Carlsen resigns on move 2

[Matt Bridgeman]

Yosha makes an interesting point on Twitter;

‘A clever cheater can outsmart the tools they know about, like avg centipawn loss, SpyPGN, chesscom CAPS, or Regan's ROI, but they can't outsmart the tools they don't know.

It turns out that almost no one knew about the Chessbase Let's Check Analysis.’

I don't understand. As I understand it, Let's Check is just another engine with a large database of previously analysed positions. How would having access to it during a game be any different from having access to some other engine?

I think she was suggesting it’s actually a potent cheat detection tool, but presumably the actual cheater wouldn’t have anything to do with it. They aren’t supposed to know about it’s potential. It’s interesting - either the figures are fairly meaningless or maybe Hans is hitting too many top scores.

[JustinHorton]

Yosha makes an interesting point on Twitter;

‘A clever cheater can outsmart the tools they know about, like avg centipawn loss, SpyPGN, chesscom CAPS, or Regan's ROI,

Can they though. I mean how much can you really tailor your game to that end.

[Matt Bridgeman]

Yosha makes an interesting point on Twitter;

‘A clever cheater can outsmart the tools they know about, like avg centipawn loss, SpyPGN, chesscom CAPS, or Regan's ROI,

Can they though. I mean how much can you really tailor your game to that end.

Were Hans ever to hold his hand up, then I guess he would have done. I don’t know much about it really - I’ve read Feller had a ROI above 70, but Rausis generally ticked along in the low 50’s and had one at 64. He just would have bumbled on if someone hadn’t snapped a photo over the cubicle wall.

[NickFaulks]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jfPzUgzrOcQ

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... k/htmlview

The amateur probability theory is even more cringeworthy than we have come to expect. That is a shame, because it may obscure the fact that the individual games with "100% accuracy" do sound worth looking at.

As she was flashing through I got the impression that in most of them there were few real moves between the opening and the opponent resigning but even so, how likely is 100%? In many cases there will be one obvious best move, but when choosing between +4 and +5 I would expect even the best players to plump for +4 half the time, because it's immaterial.

Not all engines get the same top moves, and their choices also change as they look more deeply. Does this mean that the cheater would have to be using not only the same engine as Chessbase, but with the same settings?

[MJMcCready]

DO we know when Magnus sill be giving his statement? Did he say at the end of the current tournament?

[NickFaulks]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... k/htmlview

Looking again at this, apart from a handful of numbers for individual games which do look remarkably high, I am struggling to see anything out of the ordinary. So it's back to individual games, albeit not one but several over the course of a year.

[Roger de Coverly]

He just would have bumbled on if someone hadn’t snapped a photo over the cubicle wall.

That may not be comletely the case. He achieved a high rating from winning local amateur tournaments where he was the highest rated player in most games by several hundred points. He might then be a watched player because of the implied ratings manipulation. Perhaps toilet breaks and being able to find good moves when in trouble contributed to observation. Given his method, I doubt he consulted an engine when clearly winning, so that could lower his matching score.

The statistical assertion is when a near 100% match to engine suggestions occurs repeatedly, it's more than a coincidence. When it happens once, it more than likely is a coincidence or possibly pre-game preparation . That is a reason for FIDE not to seek bans on the basis of a single game or a mere handful but chess.com and liches may not accept that principle.

[MJMcCready]

I read this on the BBC, so we are indeed expecting something soon from the world champ (presumably with unspoken legal advice mixed in)


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-63029602

[Matt Bridgeman]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... k/htmlview

Looking again at this, apart from a handful of numbers for individual games which do look remarkably high, I am struggling to see anything out of the ordinary. So it's back to individual games, albeit not one but several over the course of a year.

It would be good to have some other players to compare against. I thought perhaps Adams at the 2016 British might have been interesting. Presumably if he doesn’t have any scores higher than 70 maybe there is something in this Let’s Check method. But perhaps top players do throw up these 80’s and 90’s regularly in good tournaments? It’s a bit of a new tool to play around with perhaps.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"Given his method, I doubt he consulted an engine when clearly winning, so that could lower his matching score."

Yes. I played someone online and got suspicious, partly as the opponent was playing really well, but also the cadence of the moves - i.e. not responding immediately when there was only one good move. As I was short of time, and I was curious, I played on too long at the end (a rook down), to allow the opponent the chance to deliver mate. Suddenly, the opponent missed about 4 mates in 1, and the win of a queen. Eventually, they did win. I did report that game (which I very rarely do), but was told there was nothing suspicious. I still believe it was a computer cheat, that switched the engine off when victory was assured, to make the average accuracy score lower. Normally cheats are not that clever of course and get greedy. Or maybe I was just wrong - I'm not that bothered online, as I only play events to have fun.

[Matt Bridgeman]

Hans certainly seems to be having an unusual reaction to all the drama. Kind of revelling in the fact a who’s who of chess has blocked him on Twitter. He puts their names up loud and proud. Appears to be in open warfare with Carlsen. Firing off dancing frog gifs at Yosha today, who is getting a fair bit of play for her analysis in the Norway press today, and even got linked by the New York Times as well for her efforts.

[Paul Cooksey]

.

[Daniel Gormally]

Hans certainly seems to be having an unusual reaction to all the drama. Kind of revelling in the fact a who’s who of chess has blocked him on Twitter. He puts their names up loud and proud. Appears to be in open warfare with Carlsen. Firing off dancing frog gifs at Yosha today, who is getting a fair bit of play for her analysis in the Norway press today, and even got linked by the New York Times as well for her efforts.

I think you are getting hans confused with this guy https://twitter.com/pacificwondrlnd/sta ... 09/photo/1 who is a known troll who tries to get everyone to block him. I deliberately have not blocked him so as not to play his game.

[Matt Bridgeman]

Ah - Twitter world is a confusing place! Lol

It looks like some comparison data has been made available. Arjun Erigaisi's Let’s Check data since 2021. Only one 100% (apparently having a winning position after 10 moves following an opening trap), one 93% and no others above 90;
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... U/htmlview#

Looks like others to follow - Gukesh and Abdusattorov!

[JustinHorton]

Heh