GM Dlugy on Carlsen-Niemann

by ChessBase
10/11/2022 – While the World Champion made his position on Hans Niemann quite clear, a later Tweet openly suggested that GM Dlugy had had a role in it as Hans Niemann's 'mentor'. Shortly thereafter, Chess.com shared emails with Dlugy with the press. GM Dlugy has now released a very long and detailed statement regarding multiple aspects, including the accusations as well as his role and impressions of Hans Niemann.
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. 

Although the Carlsen-Niemann affair seems well documented by now, even if no closer to a resolution than when it started, the World Champion implicated GM Maxim Dlugy when he cited him as Niemann's mentor, suggesting the American grandmaster had some role in the cheating accusations pointed at the 19-year-old.

A week later, private emails that Maxim Dlugy had exchanged with Chess.com were leaked to Motherboard, a branch of the famous online news site Vice, regarding a tournament he had organized.

Report by Vice after the confidential emails were leaked to it

As a result, he found his name embroiled in the Hans Niemann affair as a 'person of interest'. Today the grandmaster released a lengthy and detailed statement regarding all aspects, including his relationship with Hans Niemann, and his impressions of the young American as a talent, his games in the actual events being cited by Chess.com, and other details he feels need to be in the discussion. 

Link to the full statement

Introduction

A grandmaster and a chess professional for more than 40 years, I have found myself dragged into the cheating controversy rocking the chess world, following the release of confidential emails by chess.com – a company with a huge financial stake in supporting the version of events pushed by chess world champion Magnus Carlsen.

In the end of August, less than two weeks before the affair blew up, Chess.com made a bid for $82.9 million dollars to purchase all of Magnus Carlsen's companies.

The first bolt from the sky came when Magnus said that I was a mentor to Hans Niemann, a former student of mine with whom I’ve kept in occasional touch over the years, insinuating that I helped him cheat.

Then came calls from reporters seeking comment on two-year-old emails between chess.com and me that the website had agreed in written form to keep confidential and released without my consent. In a roundabout way, the exchanges could be purported to prop up claims made by Magnus…. with whom chess.com just happens to be negotiating a huge financial deal.

My Chess Career

I’ve been involved in chess for the vast majority of my life. I won my first chess tournament when I was 15. I won the World Junior Chess Championship in 1985, was the highest-rated blitz player in the World Blitz Chess Association in the period between 1988-1992.

In the 1988 World Blitz Championship, a knockout event, Dlugy narrowly lost to Garry Kasparov 2.5-3.5

Relationship with Hans

I met Hans during the World Youth Championships in South Africa 8 years ago when he was 11. I started working with him around October 2014. In the short three-four months, he went up from 2150 to 2350. I was not so much amazed by his progress, as I had students who demonstrated similar growth, but by his ability to digest the information I would give him and then improve on it.

Most of my sessions would take place between rounds of major tournaments on the West Coast and it was clear that Hans could take in information as quickly as a top GM could, immediately being able to implement it in the game he played.

Magnus Carlsen accusations

It looks like Magnus has been told by advisors to avoid direct accusations and work with insinuations. He insinuated that Hans cheated in their game, without saying as much, and when it came time to say something of note, he insinuated that Hans has a mentor, myself, who is doing a great job helping him to play well, which to Magnus now is equivalent to cheating. He then came out openly and claimed Hans has cheated and he will not be playing in tournaments with him anymore.  Magnus’ plan is to try to prove  “Guilt by association”. If Hans has a mentor who is a cheat, by definition Hans must be a cheat and therefore he did cheat in their game, as he looked relaxed or rather “not tense” when playing him. The public was then directed to check out my alleged cheating incidents in 2017 and 2020 on chess.com, which would firmly establish that since I admitted to violating Fair Play policies of chess.com, I clearly helped or advised Hans that the only way for him to make progress in chess is by cheating.

Since Hans has by then already admitted that he has cheated when he was 12 and 16, it would get social media firmly behind the World Champion’s plan of further implicating Hans by connecting one “cheat “ with another.

There are a number of problems with this concept:

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.

None of the specialists tasked to find anything wrong with the actual Carlsen-Niemann game in question, came up with anything substantive pointing to any outside influence in generating moves. In fact, Hans has on at least two occasions during that game relinquished much of his advantage gained in the early opening phase, but Magnus failed to capitalize on it. Kenneth Regan, the accepted foremost authority on the subject presented a detailed report where he found no evidence of Hans using an engine neither in that particular game nor in any other Over the Board game.

A detailed interview with Dr. Ken Regan that details his analysis of Hans Niemann since September 2020, in which he declared firmly that he found no evidence of cheating from then on, online or over-the-board

A summarized video explaining his methods as per his own words in the aforementioned interview

Chess.com History

The emails submitted by chess.com showed that I indeed violated their Fair Play Guidelines twice in 2017 in two tournaments where one of my students in a class was shouting out moves together with other students while consulting with the engine. 

I realized that the accusations in 2017 had some truth to them a few months later only after I caught the student in question cheating. As soon as this happened I immediately reached out to Danny Rensch and admitted to the breach of fair play guidelines that I didn’t know I had committed until that moment.  I admitted this was a violation, though the recent videos of Magnus Carlsen receiving advice from one of the top British players David Howell to beat a major competitor in a money tournament on lichess.org seems to be a larger violation, as he willingly played the move which won the game on the spot. It can be seen clearly in the video that Magnus didn’t take this too seriously, admitting that he was cheating on the spot.

In my case, I truly had no reason to believe that I had actually cheated and was adamant I did not cheat until I realized what was happening months later, as the thought that kids rated over 1000 points lower than me could be helping me play better never occurred to me. I think I was negligent in not imagining that such a thing could occur, but having apologized for it and having offered to return the prize money for the event, an offer Danny Rensch did not comment on, I think I did as much as anyone would under the circumstances.

(...)

Accused

In the Spring 2020 tournament which I played in after my account was fully reinstated 3 years after the 2017 events, I was kicked out by chess.com during the 9th round of the tournament where I had a score of 6,5/8, while NOT USING ANY OUTSIDE ASSISTANCE!

I was shocked by this, as I was playing the tournament from my apartment and could not understand what occurred. I was informed that I was kicked out for Fair Play Guidelines violations and that given the past history, I would have 72 hours to confess to anything regarding Fair Play Guideline violations or my account would be closed permanently.

This created quite a dilemma. On the one hand, from my previous discussions with Danny Rensch on the subject, it became quite obvious that he believes in chess.com methodology more than in anything else, although having recently studied the materials on the chess.com website, I found out that it turns out that 5 or 6 appeals per month are actually satisfied and those accounts are reinstated. I simply didn’t have the time to deal with this situation, and since I took chess.com at their word that the email exchange would continue to be confidential and private as stated in all of their correspondence, I made the mistake of agreeing to admitting that I used some help in some of the games in the event. The flip side would be potentially worse. 

When you are kicked from chess.com, rumors start circulating immediately that you cheated and therefore were kicked out. Remembering the messages I got back in 2017, I decided that it’s best to admit to wrongdoing, and if they ever made this public, I would always be able to prove that I didn’t cheat by simply analyzing the games in question. Sadly, it has come down to this. Since chess.com can now not be trusted with keeping their promises, I will have to do what I do best: Analyze chess games. My analysis of the games in question are below.

I would also like to mention that since I “confessed” to violating Fair Play Guidelines, my account was reinstated by chess.com and until recently, I regularly played using this account, which I agreed with chess.com would remain anonymous. This account is known by a handful of my friends as well as my students. It is a titled GM Diamond account.

Analyzed games (courtesy of Maxim Dlugy):

 

 

 

Topics: cheating, chess.com, controversy, Hans Niemann, Magnus Carlsen, Maxim Dlugy, scandal
Reports about chess: tournaments, championships, portraits, interviews, World Championships, product launches and more.

Discuss

Rules for reader comments

 
 

Not registered yet? Register

tauno tauno 10/13/2022 11:12
@Jacob woge. I think you missed that before knowledge there is truth and fact. In that order.
Jacob woge Jacob woge 10/13/2022 10:05
@lajos

“as far as I know I did not call your opinion "rubbish", but I respect your feelings.”

No, you didn’t. Thanks for not going ballistic on that one. I will explain:

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

I may have opinions, but I try to upgrade, given the opportunity. I put in the occasional work.

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

You may have noticed it is not the first time I call someone out on this, using exact same words. (In honour of the late Tony Miles, and his very similar two-word chess book review, hopefully without violating any copyright.)

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.

Its not like there isn’t any serious matters to criticize. The first one being, can you really do that? A personal boycott? The second being, is this boycott truly altruistic, or is there a personal economical interest, thru the chess server deal.

There could be more angles. The “Carlsen cheating” isn’t one of them, and insisting on purporting degrades any other arguments one might have. Like mixing trash and food. Nothing left to eat.

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





Pull
Jack Nayer Jack Nayer 10/13/2022 09:01
Lajos:

As I said, use a dictionary.

Ten posts so far today, don't you have anything else to do?
flachspieler flachspieler 10/13/2022 06:31
Dear Lajos,
a sequence of quality answers, published in machine-gun style. Thanks for this and for the content.
Ingo.
lajosarpad lajosarpad 10/13/2022 01:54
@Jack Nayer

"It is clear as day that this is not cheating.
If you think that this is cheating, it is time for you to look up the word in a dictionary or just be serious and call yourself a troll. "

As a matter of fact, some theories about Niemann claim that the way he was cheating was by receiving outside help. If someone (a GM or someone else) communicates move suggestions to him, then he is cheating. The Sinquefield Cup even delayed transmission to make sure this does not happen. However, in the case of Carlsen (in a blitz game) we have evidence of him receiving the same kind of help, a GM telling him what to do.

So, if I understand you correctly, then, if it turns out that Niemann received assistance from the outside during his game with Carlsen, then he has cheated. But, if I point to Carlsen receiving assistance from the outside (a non-player of the game helped him), then I'm a troll. Double-standards.
lajosarpad lajosarpad 10/13/2022 01:54
@with_cheats_you_lose

In Niemann's case an investigation is being conducted, trying to find out what proof or evidence suggests that Carlsen may be right. And, if this investigation is unbiased, it relies on facts and proofs and its report appears to be convincing about whatever result it may yield, then I will accept the result. You, on the other hand want me to condemn Niemann as a cheater on OTB chess before the investigation completes.

"Regarding Carlsen's cheating case, he got a hint from his friend GM David Howell to trap his opponent's queen."

I do not question Carlsen's ability as a chess player. But he misbehaved badly. Did he ever openly admit this to be a wrongdoing?

"How is that even comparable to Niemann's cheating cases, when Hans Niemann has been surreptitiously using a chess engine in more than 100 online tournament games, even after getting caught several times and apologizing for it, to profit from prize tournaments?"

The basis of the comparison is that they committed the same type of offence: cheating. In Niemann's case aggravating factors are the frequency and the planning ahead of the cheating. In Carlsen's case it seemed to be an unplanned cheating, done in the heat of the moment. But this does not change the fact that the type of the offence was the same in both cases. One may put valid arguments for Niemann's cheating being a more severe case than Carlsen and I do agree with those. But, in their actions after the cheating, Niemann has recognized it to be a wrongdoing and promised not to repeat it. Carlsen did not make any such promises. If he indeed has given back the money, that's good, but, especially given the fact that he has many fans who emulate him, he should recognize it to be wrong publicly.
lajosarpad lajosarpad 10/13/2022 01:53
@with_cheats_you_lose

As about my point about how recent a cheating was, let me make two points for clarification. First, there is a large difference between a recently committed crime and an older crime. In the case of an older crime, if the perpetrator has not committed that crime since then, then it is possible that the former perpetrator is unlikely to commit that crime again. Think about the example when a 25-year-old person steals some money and is caught and punished for it. After serving his sentence (let's assume it's of 2 years), he is free and years, decades pass. When the person is 65-year-old, if there is no reason to think he has stolen ever since the incident described earlier, then it's unlikely that the person will steal. Yet, if someone has stolen yesterday, then there is no reason to think the person's character evolved since then, especially if his action does not face criticism or punishment.

Second, Carlsen claimed that Niemann cheated more and more recently. So, apparently, the whole accusation rests on 1. frequency of cheating and 2. recentness of cheating. So, Carlsen's position, a position you seemingly agree with recognizes recentness to be an important factor. Maybe you do not fully understand what position you are arguing for.

"Niemann has proven to be a compulsive liar, when he lied about the extension of his online cheating in Saint Louis, yet you still take his word at face value."

No, from the two of us you are the only believer. I do not believe Niemann has not cheated. I simply refuse believing that he cheated because no proof was presented. Not believing in statement X does not mean that I believe the negation of X. If I throw a dice do I believe that it will be a 6? No. Then do I believe that it will not be a 6? No, I do not believe that either. Instead, I watch the dice rolling and refrain from assuming any result and will accept the result.
lajosarpad lajosarpad 10/13/2022 01:52
@with_cheats_you_lose

"Besides implicitly equating both cheating cases"

It seems you do not understand the difference between equating two things and comparing them. Comparing two things is the act of applying the same standard for two different scenarios and finding out the similarities and differences. Equating two things is a special case of comparison, when the result of the comparison is that everything is similar in the two cases. I did compare the two cases indeed. But since I listed differences, I did not equate the two. When you say that I'm "implicitly equating" the two, basically you admit that the text I have written does not contain the pattern you attributed to it, but you infer from the content that I equated the two. It was a misunderstanding on your part until I clarified that I do not equate the two. Since you maintain your position I have to say that it's a malicious and baseless accusation on your part.

"you also downplay Niemann's previous cheating, because he did it longer ago than Carlsen and he even apologized for it"

Stating facts are not downplaying a misconduct. I consider Niemann's cheating instances that we know about to be reprehensible. Yet, he has at least shown signs of regret, of learning from it and he promised not to do it again. Carlsen received and accepted help during his game and has shown no remorse, no regret, not even the recognition of the misbehaviour.
lajosarpad lajosarpad 10/13/2022 01:52
@SunriseK

"So, when that will happen, I’m curious to see what will have to tell his actual defenders!"

I cannot speak for others, but I did not defend him. As stated earlier, I'm defending a principle. If he turns out to be a cheater, then we will agree in punishing him. Our disagreement stems from the fact that while I do not want to punish him before the accusation was proven, you want to do so. We agree that once the accusation has been proven, he should be punished.

"Will they disappear under the ground?"

Would you like that?

@with_cheats_you_lose

"lajosarpad, your pseudo-intellectual ramblings are dishonest, to say the least."

I am surely honest. I do not hide behind a nickname like you and I never had an antisemitic nickname. Saying that my reasoning is dishonest implies that I know I'm wrong, but nevertheless I take a position I disagree with in reality. Why would I do that? If I was convinced in Niemann's cheating, why would I say that I'm not convinced about it?
lajosarpad lajosarpad 10/13/2022 01:52
@SunriseK

"The first ones are probably just envious of Carlsen (instead of being happy that we actually can see in action one of the two or three best chess players of all times, maybe the best one!), the second ones probably consider Niemann as their “hero”, maybe because they are happy about cheating in chess, as it’s their only hope to win a chess game!"

So, if I'm unconvinced that Carlsen's accusation is accurate, then I either envy him or I support cheating. This is a fallacy called "poisoning the well", which is a general, all-out attack against the credibility of a person or a group of persons. You are slandering anyone who disagree with you about Carlsen's accusation and does not share your opinion and/or fervor, with weakness of character (envy) or accomplicing cheating (support of cheating). Your baseless accusations against people disagreeing with you is quite fitting to Carlsen's accusation, where he strongly suggested that Niemann was cheating against him, without the slightes proof of any device or outside help being received during the game.

"Finally, most important remark is that, before Niemann’s case, we never had cheating in chess at such an high level of tournaments"

We do not know whether Niemann cheated at OTB, while we know he cheated online. So, currently he is being accused. Similar accuses preceded this, Topalov was accused by Short in 2005 and Kramnik was accused by Topalov and Danailov in 2006.

"To conclude with something more positive, the good news are that sooner or later Niemann will be caught red hands, he will finally admit cheating or he will abandon chess (like Ivanov and Rausis for example), or one of his helpers will betray him."

If he is cheating, then he will probably be caught sooner or later. So, why would we rush with a witch-hunt when he will be caught anyway (if the allegations are true)?
lajosarpad lajosarpad 10/13/2022 01:51
@SunriseK

"And also please stop blaming Carlsen because he doesn’t want to play with a cheater"

I have seen noone blaming him for not wanting to play a cheater. He could have refused to participate in the Sinquefield Cup. However, he decided to play and once the tournament didn't go his way, he quit after (!) playing with Niemann. So, he had suspicions of Niemann cheating, so he decided not to play the other players, against whom he did not have similar suspicions.

"it’s very silly to blame the alarm because is doing noise, instead than looking for the reason it is ringing!"

Carlsen did not simply alarm about the problem of cheating in chess. He insead insinuated, without proof that Niemann was cheating against him and then openly accused him of doing so. The onus of proving the claim rests on Carlsen's shoulders. What was the exact method Niemann used for cheating? How did he get past the Sinquefield Cup's organizers and personnel? How did he cheat in front of cameras, the arbiter, fellow players and the audience and, most importantly, his adversary? Why did he play the inaccurate 29... Nc4 if he was cheating?

I'm not asking about theories and possible scenarios. I'm asking about a very concrete incident and I'm also asking what and how his cheating was detected. If there is factual proof, then I'm all for blaming Niemann. If not, then I consider that to be premature and the accusation to be slanderous.

"I’m also very tired to read legions of comments by trolls or patzers shamefully defending cheaters!"

Who are the trolls?
lajosarpad lajosarpad 10/13/2022 01:51
@SunriseK

"Well, pondering all such facts, the total probability that Niemann or Dlugy are not “serial cheaters” (online but also on the board, at least in the case of Niemann), is less than 1 over a billion! "

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.

"Anyway, returning to chess cheating, bear in mind that all the facts that I previously mentioned, in practice mean there is near 0% chance that Niemann or Dlugy are not cheaters."

May I see the formula you have applied?

"About the method used by Niemann to cheat on the board, there is a nice video by Tkachiev and Dubov which is showing how easy is to cheat at chess"

So, Tkachiev and Dubov made a video about a possible cheating scenario. How do we know that Niemann used the same method? Or, if he used another method, then what was the exact method he used? Before we know factually the exact method Niemann is using for cheating, before he is caught either during his cheating, or by factual proof, all this is theory.

"So I believe that probably Niemann managed to have some sort of micro – earplug fitted inside his ear/s; thus he cannot easily been caught and he truly can even play naked without being caught!"

If so, then he can be analyzed for that.

"Then, please stop defending such cheaters against any contrary evidence: they really don’t deserve that favorable treat!"

You misunderstand my position. I don't defend anyone. I defend a principle, which is "innocent until proven guilty". It's a civilizational norm and I see you and others want to abolish it and rely on statistical analysis in order to condemn someone. I consider this a dangerous approach which leads to abuses in the future, even if Niemann is indeed a cheater. And frankly, there is no proof of his OTB cheating.
lajosarpad lajosarpad 10/13/2022 01:51
@SunriseK

"as “Rafaelvleite” has noticed (https://en.chessbase.com/post/statistical-analysis-of-the-games-of-hans-niemann), Niemann’s play is not compatible with a rating around 2700; and this is BIG EVIDENCE!!!"

I disagree. If someone reaches 2700, then he played like a 2700 player on average.

"chess.com in his 72 pages report about Niemann showed that he cheated also other times: in fact more than 100 (!!!) times online (and most probably also on the board!)"

How do we know he cheated over the board?

"unlike the ridiculous method from Ken Regan which almost always is just “telling” nobody is cheating"

I do not consider his approach to be "ridiculous" and you are factually wrong when you say that it "is just "telling" nobody is cheating". Let me explain: Ken Regan's analysis does not provide factual proof of a player's cheating or a player's not cheating. It checks, with a transparent, understandable and reproducible method whether, according to the method there is reason to think the player has cheated. If the analysis yields a "yes", then subsequent investigation is needed to confirm whether the player actually cheated. If the analysis yields a "no", then it's not saying that Niemann (or whoever's games are analyzed) did not cheat. It is saying that there is no reason based on the given analysis to think the player cheated. So it will never (!) say that someone cheated or that someone did not cheat. Hence, you cannot be right when you say that it "always is just "telling" nobody is cheating".
lajosarpad lajosarpad 10/13/2022 01:50
If someone is really convinced that Niemann is a cheater at these OTB tournaments, then whenever he plays well, it is viewed as something reinforcing the assumption. But - and this is the strange part - the people convinced about Niemann's cheating also view his losses and mistakes as reinforcing the assumption. I've read statements saying he is a "smart cheater" and that he "stopped cheating when he played poorly". It seems that anything Niemann plays, good or bad moves strengthens the suspicion of some people. But there is a problem with this: any theory or opinion needs to be falsifiable, that is, a way of finding out that the theory is wrong (if it's wrong). The theory of gravity is a falsifiable theory, that is, if we see an apple not falling, but floating in the air, then we will wonder whether the theory of gravity is true after all.

So, if Niemann does not consistently perform well, that should be viewed as an exception of the pattern we would expect from a cheater. It is still possible that he cheated in some games and avoided cheating in others in order to avoid suspicion, but, viewing any move and game he plays as reinforcing a theory is a sign of a flawed theory. Just like the witch trials: they threw a woman into a lake or river with a large rock being tied to her and took her out after a while. If she died, then she was no longer accused. If she survived, then "she must be a witch" and they killed her. I see a similar pattern here to the lynching mobs of the witch trials.

@SunriseK was 29... Nc4 against Carlsen humanly impossible?

I of course do not say that Niemann does not cheat in OTB games. I merely say that solid proof needs to be presented before he is treated as a cheater. We have solid proof about his past cheating at chess.com, but there is no solid proof of more recent cheating by him online and nothing about his supposed cheating at OTB chess.
tauno tauno 10/13/2022 01:45
As of 2018, alcohol is no longer on WADA Prohibited List in chess. But Magnus Carlsen is known to have drunk alcohol in many ranked tournaments even before that year. He has even confessed (there is audio and video evidence).

But in Carlsen's defense, he has never given a positive doping test, so there is no "hard evidence". The reason is that doping controls are very rare in chess (chess is not like other sports).

But who cares? Cheater or not, Magnus is in any case the best player in the world. Even when drunk.
Jack Nayer Jack Nayer 10/13/2022 01:42
I wasn't aware that Carlsen ever cheated, so I looked it up.
I watched the video.
It is clear as day that this is not cheating.
If you think that this is cheating, it is time for you to look up the word in a dictionary or just be serious and call yourself a troll.
with_cheats_you_lose with_cheats_you_lose 10/13/2022 12:48
lajosarpad, your pseudo-intellectual ramblings are dishonest, to say the least. And you should actually reread what you wrote about Niemann's and Carlsen's cheating before replying. You wrote:

"Mind you that Carlsen cheated in 2021 (I think it was in December) in that Lichess game, while the proven cheating of Niemann occurred in games much earlier than that. And Niemann admitted it, felt sorry about it, apologized for it. Carlsen did nothing about his own cheating, but quite hypocritically accused Niemann of an offense he also did. I do not consider Niemann to be a moral hero. He is far from it with his proven cheating incidents. But he at least recognizes that it was wrong."

Besides implicitly equating both cheating cases, which they are clearly not equivalent, you also downplay Niemann's previous cheating, because he did it longer ago than Carlsen and he even apologized for it. Niemann has proven to be a compulsive liar, when he lied about the extension of his online cheating in Saint Louis, yet you still take his word at face value. Regarding Carlsen's cheating case, he got a hint from his friend GM David Howell to trap his opponent's queen. Carlsen proceeded to win that match comfortably, even if he had lost that one game, and the tournament. He did relinquish the prize money to the tournament host, whether if it was because of that fair-play violation, weighing on his conscience, or not, I do not know.

How is that even comparable to Niemann's cheating cases, when Hans Niemann has been surreptitiously using a chess engine in more than 100 online tournament games, even after getting caught several times and apologizing for it, to profit from prize tournaments?
Science22 Science22 10/13/2022 12:02
@SunriseK : Thank you very much for your intelligent comments.

Hopefully the end to this tragic attack on chess is near. It seems that a transformation of Niemann has taken place. I myself believe that it is because the US Open has found the key to disrupting the signal transmission that can be received by a player without wearing electronic aids. I have already described the method earlier which was developed by MIT.

Niemann played a very accurate Nimzo – Indian Defense against world champion Magnus Carlsen. Some few choices could be discussed, but the overall picture was that of very good preparations in this opening and a flawless ability to calculate variations.

Today Darius Swierz played a similar variation in the Nimzo Indian defense with an early g3. Niemann should be well prepared. But as soon as we were out of the opening Niemann started to drift away with no ability to calculate precisely or even understand the demands of the position. Not to defend e6 ( 13. -, Qb8 ?) is unbelievable.
SunriseK SunriseK 10/12/2022 11:37
And also please stop blaming Carlsen because he doesn’t want to play with a cheater: he just started the alarm bell against cheating; it’s very silly to blame the alarm because is doing noise, instead than looking for the reason it is ringing!
I’m also very tired to read legions of comments by trolls or patzers shamefully defending cheaters! The first ones are probably just envious of Carlsen (instead of being happy that we actually can see in action one of the two or three best chess players of all times, maybe the best one!), the second ones probably consider Niemann as their “hero”, maybe because they are happy about cheating in chess, as it’s their only hope to win a chess game!
Finally, most important remark is that, before Niemann’s case, we never had cheating in chess at such an high level of tournaments (and with such arrogant cheaters like him!); if we are unable to stop that trend very soon, in the near future we will have legions of cheaters infesting chess tournaments even at super – GM level, and this will imply that chess sooner or later will be dead: lot of doubts will be cast over all players, then many people will get rid of chess and stop following it, or at least we will have to quit broadcasting chess events and in the bitter end we will be just able to play chess at a local level, with friends and friendly games only, like centuries ago.
Is this what we really want?
To conclude with something more positive, the good news are that sooner or later Niemann will be caught red hands, he will finally admit cheating or he will abandon chess (like Ivanov and Rausis for example), or one of his helpers will betray him. So, when that will happen, I’m curious to see what will have to tell his actual defenders! Will they disappear under the ground? :-D
SunriseK SunriseK 10/12/2022 11:35
Well, pondering all such facts, the total probability that Niemann or Dlugy are not “serial cheaters” (online but also on the board, at least in the case of Niemann), is less than 1 over a billion!
And I even didn’t consider that, apart chess, Dlugy has a past history of being found guilty of embezzlement; years ago he was even imprisoned for that reason (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxim_Dlugy).
Anyway, returning to chess cheating, bear in mind that all the facts that I previously mentioned, in practice mean there is near 0% chance that Niemann or Dlugy are not cheaters. And only in Mathematics you can be 100% sure of something (a theorem); state-of-the-art protocols used in Physics, for instance to accept a discovery like a new particle, are set at “five sigma” (which is meaning physicists are 99.99994% sure, or conversely that is only 1 chance over 1’744’287 they can be wrong); so if we can safely assume that for example Higg’s Boson does exist (which everyone accepts), then we can be at least 500 times more confident that Niemann or Dlugy are “serial cheaters”!
About the method used by Niemann to cheat on the board, there is a nice video by Tkachiev and Dubov which is showing how easy is to cheat at chess: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMe_fQRUyfU
So I believe that probably Niemann managed to have some sort of micro – earplug fitted inside his ear/s; thus he cannot easily been caught and he truly can even play naked without being caught!
Then, please stop defending such cheaters against any contrary evidence: they really don’t deserve that favorable treat!
SunriseK SunriseK 10/12/2022 11:33
7/12 - as “Rafaelvleite” has noticed (https://en.chessbase.com/post/statistical-analysis-of-the-games-of-hans-niemann), Niemann’s play is not compatible with a rating around 2700; and this is BIG EVIDENCE!!!
8/12 - Niemann cheated online 2 times in the past, which he admitted (but only after the facts became public domain and telling those were the only 2 times he cheated, also adding that he never cheated on the board);
9/12 - Incredibly, ALL on-the-board tournaments Niemann played in 2019 – 2020, he was losing rating (and performing at an average 2404 USCF rating) when there was NO BROADCAST of games; while he was always gaining rating (and performing at 2610 USCF rating) when there was BROADCAST of games instead. This is highly highly weird!!
See: https://twitter.com/ATL_kings/status/1568656197812891653
10/12 - chess.com in his 72 pages report about Niemann showed that he cheated also other times: in fact more than 100 (!!!) times online (and most probably also on the board!), so they finally banned his account;
11/12 - it must be noticed that chess.com has a very effective anti-cheating system which allows them to bust every day a lot of cheaters, unlike the ridiculous method from Ken Regan which almost always is just “telling” nobody is cheating; not even blatant cheaters, LOL; (and in the end also Regan found some evidence about Niemann cheating! Read carefully chess.com report)
12/12 - his coach Maxim Dlugy has been also caught cheating online at least two times by chess.com (but in fact much more than two times, if you carefully read the emails published by vice.com!).
SunriseK SunriseK 10/12/2022 11:32
I’m so tired with all these cheaters telling a lot of unrealistic and laughable excuses to pretend they are instead clean!
About Dlugy and his pupil Niemann, consider that:
1/12 - HN had a 3072 performance in the first 3 rounds (with “real time” live streaming) of SinquefieldCup and instead a 2646 performance in the last 6 rounds (with a 15 minutes delay);
2/12 - HN play’s accuracy was flawless (0.07 avg error) in the first 3 rounds of the same Cup and instead three times less precise (0.21 avg error) in the last 6 rounds;
3/12 - apart the accuracy, he played against Carlsen all his moves in a way that is pretty impossible for any “human entity” to do: doing a lot of pressure on the World Champion (usually the contrary is happening), exerting an incredible grasp over all the game and never letting him to have a minimal chance to even for a moment reaching equality (just a “silicon entity” cleverly used by a GM level player can do such a performance!);
4/12 - commenting “post mortem” this game, he gave unconvincingly explanations about how he was able to guess and prepare the rare opening Carlsen chose;
5/12 - in the next round, commenting on his 19th move of his game with Firouzja, Niemann was completely unable to explain why he chose to left his knight hanging (giving instead a ridiculously losing line for him as White, telling the laughable “I don’t know how Black can survive here”);
6/12 - after those interviews, he is now even refusing to anymore comment his games in the press conference after them (to avoid to be spotted again as unable to give correct explanations of his moves?);
lajosarpad lajosarpad 10/12/2022 11:10
@Jacob Woge I do not recall being vehement, as far as I know I did not call your opinion "rubbish", but I respect your feelings.

"I don’t know the English term, but it amounts to measuring out a punishment for a crime that wasn’t a crime at the time of commitment."

I did not measure a punishment as far as I know. I called a spade a spade. Carlsen cheated at said game and I'm condemning the cheating itself. Maybe I have a right to condemn cheating? Or is this the point where I "lost my rocks"?

The question is: were the tournament rules satisfied while Carlsen accepted that help? Was the opponent of Carlsen aware that GMs will work in team against him/her? If not, then this was, at the very least a violation of rules.

I consider you to be a respectable and honest person. I ask for your sincere answer: would you be okay if you played the world champion and Howell would help him, without prior notice? Would that be fair?

I consider this to be an act of cheating.

@with_cheats_you_lose When I have written my remarks about Carlsen, I knew that it is quite possible that some Magnus fans will object to it. Yet, your objection is not of a very high level. I did not equate Niemann's cheating to Carlsen's cheating (this is your straw man only), but those who say that there is no such thing as a one-time crook and things of the like do not tend to apply the same standards when we speak about Carlsen's cheating.

Was your former nickname "with_jews_you_lose"? There was a user going by that name. Was that you?
Jacob woge Jacob woge 10/12/2022 09:39
@Lajos

On chess video:

I think you have completely lost your rocks on this one.

On sanctions, or not:

More in line.

I never called for any direct action to be taken against Niemann in OtB chess, based on events so far. He plays the US CH and that’s how it should be. Glad to see it.

On-line? Their house, their rules. Who cares? Well, some do ...:

Persons of influence argue that a misdemeanor in on-line chess should have consequences OtB. I completely disagree.

That wish might in fact be the major basis for this MC campaign. An attempt to enforce a sanction connection between those two chess scenes, on-line and OtB.

And, mind you, in retrospect. I don’t know the English term, but it amounts to measuring out a punishment for a crime that wasn’t a crime at the time of commitment. Or, changing said punishment from lenient to capital. That is, as you vehemently have pointed out, typical of fascist rulership. But democracies have stooped to this, too.

I Agree with Ramirez, did Niemann r3-4 in Sinquefield look suspicious? Yes, he did. Is it reason for any sanctions against a particular player? Not this one. Do we enhance security, including delayed broadcast? Yes we do, and should have done so long ago.

Because one major problem is: Suspicious Minds. (Not the Elvis version.)
with_cheats_you_lose with_cheats_you_lose 10/12/2022 08:35
That one moment of Magnus playing an Arena in front of his friends is totally equivalent to years of being a cheating scumbag and continuing to cheat even after getting caught multiple times. That is your pseudo-logic.
lajosarpad lajosarpad 10/12/2022 08:05
@Jacob Woge

What did I tell you in our earlier conversations? That a supposed cheater should not be punished until his cheating was proven. Niemann's cheating was proven (he admitted it) when he was 12 and 16. And he was punished for it. Carlsen shared video footage about his own cheating, so we have proof for it.

I agree he is a great chess player, one in a billion. But that does not lift him above the rules.

Mind you that Carlsen cheated in 2021 (I think it was in December) in that Lichess game, while the proven cheating of Niemann occurred in games much earlier than that.

And Niemann admitted it, felt sorry about it, apologized for it. Carlsen did nothing about his own cheating, but quite hypocritically accused Niemann of an offense he also did. I do not consider Niemann to be a moral hero. He is far from it with his proven cheating incidents. But he at least recognizes that it was wrong.

Matthew 7:3 springs to mind when I think about Carlsen's accusation: "Why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to notice the beam in your own eye?"
lajosarpad lajosarpad 10/12/2022 08:01
@calvinamari So you do not apply the same standards for Carlsen as for Niemann. And you speak about pseudo-logic...

@Jacob Woge

"If reference is to the Howell/Carlsen snippet, which I have seen repeatedly, then just this:

Purporting this utter rubbish did not make sense the first time, and it still doesn’t. "

To be honest, I'm almost sure that if the same scenario would have happened at Lichess, but, instead of Carlsen, Niemann would have received help from Howell, then the same persons who are quick to condemn Niemann and to redeem Carlsen would take that as a proof that Niemann cheated in that game. And they would be right.

"Wait, you can trap it."
"How?"

He did not see the move and he used Howell's insight in that specific case for his advantage. If I had a GM telling me what to do in an online game against someone, my opponent would be right to say that I'm cheating.

But you have some special rules for Carlsen, or so it seems. He is innocent, because... because he did not take that game seriously, as you say. So, should future committers of similar offenses make the same excuse? "I just didn't take the game seriously". By the way, several theories about Niemann's supposed cheating were about an accomplice giving him moves. So, that's qualified as cheating. I did not recall anyone saying: "If Niemann received moves from someone during that Sinquefield game, then he cheated, but only if he took the game seriously."

Also, I do not recall chess.com's report to include that they asked Niemann when he was 16 whether he took the game seriously. By the way, he claimed that he was "bored" and "wanted to test the system". That was a poor excuse when Niemann wanted to save face with it and it is a poor excuse now when you try to save Carlsen's face.
Jacob woge Jacob woge 10/12/2022 06:49
“He was cheating at a Lichess game.”

If reference is to the Howell/Carlsen snippet, which I have seen repeatedly, then just this:

Purporting this utter rubbish did not make sense the first time, and it still doesn’t.

This is not “cheating”. It is “not taking the game seriously”. That is what the video shows, clear as day.

The game is ruined anyway, when someone yells moves at you. Time to quit asap, and start another.

Unless, of course, a similar scene unfolds at the other end of the line.
calvinamari calvinamari 10/12/2022 05:20
Carlsen is not the disrespectful, disruptive, lying cheater, and no assbackwards “moral equivalence” pseudo-logic makes it so.
lajosarpad lajosarpad 10/12/2022 03:29
@ChessSpanVermont I do not consider capitalism as a system as destructive as you think, so we disagree on that, but the pattern of some large corporations are indecent is something I agree upon with you. But, capitalism, the idea that one is free to organize a company and to have private property is a force to the good in my opinion. Since this is off-topic, I will not delve into arguing about it, just respectfully disagree with some of your points.

@calvinamari if someone was doing an offence, then it is normal to be suspicious about the person, yet, this does not prove that he committed a certain offense. If X has stolen earlier a bottle of beer and now store Y reports that a bottle of beer was stolen from them while X was inside the store, that does not prove that X committed the offense, but it is logical that everyone suspects X. Yet, in the case of Carlsen - Niemann we do not even know whether an offense was committed in the game.

"Who needs a disrespectful, disruptive, lying cheater?"

You say this suggesting that Niemann or Dlugy is such a person. While I do not disagree with you, I would like to mention that Carlsen was disrespectful when he claimed that defending his title will not be that interesting. He was disruptive when he stormed out from the Sinquefield cup and then later from an online game with Niemann. He was cheating at a Lichess game. As about lying, I do not have any factual knowledge, but according to my understanding of human nature I find it difficult to imagine that a person would never lie during his/her life. So, do you apply the same standards for Carlsen?
with_cheats_you_lose with_cheats_you_lose 10/12/2022 02:39
- Cheated non-stop online for years.
- Lied about it in front of the whole world.
- Even cheats against his friends.
- Extreme rating climb at advanced age.
- Generally incoherent style of play and suspicious behavior at the board.
- Incapable of analyzing games at a level reflective of his rating, frequently tries to deflect from this by talking about uber eats and letting the chess speak for itself.
- Will do anything to grow his brand and stream.
- Is a despicable person and most of his chess friends have distanced themselves even prior to the current scandal.
- His mentor is also a notorious cheat and a pathological liar.

W-why are they unfairly targeting my friend Hans?

B-but there is something fishy about the chess.com-Carlsen-Nakamura triangle.
mc1483 mc1483 10/12/2022 01:37
@Science22: I'm not usually replying to your posts anymore, but your assessment about the infrared radiation is so grotesque that in comparison Dlugy's claims on reddit look the most sincere. Seriously, a laser equipment like the one in the picture? Inside the playing hall without anyone noticing? In tenths of tournaments, hundreds of moves without a single mistake and/or failure? Please exit the Bond movie you live in. Chessbase needs not such nonsense.
YoyoSat YoyoSat 10/12/2022 12:34
I just want to thank all of the contributors, of whom many presented rather interesting facts.
If we reach longer into the past, there is another rather amusing controversy, or maybe not, you be the judge.
GM Dlugy was long time one of the highest rated blitz players on ICC (Internet Chess Club) and even had his own show (archive of those videos I believe can still be found on youtube). When that show ended, there was no public statements to be found from either of interested parties. Having said that, one can only speculate as to what happened, and even more so as some additional information about alleged cheating on chess.com comes to light. Just trying to connect the dots here.
tauno tauno 10/12/2022 10:14
There is something fishy about the Chesscom-Carlsen-Nakamura triangle.
MagoPINK MagoPINK 10/12/2022 10:14
Simply I don't trust cheaters. That's it. If I was the sponsor of a tournament I would NOT invite Niemann. I put the money, I decide. Stop it. Maybe he's innocent. But I don't care.
calvinamari calvinamari 10/12/2022 09:20
@M.Jones. It so happens I am a lawyer and in fact prior crimes and perjury in the matter at bar are admissible and highly relevant evidence. But this is not a court of law but privately funded events. Hence, the better analogy is going to Las Vegas and getting caught cheating at poker in Casino A and then managing to do the same at Casino B. Then, if at Casino C you claim to be winning by some combination of luck and skill, can they throw you out on your ass even without clear proof? Absolutely. Indeed, in all likelihood you would be barred at the door even as you tried to enter Casino C, which is precisely what should happen to Niemann. He has no right to play in any privately funded event and any organizer is foolish for inviting him (or in the case of the Sinquefeld Cup, slipping him in as a last minute substitute). Who needs a disrespectful, disruptive, lying cheater? Bar him at the door.
Science22 Science22 10/12/2022 01:18
Chess will never be the same as before this scandal with Niemann . If Maxim wanted to persuade us that he is not involved he failed to do that.

Right now I think someone has whispered in the ear of the tournament organizers in the US Open what they must do to block more advanced signals to the players. The transformation is huge. In the first couple of rounds, Niemann played as a super grand master with ELO 2700. Now he plays at the same level as he does in tournaments without live transmission, namely as a tactically orientated player at ELO 2400. Which means that he is swept off the board by players at ELO 2700.
Science22 Science22 10/12/2022 01:11
I think duckchess1 gives a very solid analysis of the situation. Maxim Dlugy proves once again that fraudsters should not defend themselves. They quickly get tangled up in contradictions.
Science22 Science22 10/12/2022 01:07
Maxim Dlugy (MD) “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.”
Answer : Niemann doesn't need any listening equipment at all. All he needs is his ears and live transmisison so an accomplice cand send sugesstions using infrared radiation. See the early article from MIT
https://www.ll.mit.edu/news/laser-can-deliver-messages-directly-your-ear-across-room

Maxim Dlugy (MD) : “ Kenneth Regan, the accepted foremost authority on the subject presented a detailed report where he found no evidence of Hans using an engine neither in that particular game nor in any other Over the Board game.
Answer : Regan did not distinguish between games played with live transmission (Niemann played with ELO 2700) and those without (Niemann played with ELO 2400). It is a significant error in the statistical analysis that makes it useless.
duckchess1 duckchess1 10/12/2022 12:25
1. Dlugy was changing his story. Initially he claimed that the students were just shouting out moves to him, and he writes "he thought that kids rated over 1000 points lower than me could be helping me play better never occurred to me". He now claims on reddit the whole thing was some sort of methodical voting process where HE suggested the moves and his students voted on them. Contradiction? How can they "help him play better" when he's the one suggesting the moves in the first place and they merely vote?

2. Of course, regardless of what version of events are supposed to have happened, it is simply inconceivable that a GM would agree to engine moves from sub-2000 players and never notice one student always suggests engine-like or "too good" moves. Mind you this didn't happen just a few moves. It was many games.

3. Furthermore, if the moves were suggested by HIM, does that not include engine moves? How could the engine move be the majority vote so often?

4. It is hard to imagine how such a weird voting process could ever happen in a 3 MINUTE BLITZ GAME. Even disregarding the time it would take to think about the moves, just the mere task of verbalizing three different moves, having the students respond to it, and deciding on whatever is supposedly the majority.

5. His reddit rant after seeing the reaction to his official statement seems completely unhinged. Apart from the aforementioned changing of his story, he goes on the offensive against basically everyone. The most bizarre of all being an accusation against Hikaru that he is "trying to eliminate a business rival" simply because Hikaru's step-dad also happens to be a chess coach...

In conclusion, Dlugy has proven himself to be a liar and is attempts at getting us to swallow his ridiculous, contrived excuses are pathetic. There's many things to criticize chess.com for, but it certainly doesn't help that the supposed "black sheep" all out themselves as massive liars ON TOP of being cheaters.
Previous123Next