GM Dlugy on Carlsen-Niemann

Advertising

Books, boards, sets: Chess Niggemann

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

Discuss

Rules for reader comments

SunriseK 11/2/2022 12:37

7) The mathematical & logical (#4) fallacy: you wrote: “So, your position is that Niemann has played n moves that correlates to an engine's evaluation and, given k as the average possible choices, he had a probability of 1 / (k^n) to make that sequence.”
Answer: I understand what you are intending with your formula, i.e. 1 chance over the number of dispositions of k objects (the choices) in class n (the total moves). This is obviously equivalent to (1/k)^n that is the compound probability of n independent events, each one with a probability of 1/k of being moves-made-without-cheating. But your formula is completely wrong, for a certain number of reasons!
a) your formula is considering all the k choices as having the same chance, which is clearly not true;
b) the average number k of possible choices raised to n power is not the correct value to use, because it is rather different from the average of the product of the n single ki choices! For example, if for semplicity n = 4 and k = 3 (as the average of the four numbers 2, 3, 3 and 4), you have k^n = 81 but 2 * 3 * 3 * 4 = 72. ;-). And in general, with your formula you get a much lower total probability than with my method;
c) So for this reason, with your formula you would get for example a total probability (if let’s say k = 3 and n = 45) as the chance for Niemann playing fairly versus Carlsen of around one over 2.95 E 21 = 1 / 2954 billions of billions chances, LOL!
And this is your 4th logical fallacy: you said you are unconvinced, from my figures (“less than 1 over a billion”), that Niemann was cheating, but at the same time you are suggesting that Niemann chances of having cheated against Carlsen are at least 2954 billion times bigger than my estimates! So, for logical inner coherence, you should be much more sure than me that Niemann really cheated! :-D

SunriseK 10/27/2022 12:38

6) The chess & logical (#3) big fallacy: you wrote: “Niemann's game against Carlsen was not flawless, yet, there are many games played by super GMs that can be regarded as flawless or nearly. Are all those super GMs cheaters? Or is it just Niemann? “
Answer: on the contrary, Niemann’s game was indeed flawless! Which move(s) do you think can be regarded as mistakes or blunders in his games? In my analysis, out of 48 moves (discarding the first 8 moves as theoretical standard moves, and he had no forced moves) I counted a whopping number of 12 strong (!) moves, one interesting (!?) move and (most important particular!) 5 ‘only moves’ (□) which helped him a lot to keep his advantage. I’ve found only an inaccuracy (?!), which I already explained in my previous analysis of your fallacy #3. So in conclusion an amazingly wonderful performance by a not-so-strong player. The world champion also played rather well: I counted 3 strong moves, 2 ‘only moves’, 5 inaccuracies (the first one being his 28th move, after being constantly under pressure for 20 more moves) and only one mistake (?) just at 48th move when the game was already lost. About other super-Gms, you said a big (though typical for beginners) logical fallacy: cheating (C) implies playing a flawless (F) game, but the contrary is NOT necessarily true! In other words, from the implication C → F you can’t logically argue F → C; the only thing that you can logically get (by the so called ‘modus tollens’) is that ¬F → ¬C (and by not flawless ¬F I mean: with at least one mistake which loses a previous advantage or equality). Niemann, in spite of not being a super-GM (and maybe not even a GM, as is very probable he got his norms by cheating!), played a super-flawless game because he was clearly having external help; other super-GMs can sometimes play a nearly flawless game (though not as flawless as Niemann did!) because they are very strong.

SunriseK 10/25/2022 08:57

5) the physical & logical (#2) fallacy: you wrote “As about the Higg's bozon's "argument" that you seemingly believed was a strong argument, you compared apples and oranges. While the existence of the Higgs bozon is a single question, chess games are played in a scale of million each day. That significantly raises the chance of whatever unprobable thing you can think of happening in chess.”
Answer: apart your ignorance in physics (such type of particles are called “bosons” not “bozons”, because they are following the so called “Bose – Einstein statistic”; and of course you show you have not a clue about that, even if it doesn’t matter for the purpose of our talkings about cheaters), it seems you didn’t get my logical reasoning: I was meaning that it’s absurd (VEL ridiculous) to be uncertain about a thing that has 999’999’999 chances over 1 billion of being true, while all other people in the world (apart maybe someone completely insane) are obviously accepting the existence of physical reality (like the Higgs Boson) who has “only” 1’744’286 chances over 1’744’287 of being true. So I asked if you (all the more reason) are also uncertain about physics laws, but you didn’t respond. And btw, as I did already show while talking about your fallacy 1, chance of Niemann cheating in the game with Carlsen is a single question, just like the one about Higgs Boson.

SunriseK 10/25/2022 08:26

4) the repeated logical fallacy (#1): I already wrote you that “you have already fallen into the big fallacy of presuming that I was considering all other people defending Niemann like you, trolls VEL patzers, without any third (or fourth...) possibility”. In fact, I was not thinking at all to you when I was initially talking about trolls or patzers! How is it that instead you reacted as you were attacked? Maybe because you know you are really belonging to such categories? :-)
Later, in spite of my statement, you continued with “everyone disagreeing with you on this one are trolls, patzers…” and further later “SunriseK accuses me of being a troll or a patzer and that I envy Carlsen or support cheaters.” falling again and again in the same fallacy! Of course all of this you are believing is false: even now I haven’t still decided who you really are (as I clearly stated at the beginning of my long reply).
Considering that you also wrote: “ My work is very strongly focusing on logical thinking”, even if that is true, I see that also in logic you are not good enough. And there are also other logical fallacies by you which I still have to comment (see my following posts). So I would again suggest you to eat a third slice of that humble pie!

SunriseK 10/22/2022 10:11

3) the “not best move” fallacy: you wrote: “The reason why I talk about that particular move is that it's a mistake. So, if Niemann was cheating against Carlsen, why did he make that inaccuracy?”
Answer: first of all, 29th move by Niemann is not a “mistake”.
And that little inaccuracy keeps most of the advantage to Niemann (see my analysis down here); this is the reason in my opinion why it was suggested to Niemann by his GM helper; using 2nd choice moves from time to time, clearly when they are not very far from 1st choice, is an attempt to show more “human behaviour”, thus looking like the player is not cheating. Such moves also create some “centipawn loss”, useful to avoid being detected by some low level anti-cheating methods (like the one by Ken Regan or Let’s Check Engine Correlation). Finally that specific move is not so bad in practice: is attacking the white Pa3 so keeping much pressure over Carlsen. Another good reason to suggest it! My analysis (little part):

29. Ba2, Nc4?!; ∓ a slight inaccuracy which however keeps most of the advantage for Black (and also sets a trap, menacing the a3 pawn)
29. …, Rc2!?; 30. Bd5, Nc4; 31. Bxc4, Rxc4; 32. gxf5, Ra4; ∓
29. …, fxg4!; 30. Re7!, Rc1+; 31. Kd2, Ra1; 32. Bd5, Rxa3; 33. Rxf7+, Kg6; 34. Rf4, Kg5; 35. Rxe4, Nb3+!; 36.Kc2 □, Nc5; 37. Re8, Rh3!; ∓ very difficult to find this variation on the board
SF15 evaluations @ ply 23: 29. …, Nc4?! → -1.22; 29. …, Rc2?! → - 1.36 ; 29. …, fxg4! → -1.48

As you see, a loss of just 26/148 centipawns, so not very much at all.
You said “I consider myself to be a decent amateur” and even if that is true, you are clearly a bit naive and in conclusion not good enough to properly analyze a chess game, especially when very sophisticated cheating is performed by a strong (GM level) external helper. So, maybe you should eat another slice of that humble pie!

SunriseK 10/21/2022 11:58

b) art. 29/2 of UHRD states that “In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law, solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others…”. In other words, the rights and freedoms of any individual must be limited by the fact that also any other human being has the same rights and freedoms. So for example, any particular individual cannot pretend to have the right of robbing money or things from other human beings, because that would spoil those humans beings from a lot of their own human rights. In a similar way, if you let a particular human being in the chess world (e.g. Niemann) to continue playing in spite of having 99.9999999% chance of being a cheater, then millions of other good and honest chess players will be unfairly robbed by their Elo points and unfairly robbed by the prizes they would deserve, if cheating would not happen. Is this your idea of protecting human rights in the chess world??? You only care about the rights of a cheater, while at the same time ignoring the rights of the overwhelming majority of all the honest players and permit as a consequence the chess world to be totally disrupted in such an arrogant way by Niemann??? If so, shame on you!
(to be continued)

SunriseK 10/21/2022 11:56

One fallacy a day, keeps the doctor away! :-)

2) the “human rights fallacy”: you wrote “I think human rights should be protected even outside court.” to argue that Niemann should be considered innocent until proven guilty, like on a justice court.
Answer: you are showing some ignorance about human rights and you are not considering a lot of important factors. For example:
a) what is the real meaning of “proven guilty”? It seems you missed many things that I already said: a 100% proof you will have only in Mathematics; after that, you can be “very fairly sure” in Statistics, if you have a huge amount of data, so you can use Probability Theory to calculate the chances. And if they are very high (as in the case of Niemann’s cheating) you can bet he is cheating and be rather sure you will win the bet (because for example, if you have only 1 over a billion contrary chance; then you can do such a bet everyday and you will have to wait many million years before losing one single bet; mankind will disappear from Earth’s face much before that could happen, LOL! Then comes Physics, whose actual scientific protocols give you 99.99994% confidence you can “win the bet” that for example the Higg’s Boson exists. After that, in a legal court as I already noticed, you usually have people “proven guilty” with much less probabilities (e.g. just 95 - 98% or even less). And nobody thinks human rights are not respected in a democratic country whose laws do respect “Universal Human Rights Declaration” (UHRD); but if you are uncertain that Niemann is a cheater in spite of 1 over a billion chance he is not (which amounts to 99.9999999% chance he is a cheater), then you should not only be unsure about Higg’s Boson, but really organize protest marches against any legal court sentence in the world! :-D

SunriseK 10/21/2022 11:51

Note on #1 fallacy: in lotteries the situation is very similar; a huge amount of tickets is sold, so even if it’s very very improbable that a single ticket is the winning one, there is of course one winner. As people are aware of this fact, they buy a ticket hoping they will be the lucky winner. This is a typical beginner’s fallacy in probability theory: to do confusion between the “a priori” probability (e.g. 1 over a billion) of buying the winning ticket and the “a posteriori” probability (e.g. a certain individual has won the lottery; which DON’T have anymore 1 over a billion chance, but… 100%! Because we already know, a posteriori, that such individual is the winner). This happens because in general the information changes the probability, as it is well shown for instance in the “conditioned probability” formula. Maybe your work “frequently involves statistical analysis and probability”, but believe me: you are just not good enough! So, please stop being overconfident about your own skills and please eat a slice of a humble pie!

SunriseK 10/20/2022 11:28

@lajosarpad) A premise: I don't want to offend you, but I like to speak frankly when I'm doing some scientific observations. So, please, don't take some of my words as offenses; they are only scientific, aseptic hypothesis, conjectures, conclusion, etc.
I still can't decide if you are a troll V a patzer V a cheater V an extremely stubborn man.
So for the moment I decided to give you another chance and think you are only a very stubborn compulsive writer.
Anyway, just looking at your recent replies to me, I've found so many fallacies in your writings, that I will need much time to explain even just the most significant of them.
Then in the meantime, I suggest you to keep some pause and don't restart your uncontrollable flow of extremely talkative comments (if I counted correctly, among other 35 people, you posted 33 comments out of a total of 104 or about 32%!), while you are waiting the rest of my analysis about you (also to avoid introducing some new fallacies in the thread!). Don't be fooled by some rare individual showing appreciation for your posts (unfortunately also that happened, to wrongly boost your hypertrophic ego!)
For the moment I have time to show you only one fallacy, though one of the biggest, simplest and most important.
1) the "lottery fallacy": to defend Niemann you wrote "if chess players on average play 2.5 games a day, then 1000 000 000 games are played per day. So, from this treshold it is expectable that a player's move in a game will strongly correlate to the engine's suggestion without cheating"
Answer: this shows only that out of 1 billion played games, one of them has a good chance to be very strongly but just randomly correlated to engine's moves; alas this proves nothing about Carlsen - Niemann game! Still Niemann has less (!) than 1 chance over a billion to have played that game without cheating, so we can very safely bet he was instead really cheating! This fallacy is the reason why people keep buying lottery tickets! :-D

lajosarpad 10/18/2022 02:54

@Jacob Woge

"The only person offended is the rigorous bystander, who recognizes a cheater when he sees one and decides to take it to court."

Luckily words and concepts have definitions. If one is behaving unfairly in order to gain an advantage, then he/she is cheating. It's that simple.

lajosarpad 10/18/2022 02:52

@Jacob Woge

"I find it hard to take the counter-examples given seriously. I have one from real life, given once before."

The counter-examples illustrate that if we take your point seriously, then we end up with possibly ridiculous situations. If we are to take seriously that cheating is ALWAYS premeditated, then in case of ANY cheating incidents, the premeditated element needs to be proven. If we are to take seriously that cheating is ALWAYS clandestine, then, if the player does not make a secret of his/her cheating, then he/she is not cheating. If we are to take seriously that cheating is ALWAYS perpetuated, then, in order to prove that someone has cheated, we have to catch him/her at least twice. The shifting of the definition with the - convenient - result of freeing Carlsen from his need to abide by the rules is inconsistent to the rules that we would like to Niemann and others.

So, it is quite strange that you criticize my examples for being unserious. The problem is that these unserious situations can arise if the chess world accepts your position. The very purpose of creating rules is to make sure that serious rules are seriously abided by. The very fact that unserious examples can happen is showing by the power of logic that the criteria you suggest does not protect us from becoming a clow world. And let's be honest: if such a video would have been released about Niemann, then the large majority of the chess world would have considered that to be a proof of his cheating. So, I do not understand why would we need to use special words and rules for Carlsen. He is a chess player like you and me. Even though he is the best chess player currently, the rules should apply on him as well.

lajosarpad 10/18/2022 02:52

@Jacob Woge

I do not know what the identity or motivation of those people was, but I'm using my own brain when I look at that video and it is a clear case for me. I genuinely consider that to be cheating. Here you can see serious discussion about whether this is legit and whether it is cheating 9 months ago: https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/why-did-not-lichess-take-action-against-magnus-carlsen-for-cheating?page=2

I doubt these people foresaw any of the current scandal 9 months ago.

As about you claiming to know what the whole chess community is concerned about and what the motivations of some people are is baseless superstition at best and since you speak of "agenda" here, rather than simply showing why you think it to be incorrect, I sense a doze of maliciousness as well. As I said, once it was explained to you that appeal to motive is a logical fallacy and an indirect attack against people and you keep repeating the same fallacy, I exclude any possibility that it would be an honest mistake.

"And, nobody directly involved seems to have taken offense. Then why would anybody else?"

So, if Niemann was using a laptop while playing Carlsen, but no-one involved would take offense, not even Carlsen, would this magically mean it's not cheating, would that mean it's acceptable behavior?

lajosarpad 10/18/2022 02:49

@Jacob Woge

"I claim that this is what we, as a chess community, are concerned about: Premeditated, clandestine, perpetuated."

The three attributes you listed are aggravating factors of an already very serious type of offence. But a cheating incident is a problem even if it's not premeditated, clandestine or perpetuated. If the world champion gets a free pass for cheating without premeditation, secrecy or perpetuation, that means he is above the rules, so, the rules are arbitrary rather than consistent. Also, if the world champion accuses someone of getting outside assistance, while he had one such incident of his own, then he is being a hypocrite, even if he is right.

If Niemann received outside help, what would be the necessary proof in order to know that? A single proof, a single factual example of him receiving outside help. If the accuser side would have such a proof, then the case would be closed as cheating, independently of whether Niemann planned it in advance or did it repeatedly. It would be enough if a single help is received without asking or expecting such a help.

"Enough to be convinced this is not to be taken seriously, and has absolutely no place in a discussion of truly serious issues, as outlined above."

That's a very unfortunate and weak excuse. When Howell said "Wait, you can trap it", the correct answer would have been "Let's discuss it after the game" or "Please, don't help me". Accepting the help, winning the game because of it is unfair attitude towards the game in order to achieve a gain and if Carlsen did not take the game seriously, then he had all the less motivation to accept outside help.

arzi 10/18/2022 11:29

Jacob woge:"I give this blitz Bc7-c8 example to demonstrate that circumstances matter, when you decide whether an action is cheating or not. In one setting it is, in a different it isn’t."

Actually, it is not cheating in blitz game. It is called as an illegal move. If an opponent does not notice but after the game somebody is mentioning the incident, the result of the game does not change because of that illegal move. If the player notices an incorrect move (during the game and in his move) by the opponent, he can claim the game win, because the move was an incorrect move, which results in a loss according to the rules. This has nothing to do with real cheating. No one can prove that this illegal move was done on purpose unless people can read the thoughts of other people. Can you do that, Jacob?

Jacob woge 10/18/2022 12:31

I give this blitz Bc7-c8 example to demonstrate that circumstances matter, when you decide whether an action is cheating or not. In one setting it is, in a different it isn’t.

In different circumstances, one move vertically with the Bishop would be cheating - or at least an attempt. Assuming that you know how the Bishop moves... it could be down to ignorance. It’s not “good” cheating - the opponent might notice. But he might not. We have all been beginners.

But in a setting as described, no. These IM players are just goofying around - while still keeping track of the score. The only person offended is the rigorous bystander, who recognizes a cheater when he sees one and decides to take it to court. Or to a mud-slinging party.

In this respect, similar to the bullet event.

Jacob woge 10/18/2022 12:08

I claim that this is what we, as a chess community, are concerned about: Premeditated, clandestine, perpetuated. With the C-N issue having really kicked it off.

Because that incident, whichever way it flops, could destroy serious tournament chess. Like has happened to CC. It’s as serious as that. If one can cheat without significant risk of discovery, it is over. Conversely, If you can accuse and boycott without proof, and not being likely to appear, the impact on top chess can be immense. No problem as long as the general atmosphere is cordial, but should animosities arise the whole thing can explode in the face of any tournament direction.

It is not a question not of Crime and Punishment but of Spielverderberei. Ruining the game. The big question being, who is? Is anyone? Or is the whole thing paranoia.

Then comes into the mix of the C-N issue a self-broadcast on-line bullet event, with pieces being thrown around - in cyberspace, but still. The inter-game parts are edited out, 2 hours remain. I could muster watching half. The chess is horrid, the banter is the main attraction. If you are a juvenile. Enough to be convinced this is not to be taken seriously, and has absolutely no place in a discussion of truly serious issues, as outlined above. And whoever brought it up in the first place, some guys with funny names in previous thread, was out to muddy the waters. This is “what about ism”, an attempt to equate two events without similarity on any account that matters.

And, nobody directly involved seems to have taken offense. Then why would anybody else?

I find it hard to take the counter-examples given seriously. I have one from real life, given once before.

Two players play blitz. White dominates the dark squares, black plays Bc8-c7 to get a grip. White lets it pass. Later, black, in trouble again, plays Bc7-c8. “Not this time”. Game ends, beers are downed.

This in-your-face cheating is about as serious as in the bullet event.

lajosarpad 10/17/2022 10:31

@Jacob Woge, you shift the definition of the concept.

You claim that cheating is always

1. Premeditated. So, if someone did not plan to cheat, but stumbles to a smartphone with a chess program in the toilet and uses it, then that's not cheating, according to you, as the player did not plan that in advance.

2. Clandestine. So, if someone is a cheater, all he has to do is to do it in front of the camera and then his cheating is no longer cheating.

3. Perpetuated. So, if someone brings a laptop "only" once to a tournament and uses a chess engine to play better, that's not cheating, because the person does not repeat it.

You call the Carlsen cheating incident an "agenda". Earlier I pointed out why this is a logical fallacy. You still maintain to attack anyone who thinks that's cheating. You no longer have the benefit of the doubt for not knowing that you argue invalidly.

"and unless one wants to equate with e.g. the Rausis case"

Who wanted to equate two cheating incidents?

"a different word should be selected"

A different word for Carlsen's cheating... The guy played unfairly, used outside assistance to achieve a gain. A very clear case.

"Instead, it comes from I would call fourth parties, who for some reason try to raise hell on behalf of so far uninterested parties."

So, if someone sees a cheating on video, should he keep his mouth shut about it, until the first three parties raises the issue?!

"This is my opinion: The allegation has no merit in its own right, but is tightly linked to the C-N case,"

That's clearly and demonstrably wrong. On the internet you can find people discussing whether it is cheating, whether it is legit LONG before the Carlsen-Niemann incident.

Jacob woge 10/17/2022 12:29

Cheating in chess has a number of characteristica. It is

- Premeditated. The cheater enters the game with every intention of cheating.
- Clandestine. The cheating is kept secret. Not getting caught is top priority.
- Perpetuated. Cheating is either part of a carreer plan, or compulsory.

This is what is meant, and what the worry is about, when the talk is about cheating in chess. The above is shared with cheating in various other games, like bridge, and poker.

The “Carlsen cheating” agenda, based on a snippet taken from hours of live streaming (by Carlsen himself) of a bullet event ten months ago, fails to qualify, on every account.

It is in stark contrast with proven or alleged cheating we have seen so far. What we see is, at most, a transgression. It does not compare to cheating as otherwise referred to, and unless one wants to equate with e.g. the Rausis case - and this I would be inclined to find dishonest - a different word should be selected.

It is worth noting that the cheating allegation does not come from the organizer (lichess), nor from the opponent (GM Naroditsky), neither of whom are reported to have any beef whatsoever with the proceedings. To my knowledge, it does not even come from third parties, by which I mean other participants in same bullet event. If I am wrong on that one, someone please speak up.

Instead, it comes from I would call fourth parties, who for some reason try to raise hell on behalf of so far uninterested parties.

This is my opinion: The allegation has no merit in its own right, but is tightly linked to the C-N case, in a misguided attempt directed at getting back at Carlsen, schoolyard fashion: “You throw the ball at me, I throw the ball at you”. That was the logic, and the motive for bringing it up in the first place, many threads ago. Unfortunately, others have proceeded to take it seriously. This I can only regret - Social media work that way.

enfant 10/16/2022 11:13

Responding to some of GM Dlugy's comments:

"Although to cheat with an actual device you do need an accomplice who has access to the device with a chess engine running on it, you also need a connection to the device which given the precautions taken at many of the modern tournaments, especially the Sinquefield Cup, is not even remotely a possibility."

I think Dlugy has already disproved this statement when in the past he outed Boris Ivanov
for the use of what it was widely believed back then to be a vibrating in-shoe cellphone. Scanner devices are only as effective as those who use them, and no one then thought of routinely scanning shoes.

It would be easy enough for cheaters to up this game to the use of vibrating beads, or anything similar that could be hidden in a body cavity, or worn outside, like a ring, watch or earring.
The key to eluding metal scanners is to hide such devices at the tournament inside the
inspection point then retrieving them during play. That might require an assistant or not, depending on the security at the site.

Nor do I think it necessary to have a human accomplice to read the board or transmit computer moves, since custom software could accomplish that. But let's be clear. Once you allow online streaming of live games, the whole world could be helping your opponent, and you wouldn't know it. To me, broadcasting of games is the real culprit, which though not required, makes the cheater's task much too easy.

lajosarpad 10/16/2022 04:21

@Jacob Woge

At the incident, Carlsen was acting honestly, since everything was fully transparent, but he was unfair by receiving GM help and the motivation was to gain an advantage ("Wait, you can trap it"..."how?"). So, I'm convinced that I have made a strong case for Carlsen's cheating at the given Lichess tournament.

Independently of what I think about what you feel towards Carlsen and how that clouds your judgement, I sticked to the objective and verifiable facts and I would appreciate if you would do the same, since, if you are so convinced about being correct on this one, then you should have no difficulty defending your position with valid arguments. You can choose your reaction from the following:

- no reaction
- a valid argument that shows why my argument was wrong
- a statement of disagreement
- logical fallacies, attack against the person

You have chosen the fourth, which is quite unfortunate. Yet, if you have a valid counter-argument and you are willing to share it, then I will be interested to see it.

lajosarpad 10/16/2022 04:21

@Jacob Woge

"The “Carlsen cheating” agenda ranks below opinion. It is exactly that - an agenda. Or, agendum. There is a purpose, and reality will just have to fit in. "

That's a logical fallacy called "appeal to motive".

Definition: "Appeal to motive is a pattern of argument which consists in challenging a thesis by calling into question the motives of its proposer." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_motive

So, instead of presenting your disagreeing arguments, you indirectly attack the credibility of the person formulating the opinion you disagree with. Apparently, you exclude the possibility that I and others would genuinely think that the presented incident at Lichess was cheating and, instead, you treat the position I presented as if it was a non sequitur and you assume some malicious motivation behind it.

Yet, as I have shown earlier, the dictionary definition of cheating:

"act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage, esp. in a game or examination" ( https://www.encyclopedia.com/literature-and-arts/language-linguistics-and-literary-terms/english-vocabulary-d/cheat )

outlines that the necessary and sufficient condition of cheating is as follows:

- act
----- dishonestly
---- or
----- unfairly
and
- motivation = gain an advantage

Jacob woge 10/16/2022 09:29

@tauno

” I think you missed that before knowledge there is truth and fact. In that order.”

I don’t think so. Rather, all four (knowledge, opinion, nonsense, slander) relate to truth and favt:

Knowledge pertains to truth and fact.
Opinion is oblivious about truth and fact.
Nonsense disregards truth and fact.
Slander runs counter to truth and fact.

The “Carlsen cheating” agenda ranks below opinion. It is exactly that - an agenda. Or, agendum. There is a purpose, and reality will just have to fit in.

lajosarpad 10/16/2022 12:02

Therefore, the right for a fair trial is a basic human right. The investigation of Niemann's case is being conducted by a hopefully unbiased, objective entity and I surely await to see what the result will be. I see that at least in the sample of these discussions there was a pattern of people accepting Carlsen's accusation dehumanizing, abusing and insulting those who disagreed with them. This of course does not mean that anyone who may agree with Carlsen would misbehave in this way, there were surely exceptions. And this also does not mean that Niemann would be innocent. It just shows how people can behave if they abolished the "innocent until proven guilty" principle in their mind, which, at least to me proves the importance of this principle. As a result, I find it very unfortunate that Carlsen openly and baselessly accused Niemann, hurting chess and encouraging his many fans to do the same.

I sincerely thank Ingo for saying kind words when I received so many personal attacks and I also thank everyone, independently of their opinion, who used arguments and did so amiably and respectfully.

lajosarpad 10/16/2022 12:00

As we can see, multiple persons had baseless accusations. Science22, while not sharing his/her identity, accuses me of sharing a false identity. Of course a baseless accusation. SunriseK accuses me of being a troll or a patzer and that I envy Carlsen or support cheaters. Baseless, again. The same person lectures me about mathematics, after throwing in some "results" without ever showing a formula in the discussion and of course, if I disagree with him, he assumes that I must be either evil or stupid. And then there is this "with_cheats_you_lose", whose nickname rhymes with another nickname "with_jews_you_lose" who also accuses me with dishonesty. Yet, I know about myself that I'm surely honest, I truthfully argue for what I think to be correct and I really try to respect the right for human dignity of everyone, even those who do not respect mine.

And this leads to my fundamental point in this discussion. Ever since our ancestors climbed down from the trees and founded their societies, our sense of what is just and what is tyranny gradually evolved. Currently it is clear, at least to me that, if we accept the idea of condemning someone without proof entails the danger of condemning people for what they did not commit. Yet, the societal order rests on the acceptability of the social contract between the society and its members. If the society does not guarantee the right of human dignity to everyone, then the social order will weaken, ultimately leading to chaos, anarchy and wars within the society.

lajosarpad 10/15/2022 11:59

@Science22

Actually I have mentioned that I was CIV rated at

https://en.chessbase.com/post/carlsen-statement-on-niemann

at 10/6/2022.

I am Lajos Árpád. You have never shared your identity, so you do not have any moral basis to judge me for what I reveal and what I do not reveal about my identity. I told you how you need to search for me in that document so that you will surely find me. It is "Lajos, Arpad" (notice the comma).

"with_cheats_you_lose" and "with_jews_you_lose" are two very similar-looking nicknames, "with_jews_you_lose" strangely disappeared and it is clear that this slogan originates from Patrick Little's "Name the Jew" tour from July 29th 2018. So I have every reason to think that the two users are the same. And I did not mean to accuse this person. If he would say he did not have that other nickname, then I would accept that in this discussion, independently of whether I would believe such a statement or not.

Yet, you conveniently forget that this person attacked my dignity and what you quote from me was the response to that.

"You always have an answer ready for objective criticism"

I thought the topic was Dlugy, Niemann and Carlsen, not my person. What you consider here to be objective criticism is off-topic on the one hand and ad hominem attacks on the other hand.

"you are fundamentally dishonest"

You do realize that 9 days ago I have told you that I had CIV ratings instead of Élő ratings and very recently you denied that I have ever written such a thing. And then you accuse me of being dishonest.

with_cheats_you_lose 10/15/2022 12:12

People will go to unbelievable lengths and mental gymnastics to defend a cheat... incredible.

Science22 10/14/2022 01:45

@lajosarpad : You never said at any time before that you only had an internal Romanian CIV rating and never played in ELO rated tournaments. Actually you are still very deceptive writing I should search for Lajos Arpad, and not that you are Lajos Arpad.

When you say that another person has an anti-Semitic name, and I get deeply offended, you are referring to a different nick name than the one you criticized. As you then claim is most likely identical to the person who is now writing !

This is exactly the problem. You always have an answer ready for objective criticism by manipulating new illogical information to prove you are right. That is your Modus Operandi (M.O.) and therefore you are fundamentally dishonest.

In my native Denmark, we have a character in a play by Holberg called Erasmus Montanus. Erasmus is a farmer from the country named Rasmus Berg. He travel to Copenhagen to study. But he never gets started with his studies. He does not tell that in the village when he comes back. Instead, he invents his own logic and calls himself a new fancy name Erasmus. Then he start his lecturer : "A stone cannot fly, you cannot fly, therefore you are a stone". The villagers are of course upset, now they have suddenly turned to stones!

Your logic is like Erasmus Montanus logic. If the matter was not so serious, the total destruction of the joy of chess, I would laugh out loud. But for now I will just chance your nick name ( a sport for you) to the Erasmus Montanus Party (EMPTY ) .

flachspieler 10/14/2022 01:18

@mc1483: Hi Andy. Irony was not intended at all. I really like the postings of Lajos. And I also like his procedure: not writing as soon as half of a thought is there: but collecting them, formulating answers in txt-files, and then putting the files by copy and paste in the Comment "room".

Concerning France 2024, feel free to mail me. Cheers, Ingo.

mc1483 10/14/2022 11:27

@flachspieler: hi Ingo. I feel a slight irony in your last post. :-)
I hope to meet you again in some EGC, given a new scientific conference might be held. Maybe France 2024?
Andy

lajosarpad 10/14/2022 10:39

@Science22

Here's a page which proves that CIV ratings exist indeed: https://frsah.ro/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Regulament.calcul.CIV_.ELO_.2014.pdf
And here's a page that lists players having CIV points: http://sahuldelaalaz.blogspot.com/2013/03/lista-elo-civ-actualizat-la-11-martie.html

Search for the term "Lajos, Arpad". The only reason we are even discussing this is that Science22 asked for my identity and I have shared it. Ever since he always writes this nonsense of accusation.

By the way, if he/she says that I'm intimidating and lying (and whatever else his fertile imagination fabricates against me) and I ask him/her to share his/her identity in response, then he/she will always complain about it and so far he/she never shown the courage to take responsibility for the personal attacks he/she carries out. But he/she also asked for my identity and ever since I have explained that I use my real name, he/she always accuses me for not having an ÉLŐ rating. As if this was some kind of crime.

lajosarpad 10/14/2022 10:39

@Science22

"Here is what lajosarpad wrote to SunriseK : “I am surely honest. I do not hide behind a nickname like you and I never had an antisemitic nickname.” "

I have written that to with_cheats_you_lose. He/she accused me of being dishonest, yet, I remember a certain user was called with_jews_you_lose. I think the two are the same person, given their similarity in style and nickname. A nickname of "with_jews_you_lose" is surely antisemitic and with_cheats_you_lose never bothered answering my direct question about whether the other account is also his/her.

"In a weak moment, lajosarpad wrote to me that he had previously played active chess, but now only followed chess online. But you do not lose the ELO rating, you just get a p as passive after the number. However there was no person with ELO and the name lajos arpad. The conclusion is clear, lajosarpad is not honest. He is here for a purpose and it is a nasty one."

I already answered your personal attack above twice: I have played in CIV-rated local tournaments. They were not ÉLŐ-rated. You have chosen again to ignore my answer and repeat the same faulty accusation.

lajosarpad 10/14/2022 10:38

@Science22 In this discussion I was attacked personally and I did not attack anyone in person.

"He wants to have personal information"

I usually do not aim for personal information. I asked for your personal information after you slandered me, claiming that I want to intimidate you, among other baseless accusations you carried out against me.

"When losing an argument he always chooses to attack personally by writing that the opponent are hiding behind a nickname."

I did not ask for your name for "losing an argument". I asked for your name because you baselessly and shamelessly claimed that I'm intimidating you among other things. a few quotes from you:

"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."
"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."
"The psychopath does not have to prove anything, he just needs to intimidate other people for personal gain."
"There is a sure method for determining whether you are on the right track. That is when lajosarpad step in and intimidate. "

So, if you slander me, don't be surprised if I wonder who you are.

lajosarpad 10/14/2022 03:42

@SunriseK

As about the Higg's bozon's "argument" that you seemingly believed was a strong argument, you compared apples and oranges. While the existence of the Higgs bozon is a single question, chess games are played in a scale of million each day. That significantly raises the chance of whatever unprobable thing you can think of happening in chess.

"the purpose here is instead to save the entire world of international chess from a fast increasingly number of cheaters (and Niemann is just the iceberg's tip here!). "

Cheating is a serious problem in chess. But the emerging lynching mobs that will destroy anyone who happen to play precisely, referring to the Higg's bozon is a much greater problem. If Carlsen would have been a little bit wiser with his allegations, then he would have told the organizers of the Sinquefield Cup to collect information about Niemann. Niemann, being unaware of the suspicion against him would have been more likely to be caught if he is cheating. Instead, Carlsen let Niemann know about the allegation, so, if Niemann is cheating indeed, then he will be much more careful. And, if the allegations would have been kept quiet while a proof is being searched for, then all this mass-hysteria would have never happened and chess would not been harmed by an unnecessary scandal. Instead, an investigation would have been conducted in discrete manner and, if Niemann would have been found guilty in that, then the whole thing would have been communicated to the press.

That would have been the right way of handling such a suspicion.

lajosarpad 10/14/2022 03:42

@SunriseK

But what you do not seem to consider is that if we take any game you played which lasted for n moves, the prior probability of making the exact sequence of moves you made, with k being the average possible moves, your sequence of moves is just as unlikely (not exactly, because some variations lead to forced lines, while others lead to positions with multiple options, like promoting multiple queens). So, if we would go by your thinking, we would have to conclude that your unprobable move sequence could not happen. But it happened.

That's the difference between the unprobable and the impossible. Unprobable things always happen and everywhere, given the large amount of space, time and material. If there is an 1 / 1 000 000 000 chance that someone's moves correlate to the engine without cheating, then such games happen daily. There are 800 000 000 chess players in the world. If each of them plays 1 game a day, that's 400 000 000 games a day. (not 800 000 000, I'm willing to explain why if you do not understand). Now, if chess players on average play 2.5 games a day, then 1000 000 000 games are played per day. So, from this treshold it is expectable that a player's move in a game will strongly correlate to the engine's suggestion without cheating. So, if we are to follow your idea about how cheaters are to be detected, that would potentially lead to the condemnation of an innocent chess player for cheating daily. This is what your idea actually leads to.

And this is why a fair trial is needed. According to Jacob Woge I'm vehemently explaining that "guilty until proven innocent" is a sign of an unfree society.

I used your figure to show you how destructive your idea is and my reason to object to it. I emphasize that I have never seen any reason to actually accept your figure, so the thought process above should be taken with a grain of salt, as the figure you gave can easily be inaccurate.

lajosarpad 10/14/2022 03:41

@SunriseK

"Which is your general competence in Mathematics?" I have a degree in mathematics and I work as a programmer. My work is very strongly focusing on logical thinking, algorithms and it frequently involves statistical analysis and probability. But I must be very weak in it, at least, some random guy called "sunrise" told me so.

4) There is already an investigation and, if he is found guilty, he will be punished. So this is very much similar to a law court. But, regardless of how suspect he appears to you, everyone, including Niemann deserves a fair trial, conducted by an unbiased investigator entity that will rely only on facts and proof. You already want to issue a verdict on a case which is being investigated. My position is that let's see what proof is being provided. Your position is that he should be treated as a cheater. And everyone disagreeing with you on this one are trolls, patzers and clueless in statistics and probabilities.

"where the purpose is or should be to protect the human rights of people"

I think human rights should be protected even outside court. This is the reason for the existence of an awesome group of people. Maybe you have heard of them. They are members of the so-called "police".

"and where anyway people are usually found guilty with much much less evidence than the Niemann's case"

So, your position is that Niemann has played n moves that correlates to an engine's evaluation and, given k as the average possible choices, he had a probability of 1 / (k^n) to make that sequence. Even though you were not "willing" to make your case using a formula, even though I was asking for it, I have given such a formula for you, so next time someone asks you for a formula you will look better in that next discussion in comparison to this one.

lajosarpad 10/14/2022 03:41

@SunriseK

I respect your right to think whatever you want about me. I'm sorry to hear you will not reply in the future, it seems that I offended you. I did not intend to do so, however, I can see that you intend to offend me. But you can't, no matter how hard you try. I will answer your questions directed to me

1) The reason as of why I talk about that particular move is that it's a mistake. So, if Niemann was cheating against Carlsen, why did he make that inaccuracy?

"Why are you talking about that particular move, which btw is not even the best 29th move?"

That's the precise reason for talking about that move. I thought it was very clear in the first place. I'm also glad to know that you are able to determine what's humanly possible in chess.

"I'm strongly surprised you are not getting that."

Niemann's game against Carlsen was not flawless, yet, there are many games played by super GMs that can be regarded as flawless or nearly. Are all those super GMs cheaters? Or is it just Niemann? How do we determine about a flawless or close to flawless game whether it's the result of cheating? Should we rely on your superpower which allows you to determine what's humanly possible?

You wonder about my chess abilities (LOL) I'm playing some correspondence chess regularly and I consider myself to be a decent amateur.

2) I have watched his video and remained unconvinced. I guess that already qualifies me as a troll, a patzer and a person who cannot be good in statistics and probability. I guess that's easier than providing valid arguments, isn't it?

3) To be honest, I'm not surprised you didn't provide a formula for your calculation. I would have been surprised if, given the position you have taken in this discussion you would respond to my question with high-quality mathematical reasoning. Saying that the other person is not good at math does not qualify as mathematical reasoning. Just saying.

lajosarpad 10/14/2022 03:40

@Jack Nayer I actually have other things to do. Which is not your business. So, if you have an actual argument, then I'm listening.

@Jacob Woge

"There is knowledge, opinion, nonsense, and slander. In that order. "

Was Carlsen complying to the rules? No. Did he use outside help? Yes. Did that contribute to his game? Yes. That looks like cheating to me.

"The calling Carlsen a cheater, based on this video? I do not even rate as an opinion. It ranks below."

Howell: "Wait, you can trap it."
Carlsen: "How?"

And the excuse you have for that is that Carlsen did not take that game seriously. But that's not a valid excuse.

"It amounts to willful slandering. An attempt to get back at Carlsen, by any means available, it does not need to make sense, and you don’t even have to believe it yourself, as long as it clings."

You are fabricating quite the theory here. But reality is simpler:

Cheating: "act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage, esp. in a game or examination" See https://www.encyclopedia.com/literature-and-arts/language-linguistics-and-literary-terms/english-vocabulary-d/cheat

Was using Howell's suggestion fair? Obviously not. Did Carlsen gain an advantage because of that? Yes. So this is a very clear case to me.

"I am sorry to say it, but that’s how I see it. "

As I said earlier, I respect your feelings.

Science22 10/14/2022 03:07

@with_cheats_you_lose : lajosarpad, your pseudo-intellectual ramblings are dishonest, to say the least.

That's the most precise evaluation I've seen for the horrible language lajosarpad uses. He delivers 10 posts in the same rambling style, where other people's arguments are cut to pieces, half-quoted, turned and twisted beyond recognition.

When losing an argument he always chooses to attack personally by writing that the opponent are hiding behind a nickname. He wants to have personal information and you can guess why. Here is what lajosarpad wrote to SunriseK : “I am surely honest. I do not hide behind a nickname like you and I never had an antisemitic nickname.”

No normal sane person would write like that. It is FSB stuff who call everybody nazi´s that is against the attack on Ukraine.

In a weak moment, lajosarpad wrote to me that he had previously played active chess, but now only followed chess online. But you do not lose the ELO rating, you just get a p as passive after the number. However there was no person with ELO and the name lajos arpad. The conclusion is clear, lajosarpad is not honest. He is here for a purpose and it is a nasty one.

SunriseK 10/14/2022 12:41

4) "I defend a principle, which is 'innocent until proven guilty'." I understand what you mean, but it seems you can't realize your principle doesn't apply here: we are not in front of a justice court (where the purpose is or should be to protect the human rights of people; and where anyway people are usually found guilty with much much less evidence than the Niemann's case!); the purpose here is instead to save the entire world of international chess from a fast increasingly number of cheaters (and Niemann is just the iceberg's tip here!).
The rest from you, sorry but I will not comment; because I fear it would mean just losing my time without any positive result, because of at least two reasons:
a) you are talking about fallacies without noticing you have already fallen into the big fallacy of presuming that I was considering all other people defending Niemann like you, trolls VEL patzers, without any third (or fourth...) possibility.
b) if you are really still unconvinced Niemann is a cheater in spite of all the contrary evidences, then, for the sake of your inner consistency, you should be unconvinced of any other thing in the universe (not just the Higg’s Boson)! Thus I couldn't tell you anything more to possibily change your stubborn idea.
So, let’s just wait a little until this Niemann’s farce will end.

SunriseK 10/14/2022 12:40

@lajosarpad: I will reply just this time, because I still have a slight hope you are not a troll nor a patzer. But I'm already surprised to read what you recently told me (because it seems you have completely misunderstood what I said), so if you will still insist, I will not tell you anything more, because surely and regrettably I would have to change my mind on you.
Just four things who disconcerted me more:
1) "was 29... Nc4 against Carlsen humanly impossible?" Why are you talking about that particular move, which btw is not even the best 29th move? I was talking about the whole sequence of moves by Niemann: is this sequence that is humanly impossible, even for a 2700 Elo not cheating player! Even for a 2800! This would be already enough to understand Niemann is a dirty cheater; I'm strongly surprised you are not getting that. How strong are you at chess?
2) "I disagree. If someone reaches 2700, then he played like a 2700 player on average." Your statement shows that you have not accurately watched rafaelvleite ORIGINAL video VEL you are not very skilled in statistics (and probability). :-(
3) "I did not see your calculations that yielded this precise number, but even if this was correct, you recognize that you yourself are saying in the above that you are not absolutely sure." LOL! If you are not sure enough when you have just 1 chance over a billion... well, this unfortunately confirms my suspicions about your statistics' skill. So, probably you would also think Higg's Boson doesn't exist! :-D
So, what's the point of asking me formulas? Just to make me losing more time like a troll?
Which is your general competence in Mathematics?

News

Move	N	Result	Elo	Players

1.e4	1,177,402	54%	2421	---
1.d4	954,689	55%	2434	---
1.Nf3	284,543	56%	2441	---
1.c4	183,757	56%	2442	---
1.g3	19,823	56%	2427	---
1.b3	14,517	54%	2428	---
1.f4	5,931	48%	2377	---
1.Nc3	3,873	50%	2384	---
1.b4	1,777	48%	2379	---
1.a3	1,245	54%	2406	---
1.e3	1,076	49%	2409	---
1.d3	964	50%	2378	---
1.g4	670	46%	2361	---
1.h4	465	54%	2381	---
1.c3	436	51%	2426	---
1.h3	289	56%	2420	---
1.a4	117	59%	2462	---
1.f3	100	47%	2427	---
1.Nh3	92	67%	2511	---
1.Na3	47	62%	2476	---

White	EloW	Black	EloB	Res	Year	ECO	Event	Rnd

MilanovicDan	2462	MaximDlugy	2902	½–½	2020	D21	Live Chess
MaximDlugy	2903	KarstenHansch	2450	1–0	2020	D00	Live Chess
DrVitman	2564	MaximDlugy	2905	0–1	2020	B01	Live Chess
MaximDlugy	2908	lucliasco	2638	1–0	2020	D00	Live Chess
VincentKeymer	2727	MaximDlugy	2912	0–1	2020	D27	Live Chess
MaximDlugy	2916	Kezin_Roman	2703	1–0	2020	B13	Live Chess
IMTominho	2817	MaximDlugy	2922	0–1	2020	D20	Live Chess
Hikaru	3236	MaximDlugy	2920	1–0	2020	A06	Live Chess
MaximDlugy	2910	pheonixking2000	2829	0–1	2020	D00	Live Chess

SHOP

SHOP

GM Dlugy on Carlsen-Niemann

ONLINE SHOP

Revealing Modern Grandmaster Secrets Vol. 1 & 2

Introduction

My Chess Career

Relationship with Hans

Magnus Carlsen accusations

Chess.com History

Accused

Analyzed games (courtesy of Maxim Dlugy):

Discuss

Fritz 20

The Centre Attack of the Ruy Lopez in 60 Minutes

ChessBase Magazine Extra 225

Reinventing the Ragozin

Ruy Lopez for the tournament player - A Complete White Repertoire against the Marshall, Berlin & Co

ChessBase Magazine 225

Master Class Vol 1 to 18

Master Class Vol. 18: Max Euwe

Pop-up for detailed settings