2022 Sinquefield Cup

[JustinHorton]

Isn't that the guy at chess.com who seemingly baned ejhchess

As Paul says above, I don't think he was personally anything to do with it. The guy in charge of Fair Play is or was Gerard Le Marechal, and that's who apologised to me on Facebook and withdrew the ban. Incidentally ejhchess is not my handle at chessdotcom.

for using book moves (literally so, he quoted the book as evidence in his defence)

I've said this a few times, but while I think this is very likely true, I don't actually know - even in broad outline - what it was about because they never told me.

It remains an interesting point as to what extent if at all, infractions or supposed infraction at online servers should affect status at OTB events. If GCT had been aware of the evidence chess.com had against Hans, should they perhaps have declined to invite him?

Quite possibly, but what's absurd is inviting him and then disqualifying him on the basis of his conduct in a tournament three (or however many it is) years earlier. I am fairly sure, by the way, that I can recall another instance of them doing this, but I can't remember the name of the player.

[Mick Norris]

An interesting chess.com statement on Hans Niemann which disputes the accuracy what he said early this week about the extent of his online cheating. Unfortunately, there's nothing saying what they think he did or when he did it. Nor is there any comment on the timing of the latest ban.

chess24 have the details, plus a tweet from Hans and a clip I haven;t watched from Naka

Nakamura...

...concedes that Hans' explanation of how he'd checked the opening that occurred in the game against Magnus Carlsen is "definitely plausible", even if he feels Hans got very lucky in that scenario,
...denies that he made any "direct accusations" of Hans cheating over-the-board rather than online,
...agrees that Hans being removed from the Chess.com Global Championship requires some kind of statement. He also calls on Magnus to make a statement.

[Chris Rice]

This is indeed an interesting development and makes me wonder whether Carlsen's withdrawal from the tournament was brought about by someone at Chess.com telling him that Niemann had cheated online, though perhaps Carlsen already knew beforehand. As Niemann had already confessed to cheating online I'm also wondering what Chess.com are asking the public to believe as we have no additional evidence submitted but a clear statement that Niemann is lying as to the extent and seriousness of the cheating. It does not seem a difficult task though to consider what that additional evidence might be as it could really only relate to the number of times he cheated and whether they were in rated games and perhaps tournaments with prizes involved.

All I've got are questions at the moment. Why was the statement made at all? Is Carlsen behind this? Are Chess.com saying that under certain circumstances they will release the information to the public they are referring to? Are they telling Niemann to back off because he's making Chess.com and/or Carlsen look bad? Or are they just saying that it doesn't matter what Niemann says publicly, he's not getting his account back and if he wants to know why they are happy to tell him? As we know the statement refers to periods when Niemann would have been a minor so I assume Chess.com took legal advice. Perhaps Niemann's public explanation in that interview was enough to convince them that he wouldn't be able to sue Chess.com in this respect.

What a mess.

[NickFaulks]

Nakamura...

...concedes that Hans' explanation of how he'd checked the opening that occurred in the game against Magnus Carlsen is "definitely plausible", even if he feels Hans got very lucky in that scenario

The Deep Blue team got very lucky when they put that Caro-Kann sacrifice into its opening book. Kasparov insisted that could only be cheating, but sometimes being thorough does bring its own luck.

...denies that he made any "direct accusations" of Hans cheating over-the-board rather than online

Maybe just to the point of legal deniability, but the whole world knew what he was saying.

Serious backpedalling going on here.

[LawrenceCooper]

Nakamura...

...concedes that Hans' explanation of how he'd checked the opening that occurred in the game against Magnus Carlsen is "definitely plausible", even if he feels Hans got very lucky in that scenario

The Deep Blue team got very lucky when they put that Caro-Kann sacrifice into its opening book. Kasparov insisted that could only be cheating, but sometimes being thorough does bring its own luck.

...denies that he made any "direct accusations" of Hans cheating over-the-board rather than online

Maybe just to the point of legal deniability, but the whole world knew what he was saying.

Serious backpedalling going on here.

Really? He said all along that there was nothing suspicious about the game against Magnus and repeatedly commented that he couldn't understand what white was doing. What he did find very odd was the level of his analysis in interviews combined with the knowledge of past bans and the rumours that were circulating about him at the St Louis rapid & blitz. He could certainly be accused of fanning the flames but his opinions haven't changed. If he is behaving appropriately to be voicing them given the damage it is doing to the reputation of a young player without anything other than hearsay is another matter entirely.

[Geoff Chandler]

Nakamura has some previous form regarding false cheat allegations - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Paulo_Supi
From the few clips I saw of him regarding this matter there were a couple of 'nudge nudge wink wink' going on but
nothing outright. It looks like he has learned a thing or two about how far he can go.

Yes Chris, a mess and speculation is the name of the game. Can I have a go? My guess is;

Carlsen did not notice anything untoward during the game but after it someone mentioned or Carlsen
remembered this 2600 player has been banned for cheating online. Then he watched the interview...
His opening was busted and 'Must be embarrassing for the World Champion to lose to such an idiot like me'
(I bet that did not sit well with Magnus.)

A later night phone call to organisers about possible foul play.
Before the next round security was beefed up (which appears to have happened.)
Magnus turns up just before the next round with an either he goes or I walk out ultimatum.

That is my 'what a mess' guess.

[Keith Arkell]

All these shenanigans forcibly remind me of a parallel with my own experience at the last British Online Championship.

I was so sure that I was playing against an engine during the second half of my round 8 game that after I resigned, while still in contention for first place with one round to go, I informed the ECF that I would be withdrawing, as a form of protest.

I did not expect the Federation to reverse the result or throw my opponent out as they obviously can't do that each time a player reports suspicion.

But then, by a stroke of good fortune, 30 minutes later, a friend informed me that Chess.com had just closed my opponent's account for fair play issues.To remove any doubt of precisely why the account was closed, the site refunded my lost rating points. I should add that I did not make a complaint to Chess.com. My own conclusion that my opponent was using an engine was completely independent of Chess.com coming to the same conclusion. 

After lengthy consultations the ECF then reduced my opponent's score to 0/9 and I completed the Championship.  

I have 3 thoughts on this matter:

I do not draw a distinction between Over-the-Board engine use and Online engine use any more than I do between stealing from a corner shop and stealing from Harrods. 

I am kind of prepared to empathise with Magnus Carlsen, though this depends to a large extent on whether he believes that he was a victim himself or whether he was simply aware of his opponent's engine use in the past.  

I am grateful to Chess.com because it is only by their excellent detection methods that I was not unfairly deprived of the title of British Online Champion.  

[JustinHorton]

It should perhaps be said that Chessdotcom's "detection methods" aren't really what's controversial here.

[David Guthrie]

So many interesting discussion topics raised by this incident, to name just a few:

- Whether players who gained the majority of their playing strength in the pre-computer era, or without training heavily with computers (for arguments sake, and having read this thread, possibly say Ian Rogers, Keith Arkell, Jacob Aagaard, Lev Aronian) have better or worse intuition about correctly identifying cheating from looking at games, than players who gained their playing strength during the computer era and/or training heavily with computers (e.g. maybe Carlsen, Nakamura).
- Whether players in the absolute world elite have better or worse intuition about detecting cheating than mere ordinary titled players
- To what extent extremely rapid increases in playing strength are in and of themselves evidence of cheating
- The likelihood/relationship between cheating in online games, and cheating in real world OTB chess
- The effectiveness of the technology being used to detect cheating online vs the effectiveness of the techniques used to detect cheating at OTB events
- The general public's ability to detect truthfulness/deception from watching/listening to someone being interviewed, particularly when the individual is in a heightened emotional state / or "on tilt".
- Exactly what standard of proof should be required when cheating is suspected/alleged - whether someone needs to be caught "red handed", or whether sufficient circumstantial evidence is sufficient to reverse the burden of proof so it becomes the responsibility of the player accused of cheating to prove they didn't
- The relationship between playing strength in blitz or speed chess, and play at classical chess time controls
- To what extent cheating methods based purely on analysis of game scores can be evaded by a "centaur" approach where a human deliberately selects moves which are sub-optimal compared to engine moves to attempt to evade detection
- etc

As I understand it, Neiman has offered to play naked to prove that he wasn't using outside assistance. This sounds like a bluff, but surely given the attention this incident has attracted, surely there must be at least sufficiently strong player (say anyone in the world's top 100) willing to call his bluff and play some games with him under strict anti-cheating conditions? Maybe wearing speedos in a room specifically designed to block all types of electronic signals, after having had full body scans first?

[NickFaulks]

Much more friendly post-game interview with Niemann today.

[Roger de Coverly]

As I understand it, Neiman has offered to play naked to prove that he wasn't using outside assistance. This sounds like a bluff,

I thought it was a joke. Going barefeet may be all that's necessary to avert the speculation that it's a signalling device in shoes.


Seemingly Carlsen was out prepared and yes, the preparation would have involved using an engine to attempt to identify promising continuations. That's legal as long as it's before the game.

Anyone wanting to consult an engine during play has two problems to solve. The first is how to tell the engine the current position and the second is to find out what moves it suggests. Provided mobile phones and similar devices are kept out of use, it's relatively straightforward to frustrate OTB attempts, rather less so when the player is remote both from the opponent and the arbiter.

Real time coverage by engines does repesent a serious temptation, so deliberate transmission delays have their place.

[Ian Thompson]

After yesterday's game, I wonder if the arbiters in Saint Louis have spoken to Domínguez Pérez about the correct way to claim a draw by repetition - see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4i5iTBOz1M&t=8s at 5:05:20? Or I am wrong to think that rule 9.5.1 has to be the last step in the procedure to claim a draw, not the first step?

[Reg Clucas]

After yesterday's game, I wonder if the arbiters in Saint Louis have spoken to Domínguez Pérez about the correct way to claim a draw by repetition - see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4i5iTBOz1M&t=8s at 5:05:20? Or I am wrong to think that rule 9.5.1 has to be the last step in the procedure to claim a draw, not the first step?

Unless Firouzja had verbally offered a draw?

[LawrenceCooper]

After yesterday's game, I wonder if the arbiters in Saint Louis have spoken to Domínguez Pérez about the correct way to claim a draw by repetition - see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4i5iTBOz1M&t=8s at 5:05:20? Or I am wrong to think that rule 9.5.1 has to be the last step in the procedure to claim a draw, not the first step?

Unless Firouzja had verbally offered a draw?

Draw offers aren't allowed in this event.

[Ian Thompson]

After yesterday's game, I wonder if the arbiters in Saint Louis have spoken to Domínguez Pérez about the correct way to claim a draw by repetition - see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4i5iTBOz1M&t=8s at 5:05:20? Or I am wrong to think that rule 9.5.1 has to be the last step in the procedure to claim a draw, not the first step?

Unless Firouzja had verbally offered a draw?

If he was accepting a draw offer from Firouzja then there would have been no White move to write down on his scoresheet after stopping the clock. The same would apply if he was claiming a draw by repetition as a result of Firouzja's last move, which the commentators said he could have.