New evidence cheating scandal
Sort:
Im guessing the statistics analysis and other facts combined will be thourougly looked at by Fide , other experts etc and well i wouldnt be shocked If Niemann confesses to cheating also Otb as The evidence becomes overwhelming. Just my thoughts...
It's wild to me when people claim ZERO EVIDENCE. Do we all understand what evidence is? It's the available facts and information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. (google definition from oxford languages.)
Evidence is not proof. But to sit back and scream zero evidence discredits your position because there is, quite obviously, evidence.
Sep 12, 2022
0
#24
1g1yy wrote:
I don't know what "Great" means, but I'd say "Great" is highly subjective if this is what they do for your eval. Might just mean you found an "only move" that didn't lose. You would mostly only be able to have such moves in a winning position.
This is correct. It is usually easier to find a "Great" move than a "Best" move because when a "Great" move is awarded/categorized it means all the other moves in that position are much worse, so easier to eliminate.
Sep 12, 2022
0
#25
Bryan-HallWS wrote:
It's wild to me when people claim ZERO EVIDENCE. Do we all understand what evidence is? It's the available facts and information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. (google definition from oxford languages.)
Evidence is not proof. But to sit back and scream zero evidence discredits your position because there is, quite obviously, evidence.
So you say there is "Evidence". Ok, where is it? What is it?
I see people say there's games with un-attainable accuracy played by Hans. I posted above his accuracy is pretty good, but not great by super GM standards. Also shows Magnus' accuracy was actually rather low.
Ok, so post up some game reviews of these games I'm supposed to believe are "Evidence" of cheating, simply by their unusual accuracy, and then I'll compare to other great games by other top players and decide for myself.
Till then, I have seen no "evidence"....
FYI, here's the game review of "the" game. (if the image above wasn't enough).
Tell me what you see in here that looks fishy?
https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/pgn/LQ7hPDj3U?tab=review
Sep 12, 2022
0
#26
Very much appreciate the help you have provided to help us with this project and I hope you can share your thoughts with me on the eve and I never did the other day and the other one I had to get to work done in the Final e and the first time in the morning to be my foe to be my foe for a while walking through my knees to be my foe in my head with the ball and head to head of my every corner and head.
PawnTsunami wrote:
GBTGBA wrote:
Not interested. I will only watch if Gothamchess has new evidence.
To be fair, this isn't Levy's area of expertise (i.e. statistical analysis to determine likelihood of cheating). If he reports on it, it will be because someone else (i.e. Ken Regan) was brought in to look at the data.
That said, if the information that was starting to make the rounds yesterday is accurate (and that is a big IF), it does not look good.
Exactly. Gothamchess is a horrible source. Like getting your news about the war in Ukraine from a morning talk show. He would only be passing it along from somewhere and covering it at a superficial level.
1g1yy wrote:
Bryan-HallWS wrote:
It's wild to me when people claim ZERO EVIDENCE. Do we all understand what evidence is? It's the available facts and information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. (google definition from oxford languages.)
Evidence is not proof. But to sit back and scream zero evidence discredits your position because there is, quite obviously, evidence.
So you say there is "Evidence". Ok, where is it? What is it?
I see people say there's games with un-attainable accuracy played by Hans. I posted above his accuracy is pretty good, but not great by super GM standards. Also shows Magnus' accuracy was actually rather low.
Ok, so post up some game reviews of these games I'm supposed to believe are "Evidence" of cheating, simply by their unusual accuracy, and then I'll compare to other great games by other top players and decide for myself.
Till then, I have seen no "evidence"....
FYI, here's the game review of "the" game. (if the image above wasn't enough).
Tell me what you see in here that looks fishy?
https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/pgn/LQ7hPDj3U?tab=review
Did you watch the video that this entire thread was posted about? It's not about the game vs Magnus...
Sep 12, 2022
0
#29
I downloaded PGN Spy and took a look at it.
The key sentence in the documentation is:
"These values MUST NOT be taken as evidence of cheating on their own, without proper statistical analysis, comparison to appropriate benchmarks, and consideration of other evidence."
Sep 12, 2022
0
#30
1g1yy wrote:
So you say there is "Evidence". Ok, where is it? What is it?
This is the critical evidence: http://talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=80630&sid=9cc546b4cf5170bf84719d07e5716764&start=100#p933597
The author examined two years of Hans' tournaments, at classical time control, beginning in March of 2019.
"LiveCast — if there's a live broadcast at a given tournament, Niemann is expected to gain 23.11 more Elo at that tournament, with a p-value of 0.0009, and a 95% CI of [11, 35]."
Time (months since March 2019), number of rounds (measuring fatigue), and average opponent strength have little correlation to Hans' performance.
However, if there's a live broadcast (DGT boards), Hans performs +23 Elo better.
"I must say that I find your presentation to be pretty impressive. I would even add that according to your data, in all of the 9 events that were broadcast live, he gained elo points, while in none of the ten that were not broadcast did he gain any points (9 elo losses, one break-even). Furthermore his worst performance in the nine live events was 2495, whereas his best in the non-live was 2475! One doesn't need a PhD is statistics to conclude (assuming the data is complete and accurate) that this could not be due to chance."
Sep 12, 2022
0
#31
Looks like critical evidence indeed. Two questions:
- Are those tournaments all his tournaments played in those years or is it a selection?
- Why those years (if I am not mistaken 2019 and 2020)?
- Are those tournaments all his tournaments played in those years or is it a selection?
- Why those years (if I am not mistaken 2019 and 2020)?
Sep 12, 2022
0
#32
AtaChess68 wrote:
Looks like critical evidence indeed. Two questions:
- Are those tournaments all his tournaments played in those years or is it a selection?
- Why those years (if I am not mistaken 2019 and 2020)?
- Are those tournaments all his tournaments played in those years or is it a selection?
- Why those years (if I am not mistaken 2019 and 2020)?
Yes, all his classical tournaments in that time frame. The author of the TalkChess post is following up on research posted on Twitter by Atlanta Kings. The original research selected 2019 - 2020 because that's when Hans earned his GM norms.
Sep 12, 2022
0
#33
Then we need a few independent people to double check the data and it’s discussion closed I’d say.
I th8nk Hans and Magnus played blitz online together either yesterday or today.
Sep 12, 2022
0
#35
This video has the very first actual official response from anyone who knows anything about anything concerning the situation. Just watch the first 2 minutes of this and then tell me about all these games that I'm supposed to be so scared of with Hans having unachievable accuracy.
As I have said since day one, I will wait until I hear some real news before I start condemning anybody.
GBTGBA wrote:
DreamscapeHorizons wrote:
I th8nk Hans and Magnus played blitz online together either yesterday or today.
nope they didn’t.
It might've just been an older one that was posted today then.
Sep 12, 2022
0
#37
1g1yy wrote:
Right here is the analysis of the game in question. Looks to me as if Magnus simply had a bad game. I'll withhold judgement on anything further till SOMEONE provides more information that some meaningless opinions.
It should also be noted that while yes, Hans had 11 "Great" moves with Magnus having none, look at the graph. Virtually none of them actually caused any change in the eval. I don't know what "Great" means, but I'd say "Great" is highly subjective if this is what they do for your eval. Might just mean you found an "only move" that didn't lose. You would mostly only be able to have such moves in a winning position.
Let me point out the fundamental point that it is mistakes that change the true evaluation. Good moves don't. This parallels what happens with a powerful engine that anticipates the possibility of a "great move" (or just a good move) being played and its evaluation of that move merely becomes a little deeper after it has been played, so usually stays comparable in character.
Note also that the way a players' moves relate to computer moves when their evaluations are not so different provides more subtle evidence of cheating. Merely playing the moves that are clearly best and avoiding very bad moves is much weaker evidence in general.
It's probably also worth pointing out that while the analysis tool provides information that is interesting, it is a million miles from the sort of analysis that is used to detect cheats that are not really blatant.
I know anything is possible (aside from the Elon Must tweet) but has anyone given one example of HOW he might have cheated OVER THE BOARD? Except for running to the bathroom a lot to check with a hidden device the chances are almost astronomical that he could get by with cheating sitting across from his opponent in high level tournaments. Some people have just about made Magnus into a god. He is human.
If I understand correctly, a 200 point difference means the higher rated player only has a 75% chance of beating the lower rated player. Hans was on the threshhold of 2700 so he obviously isn't some patzer.
premio53 wrote:
I know anything is possible (aside from the Elon Must tweet) but has anyone given one example of HOW he might have cheated OVER THE BOARD? Except for running to the bathroom a lot to check with a hidden device the chances are almost astronomical that he could get by with cheating sitting across from his opponent in high level tournaments. Some people have just about made Magnus into a god. He is human.
If I understand correctly, a 200 point difference means the higher rated player only has a 75% chance of beating the lower rated player. Hans was on the threshhold of 2700 so he obviously isn't some patzer.
Well...it's hard to say exactly what his rating should really be after the age of 12...
The scary part is that far too many people's attitudes seem to be "well, so what if he cheated in online games, everybody does that, it's meaningless...we're talking about OTB...".
Right here is the analysis of the game in question. Looks to me as if Magnus simply had a bad game. I'll withhold judgement on anything further till SOMEONE provides more information that some meaningless opinions.
It should also be noted that while yes, Hans had 11 "Great" moves with Magnus having none, look at the graph. Virtually none of them actually caused any change in the eval. I don't know what "Great" means, but I'd say "Great" is highly subjective if this is what they do for your eval. Might just mean you found an "only move" that didn't lose. You would mostly only be able to have such moves in a winning position.