There'll never be 100% proof that Niemann has cheated in these tournaments. Future tournaments will have heightened security. Faraday cages and camera feeds delayed until after matches complete will help. I'm not sure how organisers will deal with toilet access. We'll have to see how Niemann performs under these conditions.
I'm currently wondering how many decades we are from brain implants which run Stockfish.
There'll never be 100% proof that Niemann has cheated in these tournaments. Future tournaments will have heightened security. Faraday cages and camera feeds delayed until after matches complete will help. I'm not sure how organisers will deal with toilet access. We'll have to see how Niemann performs under these conditions.
I'm currently wondering how many decades we are from brain implants which run Stockfish.
I don't think it would take anything that complicated. The brain runs on electricity. So it seems to me even a nano device of some kind, implanted next to something sensitive in or near the brain, is all it would take. Given all the technology and surgery capabilities of today if someone were motivated enough I'm sure it could be done now.
It would be useful to know how common 100% correlation is (in individual games) among other players.
why is this all such a BIG deal ?...i mean if he cheats then only he really loses in the 'end'. think abt it here...who wants a guy named john from SD looking inside a ur exit ?...i mean im sorry but i wouldnt even WATCH that !
( )*( )
why is this all such a BIG deal ?...i mean if he cheats then only he really loses in the 'end'. think abt it here...who wants a guy named john from SD looking inside a ur exit ?...i mean im sorry but i wouldnt even WATCH that !
( )*( )
What? A guy from San Diego named John is no good for this job?... A guy named Kevin from Cincinnati would be better?
Already I'm upset with you for forcing me to look up how to spell the word "Cincinnati", and on top of that, you told me you wouldn't watch me examining Hans' butt, and tbh it just feels like you're trying to hurt me at this point
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfPzUgzrOcQ
For me, this video started to get real interesting around the 11:45 mark... But it's worth watching the whole thing.
At 11:45 , 100% engine correlation in a Hans Niemann game
And he gets 100% engine correlation in multiple games.
This is basically a statistical impossibility in the short amount of time that he has done it
Now I'm starting to feel convinced... This is pretty good evidence.
This is almost making me want to get back in uni and deep dive in statistics.. So much information from different sources that seems almost contradicting.
On one hand a leading (?) statistical chess cheating expert presenting his analysis that shows no evidence of cheating or anomalities in Hans' play.
Yet here we have Niemanns games that aline with engines top moves extraordinarily well in a short period of time consisting of some shorter and some longer games. Not to mention how this compares to the history of other top gms. Unless theres some serious fault in how this "program" analyses the moves this seems like a real indication and I dont understand how these anomalities wouldnt get picked up by some other methods of statistical analysis.
Kotshmot wrote: JohnNapierSanDiego wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfPzUgzrOcQ
For me, this video started to get real interesting around the 11:45 mark... But it's worth watching the whole thing.
At 11:45 , 100% engine correlation in a Hans Niemann game
And he gets 100% engine correlation in multiple games.
This is basically a statistical impossibility in the short amount of time that he has done it
Now I'm starting to feel convinced... This is pretty good evidence.
This is almost making me want to get back in uni and deep dive in statistics.. So much information from different sources that seems almost contradicting.
On one hand a leading (?) statistical chess cheating expert presenting his analysis that shows no evidence of cheating or anomalities in Hans' play.
Yet here we have Niemanns games that aline with engines top moves extraordinarily well in a short period of time consisting of some shorter and some longer games. Not to mention how this compares to the history of other top gms. Unless theres some serious fault in how this "program" analyses the moves this seems like a real indication and I dont understand how these anomalities wouldnt get picked up by some other methods of statistical analysis.
it has been explained in most of these threads by now, that the chessbase method of engine correlation does not work the way people think it works, and that many many games will have 100% match in this statistic.
so far, there's no statistical evidence other than the suspiciously fast rise to the top. However, a bunch of GM's are starting to think there must be something foul about all this, so we end up in a situation where many people believe Hans somehow cheated, but so far nobody can make a compelling case against him.
it has been explained in most of these threads by now, that the chessbase method of engine correlation does not work the way people think it works, and that many many games will have 100% match in this statistic.
Supposedly, this isn't the case.
100% games are allegedly quite rare, using this method.
Arjun Erigaisi, for example (an arguably stronger prodigy than Niemann) is reported to only have one 100% game in his whole career - a 10-move game.
Niemann has many 30+ move 100% games, including a 45-move game, in which he played 100% engine correlation, the entire game.
It's quite reasonable for players to find this data compelling.
Nakamura saw the analysis of one of Carlsen's best games, for example, and was shocked that Carlsen only reached 79% engine correlation. To Nakamura, that game was the epitome of perfect chess.
Which suggests that Niemann has (supposedly) performed at a level 21% stronger than Carlsen's best. Across 5 consecutive tournaments.
I don't use Chessbase, though, so I can't confirm or deny this, either way. I'm very curious if someone on these forums will check ...
From my (shaky) understanding, Regan did a statistical analysis of a much larger sample of Niemann's games.
But the discussed games occurred in a very small sample (a 5-tournament period, in which Niemann achieved those controversial results).
it has been explained in most of these threads by now, that the chessbase method of engine correlation does not work the way people think it works, and that many many games will have 100% match in this statistic.
Supposedly, this isn't the case.
100% games are allegedly quite rare, using this method.
Arjun Erigaisi, for example (an arguably stronger prodigy than Niemann) is reported to only have one 100% game in his whole career - a 10-move game.
Niemann has many 30+ move 100% games, including a 45-move game, in which he played 100% engine correlation, the entire game.
It's quite reasonable for players to find this data compelling.
Nakamura saw the analysis of one of Carlsen's best games, for example, and was shocked that Carlsen only reached 79% engine correlation. To Nakamura, that game was the epitome of perfect chess.
Which suggests that Niemann has (supposedly) performed at a level 21% stronger than Carlsen's best. Across 5 consecutive tournaments.
I don't use Chessbase, though, so I can't confirm or deny this, either way. I'm very curious if someone on these forums will check ...
so many factors here, the prep, the lines you choose on one hand,
the engines used for the chessbase data on the other hand.
it's just far from conclusive unfortunately. and as such the analysis based on the chessbase data is not valid to proof cheating. Believe me, I wish for a simple solution like that too as I now have friends who get scholar-mated everytime (the extent of their chess knowledge) but keep asking me what brand of anal beads I recommend for a smooth chess experience.
in other words, we as the chess community have become a laughing stock.
GMahatma
You are right. You look at the online articles from MSN, Daily, Reuters, etc. and the comments are mostly from non chess players making comments and jokes about chess and chess players. But I have also noticed something else. More interest in chess.
I know the covid and Queens Gambit played a huge role in revitalizing chess. And with both of those things wearing off the timing couldn't be better. You know the old saying, there's no such thing as bad publicity.
From my (shaky) understanding, Regan did a statistical analysis of a much larger sample of Niemann's games.
But the discussed games occurred in a very small sample (a 5-tournament period, in which Niemann achieved those controversial results).
If a 5-tournament period that includes multiple 100% correlation games doesn't get picked up as an anomality by his statistical analysis, the method sounds extremely poor to me.
From my (shaky) understanding, Regan did a statistical analysis of a much larger sample of Niemann's games.
But the discussed games occurred in a very small sample (a 5-tournament period, in which Niemann achieved those controversial results).
If a 5-tournament period that includes multiple 100% correlation games doesn't get picked up as an anomality by his statistical analysis, the method sounds extremely poor to me.
you might want to inform yourself what '100% correlation games' means in regard to chessbase analysis.
I give you a hint: it does not mean that Hans played 100% stockfish moves, or any other singular engine.
and if analyzing the chessbase method is not up your alley....do people really believe if he had 100% correlation he wouldn't get caught sooner than later by tournament organisation, FIDE et all? come on man...
john ?...id rather u be a susquash than a bear.
I'd rather you be a big hot cup of coffee I can drink while playing chess than you be a girl madly confessing your love for me on some chess forum
From my (shaky) understanding, Regan did a statistical analysis of a much larger sample of Niemann's games.
But the discussed games occurred in a very small sample (a 5-tournament period, in which Niemann achieved those controversial results).
If a 5-tournament period that includes multiple 100% correlation games doesn't get picked up as an anomality by his statistical analysis, the method sounds extremely poor to me.
you might want to inform yourself what '100% correlation games' means in regard to chessbase analysis.
I give you a hint: it does not mean that Hans played 100% stockfish moves, or any other singular engine.
and if analyzing the chessbase method is not up your alley....do people really believe if he had 100% correlation he wouldn't get caught sooner than later by tournament organisation, FIDE et all? come on man...
To my understanding engine correlation compares the moves with multiple engines.
"Do people really believe if he had 100% correlation he wouldn't get caught sooner than later by tournament organisation, FIDE et all?"
So you're saying it's false information?
and if i wuz ?...id spill myself all over u in ur lap...so there. lol !
I watched the video and it didn't particular mean much to me. Regan actually has decent statistical analysis while this was a mess of statistics aren't properly put together or analyzed.