Topic: [CHESS] FIDE Candidates Chess Tournament 2022 - page 12. (Read 3118 times)

When COVID hit, I think that it was the time that he executed the opportunity of cheating. Lots of sports and companies slowly shifted to that kind of setup and security was not that stringent compared now. Given that most sports/companies have adapted to this kind of setting, they now have all the means of security in detecting these kinds of cheats.

What Niemann and the other cheaters did is just a disgrace to Chess. More importantly, he cheated on multiple tournaments that involved cashed prizes. I wonder what kind of prohibition and ban would Niemann get and the other FM-GMs as well.

Anyway, I do seriously recommend the game that transpired between Magnus and Korobov!

Yes, in the end it all comes down to making a profit. Niemann has cheated in 10 cash prize tournaments, and chess.com is ready to defend this point of view in court (since they published their report). It surprises me that after such a scandal, there are still no sanctions from FIDE - they just created a commission to determine if he cheated in games over the board.

Confirmed swindler, thief and scum without any problems participates in the US Chess Championship.
By the way, today there will be an interesting game between Niemann and Caruana https://www.uschesschamps.com/2022-us-championships/pairings-results

interesting point of view
so you think the guy's mind could be so twisted he'd want to be known for... cheating?
that's quite messed up

ethics level going below ground

Or he just wanted to be famous for the wrong and obviously flawed reasons. Everything this guy does, whether on stream or OTB tournaments scream attention-seeking, most recently with that "chess speaks for itself" comment. Dude can't get recognized with his own abilities wherein Magnus is the superstar, so he decided to meme his way into the chess elite scene, and he can only do it by cheating. He may have reached GM status after several years but the fact remains that he's a weak player that cannot even explain variations and give analysis on what he just played.

He probably did it for the very same reason that we see cheating on sports, very quickly people realize that the only ones that get any attention are the top performers and they earn way more money than the rest of their peers, and they also realize they have no chance of reaching that level, they are good but they are not that good, so they see in cheating a way to try to get to their goal, but they forget that no matter how good they are at hiding what they are doing they are going to eventually get caught.

I think he did it for a similar reason scammers use crypto to commit crimes and sometimes are caught due to the permanent nature of blockchains.
He probably didn't think he would be caught
and was pursuing the drill that comes with status of being a winner, even by using these methods

sad to see

Yes, any modern chess program is better than any human, so even if you do not use it for the entire match and sometimes peep some moves, you will get a huge advantage over any human player.


There are more and more confirmations every day. Here is new work from a professional statistician and data engineer:
TOP URGENT! Strong EVIDENCE of CHEATING has been found on NIEMANN's Controversy

To be honest, I don’t understand what Niemann was counting on when he started cheating? Chess is a completely calculated game, therefore, having all his games in the history (as well as any other chess player), it is impossible to hide the fact of cheating - some statistical parameter will give you away.

interesting @Boristhecat
so we got a confirmation

@LUCKMCFLY
just a fun fact
some say chess GMs aren't necessarily the best at memorizing and thinking many moves ahead, they're way better at analyzing the current position and figuring out what is the best move available

they also scan the board and think about what is the structure they want the board to be while the game develops.

I also understand this, but how can it be shown that a computer game can be differentiated from a human one? if a human was the one who created the algorithm, and gives it life through the situations that arise, then for me it is difficult to say that it is a computer when I know that there are people who are very enlightened and see very strange plays and end up winning the game with that move, and although it is very rare, the move is the most effective, in fact I think that any player knows that a human being when concentrating could see many moves, up to 6, 7 in advance and that is in the normal parameters , a chess master imagines that he will see 10 moves or more, maybe that is the advantage, just as a computer will be able to see the same or a little more.


Well according to all this, then it means that if several AIs are combined, it is possible for them to develop the perfect game? There will never be the human side that can get out of the usual or what we always call following the rules to reach a goal? Maybe it's what we've all always wanted to have, but now an AI doesn't give us a chance at anything, of course the man who uses it is obviously cheating, but I imagine that in all the platforms that it is for one to practice, play chess, we are playing against those processors, I think that these machines are very powerful, but even so I think that human thought can do a lot plus.

This is a completely different assessment than the accuracy that everyone is used to playing on chess.com. As I understand it, this is an assessment of moves relative to existing chess engines. The cheater doesn't have to play as the latest version of Stockfish, he can use a less advanced version or DeepFritz or Rybka etc. This evaluation checks the moves against any engine, so a smart cheater who uses different engines will still be caught.
And the peculiarity is that only those moves are analyzed here where the chess player is obliged to think independently - theoretical opening moves are excluded from the analysis, as well as forced moves.
And so now it turns out that the top grandmasters in their entire career can find at most one game close to 80-90 in their games, while Niemann has a dozen 100% games and a dozen 90% games in a few years.
In terms of mathematics, he is 100% a cheater.

interesting video Boristhecat
seems like it goes in a way I mentioned here before
no human player has 100% accuracy on their games
computers usually "think" in a slightly different way than humans.

Have you seen this video? The most incriminating evidence against Hans Niemann

I was sure that cheating could not be hidden at a distance and that sooner or later there would be more good reasons to consider Niemann a cheater than suspicion. And in fact it happened. You can watch later clips from this channel - now everyone is intensively checking all available games for correlation with computer moves, but no one has even a close result like Niemann's.

I think that Magnus Carlsen openly accused Niemann of cheating based on these data as well. Now the ball is on the side of Niemann and in the coming days we should expect some statements from him.

another thing to take into account when comparing the way computers play is their accuracy is usually much higher
and sometimes they make moves that makes no sense for humans because it's the most accurate move.

quite interesting subject

But they should publish the evidence, it still seems unbelievable to me that Hans has those things to show, I can't believe it, could this be a montage to create more fame for him? in the camp he would have many beds right? I don't know, but it's so strange because now in tournaments everything is so guarded.

And I see that it has gone to great lengths, because even a court of Justice has come, and what you say is true, computers play differently but only because they base everything on numbers and probabilities, so computers don't think they just execute and quickly you know all the moves, that's why they are different.

I understand your point
but it's worth remembering that we live in really weird times nowadays with cancellation culture at its peak
I still think that we should have evidences to condemn someone for a crime....

While I agree with you we must also understand that the kind of standards that are necessary in a court of law in order to prove the culpability of a suspect are not necessarily the standards that are going to be used on every other single instance we can find, it is known that computers play differently than the way humans do and this is because they think about chess in a different way, humans find patterns and reduce the possible moves that they can make thanks to their experience, computers just evaluate hundreds of millions of moves per second, this means that computers can make some very weird moves that humans do not understand, so if the top expert in the world of chess says there is something fishy then most likely there is something there.

Well this is something remarkable, the truth is that I have always put in context that one has a logic developed thanks to Chess and that it can be applied to any event in life, this means that why not? it can be applied with poker, which is another thing that AI has a great advantage over us, it can perform calculations and statistics in record time and that is something that has a lot of weight, for me these things if a human manages to overcome it means that it still we are above the AI, as long as we are dominating that I think we could beat it even at "random", that is why that word that many repeat called "luck" arises.



I find it incredible that these things happen, it's absolutely amazing to me, I don't know, but these things didn't used to happen before, right? For now I think that things always come to light that before had more restraint to do, however people and players, especially those who have never known defeat, are capable of doing whatever it takes to maintain their status as the best, this is something that surprises, one of the greats like Kasparov never even came close to doing something like that, now how do they manage to do bad things because I think that the human being has no limits. And as he says, if Kasparov himself demanded explanations is certainly something serious.

I would like to know what statements everyone is talking about if Magnus silently withdrew from the tournament (except for that post, however, in which he did not speak about anyone) and is still silent? Even Kasparov demanded a public explanation from him for this act, but Magnus is still silent and ignoring him 

Again, evidence is king. Even if a person has been previously convicted of a crime, that does not entirely mean that they would do the same. Until the camp of Magnus presents solid proof and evidence of Hans cheating on the over-the-board tournament, the fact still remains that this has definitely took a toll to his reputation.

Let us just wait until they release more evidence in proving the cheating that Hans did. While I do respect Magnus, this is the time that he must present solid proof that will substantiate his claim against Hans cheating.

We are not top grandmasters and not public figures to keep politeness/conventions. Given the fact that there is no direct evidence, but some big people in the world of chess are openly talking about cheating, this means that there was 100% cheating.


What is your argument? He was caught cheating twice. Do you think this fact testifies rather in favor of the fact that he is honest or in favor of the fact that he is a cheater?
Chess.com always bans without explanation or proof, mostly it is done automatically (if chess players' moves repeat the first line of moves from chess engines), but maybe an exception was made for Niemann and he was banned manually.

In fact, I think absolutely all professional chess players understand that Niemann is a cheater and internally laugh at him (and some do it openly), just watch this video.