Carlsen resigns on move 2

[Roger de Coverly]

He's said it - he really is claiming that Hans cheated against him in that OTB game.

Given the witnesses, including himself,in sight of Hans most or all of the game, he has to say how it might have been done to be credible. If there's a hypothetical accomplice signalling to a device concealed on his opponent's person, where's the accomplice?

Any method involving an accomplice would be eventually detectable and provided the accomplice was physically not present, easily thwarted by time delays in the move transmission.

I'm not sure being calm and beating world champions are mutually exclusive, take Penrose's comments after beating Tal that it felt no more stressful than a county match.

If you connect to the chess.com site, you find in excess of 200,000 games taking place. With the majority of these at fast time rates, that's an awful lot of games in a twenty four hour period, such that one in a million probability events should be expected on a regular basis.

[Roger de Coverly]

the assumption should be that an elite player with an engine can improve themselves by 100 elo points without being detected

Are you able to set out your reasoning?

Whether they can do it without detection is another matter, but if a player both avoided losing or drawing blunders and always spotted winning or drawing chances, their results would presumably improve and their Elo rating with it.

[JustinHorton]

I gathered that, but I was seeking to interrogate not just the "can" but the choice of figure.

[Roger de Coverly]

I gathered that, but I was seeking to interrogate not just the "can" but the choice of figure.

With a k factor of 10, every unnecesary loss costs 10 points and every draw 5 points against the reward for a win. So that makes better results in ten to twenty games to make the 100 Elo point gain.

[NickFaulks]

I don't see how Carlsen can continue to play serious OTB chess after that statement, but perhaps he is saying that he has lost interest in that anyway. He seems generally fed up and I don't think I am the only one to have been wondering about that for a while. What do you do in chess when you have done everything?

[Joseph Conlon]

the assumption should be that an elite player with an engine can improve themselves by 100 elo points without being detected

Are you able to set out your reasoning?

It's a heuristic estimate, but the basic logic is that:

1. If I play 10 games against someone my own strength, my expected score is 5/10
2. With a 100 Elo advantage, my expected score is 6.5/10
3. So across 10 games, to be playing at a 100 points above my true self, I only need to convert three losses to draws, or three draws to wins, or some combination thereof.
4. My *estimate* based on chess experience is that 5-6 engine moves, in total across these 10 games, would be sufficient to get these 1.5 points, either through finding a win in a critical position or a resource to hold a game.
5. While 2600 >> 2100-2200, it also the case that 2600 << 3400 and so I am applying estimates for myself as estimates for elite players.
6. I think this number of assisted moves would be below any detectable threshold - at less than one a game, it would be lost in the noise of all the genuine moves.

We can disagree about (4), (5) and (6) (you may prefer slightly different values), but that's what's going into this number.

*edit for clarification: on point 4, I obviously mean that when one analyses a game afterwards, and realises 'oh if I played this I would have been totally winning' - you don't need many critical interventions to change a game

[Roger de Coverly]

*edit for clarification: on point 4, I obviously mean that when one analyses a game afterwards, and realises 'oh if I played this I would have been totally winning' - you don't need many critical interventions to change a game

The problem with the method is that without having an engine monitor the entire game and tell you when the critical moment might be, how do you spot it? That is why signalling from spectators or other observers can be a serious problem. So when there's a critical position, send in the blueberry yogurt. Or is that now banned on principal, that is the general idea of allowing a support team to deliver refreshments to the board?

[JustinHorton]

3. So across 10 games, to be playing at a 100 points above my true self, I only need to convert three losses to draws, or three draws to wins, or some combination thereof.
4. My *estimate* based on chess experience is that 5-6 engine moves, in total across these 10 games, would be sufficient to get these 1.5 points, either through finding a win in a critical position or a resource to hold a game.

OK, thanks. Now my feeling is that (apart from the question "how are these moves being communicated to you?" - perhaps we can take that as read for the moment) the part I've extracted above might be a real reach, for perhaps several reasons but definitely including the point that just because you reach a won position doesn't mean you win.

(I also want to raise the point, again, that the very fact of having this function available to you is, in itself, going to affect your play.)

[JustinHorton]

The problem with the method is that without having an engine monitor the entire game and tell you when the critical moment might be, how do you spot it?

In connection with this, there was a moment in the recent final where Erigasi had a move available to him - 23....g5, I think - that was being touted not just as a game-changing move, but one where a player of his ability would just need to be told a strong move was available, i.e. he wouldn't need to be told the actual move. The second part struck me as likely true, but when I looked at the evaluations all it would have done is, I think, turn 0.9 in White's favour into 0.3 in Black's. OK that's quite chunky even in a fifteen-minute game but it's not exactly a point or even a half-point chalked up, is it?

[Kirk Gornall]

I still haven't seen anything to convince me that Hans cheated in the Sinquefield Cup in the game he played against Magnus. I think Magnus played below his normal standard and that's the reason he lost.

[Keith Arkell]

Asking for evidence is not 'hate and vitriol'.

No, but this kind of thing is:

'appears malicious'

'has clearly started a vendetta'

'we know him to be vindictive'

You are mistaking robust criticism for 'hate and vitriol'. I'm envious of the sheltered life you lead and I'd advise you to avoid reading Twitter or ever going to a football match.
[/quote]

We clearly have different definitions of words like 'malicious', 'vendetta' and 'vindictive', Gerard, but mine are in the dictionary. And we also appear to differ on whether it is appropriate to use the language of football crowds on a chess forum.

Anyway, moving on, it will only be a matter of time before everyone catches up and the name Hans Niemann becomes synonymous with the likes of ‎Tigran L. Petrosian, Igors Rausis, ‎Borislav Ivanov and Gaioz Nigalidze.

I have to admit that it appears I was doing Magnus a disservice by saying his withdrawal was mistimed. While it was obvious to me that NIeman is a serial Online cheat and almost certainly an OTB one as well, I was less sure about whether he cheated in the actual game v Magnus. Certainly Magnus went into the game knowing that it was possible, or even likely. And so I retract saying that his withdrawal was mistimed, although it was in a sense, because had he withdrawn at the start of the event then he would not have had rating points stolen off him.

In general I think most GMs know when we are playing against someone using an engine. It is not just the moves played, it is the rhythm and timing of them which give it away. As I mentioned earlier, I knew with certainty that my opponent gained access to an engine from move 20 something onwards during the Online British Ch.

In my whole life that was the only time I ever, à la Magnus, withdrew from a tournament in protest ( I came back in when the cheat got slung out), but I also knew that I was playing against an engine in one game during the Online 4NCL. And that player also soon got caught by Chess.com. There are a handful of OTB games in which I am also very nearly certain that I was playing against an engine, but, frustratingly, there is absolutely nothing I can do about that.

So when a relatively weak player, claiming expertise in anti-cheating, says that there is no way of knowing in a single game that cheating has taken place, they are wrong. Although I would agree that detection is not so easy when you only have access to the moves played afterwards, but not the timing and sense of how the opponent behaved at the board, etc.

So yes GMs usually know when they are being cheated. Danny Gormally possibly has a better eye than I do for such detection, and of one thing I am sure, The GOAT has a far better eye than either of us for spotting it!

[Roger de Coverly]

Although I would agree that detection is not so easy when you only have access to the moves played afterwards, but not the timing and sense of how the opponent behaved at the board, etc.

Apart from the obvious of frequent visits to the toilets, can you give us some clues as to how it might be done? Are you presuming signalling from an accomplice, some form of wearable device or perhaps both.

[James Hooker]

I saw this on youtube just now, quite interesting.

Not sure how it would beat a metal scanner, but maybe it can. Looks pretty simple too, giving off vibrations as a code

https://youtu.be/IoI7B5vQeuI

[Gerard Killoran]

Asking for evidence is not 'hate and vitriol'.

No, but this kind of thing is:

'appears malicious'

'has clearly started a vendetta'

'we know him to be vindictive'

You are mistaking robust criticism for 'hate and vitriol'. I'm envious of the sheltered life you lead and I'd advise you to avoid reading Twitter or ever going to a football match.

We clearly have different definitions of words like 'malicious', 'vendetta' and 'vindictive', Gerard, but mine are in the dictionary. And we also appear to differ on whether it is appropriate to use the language of football crowds on a chess forum.

Anyway, moving on, it will only be a matter of time before everyone catches up and the name Hans Niemann becomes synonymous with the likes of ‎Tigran L. Petrosian, Igors Rausis, ‎Borislav Ivanov and Gaioz Nigalidze.

I have to admit that it appears I was doing Magnus a disservice by saying his withdrawal was mistimed. While it was obvious to me that NIeman is a serial Online cheat and almost certainly an OTB one as well, I was less sure about whether he cheated in the actual game v Magnus. Certainly Magnus went into the game knowing that it was possible, or even likely. And so I retract saying that his withdrawal was mistimed, although it was in a sense, because had he withdrawn at the start of the event then he would not have had rating points stolen off him.

In general I think most GMs know when we are playing against someone using an engine. It is not just the moves played, it is the rhythm and timing of them which give it away. As I mentioned earlier, I knew with certainty that my opponent gained access to an engine from move 20 something onwards during the Online British Ch.

In my whole life that was the only time I ever, à la Magnus, withdrew from a tournament in protest ( I came back in when the cheat got slung out), but I also knew that I was playing against an engine in one game during the Online 4NCL. And that player also soon got caught by Chess.com. There are a handful of OTB games in which I am also very nearly certain that I was playing against an engine, but, frustratingly, there is absolutely nothing I can do about that.

So when a relatively weak player, claiming expertise in anti-cheating, says that there is no way of knowing in a single game that cheating has taken place, they are wrong. Although I would agree that detection is not so easy when you only have access to the moves played afterwards, but not the timing and sense of how the opponent behaved at the board, etc.

So yes GMs usually know when they are being cheated. Danny Gormally possibly has a better eye than I do for such detection, and of one thing I am sure, The GOAT has a far better eye than either of us for spotting it!

[/quote]

Hi Keith, I can't compete with you in R+B vs R endings - or any other part of the game of chess, however I think I've been to more football matches and can inform you that only the politest of fans use words like, 'malicious', 'vendetta' and 'vindictive'. If I used just some of the 'language of football crowds' here I'd be banned pretty quick.

As for Carlsen's loss against Niemann at the Sinquefield Cup, his claim that Niemann outplayed him in a way that 'only a handful of players can do' is frankly laughable. Even Nakamura says that Carlsen played his worse chess in years in that game. Carlsen played a non-critical line in the opening, and got a slightly worse position. He gave up a pawn for activity, Niemann then missed several best moves to put the game away followed by Carlsen missing several drawing opportunities. Niemann beat Carlsen by playing at the level of a top 50 GM, not top 5. Was Saric one of 'only a handful of players' when he beat Carlsen at the Olympiad in 2014?

Luckily the Sinquefield Cup had cameras on all the players. I hope the St Louis Club has kept the video files of the Carlsen-Niemann game so we can see what Magnus meant by Niemann not 'fully concentrating on the game in critical positions'. It might also show Carlsen not 'fully concentrating on the game in critical positions', which is probably why he lost. He'd lost to Niemann in the FTX Crypto cup but then won three on the trot. He'd also played some friendly chess on the beach with Niemann and won as Black with dodgy openings. Perhaps he took beating Niemann for granted.

Carlsen signs off his heavily lawyered and qualified statement by saying he hopes, 'the truth on this matter will come out, whatever it may be'.

'Whatever it may be'? Hang on, I thought Magnus Carlsen knew what the truth was in this matter, now I see he's just hoping it will come out, whatever it may be - or may not be.

[Geoff Chandler]

“...at this time I am limited in what I can say without explicit permission from Niemann to speak openly.”

I think that means Magnus wants a waiver, a freedom to say what he wants without fear of getting
hit by a lawsuit. Then he will reveal more about why he quit and why he won't play Hans any more.

If Hans has nothing to hide then he should agree. If Hans does not agree...What is he afraid of?
It's a gambit!