Wall Street Journal: “Niemann ‘likely cheated’ more than 100 times”

I've read the full Chess.com report on which the article is based.
A) The report finds no evidence of OTB cheating, including in the Carlsen game.
B) The evidence for on-line cheating other than what Niemann has admitted also seems sketchy. It seems to consist mainly of (claimed) abnormally high values of a 'Strength Score' - essentially, an accuracy rating. They put Niemann in a table with other players know to be cheaters, and seem to be setting up 'Guilt by Association'. However, your name appearing in the same table as a cheater doesn't make you a cheater. Niemann's 'Strength Score is substantially less than that of Firouzja, whome no-one is accusing of cheating. Niemann has been accused of cheating both because his moves are too accurate, and because they are not accurate enough!

To first order, accuracy measures tell you nothing about whether someone is cheating. In general, a player's accuracy will be in step with their tournament results. This says nothing about WHY someone's moves are accurate (or inaccurate.)

To second order, you can form a hypothesis that someone does not cheat all the time, but only under X circumstances, and test that. But you need to form your hypothesis about X BEFORE looking at the data (which the Chess.com analysis did not do.) Otherwise you fall into 'p-hacking' and 'Prosecutor's Fallacy' - type misuse of statistics.

Essentially, you can't convict on stats, but only on real world proof.

Masquer:"This is no evidence, but just an impression : HN's win over Yoo felt like such a machine-like effort!"

Yes, impression is good enough, no proves are needed. Where has Niemann his machine? In his arse? Didn´t they checked that? Elon Musk was right.

A.Alekhine:"He played a remarkably patient and mature game yesterday for a 19-year-old. It would be a pity if eventually it turned out the moves were not his own."

Yes, it would be, BUT, they have checking the devices in that tournament. You DO know that?

If Niemann says"The chess speaks for itself," it is clear as day that he bullies both the media and the competitors. Would you really believe that a guy whose actions are being closely investigated would use devices to cheat right then? I think that Niemann has a little revenge for everything that has been written and said in the media. Time for revenge. I don´t blame him for that.

science22:"With arzi and lajosarp on his defence team we dont even need to prove that Niemann is a con man. They do a great job for us in court."

Are you threatening me with a lawsuit? "Let everything you can give come".

science22:"Arzi writes that he would like to see proof that no world chess champions have ever lost their memory after a game so that they cannot remember what and how they prepared for the game."

Liar. Show me the place where I have said that. Why do you put your own words to other people´s mouth? Don´t change the words.

just to clarify,I dont mean that press release , I mean the documentation to explain the methodology of their "strength score" and cheating detection. Have it peer reviewed
Also in their press release "elicited cheating confessions from 4 players in the FIDE top 100." ,

They also say on their site that they give chances to people that "cheat" to retain an user IF they confess, if they do not confess they are automatically banned.(there is no other avenue of vindication if you know it is a false accusation)
So the simple fact that some top players "confessed" says only that maybe the players were willing to accept a false confession to continue having an account. With all the tournaments , it is understandable.

I am sure there are cheaters but chess.com's stated policy is that they have NO false positives.

Curiously Science22, "extensive documentation from chess.com" where can the average Joe get there hands on this mysterious documentation you speak of.

This is no evidence, but just an impression : HN's win over Yoo felt like such a machine-like effort! I speak as someone who has worked on and tested chess engines, watching their games and seeing their progress for a long time!

The Laboratory technique relies on the photoacoustic effect, in which the absorption of light by a material produces sound. The material in this case is water vapor, hanging in the air and in the vicinity of a person's ear.

The researchers found that water vapor strongly absorbs light at the infrared wavelength of 1907 nanometers, strong enough for the photoacoustic effect to still work even in environments with low humidity.

Using a thulium laser at that wavelength, they transmitted sounds at 60 decibels — the volume of a typical conversation — to a target person standing about eight feet away. The person used no receiving equipment other than ears to hear the message. The entire communication was invisible and silent to everyone else in the room. Around 2020 the technique was improved to be able to send over much larger distances. After that the results got classified.
In order to detect this type of listening equipment, a scanner must be used that can handle wavelength ranges in the infrared range, and the actual scanning must take place during the game around the person receiving the signal. Not before the game. It will be useless. I do not doubt the result of such a serious measurement instead of the current scan before the game.

@A Alekhine I completely agree. After the first game in the US open, Niemann had the best opportunity to defend himself by participating in an analysis of the game. Through this analysis he could give us a positive image that he had control over the variants, and it was no coincidence that he played with this precision throughout the game. Instead, he chose to decline.

So it is time to answer the question: What technique does Niemann use to receive signals that cannot be detected by a scanner ?

I am quite sure that it is a technique developed at MIT (but now known in many labs around the world). The point is that Niemann doesn't need any listening equipment at all. All he needs is his ears. The new technique makes it possible to send a signal to a person's ears so that only that person hears the signal. I quote :

https://www.ll.mit.edu/news/laser-can-deliver-messages-directly-your-ear-across-room

I have been defending Niemann here based on lack of evidence that he has cheated over the board, but I have to admit it is a bad look when he says, as he did yesterday after his first-round win in the U.S. Championship, "The chess speaks for itself," and refuses to analyze the game with the interviewer.

He played a remarkably patient and mature game yesterday for a 19-year-old. It would be a pity if eventually it turned out the moves were not his own.

"For his book, Searching for Bobby Fischer, which was made into a motion picture, Fred Waitzkin interviewed Gross, who shared the following memories of a fishing trip to Ensenada, Mexico: "He looked terrible ... clothes all baggy, wearing old beat-up shoes. ... Then I noticed that he was favoring his mouth, and he told me that he'd had some work done on his teeth; he'd had a dentist take all the fillings out of his mouth. ... I said 'Bobby, that's going to ruin your teeth. Did you have him put plastic in the holes?' And he said, 'I didn't have anything put in. I don't want anything artificial in my head.' He'd read about a guy wounded in World War II who had a metal plate in his head that was always picking up vibrations, maybe even radio transmissions. He said the same thing could happen from metal in your teeth."

Prescient or what?

Doping is a very serious form of cheating and often involves taking drugs to improve one's performance.

It is a well-known and well-documented fact that Carlsen has used Ethanol (a performance-enhancing drug) at many online chess tournaments and he has even confessed it - it is even likely that he has done it more than 100 times. But I think few of us knew that he has used this drug also in the 2012 FIDE World Blitz Championship tournament! I have no evidence, but I believe it was neither the first nor the last time he has cheated like this in an OTB tournament. This of course requires further investigation by FIDE.

Magnus Carlsen: Greatest Chess Player of All Time - Lex Fridman Podcast #315
https://youtu.be/0ZO28NtkwwQ&t=5292s
1:28:12 - Drunk chess

"In 2012 I played the [FIDE] World Blitz Championship and then I was doing horribly for a long time. I also had food poisoning there. I couldn't play at all for for three days. So there before the last break I was like in the middle of the pack, like in... I don't know, 20th place or something. And so I decided, like as the last gasp, I'm gonna go to the mini bar and just have a few drinks. And what happened is that I came back and I was suddenly relaxed. And I was playing fast and I was playing confidence and I thought I was playing so well. I wasn't playing nearly as well as I thought, but it still helped me. Like I won my remaining eight games. And if there had been one more round I probably would have won the whole thing, but finally I was second."

We also have to bear in mind all the underaged boys and girls following their chess idols online, so playing drugged is reprehensible for this reason as well. But in this serious context, it's only a minor problem.

Niemanns tactical style is compared to Tal. Nothing could be more wrong. He was the most kind person one can imagine outside the board. @ lajoarpad : Tactical style comparison has nothing to do with how kind a person is off the board.

As always the defence team troll lajosarpad cut my sentence in half to create nonsense. My next sentence was :
Tals intentionally played variations that were not correct but impossible to see across the board. Then he calculate better thorugh the jungle of variations. Niemann's tactical style is precisely the opposite. It is not based on incorrect variations. They are absolutely precise calculations as a computer can do, but which a human cannot quite see through. Which is why he cant explain the choices properly.

I have played blitz with Tal, that was why I mention he was an extremely kind person. I gladly repeat it.

With arzi and lajosarp on his defence team we dont even need to prove that Niemann is a con man. They do a great job for us in court.

@Jack Nayer you are spot on correct.

But sourronded by pigs with lipsticks it is difficult to come acrosse with any point of view in the spam.

One of the most ardent defense lawyers for Niemann is arzi. He follows me around on all platforms and immediately attacks when I write something. Together with lajosarpad.

Arzi writes that he would like to see proof that no world chess champions have ever lost their memory after a game so that they cannot remember what and how they prepared for the game. It's hysterically funny. On par with defense attorney Rudy Giuliani's demands in court. arzi wants me to prove that nobody ever said anything !

In the extensive documentation from chess.com that Niemann is a professional serial killer of honest chess, there is an e-mail Niemann sent to chess.com to prove his innocence. He writes that he did not cheat in all these games to win ratings or money, but solely to test whether the control worked! It did so, and he therefore praises cheeses.com for the security being in order! After which he wants to move on and not be disturbed any further, now that he has explained himself

It's hysterically absurd. Imagine a serial killer is apprehended by the police after a DNA match. After which the serial killer says that he only murders people because he wanted to see if the police's security systems were good enough. That was it, you guys are great, have a nice day

lajosarpad:"I wonder what the area of expertise of Science22 is if he is indeed a "scientist" and what university has given him/her a degree."

If Science22 has a degree, it must be a degree in Exaggeration and Bad Taste from The University of Boredom.

@Science22

"Magic_Knight, like so many here, reads criticism of Niemann like the devil reads the Bible."

Are you trolling?

"American logic."

Do you have a problem with Americans? Seriously.

"Sooner or later it will come out how he technically cheats in live games"

Let's condemn him then and not before, shall we?

"Niemann defense team here make strict demands on us. We must not draw conclusions based on what we actually observe. Niemanns absolutely improbable precision in tactical variants. He is just a genius. Accept it."

It is you who engage into beliefs. I have never claimed that Niemann was not cheating. My position is that we should wait with his condemnation until it is proven. Simple as that.

"Niemanns tactical style is compared to Tal. Nothing could be more wrong. He was the most kind person one can imagine outside the board."

Tactical style comparison has nothing to do with how kind a person is off the board.

@Arzi

"Prove that. Amazing, the so-called "scientist" gives absolute "truths" without a single proof, like you science22."

I wonder what the area of expertise of Science22 is if he is indeed a "scientist" and what university has given him/her a degree.

"Unfortunately, there seems to be a situation on the internet where Carlsen has cheated. What is the minimum cheating you can do and not get punished?"

Carlsen's cheating at Lichess is a proven fault that is as recent as the end of last year. Some people are depicting Carlsen as the shining armoured knight of anti-cheating and accept all his accusations against Niemann and depict Carlsen as a hero, but they never had one (!) considerable point about 29... Nc4 or Carlsen's cheating at Lichess.

"Btw, what should be done to these other GMs who were caught in the scam, or will eternal torment apply to only Niemann, Carlsen's winner?"

The others did not beat the demigod, so their cheating is "ok", I guess.

@Jack Nayer

"The truth of the matter is – in complete contradistinction to the always wonderfully insightful Kasparov and many others – that Carlsen should be applauded for his behavior."

He violated his contract with the Sinquefield Cup, he baselessly accused Niemann and put a bad light on the organizers of the Sinquefield Cup as well. I would not applaud that. Ever.

I agree with you that cheating is a problem. However, cheating in general can be approached as a topic without baseless accusations.

@Science22

"You are completely wrong. There has never been a top-class chess player in history who, after a flawless game in a rare opening, says that the reason he handled the opening so effectively was that by some miracle he had the opening on the analysis board in the morning. "
"Contrary to all the nonsense one can read here, Niemann played a game against Carlsen without factual errors."

We regularly see top players claiming that the novelty at move twenty-something or even later was preparation. You ignore 29... Nc4, a mistake committed by Niemann when you say the game was flawless. And, sorry to break it down to you, but GMs look at rare openings as well during their preparation.

"but nothing that at any time put Niemann in danger of losing the game (no regular mistakes)"

He was better in the whole game, but with 29... Nc4 he has given Carlsen a serious chance to draw. Not a losing mistake, but throws away the win.

"From a previous game from the opponent. When the opponent has never played such a game."

Malcolm Pein has answered this objection. Did you see his answer to that?

@Buford

I agree with Buford. Statistical analysis at best can be enough to raise suspicion and to start an investigation. But this is where its domain ends. In order to defame someone and punish someone we need hard evidence. It is the abuse of human rights to baselessly prosecute or even persecute someone, so, before someone is being attacked this vehemently, we need a fair trial.

@Daniel Miller

"It is disheartening to see the same people defending a known cheater"

I cannot speak for others, but I'm not defending Niemann. I do not really care about him. I'm defending the principle of "innocent until proven guilty". I disagree with the idea of condemning someone without a fair trial.

"It doesn't matter if he cheated against Carlsen."

I think the most important question is whether he cheated against Carlsen. If he didn't cheat against Carlsen, then Carlsen accused him baselessly about that game, desribing (after he claims he cheated "more") that he was not even concentrating.

@Jack Nayer

"As said, the facts don't count. Utter myths are being produced with utmost certainty. Does it make you think of something? It happened before in certain parts of the world. "

The objection Tauno presented was that it is ill practice to let the accuser decide whether his accusation is correct. Carlsen is partly owner of chess.com and while chess.com is free to present its analysis, there is a fair reason to think chess.com is biased here. So, we need a fair investigation, conducted by unbiased people to see whether the allegations can be proven. Facts do count, but we shouldn't make the mistake of putting the accuser into the position of judge & jury.

Chess.com said in the Niemann Report that they have caught hundreds of titled players (FMs and IMs) and dozens of GMs for cheating, and that 4 players in the FIDE top 100 have already confessed it.

Of course, this is only the tip of the iceberg. Who knows how many top 100 players they've caught who have not confessed? And if Chess.com did as thorough and biased study of all the top players as in the case of Niemann and published it, most of us would probably drop our jaws. But Chess.com should never do that. Never! It would be very bad for business, for chess and not least for the poor players themselves.

Personally, I think Chess.com is the perfect playground for testing and developing chess cheating software and keeping the organizer awake. And judging by the numbers, I'm not the only one. Chess is fun.

Jack Nayer:" But Carlsen is of course right: this stable has to be cleaned out. No one forces you to play chess. If you cheat, you are out. That’s how it should be. To hell with all these fakers."

Unfortunately, there seems to be a situation on the internet where Carlsen has cheated. What is the minimum cheating you can do and not get punished? Btw, what should be done to these other GMs who were caught in the scam, or will eternal torment apply to only Niemann, Carlsen's winner?

Can a champion player spit on his sponsors and tournament organizers while following his own rules?

It is amazing, the so-called scientist, science22, knows all about everything, but still fails to analyze him-/herself. Now he/she thinks he/she is an expert at chess. Nothing is so far-fetched idea.

Science22:"There has never been a top-class chess player in history who, after a flawless game in a rare opening, says that the reason he handled the opening so effectively was that by some miracle he had the opening on the analysis board in the morning"

Prove that. Amazing, the so-called "scientist" gives absolute "truths" without a single proof, like you science22.

As much as Nieman should be (and has been) punished for cheating in the past, we cannot ignore (and should probably commend) his courage and fighting attitude to change his life. Look what he did in the first round of the US championship ...

The truth of the matter is – in complete contradistinction to the always wonderfully insightful Kasparov and many others – that Carlsen should be applauded for his behavior. There are way too many cheaters. Play a game on the net. You are never sure who or what you are playing against. Email chess the same. OTB chess, who knows what is going on? These cheaters are a poison. Carlsen rightfully hates cheaters and obviously Niemann is one of them. It is to Carlsen’s great credit that all this dishonesty and filth is finally being discussed everywhere, completely in the open, in the main newspapers of the world, I'm certain not a few are shocked. Carlsen blew it wide open – the attitude of ‘shht, don’t talk about it’, is over. This is the best thing that happened to chess for a long time. A lot of people do not seem to like it and not only the cheaters. Many share responsibility here. But Carlsen is of course right: this stable has to be cleaned out. No one forces you to play chess. If you cheat, you are out. That’s how it should be. To hell with all these fakers.

Niemann defense team here make strict demands on us. We must not draw conclusions based on what we actually observe. Niemanns absolutely improbable precision in tactical variants. He is just a genius. Accept it.

Niemanns tactical style is compared to Tal. Nothing could be more wrong. He was the most kind person one can imagine outside the board. Tals intentionally played variations that were not correct but impossible to see across the board. Then he calculate better thorugh the jungle of variations. Niemann's tactical style is precisely the opposite. It is not based on incorrect variations. They are absolutely precise calculations as a computer can do, but which a human cannot quite see through. Which is why he cant explain the choices properly.

I have seen many world champions over the last 50 years at tournaments. Smyslov, Tal, Petrosian, Spassky, Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov, Carlsen. They all had a different personality. But no one who could not explain and motivate the choice of a variant after the game. Putting Niemann in this royal line is beyond my imagination.
.

@Magic_Knight You are completely wrong. There has never been a top-class chess player in history who, after a flawless game in a rare opening, says that the reason he handled the opening so effectively was that by some miracle he had the opening on the analysis board in the morning. From a previous game from the opponent. When the opponent has never played such a game.

Niemann has just demonstrated an extraordinary sharp memory in the variations on the board, and now he can't remember whose game he analyzed in the morning. It is deeply untrustworthy.

Contrary to all the nonsense one can read here, Niemann played a game against Carlsen without factual errors. There were nuances that the computer treated differently, but nothing that at any time put Niemann in danger of losing the game (no regular mistakes). In the endgame it was pressure football from start to finish, while he was busy with everything else than the position on the board.

Magic_Knight, like so many here, reads criticism of Niemann like the devil reads the Bible. So many strong players have lost serious ratings on that man because he is a professional con artist, and yet they jump to his defense. American logic. Fortunately, tournament organizers and sponsors do not do this. His cheating is so gross and his lies so unpolished that no sponsor outside the US will risk their good reputation going forward by having him on board.

Sooner or later it will come out how he technically cheats in live games, where his rating progress has been better than any other player in history.

Daniel Miller:"It is disheartening to see the same people defending a known cheater who has cheated multiple times and told us all he only cheated twice."

In fact it is disheartening to see some people do not see the difference between belief and fact, illegality and legality.

"Carlsen is part of Chess.com and since Carlsen doesn't want to play against Niemann, Chess.com had to find more evidence of cheating to get Niemann banned again."

As said, the facts don't count. Utter myths are being produced with utmost certainty. Does it make you think of something? It happened before in certain parts of the world.

@Pemoe6. It's pretty easy to explain. Carlsen is part of Chess.com and since Carlsen doesn't want to play against Niemann, Chess.com had to find more evidence of cheating to get Niemann banned again.

Can't understand this video. Ben claims that chess.com has investigated Niemann's games only now. But that is nonsense. He was already banned back in 2020 for cheating...

GM Ben Finegold on the Hans Niemann WSJ Article:
https://youtu.be/df6_63hLeok

Many good points from Big Ben. It would be nice if Chess.com could provide a comment. They have some explaining to do.

It is also very, very clear that Hans has a lot of issues, and has lost most of the credibility (his chats with Danny were very very revealing).

Okay, another "I told you so moment". So proud! Summary:
1. Chesscom never found (and has not found since!) evidence of ANY OTB cheating.
2. Magnus withdrew based on *feelings*.
3. Hans cheated more online (already mentioned by chesscom).
4. Chesscom banned him for life, basically based on the Magnus withdrawal and his 'interview explanation'.
5. Chesscom *insists* though they were not influenced by Magnus in any way - wowww. May be they were 'scared of the new part owner'?!

While I agree that he should be punished *much more*, chesscom *themselves* gave him a THIRD chance *and have found no online cheating from August 2020*... I think chesscom clearly wants all of the top GMs playing for them, cheats or not - and this is surprising that they suddenly act on just Hans and totally change their view suddenly. While that in itself is good what about the other 4 "top 100 GMs" at the very least?!

Again, "I told you so" - Magnus and chesscom are still sus! They both lack credibility in my view. [I also have to mention most of the presented data are 'really cherry picked' - 10-12 players comparisons and dates of 2 years or so; only one analysis covers a 9 year period; how rigorous is it, is left to the expert statisticians here... they have also *not* shared publicly how the 'Strength Score' is calculated - it could be a business secret/competitive advantage, but they are using it to publicly base all their findings.]

I have read the whole thing - just not all of the appendices that's all (have read the emails and chats).

I haven't checked all the data in the report, but assuming it is sound (possibly not an entirely safe assumption given Chess.com's known links to Carlsen?), it appears that Carlsen is correct in his belief that Niemann has cheated more often and more recently than he has admitted. It seems reasonable to ban him from any online tournaments where there is prize money at stake.

However, the report emphasises that there is no evidence that he has cheated OTB. Any top tournament should have certain anti-cheating measures (metal detectors etc.) in place as standard, regardless of whether there are suspicions against particular players. If Niemann passes those checks, there is no reason not to continue to invite him. OTB cheating requires a completely different method from online cheating (where all that's needed is to be running another device, or even just have another window open on the same device if the site doesn't have measures in place to detect that). Proof of one is not proof of the other.

OK report does cover OTB somewhat...need to wait for the FIDE report.

You only have to look to www.fide.com/ratings to see that Magnus lost 7.3 ELO in that game. ELO-rating never can be nullified.

@PatChessFan: read the report more carefully.

“Magnus handled it poorly but by withdrawing before the halfway point the games are nullified and he doesn't lose any rating points to Hans.”

That is not correct.