Carlsen resigns on move 2

[Gerard Killoran]

An observation

August 16 FTX Crypto Cup 1st game Niemann wins first game, Carlsen wins next three games. Carlsen doesn't refuse to play Niemann, nor does he leave the tournament.

September 04 Carlsen loses to Niemann and flounces out of tournament.

September 19 Carlsen throws game to Niemann, but stays in tournament.

Between August 16 and September 04 Carlsen seemed to change his mind about playing Niemann, but made no public comment or protest.

Only when he lost on September 04, having played badly and missed several chances of a draw, did he throw his toys out of the pram.

What would Carlsen have done differently if he had won that game?

[Mike Gunn]

No evidence that Niemann cheated according to Ken Regan.

The obvious question is whether or not this analysis, which does include some chess.com events, includes the games from chess.com where they claim he was cheating. I don't suppose anyone other than chess.com and Niemann know the answer to that.

Regan gave Niemann a clean bill of health for online play after August 2020 (49 minutes into Regan's Chessbase interview). He only has data of Niemann's online play going back to Jume 2020 so (although Regan doesn't explicitly say this) there is an implication that there may have been online cheating in June, July and August that year. This all appears to be consistent with Niemann's admission of online cheating made when he was 12 and 16. If chess.com has some other evidence of Niemann cheating beyond that it isn't based on any Regan analysis. The ball really is in the Carlsen/ chess.com court.

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Gerard,

'What would Carlsen have done differently if he had won that game?'

We have no idea at all what Magnus would have done had he won.
We do however know what Hans would not have done.
He would not have said in the after game interview;

“It must be embarrassing for the world champion to lose to an idiot like me. I feel for him."

How deep did that one sting?
"A 2600 player, a player who I now know has been banned from an online site for cheating is bragging about
beating me and feeling sorry for ME!"...increase the security....unleash my attack dog Nakamura...I'm out of here...

Just flicking yet another speculation card onto the table. That one was dealt from the
bottom of the deck (the joker!) I think it fits better with Gerard's 'toys out of the pram.'

[Tim Harding]

If Carlsen and Niemann both qualify for the final stage of the current tournament then either Carlsen needs to resign his place or give a guarantee that he will play a proper game against Niemann if they are paired.
If he won't do that then the organisers should throw him out of the event.

Now that Niemann is legally an adult, things he misguidedly did as a minor should not be held against him, especially since there is no suggestion so far as I know that he has ever cheated OTB.

Unless proof emerges to the contrary, I hold to my opinion that it is Carlsen not Niemann who has brought the chess world into disrepute.

I would like to see a major tournament organiser like Wijk aan Zee invite Niemann and not Carlsen. Or invite both but put Carlsen on notice that if he repeats his recent stunts he will never be invited again.

As for chess.com, I intend to cancel my membership before the renewal date.

[JustinHorton]

Any chance of a statement from the Tour?

[Mick Norris]

Open letter to Ken Regan from Dennis Monokroussos

[JustinHorton]

Very strange letter

[Christopher Kreuzer]

All I can say about the open letter from Monokroussos is that a pyschologist would have a field day picking out the various half-hidden and not so-hidden meanings behind some of the phrasings used there (whether conscious or not). Oh, and when you write an open letter, you don't leave in the personal ingratiating bits about some NFL team. There are some excellent questions in there, but the sort that need open discussion, not expecting Ken Regan to magic up some answer to the whole sorry mess.

[David Sedgwick]

Open letter to Ken Regan from Dennis Monokroussos

Now including a response from Ken Regan. Scroll down.

[Paul Cooksey]

I have to admit I find Ken Regan's approach very unconvincing. I am sure it spots someone using a computer to play most of their moves. But the kind of subtle cheating that improves play by 50 points rather than a 1000 - indicating the comp evaluation at critical moments rather than moves for example - seems not to be be addressed. Am I doing his approach a disservice?

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Would anyone here, advising a young chess player, tell them that they should play online chess to help increase their playing strength, or would you advise that the risk of being potentially banned for cheating, when you were not, is too great? (There are also the issues of some players [young and adult] not being able to resist the temptation of cheating, and whether to publicly disclose your online chess playing identity?)

[MartinCarpenter]

I have to admit I find Ken Regan's approach very unconvincing. I am sure it spots someone using a computer to play most of their moves. But the kind of subtle cheating that improves play by 50 points rather than a 1000 - indicating the comp evaluation at critical moments rather than moves for example - seems not to be be addressed. Am I doing his approach a disservice?

A bit He's catching what you can actually reliably catch. Still well worth doing of course.

That sort of subtle cheating is frankly objectively terrifying if you start to worry about it. Unless you can detect it happening in person - which could be made very difficult indeed, getting progressively easier over time as technology advances - it simply isn't going to be detectable to any reasonable standard of evidence.

You're basically relying on people not putting intelligent effort in.

[Roger Lancaster]

I have to admit I find Ken Regan's approach very unconvincing. I am sure it spots someone using a computer to play most of their moves. But the kind of subtle cheating that improves play by 50 points rather than a 1000 - indicating the comp evaluation at critical moments rather than moves for example - seems not to be be addressed. Am I doing his approach a disservice?

My thoughts exactIy - and Monokroussos makes a simiIar point about "cIever cheaters". If I were pIaying in, say, a 9-round tournament and minded to cheat then I might expect to have to pIay severaI weaker pIayers (where I'd work on the basis that I shouIdn't need to cheat) and some much stronger pIayers (where I'd reckon that the risk/reward baIance didn't make cheating sensibIe) which wouId probabIy Ieave me with two or three games - typicaIIy, against opponents of around my own strength - where cheating on just one key move might tip the baIance and improve my tournament resuIt by a haif-point or even a point. Granted, if I did that - on average, one cheat every three games - for an infinite period then a statisticaI method such as Ken's shouId eventuaIIy find me out but I'm not that optimistic about my Iongevity so I'd expect to avoid detection. But the Iow risk carries onIy a modest reward and I imagine that most cheaters are greedier which is why they are more quickIy uncovered.

[JustinHorton]

Do we have any evidence that people do cheat like that? How are they going to know when the one key move has arrived?

[Roger Lancaster]

Do we have any evidence that people do cheat like that? How are they going to know when the one key move has arrived?

First answer, no, aImost by definition because they're rareIy caught. My opinion, fwiw, is "few" because most cheats are probabIy greedier. Second answer, the type of "key move" I had in mind was when deciding whether to enter into a particuIar set of tacticaI compIications where it was difficuIt to see the outcome, severaI moves ahead, once the smoke had cIeared. Other stronger pIayers might define it entireIy differentIy.