 cheaters out of 105 users was about 6.7% for me.
That's low enough I don't mind to be honest. That's 1 in 15, a little less than 1 an hour.
For rapid games it's more annoying since you put a lot of effort into the game... otherwise I'd probably play G/30 all the time.
I think most players at your rating rematch players that they are confident are legitimate. This helps reduce the amount of cheaters they play.