Carlsen resigns on move 2

[NickFaulks]

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.

If you are looking for a bet, please send a DM.

[Ian Thompson]

Assuming there is no link to the full report,

An incorrect assumption - https://www.chess.com/blog/CHESScom/hans-niemann-report.

[NickFaulks]

Nick seems to be disputing the assumption that unexpected performance correlates to a likelihood of cheating.

No, I have never said that and I don't understand why you would claim that I have. I have just been saying, ever since the whole system was first presented to FIDE at the Tallinn 2013 Congress, that the distribution assumption is wrong and is likely to leads to errors of orders of magnitude.

[NickFaulks]

https://www.chess.com/blog/CHESScom/hans-niemann-report.

Thanks, interesting but not for tonight. At first glance, it does look as though they have gone on the attack regarding his OTB play.

[Paul Cooksey]

Nick seems to be disputing the assumption that unexpected performance correlates to a likelihood of cheating.

No, I have never said that and I don't understand why you would claim that I have. I have just been saying, ever since the whole system was first presented to FIDE at the Tallinn 2013 Congress, that the distribution assumption is wrong and is likely to leads to errors of orders of magnitude.

I said percentage rather than sigma because I was trying to avoid jargon. But does make sense to consider this way.

No, it makes no sense at all. The "table of probabilities" is based on Ken's output being normally distributed, but not only is there no reason to believe that it is, there is every reason to expect that it would not be.

Sorry Nick. It was this post I misunderstood. If you don't mind explaining the distribution assumption issue would help me.

[Paul Cooksey]

https://www.chess.com/blog/CHESScom/hans-niemann-report.

Thanks, interesting but not for tonight. At first glance, it does look as though they have gone on the attack regarding his OTB play.

I've only skimmed it, and might not have time to read it until the weekend. But I don't think they go very far about OTB.

It seems to me if chess.com's main goal was to challenge Hans' version of events, they have succeeded.

It has not really changed my mind about Han's reputation. I thought the admission of cheating at 16 was already bad. It is an age where I think he knew what he was doing and was playing in serious events. I think it should make organisers reluctant to invite him. Cheating as an adult or cheating OTB would be worse, and I would think FIDE sanctions justified, but still no proof of these. I do not see much difference between 16 and 17.

If we now conclude he lied in an interview, I suppose some people will consider important. But for me it is a bit like finding out someone parked on a double yellow while robbing a post office. It doesn't really make it worse. I think the main issue is still online cheating

[Paul Cooksey]

Smerdon has a thread on twitter. HIs conclusions seem sensible to me: https://twitter.com/dsmerdon/status/1577490212342870022

Rowson's "not proven" verdict IMO.

[Matt Bridgeman]

For the general public I think undoubtedly the ‘Cheated in 100 chess games’ will be the only headline they’ll remember. Any time journalists create a list of 20 biggest cheats or whatever, you can guarantee he’ll be on it alongside Lance Armstrong and co.

[Kevin Thurlow]

and again

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63140246

[JustinHorton]

He claimed he cheated when he was 16 and never whilst streaming. The report says he cheated aged 17 & whilst streaming. Bizarre that he would lie in his public confession, when it was obvious it could soon be refuted..

More than that, he's on YouTube being flagged while streaming. Is there a quote from him?

EDIT: In fact in his interview, he says

four years later, when I was 16 years old during my streaming career, in an absolutely ridiculous mistake,

OK, looking at this again this morning, in the interview he both said

Now four years later, when I was 16 years old during my streaming career, in an absolutely ridiculous mistake

and

never when I was streaming did I cheat

which on the face of it is simply contradictory, something that might have been picked up on before.

[Mick Norris]

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

If I'm reading this correctly, we have Kamsky at age 14/15, Yu Yangyi between 14 & 16, Giri between 13 & 15, Wei Yi between 12 & 14, Xiong between 13 & 15 and Grischuk between 14 & 17

I appreciate there's a factor in how much chess OTB you can play, and how often the rating lists are published, but it does seem to have a pattern as to the ages of fast improvement

Not sure it proves anything though either way

[MartinCarpenter]

Worth noting, from that report, that they managed to catch - and get a confession from - an (unknown) 2700 who was using computer assistance for a few moves/game, seemingly only in one event.

Which is very good going.

[Roger de Coverly]

If I'm reading this correctly, we have Kamsky at age 14/15, Yu Yangyi between 14 & 16, Giri between 13 & 15, Wei Yi between 12 & 14, Xiong between 13 & 15 and Grischuk between 14 & 17

Nmber of games played is perhaps a better metric for comparison. If you look at Niemann's rating history at https://ratings.fide.com/profile/2093596/calculations, there are months where he gains 30 points. But that's 10 points from each of 3 tournaments in which he is outperforming by a point. So he's making 7/9 rather than 6/9 or 6/9 rather than 5/9.

[JustinHorton]

OK, I've been through the main body of the report, which is to say I've so far skipped the appendices which make up most of it. What follows is just a few things that caught my eye rather than an overall view, though I will say that I think it's a better document than I think I expected in most ways - though not all - and that their explanation for removing Hans, while not entirely candid, makes more sense than it did (but see below). I continue to have large reservations about whether some of the material they reproduce should have been made public, regardless of anything Hans has or has not said. I also think that it is clownish for people to regard the report as some kind of revelation, rather than something which has always been known to Chessdotcom.

But a few points that caught the eye:

a.

It has always been our general approach to handle account closures for titled players privately, as we have done for Hans in the past. Indeed, his recent removal from Chess.com and the CGC was also communicated privately.

This doesn't mean anything - there was no way the removal was going to be private, a point Rensch and co must realise.

b.

Strong players who have studied engines can profile human moves and engine moves based on expert knowledge of the characteristics
discussed above.

While I am sure this must be true to some degree, as far as I am aware it is backed up by no actual published research and the statement itself comes with no footnote or link. So we have no idea how accurate and reliable this profiling is.

c.

“Former World Champion Viswanathan Anand said that one bit per game, one yes-no answer about whether a sacrifice is sound, could be worth 150 rating points.” – Chess Life, June 2014

Hurrah! An actual citation for this, which I note is a more ambitious statement than the versions we have previously heard. It is not stated whether the claim was explained further (and as I have said before, nobody seems to have researched it, which should at least in principle be possible).

d.

We focus on time controls which are from 1 minute to 60 minutes per game, not classical games played over several hours.

Curious they should say that - when they were accusing me, it was for games of up to three days a move. Why would they not mention longer games?

e.

The conventional wisdom is that if you are not a GM by age 14, it is unlikely that you can reach the top levels of chess. While that statement may seem discouraging, it has been borne out in modern chess. Greats like Fischer, Kasparov, Carlsen, and almost all of the modern GMs who have been established as top five players, were notable GMs by age 15 at the latest.

This didn't sound right to me and the first five examples I checked were Karpov (19), Spassky (18), Ivanchuk (19), Aronian (17) and Timman (22). You may say these are relatively old examples but so are Kasparov and Fischer!

f.

Hans actually has one of the lower percentages of “near perfect games” when compared to similar players.

How interesting, and I mark it to the credit of the report that it says this.

g.

Below are examples of the reactions of notable players who have beaten Magnus

But not this! This stuff is garbage and should be called out for what it is. The emotional reaction of a player has essentially no evidential value whatsoever for reasons that really shouldn't need explaining. What is this, L'Etranger?

[Mike Gunn]

Niemann:
April 2021 2508
July 2022 2688
Carlsen
July 2005 2528
Oct 2006 2698

(numbers from fide.com)