Carlsen resigns on move 2

[NickFaulks]

I cannot recommend too strongly that anyone with a serious interest in this topic should spend an hour listening to the second half of this podcast, an interview with GM David Smerdon. He is a working statistician, a breed almost unknown in the chess world, and his views are always valuable.

https://www.perpetualchesspod.com/new-b ... -213983925

He eviscerates the Lets Check analysis, although with no criticism of Chessbase. As he says, the only reference to this function in their manual is to say that it should under no circumstances be used as an anti-cheating tool, and they are right.

[Geoff Chandler]

Just on it, as it happens, but I didn't know somebody had gone through all of Fischer's games, is that available anywhere?

Hi Justin,

Something from Red Hot Pawn (2009) which was given as idea what to look for in top three match ups.
Overall 563 moves of Fischer from 658 made the top three. It is the reading from 3rd choice move
what is important as it holds all the top three choices.

The top choice always looks misleading 385 first choice moves and only 124 2nd choice (509-385)
but top choice holds all the forced recaptures, only legal moves, or obvious moves etc
It will always show a high number but overall it's percentage will be lower.

These figures were based on the lad letting his computer look at the positions for 30 seconds.
Then making another move, waiting 30 seconds, another move etc... It takes about an hour to do one game.
You need at least 20 games. and the 658 moves selected were non-database moves these days
the search could start after moves 20-30.

Ken Regan etc will have all this automated so they will load in a pile of games, go for a coffee
and come back and see what is what. They will also have algorithms of their own to look at and
of course their machine will take in the time it took to play a move which is very important.

These stats are a benchmark, but we do know there was no computer involved.

Fischer-Spassky 1972

Fischer
Top 1 Match: 385/658 (58,5% )
Top 2 Match: 509/658 (77,4% )
Top 3 Match: 563/658 (85,6% )

Spassky
Top 1 Match: 368/657 (56,0% )
Top 2 Match: 461/657 (70,2% )
Top 3 Match: 525/657 (79,9% )

Capablanca-Alekhine 1927

Alekhine
Top 1 Match: 467/852 (54,8% )
Top 2 Match: 622/852 (73,0% )
Top 3 Match: 685/852 (80,4% )

Capablanca
Top 1 Match: 470/853 (55,1% )
Top 2 Match: 632/853 (74,1% )
Top 3 Match: 703/853 (82,4% )

[Geoff Chandler]

I read the link Justin posted above: 'Chess Grandmaster Maxim Dlugy Admitted to Cheating on Chess.com"

"In one email, Dlugy says that in 2017, he was playing in a tournament on Chess.com in front of his students,
and was crowdsourcing moves from them. (This is, itself, a violation of Chess.com's fair play rules.)!

This was making the rounds at chessgames David Howell appears to be looking at his mobile (getting a move?)
and then telling Magnus he could trap his opponents Queen. Magnus is playing Daniel Naroditsky.

https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments ... an_oopsie/

Magnus looks at the screen agrees and then right away realises what has just happened,
To me it just looks like a bunch of boys having a laugh but others tried a big deal out of it.
It's really harmless. a skittles game, Magnus did not ask for help.

I've seen worse outside OTB tournaments when I used to pop out for a quick puff.

[Geoff Chandler]

And to even it up in the Carlsen v Niemann affair. (see above)
Various clips of Hans completely losing all self control.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfLNNyz7sPw

Next time this makes the 10 o'clock news they should show it.
Or not, parents will not their children ending up like this.
Or have I made a boo boo and you all do the same as Hans does when you lose.

[JustinHorton]

I cannot recommend too strongly that anyone with a serious interest in this topic should spend an hour listening to the second half of this podcast, an interview with GM David Smerdon. He is a working statistician, a breed almost unknown in the chess world, and his views are always valuable.

https://www.perpetualchesspod.com/new-b ... -213983925

He eviscerates the Lets Check analysis, although with no criticism of Chessbase. As he says, the only reference to this function in their manual is to say that it should under no circumstances be used as an anti-cheating tool, and they are right.

I'll try and listen to the whole hour later today (may be difficult to fit in) but there is a short taster here (or read it here).

[MartinCarpenter]

I cannot recommend too strongly that anyone with a serious interest in this topic should spend an hour listening to the second half of this podcast, an interview with GM David Smerdon. He is a working statistician, a breed almost unknown in the chess world, and his views are always valuable.

https://www.perpetualchesspod.com/new-b ... -213983925

He eviscerates the Lets Check analysis, although with no criticism of Chessbase. As he says, the only reference to this function in their manual is to say that it should under no circumstances be used as an anti-cheating tool, and they are right.

This whole thing has slightly baffled me A priori its surely checking for roughly the same issues that Reegan is, and Reegan has actually put the (non trivial!) effort in to do it *right*.

Or do they think they're testing for something different? It'd be nice if they'd say what that was, although I doubt if the thinking is remotely that structured.

There is surely a flat 0% chance that anyone is directly using the lets check facility to actually cheat with. Hopelessly convoluted.

[NickFaulks]

Or do they think they're testing for something different? It'd be nice if they'd say what that was, although I doubt if the thinking is remotely that structured.

I imagine that Chessbase are wishing they had never thought of Lets Check. They produced a cheap & cheerful feature, marked it "for amusement only" and put it out with no documentation. Suddenly it is at the centre of a major scandal and everyone wants to tear it apart.

[JustinHorton]

OK. I've managed to find time to listen to the podcast with David Smerdon - not the whole podcast, but the entire segment involving Smerdon talking about cheating and the Carlsen/Niemann controversy. It goes from 55:30 to 1:39:00 (ignore the timings given on the web page) and I, too, recommend most strongly that it be listened to. There's no big reveal or anything, there's no judgments handed down from on high, but it would be genuinely better to listen to somebody well-informed talking in a level-headed and comprehensible manner about the issues involved in this controversy, in full, than to look at any summary I could give you. Please do listen if you can find three-quarters of an hour to do so.

[E Michael White]

Nick Faulks quotes David Smerdon who says at 32:00 in the Pod recommended :-

" ................. 32:00- What kind of cheating measures should be put in place? ............. "

Anti-cheating surely !

[NickFaulks]

Edit: Oops, I'm happy to admit I got that one wrong. I read a stat from 12 September by someone on Boris Avrukh's Twitter claiming an average perf of 2850 by Hans Niemann.

That's great, Keith. So "this is indisputable" actually means "someone said on Twitter".

The trouble is that what will stay in people's memories is the original version.

However, it is even harder to argue with the easily calculable statistic that to go from 2508 to 2700 during 1 year and 5 months required of Niemann a performance level of 2850. This is indisputable and very easy to calculate. What a truly amazing achievement. Imagine, a 17 or 18 year old player is rated 2508, and for the next 17 months plays at a higher level than anyone in the world except for Carlsen. Wow!

There is a community with little understanding of the rating system who will assume that an experienced GM could not have written this if it were complete and utter rubbish.

In case anyone is interested in the facts, over the period Keith mentions Neimann scored 165/235 against 2499 opposition, for a 2648 performance.

[Geoff Chandler]

I've listened to the first half or Rowson - Smerdon podcast.

Jonathon starts by saying how worried he is the whole of this affair is having on Hans
who has been plucked from relative obscurity to world wide infamy.
Carlsen perhaps not so, he has been experiencing being in the limelight since he was 14-15 (sooner)
I believe he is also correct in thinking Carlsen possibly wished he never started all of this
or has FIDE says, it could have been handled better.

So far a good listen, no reason the doubt the rest will not be just as good.

[Mick Norris]

Like Geoff, I've listened to Rowson but not yet Smerdon, and I'd really recommend it although I know it is a big time commitment

[MartinCarpenter]

Or do they think they're testing for something different? It'd be nice if they'd say what that was, although I doubt if the thinking is remotely that structured.

I imagine that Chessbase are wishing they had never thought of Lets Check. They produced a cheap & cheerful feature, marked it "for amusement only" and put it out with no documentation. Suddenly it is at the centre of a major scandal and everyone wants to tear it apart.

Eh, its all publicity

[NickFaulks]

Like Geoff, I've listened to Rowson but not yet Smerdon, and I'd really recommend it although I know it is a big time commitment

Too late in your case, but anyone looking for real information about the nuts and bolts rather than ( interesting ) psychological stuff really should go to Smerdon first.

[Gerard Killoran]

The New York Times has run this piece by Greg Keener who 'is a FIDE arbiter and assistant manager at the Marshall Chess Club in New York.'

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/28/cros ... pdate.html

The final paragraph is quite a stunner.

If Mr. Niemann is not cheating, the magnitude of his achievement is astounding. At times, his play is so accurate that it leaves audiences and opponents alike in disbelief. He may already be the best player in the world. But if Mr. Niemann is cheating, the damage done to the game of chess may prove incalculable.

Keener may be a FIDE arbiter, but does not seem to have any chess rating whatsoever. In fact I can't find any evidence of him playing any games of competitive chess, like a football referee who has never kicked a ball in anger.

I would say that this must be the stupidest comment on the Carlsen - Niemann affair I have read so far, and that's in a very crowded field.

I give you the last OTB performance from the person who, 'may already be the best player in the world':

From Chess Results for the 2022 GCT Sinquefield Cup

Name Niemann Hans Moke
Title GM
Starting rank 6
Rating 2688
Rating national 0
Rating international 2688
Performance rating 2722
FIDE rtg +/- 3,5
Points 3,5
Rank 7

Oh, and in the FIDE live ratings Niemann, who, 'may already be the best player in the world' is at number 40.