For those who seem to think a player's progress must be consistent, let's not forget Boris Spassky had a several year slump in his progress. If I recall correctly it was in the 2300 range and went on for some years.
As pointed out by another poster, we didn't have the Elo system at that time. But if we did, there is no way Spassky would have been as low as 2300 at any time in his professional career.
For those who seem to think a player's progress must be consistent, let's not forget Boris Spassky had a several year slump in his progress. If I recall correctly it was in the 2300 range and went on for some years.
As pointed out by another poster, we didn't have the Elo system at that time. But if we did, there is no way Spassky would have been as low as 2300 at any time in his professional career.
Actually, it was quite the opposite of what 1g1yy claims. The meteoric rise of young Boris is almost uncanny. He was absolutely unknown to the world in 1953 (age 16), when he had his first international appearance and success. Three years later (age 19), he was one of the best players in the world and a candidate for the world championship.
Should they be broadcasting the moves live? Maybe like a 30 minute delay, as with poker tournaments.
Maybe Niemann could play a match with Magnus or someone with no broadcasting of moves and high security precautions.
So Niemann has been caught cheating repeatedly online. Apparently, he continued cheating after being suspended for cheating on chess.ocm. However, he would never cheat OTB?
Then you have the difference in Niemann's results if the tournament is broadcast live, the big ratings increase, and analysis of his moves agreeing with computer moves, etc.
However, we don't have proof. We don't know how he might have cheated. We don't know what device he might be wearing or who sent the computer moves to him or how.
So Maybe Magnus is throwing a fit after being beaten as white by a lower rated player? Is Magnus putting his reputation on the line for nothing? Presumably, rightly or wrongly Magnus is pretty sure Niemann cheated, and has some evidence to back that up.
Actually, it was quite the opposite of what 1g1yy claims. The meteoric rise of young Boris is almost uncanny. He was absolutely unknown to the world in 1953 (age 16), when he had his first international appearance and success. Three years later (age 19), he was one of the best players in the world and a candidate for the world championship.
Agreed. The wiki article says his slump occurred after he was already world-class - from the wiki "Spassky then went into a slump in world championship qualifying events, failing to advance to the next two Interzonals (1958 and 1962), a prerequisite to earn the right to play for the world championship. This crisis coincided with the hard three final years of his first marriage before his divorce in 1961,[19] the same year that he broke with his trainer Tolush."
It doesn't matter the amount of evidence that people will find against Hans.
Even if physical evidence was found on him, probably people would still argue that it was implanted on him.
That is how the world works. People believe whatever they wish to believe.
You sound exactly like flat earthers, people who believe in supernatural, reptilians controlling Earth and many other very evidence based ideas. Hmm, I wonder you and many other people who are certain Hans cheated sound like them, hmm. It is almost like you aren't much better different than them.
It doesn't matter the amount of evidence that people will find against Hans.
Even if physical evidence was found on him, probably people would still argue that it was implanted on him.
That is how the world works. People believe whatever they wish to believe.
You sound exactly like flat earthers, people who believe in supernatural, reptilians controlling Earth and many other very evidence based ideas. Hmm, I wonder you and many other people who are certain Hans cheated sound like them, hmm. It is almost like you aren't much better different than them.
Hans cheated and was caught. Twice.
You need to be more careful with your wording. Not to mention with your thinking.
Should they be broadcasting the moves live? Maybe like a 30 minute delay, as with poker tournaments.
Maybe Niemann could play a match with Magnus or someone with no broadcasting of moves and high security precautions.
So Niemann has been caught cheating repeatedly online. Apparently, he continued cheating after being suspended for cheating on chess.ocm. However, he would never cheat OTB?
The big difference between the two is that to cheat on chess.com only requires a phone or a separate browser window. Cheating OTB requires a secret communication channel with people outside your room without getting caught and getting through metal detectors.
It would be like finding someone who has smoked cigarettes underage and tell them they must have shot heroin. While there is probably some correlation, it is a pretty big jump to go from one to the other.
~~
IMHO, the evidence here is pretty underwhelming. It does not include events that were not broadcast that Hans did well in, as well as Yes / No for being broadcast, when events were only partly broadcast.(For semi-finals and above)
This is definitely not the smoking gun people are making it out to be.
It is true that it remains very unclear how it is possible to cheat in Sinquefield. But that is a separate question.
To flatter by analogy, when a conjurer produces a dove from an egg placed in a hat, it is possible to be sure the egg did not hatch without having a clue how he did it.
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."
Lets say this evidence is correct. The first thing to consider is it's only correlation. One question to asks is what does the use of DGT boards tell us about a tournament, and how could that change the behavior of participants so that it affects their performance.
The second thing to consider is how is it possible to cheat using DGT boards. Just imagining that it's somehow possible doesn't help at all. So far, imagining is all we have.
In any case, the statistical evidence you linked to has been refuted by someone who was more careful and thorough in collecting data. The first author left out three tournaments that were broadcast and incorrectly identified another as not being broadcast. The result based on the full and corrected data set shows very little difference in Niemann's performance between tournaments with and without DGT boards.
Ben Finegold posted the link to the new and better analysis in his Twitter, if you want to look at it.
It is true that it remains very unclear how it is possible to cheat in Sinquefield. But that is a separate question.
To flatter by analogy, when a conjurer produces a dove from an egg placed in a hat, it is possible to be sure the egg did not hatch without having a clue how he did it.
That analogy only works if you have proof Hans is cheating. The Sinquefield Cup arbiter has said there was no evidence of it. All the so called evidence we've seen amounts to nothing more than suspicion.
The second thing to consider is how is it possible to cheat using DGT boards. Just imagining that it's somehow possible doesn't help at all.
The implication is that it is easier for a second person to watch the game and transmit clandestine messages to Hans if the game was being broadcast compared to being watched in the crowd.
However, the rest of your post is right on. This dataset is crap.
Perhaps all of this doubt should be removed ongoing by measures such as delaying all "live" public broadcasting of moves. A standard time such as 15 minutes does not seem the way to go, as often in classical players will take longer than that to move, and if cheating could wait to receive a signal. It would perhaps be better to delay a certain number of moves, such as always keeping the broadcast 2 moves behind the play. Live audiences could also be told that they will be videoed so that any communication by gesture etc could be analysed retrospectively, and told not to use phones etc to transmit moves to those outside.
I like the broadcast delay idea. I believe Judit Polgar suggested something similar.
I also like the idea of keeping the audience in mind, too.
Perhaps having the players compete in a room with a one-way window, for example (a common feature in law buildings and conference rooms) - so the audience can watch the players compete, but the players cannot see the audience ...
Perhaps having the players compete in a room with a one-way window, for example (a common feature in law buildings and conference rooms) - so the audience can watch the players compete, but the players cannot see the audience ...
In the Sinquefield cup, there was no audience in the same room as the players. With covid still around, that is probably going to be standard anyways.
Perhaps having the players compete in a room with a one-way window, for example (a common feature in law buildings and conference rooms) - so the audience can watch the players compete, but the players cannot see the audience ...
That probably isn't realistic for any of the venues. That's a good bit of remodeling just for a chess tournament. There's got to be a better way. And let's be clear, all this is over unproven "suspicion" . It seems like jumping through hoops of fire for very little benefit.
To understand that he "did"...... you absolutely need to know the "how". Otherwise your no-where. Its the basis for "innocent until proven guilty".
To suspect that he did, you do not need to know how. You just need to know that several things out of the norm have happened. People suspected Igors Rausis for years, yet no one knew exactly what he was doing (turns out, his was a simple matter of hiding an iPhone in the bathroom at events). To prove he did, yes, you need to know the how, and when, and who, etc.
That probably isn't realistic for any of the venues. That's a good bit of remodeling just for a chess tournament. There's got to be a better way. And let's be clear, all this is over unproven "suspicion" . It seems like jumping through hoops of fire for very little benefit.
For the St Louis Chess Club, that type of security is no problem, but I agree that trying to solve a problem when you 1) do not know if there is one, and 2) do not know how current measures were circumvented (if they were) is a bit silly.
You need physical evidence to prove cheating OTB in one game. You do not need *any* physical evidence to prove cheating online or OTB over time with a large enough sample size.
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."
From that extended analysis:
More details, with direct links to the relevant cross tables:
Marshall Premier, March 2019 — NO broadcast; -13 rating; 1.0/2.0; 2074 avg; withdrew after losing to 1997 rated player.
Foxwoods Open, April 2019 — NO broadcast; -7 rating; 4.5/8.0; 2433 avg.
US Cadet Championship, June 2019 — YES broadcast; +12 rating; 5.5/7.0; 2405 avg.
Philadelphia International, July 2019 — NO broadcast; -11 rating; 5.5/8.0; 2405 avg.
World Open, July 2019 — NO broadcast; -34 rating; 4.0/8.0; 2275 avg.
US Junior Championship, July 2019 — YES broadcast; +2 rating; 4.0/9.0; 2548 avg.
US Masters, August 2019 — YES broadcast; +23 rating; 5.5/9.0; 2569 avg.
New Jersey Open, September 2019 — NO broadcast; =0 rating; 4.5/6.0; 2269 avg.
Marshall CC Championship, November 2019 — YES broadcast; +29 rating; 6.0/9.0; 2580 avg.
National Chess Congress, November 2019 — NO broadcast; -12 rating; 3.0/5.0; 2326 avg.
USCF K-12 Grade Nationals, December 2019 — YES broadcast; +12 rating; 7.0/7.0; 2093 avg.
North American Open, December 2019 — NO broadcast; -10 rating; 6.5/9.0; 2278 avg.
Greater New York Scholastics, February 2020 — YES broadcast; +3 rating; 5.0/6.0; 2222 avg.
US Amateur Team East, February 2020 — NO broadcast; -5 rating; 5.0/6.0; 2078 avg.
Marshall Spring GM, March 2020 — YES broadcast; +13 rating; 5.5/9.0; 2536 avg.
Marshall FIDE Premier, March 2020 — NO broadcast; -3 rating; 4.0/5.0; 2232 avg.
Charlotte Fall GM, October 2020 — YES broadcast; +27 rating; 7.0/9.0; 2512 avg.
SPICE Cup, October 2020 — NO broadcast; -17 rating; 5.0/9.0; 2397 avg. (One opponent was unrated, their post-tournament provisional rating was used.)
US Class Championship, November 2020 — YES broadcast; +10 rating; 4.0/5.0; 2429 avg.
If you run a regression on the above dataset, you will find that whether or not a tournament was broadcast live explains 67% (!!!!!) of the variation in Niemann's performance over that time period. (The rest of the variation is likely random, or at least isn't explained by age, number of rounds, or strength of opponents.)
Here are the regression coefficients, their p-values, and confidence intervals:
As you can see, the coefficients for time (measured in months), number of rounds, and average opponent all have very high p-values, and are statistically indistinguishable from 0.
The way to interpret the coefficients is as follows:
Time — for each month that has passed since March 2019, Niemann is expected to gain 0.21 more Elo at a given tournament, though 0 is in the 95% confidence interval. (i.e. Niemann doesn't appear to be improving over time.)
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]. (Holy ****)
NumRounds — for each game played at a given tournament, Niemann is expected to lose 0.78 more Elo at that tournament, though 0 is in the 95% confidence interval. (i.e. Niemann doesn't appear to be affected by fatigue.)
AvgOpp — if you increase the strength of his average opponent at a given tournament by 100 Elo, Niemann is expected to gain 2 more Elo at that tournament, though 0 is in the 95% confidence interval. (i.e. Niemann doesn't appear to be "playing up" or "playing down" to his competition, nor to be affected by mathematical caps on his performance rating against low rated opponents.)
Just based on what has been made public so far (we don't know what information Magnus had), Magnus could have had reason to believe Niemann was cheating. I don't think he did this just because of the trash talk, bt the trash talk combined with believing there was cheating may have angered him.
FIDE adopted the Elo rating system in 1970 --- That was during Boris Spassky's reign as World Champion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Spassky
That article talks rather at length about his stagnation in progress. Regardless of the number system they were using it was during his days as an IM. So I guess I wasn't far off.
You probably should read the article again. And look at the dates a bit more carefully.