Carlsen resigns on move 2

[Roger de Coverly]

I'm not sure that's true, and in any case it would get the question into the minutes.

The player can be identified from the data on chess-results which is linked from the ECF British Championship site. Once you know the name, his activity or otherwise can be seen on the ecfrating site. It could be that he has voluntarily retired. That's what seems to have happened with other players whose OTB results have been annulled and even where the results stood because there was only supposition and accusation rather than direct evidence.

[Roger de Coverly]

She may be right, that there are some people who would simply refuse to accept any hard evidence of cheating

That depends on what you mean by "hard evidence". I would regard engine matching as soft evidence unless there's physical evidence to back it up. In online play it can be far more believable because of the absence of witnesses and also the activity of the chess sites themselves making cheating easy by providing spectators with real time assesments and move suggestions for games in play.

My logic runs like this. Some human players are good at chess. Engines are good at chess. If both choose the same move why isn't it because it's the best move or if there are multiple enigine suggestions it's coincindence? Even if not coincidence how is it known that the chocie of move wasn't legitimate as it may have been discovered prior to the game or even read in a book.

[JustinHorton]

There are certainly people who don't want to see, that's certainly true (and also applies to other forms of cheating in chess than computer assistance). I don't know how much it's true that people just won't see hard evidence, beyond a small minority who won't actually affect anything, so who cares.

It is true though that evidence isn't always totally clear and totally straightforward, and that's why (for instance) juries often take a lot of time to decide what pieces of evidence mean.

[NickFaulks]

That depends on what you mean by "hard evidence".

She talks specifically about a player being caught red handed looking at a phone with the game position on it and Stockfish running. She suggests that some people wouldn't even accept that.

[Roger de Coverly]

Continued press interest

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ament.html

[JustinHorton]

That depends on what you mean by "hard evidence".

She talks specifically about a player being caught red handed looking at a phone with the game position on it and Stockfish running. She suggests that some people wouldn't even accept that.

I'm sure she's right, but I'm also sure that this would involve an insignificant percentage of people

[NickFaulks]

I'm sure she's right, but I'm also sure that this would involve an insignificant percentage of people

Insignificant people at that, in this context.

[Jon Tait]

[Alistair Campbell]

The actual answers may depend on the motivation to cheat in the first place.

At a much lower level, what were we seeing in some of the online 4NCL tournaments? You had veteran players making what appeared a lifetime best performance, only to have their results anulled. Other than future opponents and organisers remembering what happened, there was no obvious adverse publicity.

I've no idea - I don't really follow the SNCL. Were there many such incidents? It may suggest that more people than first thought would entertain cheating were it easier, or if they thought they could get away with it or (perhaps more likely) that cheating online is seen as a lesser offence. Maybe some experimentation in meaningless friendlies was the start of a slippery slope.

As to motivation, perhaps winning games is simply more fun (and less stressful)?

[NickFaulks]

I've gone back to Smerdon's tweet, a few days and many pages ago.

https://twitter.com/dsmerdon/status/1577491260461715458

He says that the outcome "Hans continues his OTB trajectory towards 2750+ in events with super-strict anti-cheating standards" is unlikely. It seems to me that, if he has not been cheating OTB, then it should be considered highly likely. Is David actually saying that he really thinks Niemann has been cheating?

I shall ask him when I have time to put together a proper list of questions.

[Matt Mackenzie]

It will certainly be "interesting" if Niemann performs well at the US Championships despite the enhanced anti-cheating measures.

[Martin Crichton]

so what is going to happen with the cheater Niemann?

he has been found guilty of cheating in more than 100 games. I always thought he looked guilty...he has the kind of smug arrogant face that you just want to punch. I stand with 100% Magnus, Nepo and Keith Arkell.

Too many bleeding hearted liberals around. Punish the cheat.

I was cheated against twice but I couldn't prove it (over the board) once in Cappelle le Grande and once in Cork. They were horrible experiences.

[Roger de Coverly]

so what is going to happen with the cheater Niemann?

he has been found guilty of cheating in more than 100 games.

In a manner of speaking we only have chess.com's word for that based on their mostly undisclosed methods of investigation.

He may not be allowed to play in online events, partcularly those run by chess.com.

As to OTB events, unless caught in the act, I think it doubtful that anyone including chess.com could make a case robust enough to convince FIDE's Ethics Commission and beyond that the Court of Arbitration in Sport, Where individual organisers have discretion, they may quietly decline to invite him, althoiugh if all publicity is good, they may be tempted just to draw attention to their event.

[Roger de Coverly]

I've no idea - I don't really follow the SNCL. Were there many such incidents?

A number of the 4NCL tournaments were marred by players being removed and having their scores annulled. For that matter the same happened in online British or English Championships and a Junior International team event. That's not to mention teams withdrawing from the 4NCL because one of their players was falsely or otherwise excluded by the platforms hosting the league.

[Roger de Coverly]

More from Leon Watson based on the chess.com report.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ating.html

Surely it was known twenty five years that a second computer or program running analysis was a risk and that ICC as market leader in those days had ways of detecting it without move checking when it was on the same computer?

Presumably chess.com etc can do the same, hence stories of players being accused of cheating if they checked their emails whilst playing?