Carlsen’s public statement: “I believe that Niemann has cheated more”

by ChessBase
9/26/2022 – A day after getting a convincing victory at the Generation Cup, as he anticipated, Magnus Carlsen has shared a public statement regarding the polemic surrounding his withdrawal from the Sinquefield Cup and his quick resignation against Hans Niemann. The world champion wrote: “I believe that Niemann has cheated more — and more recently — than he has publicly admitted”. | Photo: Amruta Mokal
Your personal chess trainer. Your toughest opponent. Your strongest ally.
FRITZ 20 is more than just a chess engine – it is a training revolution for ambitious players and professionals. Whether you are taking your first steps into the world of serious chess training, or already playing at tournament level, FRITZ 20 will help you train more efficiently, intelligently and individually than ever before. 

“He wasn’t even fully concentrating”

Magnus Carlsen has finally explicitly stated why he took two dramatic decisions in the last few weeks: to withdraw from the Sinquefield Cup after three rounds and to resign a game on move 2 against Hans Niemann at the Generation Cup.

It had to do, as we all suspected, with Hans Niemann’s alleged cheating. 

The statement appeared on the same day that the US Chess Federation announced the field for the 2022 edition of the US Championships, with Hans Niemann in the lineup.

Useful links

Carlsen’s statement

Originally posted on Twitter

Dear Chess World,

At the 2022 Sinquefield Cup, I made the unprecedented professional decision to withdraw from the tournament after my round three game against Hans Niemann. A week later during the Champions Chess Tour, I resigned against Hans Niemann after playing only one move.

I know that my actions have frustrated many in the chess community. I’m frustrated. I want to play chess. I want to continue to play chess at the highest level in the best events.

I believe that cheating in chess is a big deal and an existential threat to the game. I also believe that chess organizers and all those who care about the sanctity of the game we love should seriously consider increasing security measures and methods of cheat detection for over the board chess. When Niemann was invited last minute to the 2022 Sinquefield Cup, I strongly considered withdrawing prior to the event. I ultimately chose to play.

I believe that Niemann has cheated more — and more recently — than he has publicly admitted. His over the board progress has been unusual, and throughout our game in the Sinquefield Cup I had the impression that he wasn’t tense or even fully concentrating on the game in critical positions, while outplaying me as black in a way I think only a handful of players can do. This game contributed to changing my perspective.

We must do something about cheating, and for my part going forward, I don’t want to play against people that have cheated repeatedly in the past, because I don’t know what they are capable of doing in the future.

There is more that I would like to say. Unfortunately, at this time I am limited in what I can say without explicit permission from Niemann to speak openly. So far I have only been able to speak with my actions, and those actions have stated clearly that I am not willing to play chess with Niemann. I hope that the truth on this matter comes out, whatever it may be.

Sincerely,
Magnus Carlsen – World Chess Champion

Reports about chess: tournaments, championships, portraits, interviews, World Championships, product launches and more.

Discuss

Rules for reader comments

 
 

Not registered yet? Register

arzi arzi 10/6/2022 06:53
To Science22, as lajosarpad said:"As I explained earlier, the local tournaments I have been playing at were not Élő rated, they were CIV rated, but you seem to "conveniently" forget about it."

We have in Finland, Selo -system (Finnish Elo) and of course we are using also Elo. I have both.
lajosarpad lajosarpad 10/6/2022 02:09
@Science22

"On the contrary, you have proved to excess that you would abuse such information."

How hypocritical is to say this to Arzi after you abused my identity.

"You scare a lot of normal users of Chessbase.com into speaking their minds because of your constant personal insults to them if they think otherwise than you do."

On chessbase nobody is scared of nobody else, as far as I know and in these discussions you were the most abusive person, but nobody, not even you threatened or intimidated anyone else.

"So you follow all my comments here and object at once and even accuse others for being me if they agree with me."

Trolls often create multiple accounts. I think Arzi cannot tell the difference between you and a troll. The reason for thinking that is that you are indistinguishable from a troll if you ask me. If you are indeed trolling, then it would not be unusual or surprising if you created multiple accounts.
lajosarpad lajosarpad 10/6/2022 02:09
@Science22

Don't you see how abusive and pathetic your position is? I do not intend to waste further of my time into proving that I am myself. Yet, I emphasize again that you are writing abusive comments without sharing your identity. I would have no issue with your anonimity if you would behave in a normal manner. But you are not behaving in a normal manner. You write abusive comments, you accuse others here, you are repeatedly insulting others. You should take responsibility for doing so or apologize for your misbehavior. Since you continued misbehaving, but you did not take responsibility for it by identifying yourself, you acted cowardly. It is the hallmark of trolls that they lie about others, insult others and engage into personal attacks against others without revealing their identity. Since you are engaging into abusive activity and personal attacks against others as well as you make baseless and false statements about fellow commenters, I do not see any difference between your comments and trolling comments.

"I only have this login science 22, and my name, ELO number and profession are known by Chessbase.com because I can trust them."

You have not shared your identity. You are mentioning that you have an identity, but you do not share it. Here multiple persons expect you to either share your identity or start behaving like civilized people do.
lajosarpad lajosarpad 10/6/2022 02:09
@Science22

"This conclusion is only strengthened by the fact that lajosarpad say he did play chess earlier but not anymore. However, one does not lose an ELO number. It just become passive. lajosarpad has no ELO number at all."

As I explained earlier, the local tournaments I have been playing at were not Élő rated, they were CIV rated, but you seem to "conveniently" forget about it. It is quite hypocritical that you want me to give you information about the tournaments I have played years ago, yet you would not identify yourself. If you do not believe that I am Lajos Árpád and that I have played at tournaments, then your (abusive) comments are taking another ridiculous position. As even you have seen, Lajos Árpád exists as a person and I was going by that name here at chessbase always. Why would I make that up? Why would I make up that I played at tournaments? Why would I read and comment on chess articles if I was not connected to chess? Sorry, but your insinuations are not only false, but they are not even making any sense. And I do not buy that you genuinely believe all the nonsense you insinuate about my person.
lajosarpad lajosarpad 10/6/2022 02:08
@Science22

Let me provide an example: let's consider that we play a game of 40 moves, that is, 80 plies. The exact 80 plies we make have a probability of roughly 1/k^80, where k is the average number of possible moves we can make. This means that, from prior the game's perspective, predicting our game beforehand is extremely unlikely. But we are still able to play that extremely unlikely game. Any game we may play is extremely unlikely from the perspective of the onset, but our sheer ability to play the game not only proves that the extremely unlikely can happen, but it also proves that the extremely unlikely regularly happens and everywhere. Equating the extremely unlikely with the impossible is a well-known fallacy, called the Hoyle fallacy (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hoyle%27s_fallacy), which is usually used in attempts of undermine scientific thought, the most famous use of this fallacy is the so-called junkyard tornado example, which is used by proponents of intelligent design in order to convince the scientific world that religious belief should be included into science, because they equate the fact that it's unlikely that a tornado would turn a junkyard into a Boeing 747 and they infer from this that abiogenesis is impossible, as it turned lifeless matter into organisms. It's an anti-rational, anti-scientific way of arguing and you regularly use it. Because you are a "scientist".

"lajosarpad can make even the grossest statistical fallacies without it affecting him. I dont trust him."

Well, at least I have identified myself upon your request, even though I did not attack you or others personally. But you are conducting personal attacks and you do it while being hidden behind a nickname. How pathetic.
lajosarpad lajosarpad 10/6/2022 02:08
@Science22

"lajosarpad wrote: "So, either Niemann is a very talented and precise guy, or he is consistently lucky, or he has cheated."

This formulation means that lajosarpad equates the three possibilities."

That's just wrong. Saying that A or B or C is true does not mean they have equal probability, it is a ridiculous misrepresentation of what I said to claim that the three possibilities I have listed somehow have the same probability. And you call yourself a scientist.

"Now lajosarpad then tries the new manipulation by saying that he did not attach any specific probability to the three possibilities."

I did not attach probability to them. There is no manipulation in pointing out that the argument you attribute to me never existed outside your mind.

"Of course, it has nothing to do with talent that Niemann chooses the computer's choice so many time."

If he is playing via sheer ability, then he achieves whatever he achieves due to talent and luck. If he receives outside help, then he's cheating. He cheated at least twice in online tournaments and Carlsen cheated once at a Lichess game, accepting help from David Howell. Back to Niemann: the investigation's goal is to determine what the truth is. Nevertheless, you seem to exclude all except one of the possibilities, being absolutely sure that he is cheating. Scientists are rarely sure of their opinions, yet, you are absolutely sure here.

"It is only possible to choose the computer's exact choice every time if you know it."

That's nonsense. Anytime it's possible to play a move the engine agrees with. Doing it repeatedly is getting the more unlikely the more moves one would make. But it never reaches exact 0. Saying that doing such a sequence is only possible through cheating betrays your ignorance about probabilities, as you equate the extremely unlikely with the impossible. You do not have a grasp of the basic concepts that you would need to formulate your theory.
arzi arzi 10/5/2022 12:16
Science22:" You scare a lot of normal users of Chessbase.com into speaking their minds because of your constant personal insults to them if they think otherwise than you do."

Maybe you should go to see somebody who can help you and talk with you? If you, Science22, make the insults on others it doesn´t mean that everybody do the same. Btw, you still did not tell your name to lajosarpad or did you? There is no scientist in you. This is not an insult but a fact.
Science22 Science22 10/5/2022 09:50
@arzi I only have this login science 22, and my name, ELO number and profession are known by Chessbase.com because I can trust them. On the contrary, you have proved to excess that you would abuse such information. You scare a lot of normal users of Chessbase.com into speaking their minds because of your constant personal insults to them if they think otherwise than you do.

You can't scare me, and it annoys you terribly.So you follow all my comments here and object at once and even accuse others for being me if they agree with me. You are to my best opinion very ill. Goodbye
arzi arzi 10/5/2022 07:30
Science22:" It just become passive. lajosarpad has no ELO number at all."

Neither have you. So what? Who will trust you? I won´t do that.
Science22 Science22 10/4/2022 12:43
Of course, it has nothing to do with talent that Niemann chooses the computer's choice so many time. A player who chooses another equally good move can be just as talented. It is only possible to choose the computer's exact choice every time if you know it. If you are a cheater.

lajosarpad can make even the grossest statistical fallacies without it affecting him. I dont trust him. This conclusion is only strengthened by the fact that lajosarpad say he did play chess earlier but not anymore. However, one does not lose an ELO number. It just become passive. lajosarpad has no ELO number at all.
Science22 Science22 10/3/2022 02:02
lajosarpad wrote: "So, either Niemann is a very talented and precise guy, or he is consistently lucky, or he has cheated."

This formulation means that lajosarpad equates the three possibilities. They are equally likely. Which of course they are not. Now lajosarpad then tries the new manipulation by saying that he did not attach any specific probability to the three possibilities. It is ridiculous, in that the probability with 10 significant figures rounded is:

Talent and precision : 0%
Luck : 0%
Cheat : 100%

There are usually several good moves in each position in chess. . Sometimes there are even 10 options, so assuming that there are on average two equally good options in each position is extremely conservative.

If, on each move, a player has the choice between a computer's choice or another good move ( evaluated slightly worse by the computer ) , and yet chooses the computer's choice each time, then the probability of this is 1 divided by 2 raised to the power of 60. There is no difference between this and a person who plays randomly on two possible colors red or black, and 60 times in a row chooses exactly the color that is drawn
lajosarpad lajosarpad 10/2/2022 01:25
@Science22

This is how you quoted me: "So, either Niemann is a very talented and precise guy, or he is a fraud"
This is the original quote "So, either Niemann is a very talented and precise guy, or he is consistently lucky, or he has cheated."

If you accuse me of lying, cheating and stuff like that, then at least don't fabricate my comments, if I may ask.

"Who actually dont play chess anymore because you are too busy with the company ?"

Another misrepresentation of what I said. I said that I have retired from competitive chess in order to pursue a career in mathematics and programming. I have made a choice, which turned out to be a good move, but I never left chess and I watch top tournaments, analyze games, etc. I did not mention being "too busy" and I did not mention "the company". These are just byproducts of your imaginative efforts to stay away from the topic and to namelessly attack my person.

"You manipulate, lie and cheat ind order to get your agenda through."

May we know your name?
lajosarpad lajosarpad 10/2/2022 01:24
@Science22

"Then you continue to give the same probability for talent, luck and fraud in a situation where Niemann has to hit the same move up 60 times in game after game ( actually 10 times 100 % and 23 times 90 %) . That gives zero chance for the two first options where you give 1/3 to each."

That's factually false. I did not equate the probabilities. In fact I did not say anything of the probabilities:

All scientists (without exception) know that

A or B or C

only means that at least one of the operands is true and it certainly does not mean that

p(A) = p(B) = p(C)

So, you are using a straw man, but rest assured, I'm not 100% sure you were trying to misrepresent what I said, maybe you just do not know much about logic, despite being "a scientist".
lajosarpad lajosarpad 10/2/2022 01:24
First, I would like to thank the majority of the commenters (Arzi, Adbennet, Matthias Ruf, Tauno, Shivasundar and others) for keeping this civil. It is vital both to have a meaningful discussion and to keep the comment section opened.

Now, I react to @Science22

I have noticed that you still did not share your name, so you still personally attack me (presumably due to lack of arguments to defend a feeble position in the debate) from behind a nickname. This is an unfortunate display of lack of character. If you continue to avoid sharing your name, I will have to conclude that you are not very proud of what you did here.

You imply that I self-contradict, because earlier I said that "even though his imprecise play against Carlsen suggests otherwise" and the article I have quoted claims that he played precisely. I can accept this to be a genuine doubt and I am happy to answer it (at least it's an argument, finally). What we consider to be precise or imprecise depends on what we expect. If we assume that Niemann played using computer assistance, then I expect an extremely high, centaur-level precision and I would certainly not expect a centaur to play 29... Nc4? a move that allows his opponent to draw.

So, Niemann's precision was better than what I would expect from a 2700 player, but worse than what I would expect from a centaur. So, when I say that Niemann played imprecisely, what I really mean is that his play was worse than I would expect from someone receiving computer assistance. Certainly, his precision was good-enough to play and beat the world champion (who had a subpar performance in the game) and this precision would be enough to beat the majority of the commenters from here, including myself, of course.
arzi arzi 10/1/2022 08:26
I think Carlsen did a small mistake but refused to admit that. Now this whole thing has changed to something big unknown creature. It is ok to make mistakes. You learn from them. It is growing from a child to an adult. Truth is everything. You will be remembered for your little mistakes but not of your great achievements. That would be sad.
adbennet adbennet 10/1/2022 08:02
I consider myself a thoughtful critic who (mostly) chooses to remain silent (for now). Nevertheless I take a momentary break from my silence to thank lajosarpad for his tireless responses here. I have been enumerating the logical fallacies and they weigh quite heavily against those who have no doubts about Carlsen's accusation (I say that even though Carlsen has avoided direct words) and Niemann's guilt. It is the same situation with comments on other chess sites. The errors need to be called out, so again, thank you sir.
Science22 Science22 10/1/2022 05:45
ajosarpad : "... but let's assume for now that Niemann is playing very precise chess (even though his imprecise play against Carlsen suggests otherwise). So, either Niemann is a very talented and precise guy, or he is a fraud

Now you present us with a new version : Niemann played an absolutely fantastic game against Carlsen, apart from some few minor mistakes compared to the best computer analysis. Now few minor mistake is not the same as above where you give the impression of an overall imprecise game.

Then you continue to give the same probability for talent, luck and fraud in a situation where Niemann has to hit the same move up 60 times in game after game ( actually 10 times 100 % and 23 times 90 %) . That gives zero chance for the two first options where you give 1/3 to each.

You are either highly incomptent to statistics or a nasty person with a nasty agenda. Who actually dont play chess anymore because you are too busy with the company ? Too busy ? With 50 long comments per day here ? Too busy ?

I dont trust you at all. You manipulate, lie and cheat ind order to get your agenda through. Ignoring you is the only option.
lajosarpad lajosarpad 10/1/2022 05:14
@Science22

My name is Lajos Árpád, I am a Hungarian living in Romania and I hold a degree in mathematics and computer science. I do not want to brag about this, I'm just answering you. As about my tournament past, I was playing in local tournaments in Transylvania before I retired from competitive chess to pursue a career in science and points back then were computed in civ number. But I remained interested in chess and I closely follow chess ever since then. To prove my identity, I give you my link at stackoverflow (https://stackoverflow.com/users/436560/lajos-arpad), where I have 3.9 million readers so far. So, I am also interested in science and I can say that your attitude here, with fallacies, personal attacks and baseless accusation has nothing to do with scientific discourse.

Let me also explain to you why I consider it cowardly from your part that you hide behind a nickname. This way, you accuse others of lying and intimidation without actually having any risk of being sued for it. I'm using my own name in my comments, as I know I'm not slanderous and whatever I say, even if it's wrong, is honest and goodwilling. You, on the other hand accuse me of lying and intimidation without sharing your identity. So, you act cowardly. Others using nicknames, but not slandering fellow commenters are not acting cowardly. But, if you have the "courage" to slander others, you should also have the courage to do it openly. It is awkward and cowardly to throw slanders from behind a nickname.
lajosarpad lajosarpad 10/1/2022 05:13
@Science22

"Due to the aggressive scumbags on the internet, most thoughtful critics choose to remain silent despite the overwhelming statistical material. It is this material, and nothing else, that forms the basis for maintaining that Niemann is a fraud. "

It is quite hypocritical on your part to aggressively attack the person of those who disagree with you and then accuse them of doing what mostly you did. You are even dehumanizing others, calling them "scumbags", while no one was calling you names. All in the name of science, right?

In the quote above you contradict yourself, as earlier you said that Niemann's interview is the strongest proof. And you dismiss any statistical analysis that contradicts your conclusion, Ken Rogoff's analysis included. You prefer the experiment done by a commenter here of which the data and the methodology was not shared yet, but you completely dismiss a very serious analysis because it did not differentiate between two cases you think should be differentiated. Ken Rogoff's analysis is the deepest we have so far. If you can do a better analysis, then nobody stops you doing so. But then you would need to focus your energy into constructive work, instead of slandering us with "lying" and "intimidating".
lajosarpad lajosarpad 10/1/2022 05:13
@Science22

"The psychopath does not have to prove anything, he just needs to intimidate other people for personal gain."

How did I or Shivasundar intimidate you? Are you afraid of arguments that disagree with you, or what?

"Armstrong had some really hard core fans who, on the internet, vilified the critics with personal attacks. "

In this discussion I do not recall that anyone personally attacked you. But you personally attack anyone who disagree with you here. Everyone asking for evidence is a troll according to you. And you accuse me and Shivasundar of lying and intimidating you. So, you claim that you know that we know we are wrong, but we nevertheless attempt to deceive everyone. Baseless accusations in defense of a baseless accusation. How fitting, ironic, even poetic. You also accuse us of "hateful intimidating". I do not hate you. I disagree with you. It is you who displayed hatred towards me when you attacked my person.
lajosarpad lajosarpad 10/1/2022 04:47
@Science22

"Lie mix up with hateful intimidations."

That's called slandering. Don't worry, I will not sue you, despite that, as far as I know, I am a normal person, because 1. I cannot identify you, as you hide behind a nickname, 2. Your accusation is baseless, I factually know, 3. I do not consider it important to defend my integrity against a random person who calls those who disagree with him/her "trolls" and 4. I do not intend to waste my time in court.

Finally: I did not claim that I'm an expert on everything, that's only a straw man, which is, by the way, another fallacy. It is you who have bragged about being a scientist. Which I seriously doubt, but I have no hard evidence in order to accuse you, so I will only say that you are doing a terribly poor job representing science here, with the fallacies, accusations and personal attacks that you make. As about being open in my opinion, I will not ask your permission to comment in the future.
lajosarpad lajosarpad 10/1/2022 04:47
@Science22

Your personal attack against me (the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem, attacking the person instead of his/her arguments) confirms to me that my arguments were strong, so you attacked my person instead. I do want to clarify that I do not intend to intimidate you or anyone else and all that I say are ideas and arguments I think to be true. So, please excuse me, but I do not want to deal with your primitive attacks against my person in detail. Instead, I will answer to your concrete question that was in-topic:

"Contrary lajosarpad write that Niemann did not play optimally against Magnus Carlsen in their match in the Sinquefield Cup. Maybe lajosarpad wuold inform us where it is that Niemann does not play flawless. ?"

After 29... Nc4 30. Bxc4 would have been close to a draw, or so it seems. But let's drift away from my human analysis (I do not use engines to analyze chess) and see an article written about this:

"Niemann’s play against Carlsen was consistently exceptional, though he made a few minor mistakes. Niemann’s moves may have shown an unusually high correlation with those suggested by the Stockfish engine, but not by so much as to prove cheating." https://bigthink.com/high-culture/chess-cheating-hans-niemann-magnus-carlsen/

Furthermore: "If a player were to use a computer to cheat in a top chess tournament, how could he receive the computer’s instructions during live play in front of his opponent?"

I have seen no convincing descriptions of this, let alone proof.
lajosarpad lajosarpad 10/1/2022 04:46
@Science22

So, either the conclusions by Matthias Ruf are reliable, or they are not reliable. If they are unreliable, then we can dismiss this whole subtopic. So, what's interesting is, what is if it's reliable. This is why I assumed its reliability as a work hypothesis and certainly I did not aim to "manipulate reality". So, your accusation towards my person is ignorant and malicious at the same time. Since I have seen a serious error of judgement on your part, a baseless accusation towards my direction, which originated in the lack of understanding of my argument, I will, from now on take anything you say (especially about baseless or not baseless accusations) with a large grain of salt both due to the intellectual and moral qualities you have displayed here. And it is quite fitting that you baslessly claim that those who consider Carlsen's accusation to be baseless are "trolls".

But let me attempt to explain this in a more understandable way:

Matthias Ruf conducted an experiment. I would be interested to see the exact input data and the exact steps to reproduce this result. Until then, I can only speculate about this. Since I can only speculate (for lack of details of the experiment), the most interesting is to think out the possibility that Matthias Ruf might be correct. So, as a work hypothesis, I assume - for now - that his experiment was well-done and the result is reliable and significant. If so, the only thing what one may conclusively prove from such an analysis, that compares Niemann's play against a computer is the precision of his play or the precision of his play in the sample Matthias collected. Simple as that.
lajosarpad lajosarpad 10/1/2022 04:46
@Science22

Quote1 (L.Á.): "I have not seen the data yet, but let's assume for now that Niemann is playing very precise chess (even though his imprecise play against Carlsen suggests otherwise)"
Quote2 (S22): "No, we shouldn't assume anything. Do not manipulate reality out of the door. We have to look at the facts, and the facts are that Niemann has had so many games that have been 100% identical to chess programs that it is statistically significant. Far better than any world champion."

You misunderstood my point. Every scientist (without exception) knows what a work hypothesis means (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09515089.2021.2014439). Having a work hypothesis does not equate "manipulate reality". I have pointed out that I have not seen the data yet. This means that I do not have the means to determine whether the experiment conducted by Matthias Ruf (which you have relied upon) was well-done, whether it is fallacious or not and, if correct, whether its conclusions are accurate and relevant. Since from the information currently available to me the accuracy and reliableness of Matthias Ruf's experiment is indeterminable by me until I get the necessary amount and quality of input, I can only speculate about it as a result. As a result, I can dismiss the whole experiment as I do not know anything about it (while Ken Regan made it very clear how one could reproduce his analysis). Or, I can assume as a work hypothesis (which you seemingly have not heard about) that the results of the experiment are reliable.

This assumption does not come from my part as a belief, but, instead, it is the premise of a thought experiment. Learn about what a thought experiment is here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thought-experiment/
lajosarpad lajosarpad 10/1/2022 04:45
@Talhaunted You say that Carlsen knows who is cheating against him and we should trust his judgement and Niemann should prove his innocense. So, either you are right, or you are shifting the burden of proof. There is no third possibility. However, since your conclusion, according to which Niemann should prove his innocence is based on a well-known fallacy called "appeal to authority" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority), your whole argument is fallacious. Wikipedia even shares an example of this fallacy, which is very similar to your argument:

"X is an expert on subject Y,
X claims A. (A is within subject Y.)
Therefore, A is probably true."

Since your premise is fallacious, your conclusion is unreliable. That is, since you appeal to authority in your premise, you have an issue in your argument and therefore your argument cannot be right, even if your conclusion turns out to be correct in subsequent analysis. As a result, you are shifting the burden of proof https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm

@Science22 "I and many others has explained that Ken Regan has forgotten an important premise in his statistical model, namely to distinguish between the games that are broadcast live and those that are not broadcast live. If you distinguish between these two situations, there is a statistically significant difference in Niemann's performance. It is 200 ELO lower if the games are not broadcast live. Ken Regan should have done that because the debate was whether he received help during the games. It is much more difficult if no one can see the game being played. "

Questions:

- what the input data was, how can I access it
- what moves were taken into account
- how was the accuracy of the moves measured
Science22 Science22 10/1/2022 04:19
The most creepy thing about lajosarpad is that he starts provoking to get personal information. I am thus a "coward" when I hide behind a login that is not my real name, he writes.

When you consider with what viciousness he bothers people without knowing their real names, what lies and manipulations he is willing to concoct in order to intimidate, you can vividly imagine what it must be like if he also gets personal information.

At the same time, he tries to convince us that because he calls himself lajosarpad, he himself has fulfilled the requirement to publish his real name, and not hide behind an anonymous login. But there is a problem here
because there are no chess players with ELO figures in FIDE who have the name Lajos Arpad.

It is true that there was a Hungarian professor of physics Arpad Elo who played chess well, but he has long since passed away. Professor Elo developed the solid statistical model that from 1970 was used in FIDE to calculate rating numbers.

But he was the most kind and gifted person one can imagine, and therefore he has absolutely no relation with the diabolical lajosarpad, who time and again airs his incompetence in terms of statistical methods in order to intimidate me and others.

So who are you lajosarpad? Tell us You also need to tell where Niemann played imprecisely against Magnus Carlsen in their now famous game. Tell
Science22 Science22 10/1/2022 04:15
A big question for honest people is : How do you get rid of an intimidating psychopath who lies, deceives and damages your life without spending huge amounts of time fighting him? It is so much easier to be a psychopath than to be an honest person. The psychopath does not have to prove anything, he just needs to intimidate other people for personal gain.

It is also interesting for this debate to note that the definitive proof that Lance Armstrong was doped came from himself. It was 17 years from his first victory in the Tour de France in 1996 until he admitted to doping in 2013. Along the way, Armstrong had some really hard core fans who, on the internet, vilified the critics with personal attacks.

Due to the aggressive scumbags on the internet, most thoughtful critics choose to remain silent despite the overwhelming statistical material. It is this material, and nothing else, that forms the basis for maintaining that Niemann is a fraud.

It is therefore fantastically gratifying to see how one thoughtful chess player after another on the Internet reviews the factual facts and comes to the same conclusion, namely that Hans Niemann did not play his games himself, but was helped by powerful computer programs.
shivasundar shivasundar 10/1/2022 01:29
Thank you, @arzi @lajosarpad and @tauno for all the kind words and support :-) - it is a proud "I told you so" moment - so I applaud FIDE's alacrity. I really hope for transparency in the investigation as well.

I was hoping for investigation into chesscom as well (_their_ [italics] silence due to the NDAs and privacy, and the suspicious timing of the perm ban - any connection with the PMG purchase and/or conflict of interest?!) - just like into MC and Hans - however, I have come to understand now that chesscom is way more powerful and rich. They also seem to have a good anti-cheating system (according to most top-50 super GM testimonials). It looks like FIDE *wants* their cooperation in sharing data *to them* as well...

I hope chesscom (and all online platforms) agree in the end to be regulated. I also hope they share more data (flags of cheaters - rating ranges at least, relevant de-duplicated, aggregated and disaggregated data, may be open source some code - enough so cheaters can't know their system) towards more transparency. Online tournaments have prize money now almost approaching the Candidates, and certainly more than many strong Opens - so we will see how that cookie crumbles. They have indicated (CEO Eric on reddit) that they will eventually be better...
Science22 Science22 10/1/2022 12:58
There is a sure method for determining whether you are on the right track. That is when lajosarpad step in and intimidate.

In the game against Magnus Carlsen, Carlsen tries to surprise with a very exceptional sequence of moves in the opening. I heard with my own ears Hans Niemann explain after the game that by a miracle he study this variation in the morning, and he referred to a non-existent game Carlsen was supposed to have played.

It makes a huge impression on me that he lies so directly and that he plays the endgame a class better than the world champion with less time consumption. . Absolutely flawless.

In my eyes, there is no doubt whatsoever that Niemann is a fraud.

Contrary lajosarpad write that Niemann did not play optimally against Magnus Carlsen in their match in the Sinquefield Cup. Maybe lajosarpad wuold inform us where it is that Niemann does not play flawless. ?

I could go on, but it serves no purpose. Lajosarpad plucks something out and spins his own reality. Lie mix up with hateful intimidations. I've seen this in hundreds of threads here. There is not a single topic on chessbase.com that lajosarpad is not an expert.
Science22 Science22 9/30/2022 08:45
Lajosarpad :
I have not seen the data yet, but let's assume for now that Niemann is playing very precise chess (even though his imprecise play against Carlsen suggests otherwise)

Answer :
No, we shouldn't assume anything. Do not manipulate reality out of the door. We have to look at the facts, and the facts are that Niemann has had so many games that have been 100% identical to chess programs that it is statistically significant. Far better than any world champion.

Anyone can play like a chess computer in a few short games, and the world champion in a few long ones. But no one can keep performing at this level. See, for example, the article:

https://twitter.com/ty_johannes/status/1574780445744668673.
Johannes write : I analyzed every classical game of Magnus Carlsen since January 2020 with the famous chessbase tool. Two 100 % games, two other games above 90 %. It is an immense difference between Niemann and MC. Niemann has ten games with 100 % and another 23 games above 90 % in the same time.

With most moves in chess, there are several good options, and if we start from just two options, there are 2 raised to the power of 60 options in a game of 60 moves. It is a 1 number followed by 18 zeros. No human can repeat that performance over and over again.
Science22 Science22 9/30/2022 08:44
Lajosarpad :
"Ken Regan is a scientist and specialises in cheating allegations and he says based on statistics that there is no reason to think Niemann was cheating in the last two years. "

Reply :
I and many others has explained that Ken Regan has forgotten an important premise in his statistical model, namely to distinguish between the games that are broadcast live and those that are not broadcast live. If you distinguish between these two situations, there is a statistically significant difference in Niemann's performance. It is 200 ELO lower if the games are not broadcast live. Ken Regan should have done that because the debate was whether he received help during the games. It is much more difficult if no one can see the game being played.
Talhaunted Talhaunted 9/30/2022 08:10
I am a professor in Carnegie Mellon university. I also am a passionate chess player. When Magnus says that he was not playing with a human being, but a computer I believe him against the opposition. Big time! Computers do not follow the same rationality as human beings. That was the criticism of my late friend Herb Simone, who was behind Deep thought which eventually was sent to IBM (for better or worse). The problem today is that computer computers win against beings, but not because of their superior intellectual power, but because of their ability to predict moves far down the road. This is a totally different perspective from what humans see.
When somebody at the caliber of Magnus or Caruana or Aronian(to name a few) suspects that he is not playing against a human being, but a computer, I think that the minimum is to realize that the burden of proof is on the potential culprit (look at what he does to the integrity of the game).
Since we do not know the limit of what technology can do in the building of that kind of cheating, an coming from an institution (Carnegie Mellon) which has a record to push that kind of frontier, my suggestion is to take very seriously the judgment of acknowledged players as a basis of decision
arzi arzi 9/30/2022 12:46
Someone lives in the real world but just makes statements about his belief.
Someone will wait and see what happens and have the last laugh.
arzi arzi 9/30/2022 12:40
Well said and thoroughly explained, like a scientist, Lajosarpad.
Matthias Ruf Matthias Ruf 9/30/2022 12:36
Someone is a multiple cheater, likewise the mentor and trainer.
Someone has the highest rating win in a short period of time.
Someone can not explain his moves properly in analyses.
Someone plays better online than in delayed OTB games.
Someone is the most accurate player according to chess programs.
Someone is lying in explanations of several body language experts.
Someone blames his youth and a strange accent for everything.
Someone has a questionable personality in screaming on his stream.
Someone has a criminal as role model on Netflix.
Someone is more intelligent than someone else.
lajosarpad lajosarpad 9/30/2022 11:57
@Science22

"Shivasundar, once again, I am a scientist."

I highly doubt that. But even if you are a scientist, there are probably more scientists in this discourse, who do not brag about it, so, being a scientist (if you really are one) does not magically prove you are right. Ken Regan is a scientist and specialises in cheating allegations and he says based on statistics that there is no reason to think Niemann was cheating in the last two years.

"I support scientific methods to preserve and develop life."

This is what the scientific method (and not "scientific methods") is: "systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses"

So, if you really supported it, then you would not be 100% sure of your position, much less calling those who expect evidence "trolls". A scientist never calls the expectation for evidence trolling. So you represent the opposite of what you say you represent, your attitude here is in contradiction with your self-confession.
lajosarpad lajosarpad 9/30/2022 11:55
@Science22

"The only type of person who would be totally indifferent to the media storm would be someone with strong psychopathic traits combined with a narcissistic personality structure. "

So you also make a diagnosis of Niemann without meeting him... Or did you meet him?

"shivasundur you try constantly to intimidate all solid critics of Niemann through right up lies."

He is called Shivasundar. Let's at least be accurate in addressing each-other. At least he is sharing his real name, unlike you, who call him a liar from behind your nickname. Quite an interesting approach to things from someone regularly accusing others of trolling. And I did not find ANY statements by him that would be remotely intimidating, even though we had a difficult debate earlier, to put it mildly. It would be great if you pointed out what the exact threat he made.

"I support science, and science tells me Niemann is a complete fraud."

If so, then you should take a scientific approach. That is, rely on hard evidence. The precise thing you equated to trolling was when some people asked for evidence. Sorry to say that, but your attitude resembles lynching mobs more than scientific discourse, to put it mildly.

"Niemann tries again at the age of 19 with an even smarter system because prestige is more important than ethics."

Please describe the exact system he uses.
lajosarpad lajosarpad 9/30/2022 11:53
@Science22

"Anyone with the slightest understanding of statistics will know that this is conclusive proof that Hans Niemann is a fraud."

Mistaken. Statistics is a pretty reliable tool in analyzing large (!) samples and predicting the future. Yet, if Niemann is playing as precisely as you suggested earlier (something that did not manifest in his game with Carlsen), that only predicts that Niemann will most probably play precise chess in the future. If you understand statistics (as you imply), then you also must know that statistics draws conclusions from finite samples in an attempt to predict the future and cannot take into account the infinite possibilities. It does not provide conclusive proof for the future. If I played 1 000 000 games against Carlsen and lost them all, that does not conclusively prove that I will lose the 1 000 001th as well.

"I look forward to read the many comments from trolls here when Niemann realise the scam is over."

I cannot speak of others, but, if Niemann is proven to be a cheater, then I will certainly acknowledge that. The precise reason I disagree with you is that no hard evidence was provided. Once hard evidence is provided (if ever), then you will be right for the wrong reason and I will be wrong for the right reason. If that makes me similar to an elected president, then so be it.

"It is my opinion that a normal and completely innocent person who was exposed to the pressure Hans Niemann is under would have taken legal action against the world chess champion long ago."

First, Niemann may sue Carlsen, that's not over yet. Second, he may avoid suing Carlsen for very casual and normal reasons, like not wanting to waste time, energy and money into legal actions. Third, we are only a month into this conflict, approximately. Should have Niemann sued Carlsen long ago and the open accusation has happened very recently, i.e., before the scandal?
lajosarpad lajosarpad 9/30/2022 11:51
@Science22

"Here is was Niemann fears the most if suing : Many lovers of chess will offer large sums of money to any person who comes forward with evidence of having helped Niemann with technical equipment to cheat. They're out there, and he knows it."

That's quite the theory. But, as usual, you do not provide evidence. You just "know".

"He has cheated before, but got caught. Then you can either improve your moral or your ability to cheat. Pick a choice. "

True. So, Niemann either improved his morals, or his ability to cheat. You argue for the latter. But, again, you did not make factual arguments.

"Matthias Ruf has ended the debate: "The program shows Sebastian Feller and Hans Niemann in the top ranking above all world champions with their accuracy in game play.""

I have not seen the data yet, but let's assume for now that Niemann is playing very precise chess (even though his imprecise play against Carlsen suggests otherwise). So, either Niemann is a very talented and precise guy, or he is consistently lucky, or he has cheated. You assume the third. And I did not even get into the fact that we need to see what the sample and methodology was.
lajosarpad lajosarpad 9/30/2022 11:47
@Science22

"Trump : I won the election, I won the election, I won the election, I won the election....
Trolls here : no evidence of cheat, no evidence of cheat, no evidence of cheat .....
Completely empty statements repeated over and over to make a lie the truth. That is the M.O (Modus Operandi )"

In a discussion a troll is a person (or bot) that tries to provoke others into a meaningless debate. Yet, in our case, we find three possible positions:

1. Niemann is innocent
2. Niemann is a cheater
3. Carlsen has to prove that Niemann cheated against him

It is a fact that Carlsen did not provide evidence of his allegations, therefore, saying that no evidence was presented is a genuine argument, independently of whether you agree with it. Dismissing it as "trolling" is a quite cheap way to attempt and "win" a debate. Saying that people are telling that to "make a lie the truth" assumes that anyone holding this position knows they are wrong, but nevertheless presents this argument. This is quite a dishonest way for debating. You could argue for your position according to which no evidence is needed. But that's not a very strong position. Using cheapos is easier than defending that.

"Basically the most hard evidence is to actually listen to Niemann explains his motivation for playing as he did after the game."

If that's "the most hard evidence", then the accusation has no basis. Many players deem the results more important than their play. But that does not make them all cheaters.
12345Next