New evidence cheating scandal
Poor guy getting negative attention.
He sacrificed 2 years living a chess “hermit” as he describes himself, to improve.
I am shocked that he has good days and off days.
I wasn’t shocked either that he beat Magnus; both are human with good days and bad days. It’s also no secret that GM play the Catalan prepping and looking for transpositions is not a shocker.
Refererer to as a YouTube video posten by Andrii Punin Sunday
If you type in punin chess in youtube search, you will find the video
Not interested. I will only watch if Gothamchess has new evidence.
Gotham and Nelson Lopez are my go to guys.
Main chess youtubers like Gotham and others will surely pick up on and react to the video very soon and of course others will investigate moren of Niemanns games im sure. Trust me , theres something fishy going on with Niemanns
Do you all think hes clean ?
Not interested. I will only watch if Gothamchess has new evidence.
To be fair, this isn't Levy's area of expertise (i.e. statistical analysis to determine likelihood of cheating). If he reports on it, it will be because someone else (i.e. Ken Regan) was brought in to look at the data.
That said, if the information that was starting to make the rounds yesterday is accurate (and that is a big IF), it does not look good.
It doesn't matter the amount of evidence that people will find against Hans.
Even if physical evidence was found on him, probably people would still argue that it was implanted on him.
That is how the world works. People believe whatever they wish to believe.
I saw it.
It is a good video. Thanks
Here’s the video. As far as I’m concerned, this looks legit but it might be deceiving. I’m team IDK but this was a helpful and interesting video.
It is not prove if you don't believe in statistics and math.
But there are people that still believe in a flat earth in 2022, so whatever...
It is not prove if you don't believe in statistics and math.
But there are people that still believe in a flat earth in 2022, so whatever...
It’s not that I don’t believe in statistics and math. I just don’t like coming to conclusions until the conclusion is actually out. I don’t want to be immersed in one side, miss something critical, and become one of those fools advocating for nonsense. But yeah, people choose what they believe, that’s why there’s always two sides in the same situation.
If you guys are interest in what Magnus thinks about cheating, his concerns, and its rising in the last years, i found an interesting interview made to him last year.
Taking in account what he says there it is understandable why he would retire from Saint Louis Tournament.
(i linked the video bellow, and it has subtitles in english)
If you guys are interest in what Magnus thinks about cheating, his concerns, and its rising in the last years, i found an interesting interview made to him last year.
Taking in account what he says there it is understandable why he would retire from Saint Louis Tournament.
(i linked the video bellow, and it has subtitles in english)
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/hans-gate-is-our-community-really-this-toxic?page=2#comment-72219827
Actually I'm not interested. With the technology we have now in chess cheating is bound to happen. Basically this is nothing new, shocking or unexpected. Human nature will take over.
So your saying we should just let Engine Cheaters take over because there’s too many of them? That’s something that makes no sense.
Yes, magnus success really upsets many left minded people. He represents everything people hate in a capitalist world.
https://victorhogrefe.medium.com/did-niemann-cheat-c9fb2faae45c
"As we can see, the expected results and real results in Elo gains vary wildly amongst this group of upcoming players, and Niemann’s result is, by comparison, less dramatic."
The above statistics make a lot of assumptions, but I believe I should mention the biggest ones. First, I cannot guarantee the quality of the data. While Chessbase is considered the gold standard of chess databases, it may be that some games are not included, thereby skewing the simulated results of some players. Second, I rely on the accuracy of Wetherell’s LightGBM model, which I trained using the same specification he uses (Caissabase data). Perhaps someone would like to expand on this research and replicate the results to test their validity.
His methodology has a couple big holes.
First, he is comparing the rating game from Jan 2020 (when the pandemic was just starting). If he wanted to eliminate the pandemic from the equation (i.e. when comparing many of the Indian players would be useless as they had almost no OTB games for much of 2020 and early 2021), he needed to start later in 2020, or follow the previous analysis and start in Jan 2021.
Second, he is comparing the rating gain of Hans vs players MUCH lower rated. Pranav, for example, was rated 2310 at the start of his analysis, but had been as high as 2378 just before his analysis window. So the fact that he reached 2494 now is only a ~100-point gain over his previous peak. It is MUCH harder to gain rating at 2500-2700 than it is 2300-2500.
Third, several of the players he was comparing Hans to are significantly younger. You expect large gains from age 12-17, for example. You do not typically expect a massive gain suddenly at age 18-19. When you limit the comparison to just the guys who are close to him in age (Gukesh and Erigaisi for example), he is drastically out-performing them.
However, none of the rating gain analysis can prove he cheated or did not cheat. It simply shows there is an unusual rating gain happening with Hans. "Unusual" does not mean good or bad - just that it is outside the threshold of what we would expect using statistical models.
Don't worry, there are ways to catch cheaters.
Even in games like poker, with hidden information, it is possible to determine, after a good sample, if a person is cheating or colluding with another players.
Those statistical models are being used in many games online (poker, casinos, etc).
And by the look of it by chess.com as well. 