Occam's Razor Supports that Hans Niemann did not cheat against Magnus, or in OTB in general.

Sort:
Ziryab
CrusaderKing1 wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
CrusaderKing1 wrote:
PawnTsunami wrote:
CrusaderKing1 wrote:

Statistical data according to who? Because it's definitely not Regan, the reigning authority of OTB cheating. 

The statistical data is usually from people with 1/1000th the expertise and knowledge Regan has. 

Again, if there is no evidence Hans cheated, no strange moves in his game against Magnus, etc...then the simplest explanation is he won fair and square.

The simplest explanation is not that he was using a device in a secured area for OTB chess.

The more you type, the more I wonder if you are the same person that tried making this argument on Chessable.

The issue is not the single game against Magnus.  Also, the Sinquefield Cup was not "secured" until after Magnus withdrew - and interestingly enough, Hans' play degraded significantly following that.

But to your conclusion:  You have a decent high school sprinter who disappears for 6 months and comes back and is suddenly crushing Ben Johnson and Usain Bolt in the 100m dash.  Obviously, it is because he was training hard - after all, that is the "simplest" explanation, right?

I do not go to chessable.

I would say that if the high school sprinter passed steroid testing and any other anti cheat methods that it would be likely that he beat Usain Bolt fair and square.

I don't follow running sports like that, but I assume that is a very unlikely scenario and it's not a very good anaology.

The reason it's not a good analogy is because Hans is 2700 and Magnus is 2800. The difference isn't nearly as extreme. 

 

It is clear that you don’t follow running sports.

But it's also irrelevant to my response.

The point is that Hans at 2700 and Magnus at 2800 isn't as large as people are making it seems, and Hans taking a single game of Magnus is hardly anything at all. It's not like he won a best of 14. 

 

You don't follow chess closely, either.

PawnTsunami
CrusaderKing1 wrote:

No, your running analogy is just not that concrete.

Also, analogies can be twisted into whatever you want them to be. So in my opinion, it's better to stick the the facts rather than pursue analogies.

Hans is rising, so 2700 might even be underrepresenting his skill.

At one point, Magnus was an IM who drew Kasparov. Someone ranked 700+ in the world drawing the best player.

Did that mean Magnus was cheating? Or did it mean he was a rising star?

Yep, that's right. He was a rising star.

This isn't nearly as extreme, as Hans is ranked in top 50 or so, beating the worlds 1st. A much smaller gap.

It is clear you were never involved in any sort of competitive endeavors.

Hans had been stagnant for several years.  If you do not see a sudden improvement after years of stagnation as unusual, I don't know what to tell you.  To say "he is rising" now, ignores the reality in favor of your own biases.

If you watch the Magnus documentary, you see why Magnus drew Kasparov.  Magnus was 13, improving quickly, and Kasparov did not take the game seriously until he realized he wasn't playing some dumb kid, and it was a rapid game (so there wasn't any time to adjust to that reality).  However, if you look at the expected results between their ratings at the time:  Kasparov 2830, Magnus 2484:  the expectation would be +80=17-3.  There is a significantly higher probability of drawing than Magnus winning there.  When you consider that Magnus was playing with White and they traded down into an opposite colored-bishop endgame with a symmetrical structure, it is a drastically different situation.  You didn't see a young Magnus dominating the best players of the previous generation out of nowhere.  There was a progression.

Hans was not even in the top 100 until recently.  In fact, 18 months ago, he had been sitting around #1000 in the world - and had been there for about 3.5 years.  Then, suddenly, he starts winning every other event he enters, including very impressive wins over very strong players (Shirov, Magnus, Mamedyarov, Aronian, etc.).  Which takes me back to the running analogy:  if you had someone who was a decent high school sprinter, and suddenly started crushing world record holders out of nowhere, would you just assume it was because he was working hard?

PawnTsunami
IpswichMatt wrote:

Showing your age there @PawnTsunami - Ben Johnson is now 60 and would likely struggle against any high-school sprinter

Hey now!  Who are you calling old!?

I was also going to throw Carl Lewis in there, but kids these days probably have no clue who he is.

GlutesChess

It's hard to take a discussion seriously when it starts with someone who claims they're a medical professional mixing up Wikipedia and Webster. Even harder when said scientific professional uses Occam's Razor when, in the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result. Even more difficult when this professional lacks basic knowledge about chess or shows ignorance in their field of study when it's used as an analogy.

PawnTsunami
CrusaderKing1 wrote:

But Magnus didn't withdraw until he lost fair and square, so I don't know if there is any bulk to saying he was planning on withdrawing before the tournament started. 

If Magnus would have won, none of this would have been an issue. Therefore, it's hard to take that argument seriously. 

Fabi and other super GMs also said nothing seemed suspicious in that game.

Like I said, you have never played in a competitive sport and it is obvious.

If you know you are going into an event with someone who has used PEDs in the past, it messes with your mentality.  Magnus and Nepo both went to the organizers when Hans was announced as Rapport's replacement and asked for increased security measures.  When you have 2 of the top players in the world coming to you and saying "something is off about this one player", perhaps it isn't so obvious that he is "just a rising star".  Even Fabi, as diplomatic as he has tried to remain in this situation, has displayed a rather large level of skepticism about Hans' rating rise being legitimate.

PawnTsunami
NervesofButter wrote:

Well...we have two ways of looking at it. 

1. He worked hard, is a late bloomer.  BORING.

2. He cheated.  NOW THAT'S EXCITING AND GIVES US MORE TO ARGUE ABOUT.

What do you think the prevailing opinion is going to be?

Well, if it bleeds, it leads! wink.png

wakuvvaku
CrusaderKing1 wrote:
wakuvvaku wrote:
CrusaderKing1 wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
CrusaderKing1 wrote:
PawnTsunami wrote:
CrusaderKing1 wrote:

Statistical data according to who? Because it's definitely not Regan, the reigning authority of OTB cheating. 

The statistical data is usually from people with 1/1000th the expertise and knowledge Regan has. 

Again, if there is no evidence Hans cheated, no strange moves in his game against Magnus, etc...then the simplest explanation is he won fair and square.

The simplest explanation is not that he was using a device in a secured area for OTB chess.

The more you type, the more I wonder if you are the same person that tried making this argument on Chessable.

The issue is not the single game against Magnus.  Also, the Sinquefield Cup was not "secured" until after Magnus withdrew - and interestingly enough, Hans' play degraded significantly following that.

But to your conclusion:  You have a decent high school sprinter who disappears for 6 months and comes back and is suddenly crushing Ben Johnson and Usain Bolt in the 100m dash.  Obviously, it is because he was training hard - after all, that is the "simplest" explanation, right?

I do not go to chessable.

I would say that if the high school sprinter passed steroid testing and any other anti cheat methods that it would be likely that he beat Usain Bolt fair and square.

I don't follow running sports like that, but I assume that is a very unlikely scenario and it's not a very good anaology.

The reason it's not a good analogy is because Hans is 2700 and Magnus is 2800. The difference isn't nearly as extreme. 

 

It is clear that you don’t follow running sports.

But it's also irrelevant to my response.

The point is that Hans at 2700 and Magnus at 2800 isn't as large as people are making it seems, and Hans taking a single game of Magnus is hardly anything at all. It's not like he won a best of 14. 

You are focusing on the wrong thing. The game he won over Magnus was not even close to the main evidence he cheated. In fact Magnus losing a game to a young guy isn't anything suspicious as he does every now and then. It was merely a trigger that put Hans in the spotlight. Before that it was already consensus he cheated among the small circle of super GMs. Fabi said Magnus was already about to withdraw when Hans got invited to Sinqfield Cup, before they even played. I would go as far as saying even if you proved to me Hans was clean in that specific game, it's still incredibly likely he cheated his way to 2700.

But Magnus didn't withdraw until he lost fair and square, so I don't know if there is any bulk to saying he was planning on withdrawing before the tournament started. 

If Magnus would have won, none of this would have been an issue. Therefore, it's hard to take that argument seriously. 

Fabi and other super GMs also said nothing seemed suspicious in that game.

I don't believe you followed the whole thing closely then. For obvious legal reasons Fabi and Nepo said nothing seemed suspicious to the official media, but Fabi said a lot of stuff on podcast and Nepo implied Hans was cheating on his twitch stream.

PawnTsunami
wakuvvaku wrote:

I don't believe you followed the whole thing closely then. For obvious legal reasons Fabi and Nepo said nothing seemed suspicious to the official media, but Fabi said a lot of stuff on podcast and Nepo implied Hans was cheating on his twitch stream.

Nepo's exact wording in the official interview was that the game was "more than impressive".

Personally, I think Nepo's dry humor is underrated - his ability to make a backhanded compliment is at least 2900-level!

wakuvvaku
NervesofButter wrote:
wakuvvaku wrote:
CrusaderKing1 wrote:
wakuvvaku wrote:
CrusaderKing1 wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
CrusaderKing1 wrote:
PawnTsunami wrote:
CrusaderKing1 wrote:

Statistical data according to who? Because it's definitely not Regan, the reigning authority of OTB cheating. 

The statistical data is usually from people with 1/1000th the expertise and knowledge Regan has. 

Again, if there is no evidence Hans cheated, no strange moves in his game against Magnus, etc...then the simplest explanation is he won fair and square.

The simplest explanation is not that he was using a device in a secured area for OTB chess.

The more you type, the more I wonder if you are the same person that tried making this argument on Chessable.

The issue is not the single game against Magnus.  Also, the Sinquefield Cup was not "secured" until after Magnus withdrew - and interestingly enough, Hans' play degraded significantly following that.

But to your conclusion:  You have a decent high school sprinter who disappears for 6 months and comes back and is suddenly crushing Ben Johnson and Usain Bolt in the 100m dash.  Obviously, it is because he was training hard - after all, that is the "simplest" explanation, right?

I do not go to chessable.

I would say that if the high school sprinter passed steroid testing and any other anti cheat methods that it would be likely that he beat Usain Bolt fair and square.

I don't follow running sports like that, but I assume that is a very unlikely scenario and it's not a very good anaology.

The reason it's not a good analogy is because Hans is 2700 and Magnus is 2800. The difference isn't nearly as extreme. 

 

It is clear that you don’t follow running sports.

But it's also irrelevant to my response.

The point is that Hans at 2700 and Magnus at 2800 isn't as large as people are making it seems, and Hans taking a single game of Magnus is hardly anything at all. It's not like he won a best of 14. 

You are focusing on the wrong thing. The game he won over Magnus was not even close to the main evidence he cheated. In fact Magnus losing a game to a young guy isn't anything suspicious as he does every now and then. It was merely a trigger that put Hans in the spotlight. Before that it was already consensus he cheated among the small circle of super GMs. Fabi said Magnus was already about to withdraw when Hans got invited to Sinqfield Cup, before they even played. I would go as far as saying even if you proved to me Hans was clean in that specific game, it's still incredibly likely he cheated his way to 2700.

But Magnus didn't withdraw until he lost fair and square, so I don't know if there is any bulk to saying he was planning on withdrawing before the tournament started. 

If Magnus would have won, none of this would have been an issue. Therefore, it's hard to take that argument seriously. 

Fabi and other super GMs also said nothing seemed suspicious in that game.

I don't believe you followed the whole thing closely then. For obvious legal reasons Fabi and Nepo said nothing seemed suspicious to the official media, but Fabi said a lot of stuff on podcast and Nepo implied Hans was cheating on his twitch stream.

Hans cheated on Nepos twitch stream?  Can you post the link please?

Should be pretty easy to google. Nepo said Hans was 'definitely improving, definitely improving'. It was clear he was implying cheating if you listened to context. Also note it was regarding the games they played on chess.com (I don't believe the Hans Magnus game holds any importance other than bringing attention to the situation), before it was shown Hans cheated recently.

IpswichMatt
PawnTsunami wrote:

Nepo's exact wording in the official interview was that the game was "more than impressive".

Personally, I think Nepo's dry humor is underrated - his ability to make a backhanded compliment is at least 2900-level!

For anyone who missed it - it's about 1:18 here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEPmminIC7g

 

wakuvvaku
CrusaderKing1 wrote:
wakuvvaku wrote:
CrusaderKing1 wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
CrusaderKing1 wrote:
PawnTsunami wrote:
CrusaderKing1 wrote:

Statistical data according to who? Because it's definitely not Regan, the reigning authority of OTB cheating. 

The statistical data is usually from people with 1/1000th the expertise and knowledge Regan has. 

Again, if there is no evidence Hans cheated, no strange moves in his game against Magnus, etc...then the simplest explanation is he won fair and square.

The simplest explanation is not that he was using a device in a secured area for OTB chess.

The more you type, the more I wonder if you are the same person that tried making this argument on Chessable.

The issue is not the single game against Magnus.  Also, the Sinquefield Cup was not "secured" until after Magnus withdrew - and interestingly enough, Hans' play degraded significantly following that.

But to your conclusion:  You have a decent high school sprinter who disappears for 6 months and comes back and is suddenly crushing Ben Johnson and Usain Bolt in the 100m dash.  Obviously, it is because he was training hard - after all, that is the "simplest" explanation, right?

I do not go to chessable.

I would say that if the high school sprinter passed steroid testing and any other anti cheat methods that it would be likely that he beat Usain Bolt fair and square.

I don't follow running sports like that, but I assume that is a very unlikely scenario and it's not a very good anaology.

The reason it's not a good analogy is because Hans is 2700 and Magnus is 2800. The difference isn't nearly as extreme. 

 

It is clear that you don’t follow running sports.

But it's also irrelevant to my response.

The point is that Hans at 2700 and Magnus at 2800 isn't as large as people are making it seems, and Hans taking a single game of Magnus is hardly anything at all. It's not like he won a best of 14. 

You are focusing on the wrong thing. The game he won over Magnus was not even close to the main evidence he cheated. In fact Magnus losing a game to a young guy isn't anything suspicious as he does every now and then. It was merely a trigger that put Hans in the spotlight. Before that it was already consensus he cheated among the small circle of super GMs. Fabi said Magnus was already about to withdraw when Hans got invited to Sinqfield Cup, before they even played. I would go as far as saying even if you proved to me Hans was clean in that specific game, it's still incredibly likely he cheated his way to 2700.

But Magnus didn't withdraw until he lost fair and square, so I don't know if there is any bulk to saying he was planning on withdrawing before the tournament started. 

If Magnus would have won, none of this would have been an issue. Therefore, it's hard to take that argument seriously. 

Fabi and other super GMs also said nothing seemed suspicious in that game.

Oh and one more thing. You are making a point that if something serious happened but nobody exposed it, then there would be no issue. That's a very dangerous point. There would be no publicity, very different thing from 'none of this would have been an issue'Look what's happening to security screening in OTB chess events. None of these positive development would have happened if Magnus did not risk public backlashes the way he did.

IsraeliGal
CrusaderKing1 wrote:
Hartsville54 wrote:

You have used Occam's Razor (the simplest explanation is usually correct) to argue that Hans did not cheat. One could argue that given, past unethical behavior, and overwhelming statistical analysis Occam's Razor would point to the simple explanation of cheating.

Statistical data according to who? Because it's definitely not Regan, the reigning authority of OTB cheating. 

The statistical data is usually from people with 1/1000th the expertise and knowledge Regan has. 

Again, if there is no evidence Hans cheated, no strange moves in his game against Magnus, etc...then the simplest explanation is he won fair and square.

The simplest explanation is not that he was using a device in a secured area for OTB chess.

many chess masters have snuck in devices for cheating in rigorous anti-cheating measures in many tournaments and prize funded events, so this assumption that just because he was playing chess in a secure area therefore it means he didnt cheat is a stupid argument..


I don't think you understand the nuance of cheating in chess at the highest level. You think it would be obvious. If you actually studied cheating at the highest level you would find out you only need 1 or 2 moves from the engine to win almost every match. As Magnus has said you wouldn't even need the moves told to you, you would just need the engine for example to tell you that you are winning in your current position, which would prompt you to find the winning move. Chess players above the 2500 rating understand chess very deeply, they dont use an engine the same way we do, and thus if you look at some of Hans game from a period of 6 tournaments he played in a row that many have pointed out, there are many suspicious games within those tournaments. 

 

The fact that he has cheated EXTENSIVELY online, which is definitively proven by chess.coms analysis and cheat detection system (which Hans has himself claimed is the best in the world) only adds on to the "simple" conclusion that he is in fact cheating.

TheBlueBoy

If somebody had given Hans Niemann inside information that Magnus was going to play that opening, would that be still considered cheating?

jfri57
IronSteam1 wrote:
jfri57 wrote:

But from what I understand the broadcast is transmitted with a delay. Would that not make it very difficult ? The cheater getting in to lack of time problem ?

Yes, the delay helps combat certain cheating methods. Personally, I think the delay should be even longer (an hour, or even 2 hours). But a 30-minute delay is still better than no delay.

This delay was not in effect until recently, though. In the Carlsen-Niemann Sinquefield Cup game, for example, (the game that began this whole controversy) there was no broadcast delay ...

 

Yes of course if there were no delay it changes the situation. And if this guy did cheat it's going to get more difficult next time. There are other things that could be made for example screening the playing room with a faraday cage which would prevent any outside transmission to get into the room. Sooner or later it would be impossible for him to continue cheating.

GlutesChess

Hans cheated against Nepo on June 20, 2020. It's in the chess.com report

PawnTsunami
TheBlueBoy wrote:

If somebody had given Hans Niemann inside information that Magnus was going to play that opening, would that be still considered cheating?

Unethical, yes; cheating, no.

That said, the notion that someone from Magnus' team told Hans he was definitely going to play that opening is laughable as even Magnus' seconds do not know what opening he will play until he sits down at the board and plays it.  They usually provide several ideas and he picks the one he wants.

Ziryab
NervesofButter wrote:

"Which takes me back to the running analogy:  if you had someone who was a decent high school sprinter, and suddenly started crushing world record holders out of nowhere, would you just assume it was because he was working hard?"

 

Well...we have two ways of looking at it. 

1. He worked hard, is a late bloomer.  BORING.

2. He cheated.  NOW THAT'S EXCITING AND GIVES US MORE TO ARGUE ABOUT.

What do you think the prevailing opinion is going to be?

 

A lot of this hinges on what we mean by "decent". If the high school student is setting state records and six months later beats a world record holder in an event, we will inquire about his training regime. If he did not break existing high school records, we know he cheated.

Whether this applies to a stable, but young 2500 rising rapidly to the world's top 50 in a short period of time during a global pandemic remains to be seen. There are many things that are exceptional about Niemann's rise. But unusual success by someone with a history of cheating is not a novelty. That history offers the explanation that is simplest, but it still lacks evidence.

We need evidence.

CrusaderKing1
Soniasthetics wrote:
CrusaderKing1 wrote:
Hartsville54 wrote:

You have used Occam's Razor (the simplest explanation is usually correct) to argue that Hans did not cheat. One could argue that given, past unethical behavior, and overwhelming statistical analysis Occam's Razor would point to the simple explanation of cheating.

Statistical data according to who? Because it's definitely not Regan, the reigning authority of OTB cheating. 

The statistical data is usually from people with 1/1000th the expertise and knowledge Regan has. 

Again, if there is no evidence Hans cheated, no strange moves in his game against Magnus, etc...then the simplest explanation is he won fair and square.

The simplest explanation is not that he was using a device in a secured area for OTB chess.

many chess masters have snuck in devices for cheating in rigorous anti-cheating measures in many tournaments and prize funded events, so this assumption that just because he was playing chess in a secure area therefore it means he didnt cheat is a stupid argument..


I don't think you understand the nuance of cheating in chess at the highest level. You think it would be obvious. If you actually studied cheating at the highest level you would find out you only need 1 or 2 moves from the engine to win almost every match. As Magnus has said you wouldn't even need the moves told to you, you would just need the engine for example to tell you that you are winning in your current position, which would prompt you to find the winning move. Chess players above the 2500 rating understand chess very deeply, they dont use an engine the same way we do, and thus if you look at some of Hans game from a period of 6 tournaments he played in a row that many have pointed out, there are many suspicious games within those tournaments. 

 

The fact that he has cheated EXTENSIVELY online, which is definitively proven by chess.coms analysis and cheat detection system (which Hans has himself claimed is the best in the world) only adds on to the "simple" conclusion that he is in fact cheating.

I don't understand why we set aside the presumption innocence until proven guilty in this case.

Just because some players OTB have cheated or have been caught cheating, doesn't mean Hans is more or less likely to cheat.

Simply put, nothing indicates he cheated in that game against Magnus, so it's just weird to presume he's guilty over his innocence.

Cheating online is an entirely different concept than cheating OTB. Different circumstances, different environment, and different consequences if caught (would destroy entire career).

It's comparing apples to oranges.

But even if it were comparing apples to apples, it doesnt change the fact that the game he beat Magnus was not suspicious and he should be seen as innocent until proven guilty. Even a tiny iota of evidence would help prove his guilt, but there is none. Even top GMs said his moves were not unusual. 

PawnTsunami
Ziryab wrote:

Whether this applies to a stable, but young 2500 rising rapidly to the world's top 50 in a short period of time during a global pandemic remains to be seen. There are many things that are exceptional about Niemann's rise. But unusual success by someone with a history of cheating is not a novelty. That history offers the explanation that is simplest, but it still lacks evidence.

We need evidence.

Agreed, but I do not think we will get any concrete evidence any time soon, unfortunately.

PawnTsunami
CrusaderKing1 wrote:

But even if it were comparing apples to apples, it doesnt change the fact that the game he beat Magnus was not suspicious and he should be seen as innocent until proven guilty. Even a tiny iota of evidence would help prove his guilt, but there is none. Even top GMs said his moves were not unusual. 

So we have moved from misusing Occam's Razor, to appeals to authority, and now conflating a legal principle when it does not apply.

"Innocent until proven guilty" does not mean you do not suspect someone of a crime until you can prove it.  It means you do not convict them of a crime until you can prove it.  As of right now, it is only suspected that Hans has cheated in some OTB games, it has not been proven, and as such, he has not been sanctioned by FIDE nor USCF.  The only impact he has faced (other than the publicity that he helped to fuel) is the fact that Magnus made it clear he is not going to play him again.