Carlsen resigns on move 2

[Keith Arkell]

and by now all will have examined Niemann's suspicious games.

Do we even know which games these are?

Here are some of them. The top players who have expressed an opinion seem very skeptical about the 100% perfect game at 11 mins 38 seconds into the video, with it's stupendously brilliant N manoeuvre to h2 to stop the white King moving in the endgame:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AG9XeSP ... ex=22&t=2s

[JustinHorton]

For legal reasons all are careful with their wording though, or don't say anything at all.

If they're not saying anything at all then their opinions can't really be taken into account, and I don't just mean legally.

I was referring to those who haven't spoken publicly at all about this business, eg Ding and Anand.

I'm not following your argument here. My point is that if people have said nothing, then they don't have
any opinions we can take into account. We can't assume opinions for them.

[Brian Egdell]

Hi Geoff, you're correct in saying that we run into cheating more than the top guys do, but on those rare occasions in which they are exposed they are more skillful at detection than us because the stronger the player the more refined their judgement is.

This statement is plausible but its veracity is far from obvious to me and I think it lacks justification so far. The miscarriage of justice example raised by David Williams shows, albeit in a very different context, how ostensibly expert opinion can miss the mark because the expertise does not relate sufficiently accurately to the task at hand.

The supposed ability of top players to detect cheating at their level better than others, perhaps even better than dedicated chess cheating detection experts, could be tested using double blind tests with previously played games, but the practicalities of arranging that (cooperation of top players required to play new, i.e. previously unknown, games under tournament conditions with or without controlled cheating and others to judge the games afterwards, and the necessity of making the conditions conducive to giving those playing genuinely serious incentive to play as well as they can just as in real competition) may be why no-one appears to have carried out such a study so far. Maybe such a study should be done so to either vindicate or contradict those top players who are currently claiming that they can see cheating where experts like Ken Regan do not.

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Keith,

What I'm driving at it is if you Danny or Mark Hebden said yes OTB cheating is going on and it is quite rife. I know it would be taken very seriously and IMO cause more concern to the average players and officials than if one of the top 10 saying OTB cheating is happening in the open events and weekenders as that lot hardly ever go near them.

I'm thinking because they have no experience in playing cheats OTB their detection method would be to look at a good move, then the rating of the player who played it and decide if the move was too good for that rating.
Players like yourself, Danny, Mark...and experienced arbiters know the signs, the clues. You are at the coal face where cheating would occur more commonly.

[Paul Cooksey]

Maybe such a study should be done so to either vindicate or contradict those top players who are currently claiming that they can see cheating where experts like Ken Regan do not.

Worth noting that the statisticians don't necessarily disagree with top players, they would just say there is insufficient evidence. Statistics most effective in catching people when there is a big difference between their normal level and their level when cheating.

I was unconvinced by the video Keith shared, because it mostly showed strong play in forcing positions.

[David Williams]

The top players who have expressed an opinion seem very skeptical about the 100% perfect game at 11 mins 38 seconds into the video, with it's stupendously brilliant N manoeuvre to h2 to stop the white King moving in the endgame:

Have I not read somewhere that his opponent's play in this game is also 100%?

[JustinHorton]

Hang on, is this the "100%" which has been comprehensively rubbished elsewhere?

[Mick Norris]

Hang on, is this the "100%" which has been comprehensively rubbished elsewhere?

The 100% is indeed rubbished here but I'm not sure if that's what Keith is referring to

[Brian Egdell]

Maybe such a study should be done so to either vindicate or contradict those top players who are currently claiming that they can see cheating where experts like Ken Regan do not.

Worth noting that the statisticians don't necessarily disagree with top players, they would just say there is insufficient evidence. Statistics most effective in catching people when there is a big difference between their normal level and their level when cheating.

I was unconvinced by the video Keith shared, because it mostly showed strong play in forcing positions.

You seem to be talking about the statistics involved in cheating detection (very loosely, comparison between engine moves and the moves played over a sufficiently large sample). But for the study I have in mind different statistics would be in order. There would be no question of whether an individual player in the study had cheated or not: some of the players will have knowingly been cheating, others will have knowingly played fair, and which individual players had cheated would be known by the study organisers (though neither by the people trying to detect the cheating nor by those who present the games to them - "double blind"). The top players are vindicated in their special status as cheating detectors if they score significantly better in detecting which players cheated than the expert cheating detectors.

[Roger de Coverly]

There would be no question of whether an individual player in the study had cheated or not: some of the players will have knowingly been cheating, others will have knowingly played fair, and which individual players had cheated would be known by the study organisers

There's an additional degree of validation of the detection. Have some players cheat in some games and not others. Also have some players only cheat in critical positions as they saw it.

[David Williams]

If I'm understanding correctly, it's not just the moves that reveal an OTB cheat to a top GM. It's also speed of move, body language, etc. It's even possible that all that inaudible buzzing actually does manifest itself in some visible way. The GM might be seeing something subconsciously without realising the significance, but correlating it to suspect moves. If so, that would mean that any experiment to prove their ability would need the cheats to be able to cheat invisibly to us lesser mortals, supposedly undetected, face to face. How would they do that if we don't know how it's done?

[Keith Arkell]

If they're not saying anything at all then their opinions can't really be taken into account, and I don't just mean legally.

I was referring to those who haven't spoken publicly at all about this business, eg Ding and Anand.

I'm not following your argument here. My point is that if people have said nothing, then they don't have
any opinions we can take into account. We can't assume opinions for them.

I think we are misunderstanding each other. Maybe my wording isn't very clear. I meant that some top players, eg Anand and Ding, have stayed well clear of this, so indeed we have no idea what their opinions are. However, those who have expressed opinions have veiled their accusations so as to avoid the hassle of Niemann's half a billion dollar antics.

By the way, most people, had they worked their socks off for 12 hours a day for 2 years to climb their way up to 2700 from 2480 a few years previously would be absolutely livid, furiously angry, were anyone to accuse them of achieving it dishonestly. And they certainly wouldn't be in the mood to make a pantomime of it: ''The chess speaks for itself''...''The lawsuit speaks for itself''. But then again, Hans isn't most people

Apologies if this has been mentioned already, but the latest GM to express suspicion over his game v Hans is the Icelandic player Hjorvar Gretarsson. Regarding his game from Reykjavik 2022 Hjorvar had this to say:

"I had the same feeling as Carlsen. I thought he was unfocused and opened the position. When it got complicated, he also played fast. At first I thought he was extremely talented. But I thought of cheating when I looked at the game afterwards. But I still assumed he hadn't cheated because I had no proof. For a lawyer, it's not fair to accuse someone of cheating without evidence." (Andre Schulz for Chessbase News).

Apparently for most of the game Hans was breezing his way through the complications at 30 seconds per move.

[Keith Arkell]

Hi Geoff, you're correct in saying that we run into cheating more than the top guys do, but on those rare occasions in which they are exposed they are more skillful at detection than us because the stronger the player the more refined their judgement is.

This statement is plausible but its veracity is far from obvious to me and I think it lacks justification so far. The miscarriage of justice example raised by David Williams shows, albeit in a very different context, how ostensibly expert opinion can miss the mark because the expertise does not relate sufficiently accurately to the task at hand.

The supposed ability of top players to detect cheating at their level better than others, perhaps even better than dedicated chess cheating detection experts, could be tested using double blind tests with previously played games, but the practicalities of arranging that (cooperation of top players required to play new, i.e. previously unknown, games under tournament conditions with or without controlled cheating and others to judge the games afterwards, and the necessity of making the conditions conducive to giving those playing genuinely serious incentive to play as well as they can just as in real competition) may be why no-one appears to have carried out such a study so far. Maybe such a study should be done so to either vindicate or contradict those top players who are currently claiming that they can see cheating where experts like Ken Regan do not.

.

I would be very happy to partake in such an experiment, but there is a caveat: we are better at detecting when cheating has taken place by our own opponent rather than in another game about which we only have access to the moves, but no other information.

You see there is the rhythm and tempo of the moves, the body language (in the case of otb cheating), but most of all the feeling of power of the opponents moves. I said elsewhere that it is only engines which have the ability to play none - human type moves after which you discover, a few moves later, how well the hidden tactics always seem to work for the opponent.

And remember that these aren't just empty words. I have only once in my life ever withdrawn from an event in protest because I was sure I had been cheated. And I have played about 7000 'official' games. Half an hour after I withdrew, Chessdotcom closed my opponent's account for cheating. Coincidence? I think not!

[Keith Arkell]

Hang on, is this the "100%" which has been comprehensively rubbished elsewhere?

The 100% is indeed rubbished here but I'm not sure if that's what Keith is referring to

Yes, you're right Mick. It's probably better to put quotation marks around '100% perfect games', as the perfection has been disputed. But still, the quality and type of moves stuns some of the worlds best players.

[Gerard Killoran]

Apparently for most of the game Hans was breezing his way through the complications at 30 seconds per move.

This not the slam dunk you think it is, he would need to have a very efficient method of cheating to operate at that speed. Niemann played very well against Gretarsson, but finished level with him on 6.5/9 at Reykjavik despite outgrading him 2700 to 2544.

As for operating at speed, Niemann is a top (#38 at 3007) bullet player https://www.chess.com/leaderboard/live/bullet. Did he get this rating by cheating too?

Niemann had no choice but to take legal action against his accusers, and if it has stopped others from making evidence-free accusations, then isn't this a good thing?