Carlsen resigns on move 2

[NickFaulks]

Previously I always thought that if somebody was banned and took legal action, Chesscom would likely take the option of caving in, apologising to the individual and carrying on as before. It's not clear to me that this option is readily available now.

Agreed on both counts. I wonder whether they are starting to regret letting Carlsen drag them into the OTB side of the business, where they really have no interest.

[Paul Cooksey]

Previously I always thought that if somebody was banned and took legal action, Chesscom would likely take the option of caving in, apologising to the individual and carrying on as before. It's not clear to me that this option is readily available now.

Agreed on both counts. I wonder whether they are starting to regret letting Carlsen drag them into the OTB side of the business, where they really have no interest.

I disagree with Justin, but probably agree with Nick.

I know it is a bit of a hobby horse for me in this thread, but chess.com are not a governing body. I don't think they are under any legal obligation to prove anyone cheated. They can deny service in much the same way any business can.

In the case of Hans, it seems under US law, because he is (in chess) a public figure, they probably won't even have to show reasonable suspicion he was cheating. Probably they would have if, say, Justin, had sued them. Per the podcast, unlikely the court is going to be interested in how online cheat detection works, and certain if they do they will not publicly disclose it.

But the second part I agree with Nick, in talking about Hans OTB they have risked something, even if ironically that made me think it was less likely he cheat OTB than I did previously. I think they will argue they are just defending themselves against Hans. But the people who think Hans treated very unfairly certainly reading malice into it and the publication of emails.

I found the word malice interesting, it made me think of the old "malice aforethought" definition of murder. I think unlike the UK, under US law if you manslaughter someone's reputation you are ok, it is only if you murder it you can be found liable.

Not that I am saying manslaughtering someone's reputation should be ignored, FIDE already have an investigation into that issue.

(edits for awful spelling)

[Roger de Coverly]

Previously I always thought that if somebody was banned and took legal action, Chesscom would likely take the option of caving in, apologising to the individual and carrying on as before. It's not clear to me that this option is readily available now.

Evidence might be presented of chess.com making accusations considered false by the accused but where they admitted guilt in order to be allowed back on the server under a new handle. Dlugy appears to have made such a claim.

[Geoff Chandler]

An anagram of ‘Magnus Hans’ is 'U.S. Hangs Man.' ...er..that's it.

[Mick Norris]

Chess Mind A Data Scientist Looks at the Niemann Accusations
...and finds them wanting.

Nate Solon considers the arguments of Yosha Iglesias and others in support of the thesis that Hans Niemann has cheated in over-the-board play, and isn’t impressed. Start with the well-titled “Did Hans Niemann Cheat?”, and then have a look at “Too Good, Too Fast?” (both a good title in its own right and a nice homage to Magnus Carlsen’s teasing putdown - “too weak, too slow!” - of his friend and sometime trainer Laurent Fressinet while they played a casual bullet game). While you’re at it, his “Centipawns Suck” (a less awesome title) is useful background, and the centipawns vs. winning percentages metric is one that comes up in the comments section of the other posts, both of which feature important cameos by Ken Regan.

The linked articles are worth a read if you haven't already seen them

[Matt Mackenzie]

Now isn't that a surprise (or not)

[John Upham]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-63363473 methods could perhaps be used in the UK?

[Keith Arkell]

The best thing to have come out of the disclosure of Niemann's serial cheating ( 100+ games!) is the clarification that there is no real difference between online engine cheating and otb engine cheating. Cheating online to steal prize money or prestigious results is equivalent to doing so otb, but easier to accomplish. No longer can perpetrators somewhat bizarrely plead ' It was only online, m'lud '.

Hi Keith

I think there are a variety of opinions on this, maybe even a split on it between professionals and amateurs, although I just think cheating is cheating myself, that's not been something that I've had everyone in Manchester agreeing with, let alone elsewhere

What I am interested in, though, is how you think OTB cheating may be happening; do you think there's an accomplice onsite or off, or do you think there's use of technology which allows players to cheat without help?

I'd like to know what we were looking for, in the views of the professionals

Apologies, Mick - I only just saw this. I've been away playing in Norway and the 4NCL.

I have been asking the same questions myself of people who I thought might know, but haven't really got anywhere. Professionals/GMs are typically extremely good at sensing when they are being cheated but awful at knowing how it might be done. I guess being clever with the sort of technology necessary for cheating requires a different set of skills.

If cheating without an accomplice is possible, and also undetectable, we will all end up only playing against people whom we trust, as is the case already with Carlsen.

I also think the disincentive of lifetime bans for adults who are caught may become necessary.

[Keith Arkell]

Hi Mick, regarding online cheating each site has it's rules and I guess the honest thing to do is to abide by those rules.

How is otb cheating done? I have no idea! I am at the basic level of detection whereby if my opponent starts going to the loo every move then I start to feel uneasy. There have been a few opponents who clearly found a way of doing it while remaining at the board. I can usually tell by their body language as well as their moves, but, just like Magnus, if I say anything I risk getting into trouble.

There are some who just wander to where the parents are sitting with their laptops open. Of course this isn't the kind of crude cheating which accusers of Hans are talking about. As I've mentioned elsewhere, there are stories which more and more of us have heard, but they may or may not amount to anything. For that we need to await the outcome of the FIDE investigation.

Thanks Keith

So, for OTB cheating, as well as the ways we have already seen (consultations with others with laptops, looking at phones in the toilet etc), we are looking at smart cheating using sophisticated techniques

For interest, have arbiters been helpful if and when you have brought concerns to their notice?

Hi MIck, in the Online 4NCL the guy who I knew was cheating against me (played powerful moves but then did an idiotic thing which only an engine could do - swapped off into a theoretically drawn opposite Bishop ending when 2 pawn up) got detected later in the season without my having said anything to anyone other than privately to friends, one of whom also knew she was being cheated.
I suspected that that same player cheated against me when very young over the board a few years earlier, but I didn't officially say anything then either. You can't - this is the problem Magnus faced!

In Hungary I felt strongly that I was cheated a few times but only spoke about it with others who were also cheated against by the same players.

I've also been engine cheated on the weekend circuit. We all know the culprit, but I don't know if anyone has asked arbiters to watch him closely. I haven't. And in the Birmingham League I played a 170 graded opponent about 6 or 7 years ago who was nipping to the loo constantly and playing perfect chess. That soon stopped when he got short of time though, and he offered me a draw 2 pawns up. There was no official present to whom I could complain though.

And of course there was Rausis. He may or may not have cheated against me back in 2011 (Nick Faulks offered a reasonable alternative explanation), but Danny Gormally and myself were pretty much making bets with each other about when he would be caught. I said to Danny that he is getting way too greedy now, and he is sure to be caught soon. A week or two later he was. I was very surprised he had been getting away with doing it in such a crude way for so many years though, and even suspected that he may have been cheating in more sophisticated ways too, but just got lazy the time he was caught with the phone.

The only time I officially brought my concerns to the arbiters / officials notice, as such, was when I was certain I had just lost to a cheat during the Online British Ch. I withdrew immediately afterwards in protest, as I've said elsewhere, but there was nothing they could do of course, until I got extremely lucky and half an hour after the game finished Chessdotcom , the best anti-cheating detectors in the business, closed his account, so that he wouldn't even have been allowed to play in the last round. Even then I had to fight tooth and nails to have the result overturned!

I should add that there are some GMs who don't think anyone cheats ever, however overwhelming the evidence.

[Roger de Coverly]

Professionals/GMs are typically extremely good at sensing when they are being cheated but awful at knowing how it might be done.

Publishing games where GMs thought their opponents played exceptionally well would be a possibility. I think you could name names provided the comments made no allegations and just complimented the opposition on the accuracy of their play. You would get a few false positives though, games where the opposition did play well without assistance or where the assistance was pre game.

Did you consider that strange game in one of the online Championships where you entered a Rook and Pawn ending with fewer pawns and won?

[IM Jack Rudd]

Keith did that at South Wales as well.

[LawrenceCooper]

Not sure what Mamedov would think of this move: https://twitter.com/agadmator/status/15 ... 7355171840

[Roland Kensdale]

Legal analysis of Niemann's case at https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=svMvQJzDVX0

Prof. David Franklin thought the case was badly worded, that Nakamura had been sufficiently careful in his words that his part of the case could easily be thrown out. He thought Niemann would have an uphill struggle throughout. Case will be held under Missouri law.

Early on I thought he downplayed the seriousness of the accusations made against Niemann, but in a final point he said the ease of cheating and lack of resources of typical organisers meant (possible/actual) cheating is going to be a serious problem for Chess going forward. I think we've all realised that.

[Keith Arkell]

[quote="Roger de Coverly"

Did you consider that strange game in one of the online Championships where you entered a Rook and Pawn ending with fewer pawns and won?
[/quote]

I know the game you mean, Roger, and because a certain percent of our opponents cheat we are left having to play extremely well to maintain our ratings.
After my experiences in recent years I will think very carefully about where I play in future. If I get it right I will get my 2500 rating back!

[Matt Bridgeman]

An article looking into Han’s cycling claims; https://cyclingtips.com/2022/10/chess-o ... he-really/