Carlsen resigns on move 2

[Geoff Chandler]

It would appear Kramnik is very interested in Han's request. Good for him.

"I believe it would be great for everyone and mainly Hans Niemann to come and play OTB friendly blitz games with various top GMs, talk with them in a relaxed atmosphere, and have nice pleasant time in the great city. I would also definitely take part if he agrees. Mr. Levitov is ready to compensate all Hans expenses connected with this project
That would dismiss all confusion people might have, close the unpleasant chapter of Niemann's past, and we might have a session with Hans in the future. But of course, it is his choice.
So far I haven't received any answer but the invitation is still in force and I personally hope he will make it to Levitov chess tournament.

Vladimir Kramnik

The text is here: https://www.chessgames.com/perl/kibitzi ... eply=42600

[Paolo Casaschi]

Vladimir Kramnik on the C-Squared Podcast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ng3lTBAi4Ps

Who is going to take one for the team and sit through the whole two hours?

Listen to a good portion of it.

Kramnik conclusion is that online cheating among titled player is very frequent; he estimates that more than 20% of titled players cheated at some point on chess.com. He suggests that statistical detection should be enough for a cheating conviction, and the threshold of proof should be lowered, even at the cost of punishing some false positive. He keeps referring to his statistical studies and his statistical analysis, but his examples provide more an anecdotal view than scientific value and a more comprehensive view of those statistical analysis is not offered; it sounds to me particularly odd that the whole statistical data is based around the chess.com measure of accuracy of play for each player at the end of each game, but he admitted that chess.com did not disclose to him how such accuracy is actually measured.

He clearly has strong opinions about the issue. I'm not sure he understand what a statistical study actually entails and the value of peer review of such studies; repeatedly, he mentioned that he came to such conclusions based on his statistical analysis and people can believe him or not, but it's not how this should work.

[Roger de Coverly]

it sounds to me particularly odd that the whole statistical data is based around the chess.com measure of accuracy of play for each player at the end of each game, but he admitted that chess.com did not disclose to him how such accuracy is actually measured.

I thought it was well known that if one player gains a strong advantage early on and the opponent does little to contest it, that 100% accuracy according to the metrics isn't too difficult. I think accuracy is down to how often the player reproduces one of the engine's suggestions.

[Paolo Casaschi]

I think accuracy is down to...

You'd think something like that, but we really don't know. Kramnik extrapolates most of his conclusions by looking at that measure. It's such an key component of Kramnik construct, that I find surprising he does not question how that number is actually measured. It also makes you wonder why chess.com keeps that calculation methodology a secret. There are a number of questions, for example, did chess.com change the methodology over time? Does it make sense to compare old accuracy numbers with more recent ones? Does the accuracy calculation depend on the player rating? You'd think it should not but how can you be sure? Does the accuracy calculation depend on the time control? If compared to engine analysis, how much engine time is used? So many questions...

[NickFaulks]

It also makes you wonder why chess.com keeps that calculation methodology a secret.

Because they know it's rubbish, why else?

[Paolo Casaschi]

It also makes you wonder why chess.com keeps that calculation methodology a secret.

Because they know it's rubbish, why else?

Anyone free to speculate, but we just don't know. However Kramnik seems to have confidence in those values. Paraphrasing, he mentioned that very often he can precisely guess the accuracy number of his opponents, the implication being that if chess.com measurement agrees with Kramnik assessment, then it must be a good indicator. Overall in the podcasts Kramnik comes across very confident and with a very high opinion of his own opinions, even when applied to fields far away from chess such as statistical analysis.

[NickFaulks]

Overall in the podcasts Kramnik comes across very confident and with a very high opinion of his own opinions, even when applied to fields far away from chess such as statistical analysis.

I may take Kramnik's views on statistics seriously when he takes my views on the Anti-Meran seriously.

[Roger de Coverly]

Does the accuracy calculation depend on the time control? If compared to engine analysis, how much engine time is used? So many questions...

That's an interesting point. The hypothesis behind accusations is that players are somehow consulting engines whilst playing. If it's Blitz, the engine has only as much time as the player takes between moves. Would the "accuracy" figure be different if the exact same game had been played as rapid or even classical?

[Keith Arkell]

After chess genius Hans Niemann wins Zagreb by 3 clear points and the best performance ( 2946!) of anyone on the planet all year, the organiser of the event said the following in an interview for the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten:

''Niemann's performance is out of this world, but we have no definite proof that he is cheating. We have some indications, but we don't know if anyone wants to report him.''

I think the problem was that, apart from transmission delay, there were no other anti-cheating measures in place, which doesn't reflect too well on the very organiser who is now, too late, dropping hints.

I presume that there will be maximum anti-cheating measures in place for the London Classic, at which the Fischer-like genius will compete.

[Kevin Thurlow]

''Niemann's performance is out of this world, but we have no definite proof that he is cheating. We have some indications, but we don't know if anyone wants to report him.''

I'm no legal expert but I suspect that's defamatory enough for HN to take legal action. What are the indications?

[Matthew Turner]

''Niemann's performance is out of this world, but we have no definite proof that he is cheating. We have some indications, but we don't know if anyone wants to report him.''

I'm no legal expert but I suspect that's defamatory enough for HN to take legal action. What are the indications?

"Niemann’s attorney, Terrence A. Oved of Oved & Oved LLP, said in a statement to Forbes Betting: “Despite the overwhelming proof of Hans’ extraordinary talents, there will always be haters. Our advice to them is simple: Get used to it. Hans is just getting started"

That is from Forbes, but I don't seem to be able to link the article

[LawrenceCooper]

''Niemann's performance is out of this world, but we have no definite proof that he is cheating. We have some indications, but we don't know if anyone wants to report him.''

I'm no legal expert but I suspect that's defamatory enough for HN to take legal action. What are the indications?

I've heard that the organiser denies making the statement. If he did, though, and felt the need to say anything it would have been more prudent to say "we have no evidence of cheating".

[Matt Mackenzie]

There have been suggestions that "indications" was a poor translation and he was in fact rather less commital.

[Kevin Thurlow]

In this case, I'm inclined to believe the "translation error" exists!

[NickFaulks]

''We have some indications, but we don't know if anyone wants to report him.''

I'm no legal expert but I suspect that's defamatory enough for HN to take legal action. What are the indications?

I took this to mean that they don't know if anyone wants to report him, but there are indications that someone ( Sokolov? ) might.