Carlsen resigns on move 2

[Nick Burrows]

Niemann's rating progress is considerably different to all his peers - rated 2280 in Feb 2015 and just 2329 in August 2018.

If we look at the ratings of various players on their 15th birthdays, we have:

Nihal Sarin 2610
Praggnanandhaa 2608
Abdusattorov 2608
Carlsen 2570-2625 (either side of bday)
Karjakin 2599
Gukesh 2578
Hans Niemann 2313

Between January 2021 - October 2022 his rating improved from 2484 to 2699

[JustinHorton]

When I went in (and I have never used the site), I could just click the X and read the article. I have obviously clicked too many times now and cannot read it again.

Yeah, I think that only works once

[Matt Bridgeman]

What are the odds now of a crash and burn at the US Champs, an early withdrawal and a prolonged disappearance from the chess scene? They must be higher than the event proving particularly successful for him.

[Angus French]

Quickest 25 players to get from a FIDE rating of <2400 to >2650.

[JustinHorton]

What are the odds now of a crash and burn at the US Champs, an early withdrawal and a prolonged disappearance from the chess scene? They must be higher than the event proving particularly successful for him.

Well, what's the odds of things blowing up tomorrow

Quickest 25 players to get from a FIDE rating of <2400 to >2650.

Two of the players ahead of Niemann in that list are fellow-competitors this month, and I imagine a third might be commentating

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I have only got to page 39 so far (lots of posts today!), but was wondering if the following questions had been considered?

(1) Is it easier to cheat, or more precisely to gain rating points from cheating, if you are playing at a lower level?
(2) Does the relative rarity of elite players make it harder to cheat at that level?

What I am getting at is whether certain methods of cheating become harder the 'stronger' you get?

[JustinHorton]

I think it's more that security is much more strict

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I think it's more that security is much more strict

I meant more that if you are playing against a super-GM, then you need your cheating method to work and to gain the most from it as you will likely only get one chance to put them away, and unless you have continuous assistance will need some innate chess-playing ability. Playing against a patzer, you will get multiple chances to win the game, so wouldn't need continuous assistance. Does that make sense?

Of course, in the Brave New World, what we really want the answer to is who wins when two cheats play each other!

(And whether there is a secret arms race going on between cheats trying to get to the top of the chess world - seems a bit implausible, IMO. Cheating at lower levels might be more of a concern.)

[Roger de Coverly]

Niemann's rating progress is considerably different to all his peers - rated 2280 in Feb 2015 and just 2329 in August 2018.
Between January 2021 - October 2022 his rating improved from 2484 to 2699

He was gaining about 10 points per tournament, so that's scoring say 6/9 when his rating predicted 5/9. If he plays 3(!) tournaments a month, that's a gain of 30 points. If it's not legitimate where's the collaborator or the hidden method of communication with an engine?

chess.com are claiming that he was detected playing engine matching moves after task switching. That's hardly the most detection aware method of online cheating.

[James Hooker]

I think it's probably relatively easy to cheat if you are that way inclined.
Thinking about this anal bead theory, there is also a vibrator that people on cam use where the viewers tip and it vibrates. If someone set up say a private channel maybe? And allowed one of their friends to view the channel whilst at the same time watching the game on the Internet at home with an engine running, they could signal them that way. That would be one way that they could do it for the Anand discussion earlier.
I'm not sure how easily programmable they are, whether you could set different tip amounts for different vibrations signifying different squares or pieces? Like tip a quid for 1 vibration, 2 quid for 2 etc.
It would heavily rely on having an accomplice though, maybe a coach?!
And also an up-to-date board position, the length of the broadcast delay might be sufficient?

[James Hooker]

Basically means anyone anywhere in the world who was watching could send a real time vibration via a 'tip'


https://www.lovense.com/bluetooth-remot ... j0QAvD_BwE

[James Hooker]

Plus also surely the scanner thing they used at sinquefield would have picked it up I would have thought.

[Roger de Coverly]

It would heavily rely on having an accomplice though, maybe a coach?!
And also an up-to-date board position, the length of the broadcast delay might be sufficient?

Indeed, who or where's the accomplice?

If all games are regarded as suspicious, in other words the claim of excessive rating improvement, what of the tournaments that didn't feature live coverage?

You are right though, that the trivial cheating of looking it up on the chess.com, chess24 or lichess coverage is thwarted mostly by having a broadcast delay. If live coverage is still available to spectators that's a weak link, but equally the stooge has to be present at every event, so that's a weak link as well.

[Roger de Coverly]

Playing against a patzer, you will get multiple chances to win the game, so wouldn't need continuous assistance. Does that make sense?

It makes a lot of sense and could be called the Rausis method.

There's a lack of reporting on sucessful detection. At a much lower level there was an OTB 4NCL tournament where the leader of the Minor section, who had already notionally won the tournament was excluded before the last round. There was never any feedback as to how the consultation was detected or what was the method. Even for a Minor tournament, the actual score was so way beyond the expected score to be suspicious in its own right. A sandbagger was also an option as smashing up entrants in a Minor should be relatively simple for a player in the Open or Major with the right type of style.

[NickFaulks]

In regards to OTB an extract;

‘The 72-page report also flagged what it described as irregularities in Niemann’s rise through the elite ranks of competitive, in-person chess. It highlights “many remarkable signals and unusual patterns in Hans’ path as a player.”

Assuming there is no link to the full report, chess.com has leaked something to the WSJ ( who else? ) on the basis that they will put out edited highlights which make Niemann look bad. This just stinks worse every day.