Anyone following the huge chess cheating controversy?

Drunken Meat Fist said:
Isn't that the whole point, he didn't not have enough to make a personal humongous call. His m.o. isn't stirring drama, it's the way you make your statement without tar and feather.
Click to expand...
Wtf you don't sound drunk.. are you okay?
 
I've found, over the years, if you've lived a mad life, or any life through the evening, late night, early morning, and whatever you've went through or if there's someone in the other room sawing logs, or if you're typing in some girl's attic piano, tweaking carbeurators you can't tweek, throwing axes at ghosts meant to chop wood, there's a vibration of who you are and your intent. Hospital dogs and cats. I seen it and kicked them away. Bryan Adams, Bruce Springsteen, Phoebe, Darger, Johnston, no one has written the cat detecting cancer triube sone. We are the Fur.
 
Drunken Meat Fist said:
I've found, over the years, if you've lived a mad life, or any life through the evening, late night, early morning, and whatever you've went through or if there's someone in the other room sawing logs, or if you're typing in some girl's attic piano, tweaking carbeurators you can't tweek, throwing axes at ghosts meant to chop wood, there's a vibration of who you are and your intent. Hospital dogs and cats. I seen it and kicked them away. Bryan Adams, Bruce Springsteen, Phoebe, Darger, Johnston, no one has written the cat detecting cancer triube sone. We are the Fur.
Click to expand...
That's more like it<CerseiPlotting>
 
Not tonight, never tonight, but forever. the goal was always somehow to surf an equilibrium, not a song, a wave of music.
 
Only because I became deeply interested in the chess world, and now YouTube thinks I care about every chess streamer.

OIP-2-2-1.jpg
 
Times ago, I thought about heroes, I don't see no more.
Every hero, every musician the sun all came before
I don't see you in the corner of the night
I don't see you in the light
I don't see you
I don't see you

chopshoph-

The fog takes away the sun, in the foggy day
nothing nothing nothing nothng step away

As the....a little more time.
 
robotsonic said:
His ELO gain isn't impossible but it is at the top of the pile among young players in the last few years and he definitely is not better than Erigaisi, Gukesh, Abdusattorov, etc, which would be weird given his recent form. His form seems to drop off massively in higher level tournaments where there are more eyes on him, which doesn't make him guilty of anything but certainly adds to the pile of circumstantial evidence that he's smart enough to not make his cheating too obvious. Let's remember he only beat Magnus once and ended up like 8th in that tournament.

Also that professor's analysis was flawed as he averaged across his games over two years, it's obvious as hell he isn't going to be cheating in every game. Funny how he only ever seems to hit that high 90% accuracy online where there are less eyes on him.

It's fair to say this guy is a very, very good chess player which is why he probably only needs to cheat a few times at certain times in the game, he's slipped online and got lazy keeping up the facade which is why there is a 45 move 100% accuracy game on record for him. You cannot hit 100% accuracy on a game of that many moves against any engine in the last 15 years unless you are yourself using an engine. Let alone do it 10 fucking times! You are talking quadrillions to one here...
Click to expand...
Professor Regan's analysis isn't flawed. If you think it forwards a definitive assertion that Niemann isn't cheating-- that it isn't possible he cheats sporadically-- you don't understand what the analysis intends to convey, and that the professor is very much aware of its limitations. As the mathematicians made clear, his performance is just at the limit of what is believable. As far as performance drop-offs in major tournaments, I haven't scrupled that myself, but the Sinquefield Cup is one of the most highly competitive tournaments in chess. It's possible he simply wilts psychologically against players who he perceives are beyond him, or at least has until recently.

Yes, there's quite a bit of suspicious circumstantial evidence swirling around him, as well as his history online, and it's hard to fathom that such prejudice materialized out of thin air, since this is a highly unusual allegation by Magnus. My initial reaction was one of credulity, since the people aligned against Hans (like Rensch) are far more familiar with everything behind the scenes than I am, as well as versed in the most sophisticated means of detecting cheating, and they take it seriously, but watching Hikaru latch onto that flawed analysis drawn from Regan's work undermined this instinctual trust of mine in those critical of Hans-- at least a bit. It gave me the sense he's a bit starved for validation of a confirmation bias, and that indicates they don't possess as much well-founded certainty as they are projecting.
 
Jack Reacheround said:
All I can picture now is a fucking tank rolling into the octagon, and Daniel Cormier saying, “There he is, the future HW champ.”
Click to expand...

Lmao!

"The look is back in the turret of the Abrams, Joe! Yeah Mike, and he's got some of the best TD defense we've ever seen in the octagon, a legit howitzer black belt under Sherman and Pershing."
 
Madmick said:
Professor Regan's analysis isn't flawed. If you think it forwards a definitive assertion that Niemann isn't cheating-- that it isn't possible he cheats sporadically-- you don't understand what the analysis intends to convey, and that the professor is very much aware of its limitations. As the mathematicians made clear, his performance is just at the limit of what is believable. As far as performance drop-offs in major tournaments, I haven't scrupled that myself, but the Sinquefield Cup is one of the most highly competitive tournaments in chess. It's possible he simply wilts psychologically against players who he perceives are beyond him, or at least has until recently.

Yes, there's quite a bit of suspicious circumstantial evidence swirling around him, as well as his history online, and it's hard to fathom that such prejudice materialized out of thin air, since this is a highly unusual allegation by Magnus. My initial reaction was one of credulity, since the people aligned against Hans (like Rensch) are far more familiar with everything behind the scenes than I am, as well as versed in the most sophisticated means of detecting cheating, and they take it seriously, but watching Hikaru latch onto that flawed analysis drawn from Regan's work undermined this instinctual trust in those critical of Hans-- at least a bit. It gave me the sense he's a bit starved for validation of a confirmation bias, and that indicates they don't possess as much well-founded certainty as they are projecting.
Click to expand...

Is he aware of the inherent weaknesses of the model? I mean he should be if he calls himself a statistician but it doesn't sound like it from every video I've heard of him talking, he sounds like a guy trying to protect his job. His model just seems badly calibrated and too easy to trick for me, for one, someone ran it against the Paris cheating event and it failed spectacularly, quite a big false negative to explain away there. Way too reliant on a large dataset and way too easy to hide cheating in the statistical noise. Rensch's methods seem far more sound in that respect.

I'll keep bringing it up but 100% engine accuracy on Chessbase (which uses multiple engines to form an average from Stockfish 8 up, I think) in a 45 move game is nowhere near the limit of what is believable. And also that accuracy is only calculated on non book moves also!!! The game Niemann played was out of theory by about move 18, so that's 27 moves he played perfectly! Want to talk about a statistical outlier????

I think you could probably say that it is inconclusive he cheated OTB but as Magnus said, he has absolutely 100% cheated online far more frequently and far more recently than he has admitted to. And that fundamentally puts everything he says in doubt.
 
It's been coming, but all this man-bashing shit in the ether is unfortunate because these girls aren't even part of that, these are genuine sweet girls, ..with a huge wink, they are here to destroy regardless of time place or circumstance, and even when they're funny and trippin' over f'words and satan's goats are attacking, how does any man not want these girls to be your daughters. Wipe the smoke of the world away, this isn't a new thing, this is just today. Sept Sunshine 1828 porcelain rose for Emily afternoon nothing wrong.

Some days stay the same and the then some
then some days are never the same

Pretty girl tapping your window pulse
and your whole world isn't the same
Old men die with crystal sigh
And the blanket is stiff with the ice

Blinded by the light
Wrapped up like it isn't Bruce
getting royalties through the blight

When you're bored with the whirld
and the move of the herd
Beaufiful muse change the light
 
robotsonic said:
Is he aware of the inherent weaknesses of the model? I mean he should be if he calls himself a statistician but it doesn't sound like it from every video I've heard of him talking, he sounds like a guy trying to protect his job. His model just seems badly calibrated and too easy to trick for me, for one, someone ran it against the Paris cheating event and it failed spectacularly, quite a big false negative to explain away there. Way too reliant on a large dataset and way too easy to hide cheating in the statistical noise. Rensch's methods seem far more sound in that respect.
Click to expand...
What is Rensch's method, and how is the math of it "more sound in that respect"? Speak precisely, and mathematically. Otherwise, I'm inclined to believe you're blindly bloviating your favor for one method without any respect for the details of what distinguishes them simply because you favor its implied judgement.

Because, as far as I know, Rensch hasn't published any methodological analysis validating the ban of Hans from his website & Magnus's accusation.
I'll keep bringing it up but 100% engine accuracy on Chessbase (which uses multiple engines to form an average from Stockfish 8 up, I think) in a 45 move game is nowhere near the limit of what is believable. And also that accuracy is only calculated on non book moves also!!! The game Niemann played was out of theory by about move 18, so that's 27 moves he played perfectly! Want to talk about a statistical outlier????
Click to expand...
Yes, I saw that claim. You asserted there are 10 games where his moves match Stockfish with 100% accuracy. I haven't seen this anywhere else. Nobody has refuted that he has a history of cheating in online games. That isn't what is at stake, and what you're disputing in Regan's analysis. Link for me the 10 OTB classical games he played at sanctioned tournaments where he performed with 100% engine accuracy.
 
I've been haunted, and I don't get haunted, but I was fucking around on the deep ebay looking for a paint of a muse, but you can't type up a muse, so I was typing up other way far off other shit that nothing to do with a muse, and hours rolled on, I had hours. I had a girl around and not looking, and you don't soliciit a muse, I was looking up art I could bend to the thought, and millions of nothing, and actual nice stuff over the shoulder. ....and this this picture. it was an old knock-off like 14x 19 something weird framed, in glass of a wounded knight, and not done well, prostrate exhuasted, done wiped out and bleeding in the mouth of precipitous cave one a mountain, a storm outside, he'd clearly given his all for something, and there was a faint image of clenched fairy Muse in my mind standing guard outside. It was more money than I had, maybe 150 bucks but I should've went hard for it. I've done dumber for less. I still see it.
 
Leave it to Madmick to be a method chess maestro I didn't see in the game. Hey, Mick, like to teh Botez sisters, even under the eyes you did it beautiful and kind, I barely felt a thing.
 
Any updates? I just got a text from my cocaine guy?! Sounds like pants weather.
 
I remember writing a note to myself in 7th grade, you're gonna end up in a box in Yugoslavia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,275,164
Messages
57,971,921
Members
175,887
Latest member
kaneoconnor98

Share this page

Back
Top