Totally apart from the "Is Hans cheating?" question, the game analysis in the second half of this video provides a super instructive insight into how strong players think!
It's actually not totally apart from the question. One of the incriminating pieces of "evidence" that people have against Hans is his relative lack of analytic depth as seen in his interviews. If his analysis was as quick and deep as Fabiano's, then people would have far less suspicion about his play.
Indeed, it seems like the conclusion is that in brief spurts Hans is the greatest player that ever lived and doesn't even know exactly how he does it Very impressive
Timestamps that's probably interesting and what they are about. From here, the video is about Magnus statement where they discuss every paragraph: 5:21 Magnus Carlsens statement, they talk about how they agree that cheating is a threat to the game now more than ever because of the big prize moneys and discussing how OTB cheating might be possible 11:43 Carlsen mentions cheat detection to be implemented in his statement and they give their opinion on that 13:12 FIDE did have quite serious security measures for the last candidate, but not before. Describing the scanners and how efficient they are, which Saint Louis Chess Club have not yet implemented 14:32 Opinion on delay on broadcasts during live matches 15:27 How do you adress matches being played with a big live audience, should it be allowed or not? 17:23 Chat asks: "What's to stop a spectator to go in and out and check their phone and go back?" 20:19 Discussing the part about Magnus statement where he accuses Niemann of having cheated more recently than what he has admitted 21:08 Discussion is interrupted to welcome Maurice 21:48 Maurices take on Magnus statement 24:04 Maurice doesn't believe Hans is the only one cheating in the top rankings, what about the others? 24:46 Should you be able the get another chance if you get caught cheating or be done? 26:26 Who oversees banning procedures? Chessdotcom, FIDE, etc? What if Chessdotcom thinks it's confirmed to be a cheat but not FIDE, what's the solution? 28:36 How is Magnus going to select who he's going to play against if he doesn't want to play with people who has been cheating before, and how will he know? 30:59 Is what Magnus is doing to Niemann without proof wrong? 35:34 Discussion about Magnus statement that he is limited to what he can say 39:24 Magnus had the impression that Niemann wasn't tense and wasn't fully concentrated during important moments, is it suspicious? 43:18 Sad times for chess, but can this lead to something positive in the future? 51:29 Maurice leaves the discussion, and they talk about what was most valid about Maurices opinions 54:53 When do you start monitor a player, and if that player has been banned before what is the correct decision to take? 57:00 They expect bigger statements in upcoming days 58:54 Comments about Andrew Tangs tweet, which apparantly was a friend of Niemann before allegations, and his solidarity with Magnus 1:02:36 Another tweet by Andrew Tang, where he basically says innocent until proven guilty Actual game analysis (total 4 games is going to be analysed): 1:04:35 First match analysis between Niemann (he is 16 years old at this time) and Soto. Apparantly all of the matches they selected are from a 2250 FIDE women chess player, whose name I couldn't comprehend. She made a video about them herself and claimed the evidence to be damning. They mention her somewhere around 1:03:44. 1:06:08 Move 8 is the first move by Niemann which is not considered theory in the first game 1:07:12 They change their mind and say it's theory. Qc7 is apparantly a really strong move because it momentarily gives a piece. Explained on 1:08:22 1:12:22 Conclusion of the first game, which in my opinion was a waste of time and 1:16:15 was apparantly the only mistake by Niemann, everything else was first line but they don't think anything is weird about it 1:17:10 Game number 2 between Niemann and Abhimanyu (Hans plays black) 1:19:20 Position is theory, but Caruana has an opinion of a move not being automatic 1:21:55 They are suspicious about previous 4 moves so they have now activated a super strong engine to see anything odd 1:24:27 Caruana proposes Be6 which is a horrible moving according to the engine 1:15:16 Niemanns next move that he played is the only move to keep an edge and is not natural according to them 1:26:10 Because g3 was played, the follow ups are not strange. They argue that g3 could be the cheating move, if he cheated 1:29:20 Rh7 is not obvious according to them 1:30:50 Pause here. Niemann didn't take the rook. What was the strongest move? 1:32:59 Another weird move, according to them 1:40:15 They don't understand this move 1:43:40 Niemanns thought process made sence 1:47:56 Pause from here. Can you spot the ONLY move that wins for Niemann? It took him 6 minutes 50 seconds to find this move, which they saw a few minutes later from this time stamp 1:50:03 Conclusion game 2 1:50:53 Game 3, Niemann vs Hjorvar (imo a waste of time to watch this game): 2:00:22 Literally the first remark they have about a move and it's on move 19. Caruana says that the move order is weird, not that the move itself is strong. He is reaching here imo 2:02:57 A move he doesn't think is automatic 2:08:34 Conclusion game 3 2:12:20 Game 4 Niemann vs Yoo 2:19:35 What move does black play? Pause here. This is the only move they found odd 2:25:05 Thought of game 4, only thing that was weird is that Niemann apparantly blitzed out his moves (according to chat) 2:26:07 Final thoughts after checking all 4 games 2:28:00 Discussing if all players could potentially have weird games 2:15:13 This is my opinion about the whole thing happening right now after having checked the whole video and following the latest. Hans is just weird, in a brilliant way.
I was thinking about Maurice's comments today for some reason and how he compared engine use in chess to doping scandals in other sports which come with temporary bans. I don't agree, there are already temporary bans for doping in chess with Modafinil and other cognitive drugs of that nature. Cheating using an engine in chess is more akin to match fixing in other sports which comes with a lifetime ban (see Daniel Köllerer in Tennis). Engine use in OTB tournament play should come with a lifetime ban. That is all. This is not a take on the current drama, just a commentary on what should happen when someone is caught red-handed cheating with an engine in an OTB tournament game.
Comparatively, I would love to hear more about or see the the game that Fabi had mentioned where he KNEW there was cheating going on. Would put some of the suspiciousness off these games into perspective.
I think you should examine games of Hans as doubleblind to prevent confirmation bias. Meaning you don't know if its Hans' game or some other youngster who we know doesn't cheat. Therefore you will analyze the game without bias and just objective thoughts. This might give better insight to if Hans is truly suspicious or not from a chess and not a statistical perspective from your super grandmaster strength.
best idea, this is used in smartphone world and it always make you realize how biases work insanely. Take 10 games, 2 are hans games and rest are others, see what is the most suspicious ones and see if hans even 'enter' in the sus category
Makes sense but might be incredibly time consuming? I suppose if you pick 8 games and 4 involve Hans that might be good. HOWEVER, you COULD NOT analyze games the GMs had seen before because they would simply recognize it.
@@harnageaa I am not sure what advantage this approach has. Every strong player will have an excellent game (for example fisher couldn’t have cheated, but has some near perfect games when analyzed by an engine). On the other hand counting the amount of excellent games and analyzing them can give more insights to a player. If no other player then hans has so many games that are close to perfection, then he has to be either a genius or a cheater.
Maurice Ashley may know chess, but he knows jack all about the law. Magnus isn't asking for permission, Magnus was saying "I have to say something because everyone demands it, but I can't say what I would like to without Niemann's permission. So if you are mad I am not saying more, don't blame me." There is only one reason he would need that permission. There would have to be some sort of legal or investigative procedure occurring that legally binds him from making a total statement without legal authorization from the other party. This isn't "the world of chess" it isn't even "new" situations like this have happened many times in many fields. As for Neimann being a cool customer like Erigaisi... Well his recent stream where he got beat 3-0 by Hikaru then threw his mic suggests that nah he aint that cool.
seeing a top player going over these games really adds perspective because he actually plays the same game and knows what you have to see / evaluate to reach certain decisions
Christian at 4:42 : You guys can try and guess who the special guest is gonna be Me who didn't watch it live and can just skip ahead: I am 4 parallel universes ahead of you
just to add a bit psychological speculation, cuz I have never seen it mentioned.. when Niemann talked about the chess elite and that it's so exclusive, him never being able to reach it (see his Hikaru rages) and him also being a chess nerd that kinda went all-in on his chess career should be very revealing. apart from the fact that his +90% accuracy streak is just ridiculous. he must be using stockfish , probably not the latest iteration and/or opting for 2nd best choice
I think we need to have some sort of debate between the statisticians, because, on the one hand, you often see the argument that smart cheaters are impossible to catch and Regan's algorithm is useless against them; but at the same time, you also see the argument that Danny Rensch's mysterious algorithm does work, and that analysing weird games and tournament performances can be proven to be more than just cherrypicking random luck and confirmation bias. We need more clarity on what statistical analysis can or cannot do, but we are limited by the fact that the supposed leaders on anti-cheating algorithms are private companies which don't reveal anything about their methods.
The thing about "random luck" is that randomness follows rules. Suppose I come out and factorize one of the RSA challenges large numbers and claim the prize. I tell the world that it was just luck. Months later I reveal the factorization of another of RSA's large numbers. I again tell the world that it was just luck. Do you live in the universe where I am lucky, or the one where I am lying about how I got them?
@@styleisaweapon I agree, but at this moment in time it seems to me that there is much disagreement on how to determine that. People have used different statistical methods to compare Hans games to other players, and some say they are unusual, others (like Regan) say they are not. I'm not well versed in the field, so I just want to hear the experts addressing those differences.
I say this as a professional statistician - I think one of the tricky things is that at the level of strong GMs, you don't need to cheat much to make a decisive difference. If someone is cheating every move, of course this is not that hard to detect. If someone is cheating on 1-2 moves a game, that may be enough to swing a game, even between Magnus and someone who is a very strong player but not really at his level (like Hans, or say some player who is a 2650 level player), but this is very hard to detect. Maybe there are statisticians working on approaches to address this, it is not my area of expertise, but just thinking as a statistician this is what strikes me as a very difficult aspect of the problem. The problem I have with some of the approaches I've seen is that they don't set out with a clear definition of what cheating should look like. They choose a game (or search lots of games, even) and find something that they determine is evidence of cheating. This is a version of what statisticians call "p-hacking" - essentially you don't have a clear question in mind, you dig through data looking for an answer and then back-formulate your question to fit it. Someone who a priori outlines an approach and what would constitute evidence of cheating and then pursues that analysis would generate a much more useful and interpretable result. This also requires a clear definition of what type of cheating you think Hans is doing (e.g. is he cheating every game? one or two moves in big games? etc.), which I realize is hard. I'm not saying Hans isn't cheating, he could be, but a lot of the popular lines of argument are not sound.
I agree we need deep statistical analysis of Niemann as the French player Yosha done compare to what the Indian players like Gukesh and Erigaisi done over the past three years and how Arjun done in the online final game
@@Mattefuller The definition of cheating in this sort of statistical analysis is not well-defined because you can cheat in many different ways and all of them accomplish the same goal, that is, winning the game. The other important aspect is that playing with the help of an engine gives you perfect information, so the cheater can always choose any move, even if it is suboptimal, provided it gives them sufficient advantage to win. Given plausible deniability, it is not possible to detect very sophisticated cheaters that only need 2 or 3 moves per game. However, you can catch unsophisticated cheaters by looking at outliers. You certainly need to start somewhere, and this is often done in exploratory data analysis. As long as you keep track of your procedure and maintain the same level of consistency with your initial choices, you can always correct for multiple comparison. If after such correction, you still have extremely small probability measures, you have to conclude that foul play was more likely to occur. By the way, these games were not isolated incidents. In fact, according to the calculation for Niemann's games since November 2019, he has been playing at 2850 level and correlation measures for several back to back tournaments show very unlikely results.
So according to Ashley if there's a statistical evidence like 100% accurate moves in consecutive tournaments only then should a player be banned. But what if the cheater has assistance in only critical moments, maybe once or twice in a game? Then there will be no statistical evidence. So the cheater should get a pass? This will encourage more and more cheaters considering the stakes.
@@cooloutac there should be a crackdown against any sort of cheating be it online or offline. The fact that he was young and naive and cheated online shouldn't give him a pass. Remember Magnus, Fabi all were young at one point but they held their integrity and did not cheat.
The video referenced here actually describes such correlation measures at 100% with engines for several tournaments in a row, so it is very convenient that Maurice asked for that bit of statistical evidence.
Prevention is the best cure. There’s a lot of ways to make it harder to cheat, and the punishments for cheating could be harsher. The system needs to be reformed.
For a game as complicated as chess I don't think there should be as much of a burden of proof on accusers; it's not something that can be simply and irrefutably proven by a blood test after all. I'm with Ben Finegold who says that cheating should be discussed in an open forum. The alternative is what we've had, where cheating has been an elephant in chess' room for the past 5-10 years and as Fabi said, you make an accusation through 'proper channels' and it's tucked away in a draw and never spoken of again.
@@cooloutac I think there needs to be a structured system for dealing with accusations, something like 1. A player is accused, 2. Some sort of investigation protocol is followed in an entirely transparent manner, 3. All findings are published in some kind of newsletter along with some kind of decision or statement. I also think that the accusations should be factored based on the situation, i.e. all accusations should be investigated but things like the accuser being an arbiter, an organiser, a chess website, the World Champion, and/or multiple people, should be factored higher. The biggest factor to the investigation should be if the accused is already a proven cheater. FIDE could do this instead of doing nothing like they have been. If you really cared about poor Hans you'd want some kind of system like this in place, right?
I generally agree with your statement but some details need to be ironed out, for example, if the accusations are public, then what happens to the player during the course of the investigation? Chess investigation may take a pretty long time, does he get to play when they are proceeding? If he does, wouldn’t that affect the mental state and thus the play of any opponents he faces? Also, what happens when the algorithm is wrong? Hard evidence is extremely hard to come by as you said, which means we have to rely on statistics, but that has a pretty big grey area and a margin of error. The biggest problem in all of this is not how transparent or public accusations should be, the problem is there is no reliable method of investigation once an accusation has been made.
A great point that Magnus couldn't have just handled things internally and quietly, and that he had to take visible action. Putting aside chess specifically, let alone Hans, and look at sports in general. These kinds of discussions have to be in the open, because at the end of the day, a lot of the burden goes on the organizers, too. Whenever there's a sport that doesn't have strong anti-doping testing, regardless of what the rules are, the institutions of the sport are also to blame if there's a lot of steroid use. If the authorities within a sport mostly turn a blind eye to cheating, that's as good as permission to some number of players. The existential threat to a sport isn't just one cheater--it's a governing body that lets it fester.
The problem with Hans is the number of suspicious events and situations he has added to the ones that he already admitted to cheating. As to why Magnus withdrew after the match with Hans, imagine you are playing against a suspicious player, who acts suspiciously during the game and then gives an interview as if he has an ELO of 2000 and claims he coincidently analyzed this opening just hours before the game mentioning a game and opening that Magnus never played. Now, this still does not prove anything but I can understand Magnus' reaction.
I don't know that any of you will see this, but if so, I would just like to suggest maybe raising the general volume of the podcast a bit. I listen to the podcast on the way to / at work & I often struggle to hear either of you speak over even my air conditioning running at full blast, with my speakers on maximum volume, and they're quite loud speakers. Lovely podcast that I'll continue watching regardless, would just love to be able to hear it a tad more clearly
Fabi gives leeway due to the fact that most of the moves played vs Soto were natural. The problem is that multiple moves in each position can be considered natural. And Hans Consistently chose the engines #1 move. Lets say in a 25 move game there are an average of three natural looking moves(considered by GM's) per move (position). Hans consistently chose the natural move (Engine #1) out of the 3 possible natural moves per position every single time. This is why the fact that the moves can be considered natural should not take away from this games oddity.
Fabi is hands down the most reasonable person in the chess world. Thank god for someone influential with a much more grounded and nuanced view of things. 🙏
I don't know what people mean when they say they need "proof" players are cheating. I mean, they've convicted so-called murderers on circumstantial evidence alone, like DNA or hair at certain location, or a "smoking gun" used in the fatal act even though there were no witnesses who saw the gun being used. So what would be classified as sufficient evidence for someone to be found cheating? Would finding a tiny earpiece, buzzing device or modified shoes in their hotel room constitute "guilty of cheating" or is there a need for more to qualify this?
Although Fabi is a bit biased as he mentioned before, he is aware of that and tries not to jump to conclusions and keeps his objectivity. I really respect that, great sign of intelligence.
Leaving the responsability of judging who is guilty of cheating or who is not to computers gives me no hope for the future. It's a world controlled by algorithms that are not perfect and never will. Don't remove the human part for any decision.
I normally like Maurice Ashley but he really was showing so much bias in this intervju. The point he is making about not having hard proof and even that the hard proof has to be so concrete that it is not refutable is really bad. In other words you might say that it is ok to cheat abit as long as you dont get caught and dont look like a engine doing so. It is REALLY hard to get concret evidence. We are talking about really smart people with really smart helpers that know how to hide it.
Yes, good point! Hate the insanely high bar he set there - there is such a thing as intuition. I heard there was a player who was never caught officially, but all the players refused to play him and so he just disappeared. That happens I think more than we know.
Totally agree with Caruana on the phone thing. There is NO WAY that ANY phones should be in the playing area. Should also not allow the players to have visual on non-participants. Also, electronically shielded playing area would be good to see.
I'm only 30 minutes into the video and I'm enjoying it, but I think we're looking at it too much in a vacuum, let's not forget Levon and Alireza both said he plays strange moves that they dont understand as well and Hans couldn't back up his positioning and reasoning in the post game analysis. Again I know these are all just circumstantial, but it definitely doesn't help Hans' case
@@cooloutac Dude you're defending Hans on every post but don't know what ur talking about. Alireza was unbanned a few days after once they knew it was him, nothing to do with cheating.
i mean if you're scared that the players have communication devices that are not detected by the wands then having the live audience hand in their phone cannot be the solution.
As Fabi suggests, it would be really interesting, if you guys analized some other super GM matches in similar fashion. Do other GMs (like Magnus) have wins with moves where its really hard to understand how they find the idea or how quicky they play?
I don't think it would fair to look at any super GMs games. Fabi knows them all. He knows every game Magnus ever played cause that's how you do prepare for championship match. Maybe they can look at other juniors like Alireza, Arjun, Pragg, Keymer.
Good idea! They should definitely do as many as they can. Just get a good spread of GMs. Players from different periods, with different styles, different ages etc I would love to see that!
Great podcast. But having GM Maurice Ashley comment was the highlight of the show, no fluff no BS just simple truth, once again great job guys is the only channel my notifications are on.
Hi - thank you for putting together this podcast! I had stopped playing chess for many years and only got back into spectating chess when the pandemic had started. I have enjoyed the games at the high-level competitions and I would like to enjoy watching these games without the cloud of cheating hanging over it. In sports, there is WADA that handles cheating in sports - so it is much easier to have a more coordinated ways of detecting and suspending athletes for cheating. As there is a lack of a central anti-cheating body in chess, I think a practical way going forward is to have the players self-declare their past cheating episodes on various platforms for up to say five years. Then, it will be up to the organizers to determine whether they still wish to let the player participate in the tournament if the player declared he had multiple recent cheating episodes. In the event that the player makes a false declaration, the organizers may check with the other platforms and then forfeit the player's games, etc.
Dlugy is Hans's mentor. Dlugy is a professional cheater. Hans has a history of cheating online. Dlugy knows what cheat detection takes into consideration. Dlugy knows what moves to transmit to avoid detection. In conclusion, the games look weird because they are weird. They're ultra cherry picked. The cheating speaks for itself.
You'd have to at least build a hypothesis of how it could have happened. You'd have to include occasions where this happened, in the method you think. Just saying "you could have done it, so you did it" is an extremely fallacious argument. We, as a chess community, should spend more time building these hypotheses rather than gathering more circunstancial evidence. That's why lawyers " build a case" in which many aspects are inspected. History is certainly one dimension but not enough... Motivation, opportunity, etc.. Are all equally important facets
@@Canonall Like many of the parties involved have stated, cheating over the board is easy and can be done in a number of different ways using different evolving methods. If you have been cheating since age 12, you have 7 years of experience at least. Imagine if you were IM level and dedicated 7 years to gathering data about how to cheat and avoid detection rather than on improving your game, or even while doing so (though it is hard to imagine how one could really do both). He's a reclusive person, obviously Magnus would not name drop Dlugy randomly, and if Dlugy and Hans are spending all their time together in seclusion, I doubt they are improving at chess together but rather enabling each others cheating, possibly even being the ones relaying the moves to each other using the same method. I think we should be analyzing the correlation between Hans' and Dlugy's winning games, as well as the subset of winning OTB games Hans played recently against top opponents. This might give some insight into methodology.
@@Canonall lawyers are trying to build a case because they are working in a court of law with well-defined standards of evidence, hearsay exceptions, etc etc. We're just chess fans trying to make sense of what's going on and discussing it. We don't need to aim for that level of rigor.
@@woodandwandco saying cheating is easy without actually making even 1 guess of how it could have happened is worth nothing. If it's so easy we should be swimming in ideas. Until now all we heard was, taking a cellphone to the toilet and anal beads. None of which would make sense in Hans case. So if it's so easy we'd have no issue in coming up with possibilities.
If Fabi removed his glasses, cut his hair, and started cracking jokes--I would not be surprised if he revealed himself to be Andrew Schulz in disguise.
@@lolmanyeah1 It's already been said before by top GM's that they dont need to know every variation. .They only need to know there's a move to be found, and that will be enough for them to find it.
@@Corteum a top gm doesn't need to be told a move can be found though. They can find it without help lmao. Again, some guy putting on glasses in an extremely complex position isn't going to do a thing.
@@Corteum even top GM's don't think like computers. So you can't assume they would even find the computer move just because they are a gm. Computers are 1000 points stronger than GM's. Yeah I know some gm said it and you take everything a gm says as gospel, but I'm here to show you the value of critical thinking.
@@lolmanyeah1 _"a top gm doesn't need to be told a move can be found though."_ Sure, that's why top GM dont play to the level of computers lol They make mistakes (computers dont).
more like bashing into magnus by saying he might give chess a bad reputation for certain billionaires bcs they care about sponsors and shit and 'anal beads + Chess' is not something sponsors are interested into associating. Maurice is old and he always think more in grand scheme of things and not particularly
Great pod! One other concern regarding live spectators - seems like a spectator with an earpiece is a potential risk. The players get all the scans but if the spectator has the signaling device that would remain undetected
As a chess outsider who is interested in how professionals cheat, the reason I got interested in this whole mess specifically because of Hans' bizarre losses to much lower rated players in the recent blitz tournament. His match with Quparadze where he literally made the only move that could put him in checkmate and the game with Shamsiddin where he made a move so baffling his opponent had to basically take two minutes in a blitz game to try and figure out what was happening come to mind. The intrigue is less that he sometimes plays perfect games (which is suspicious) but more that paired with the fact he sometimes plays horrendous games against lower ranked opponents
I'm just an amateur player who doesn't use any engines even for preparation or analysis. Still I got to see up close how seductive it is to cheat, to some people at least. I invited a former colleague to a friendly game on lichess. As a beginner he didn't play very well at first, and I beat him easily three times while hanging pieces here and there, just to keep the game alive and hoping he would pick up something on the way. His fourth game was already better, but then in the fifth game (this is within a matter of weeks) he totally destroyed me, every move was just brilliant and soon I was completely lost. I knew he was using an engine but when hinting to the fact he simply changed the subject. This showed me that sometimes people desire to win so badly that they are willing to cheat, pretending it was them who won instead of a computer. It was a weird experience but it did teach me something about human nature.
So, is Hans's cheating very sophisticated (1-2 moves per game and/or evaluation at some points) or is it blatant (top moves all the way)? If it's the latter, why is there still no statistical evidence, if it's the former what's the point in looking at this biased set of games? Even in this format, it might have better to give Fabi a random sample of top games by Arjun, Keymer, Gukesh and Hans etc and ask to pick the weirdest ones.
He did check Arjun and Gukesh games and in more details Arjun games that's why he was saying the classical chess which Arjun in past 1- 1.5 years is playing is very good
"I think humans in general are really bad at reading body language" - well said, Fabi! There are whole books written on this topic, my favorite would be "Talking to Strangers" by Gladwell. It's too hard to read people we don't know. Maurice's point on the confirmation bias is well put. "Blink" by Gladwell is another great book on that whole concept. People tend to double down on their mistaken presumptions. So accusing Hans of cheating on a weird feeling/read of Hans cannot be enough to end Hans' career. Bobby Fischer was a bit "weird" too in interviews and would say weird things like in the Dragon Sicilian "after this move, Black can just resign", and it's move 10 maybe 12 of a 40-move game. I'm not good enough at chess to understand Bobby's comment/analysis. Maybe that's how it is for Hans? Hans could just be a "weird" guy when he plays over the board.
How can you say that you don't detect any cheating in Hans' Sinqfield games and then also say that all a strong GM needs is a hint? I'm not saying that he cheated but if you're expecting to see a bunch of computer moves then you'll not catch anyone at the top level.
What they can do is make it theoretically not possible. The problem is its currently security theater. You think the Saint Louis Chess Club has a crack security team with professional electronics detection equipment? All it takes is a tiny receiver and an accomplice when the event is broadcast live, and when all you need is a True or False signal a receiver can be made to be extremely difficult to detect, well beyond off-the-shelf security theater noise maker wands.
True dat, although I would add I really don't think you can fool a lot of top-level players for long when discussing ideas and analyzing games. It's no accident that all 3 of Nepo, Fabi and Magnus seem to think there's something fishy here, and who knows how many more share that opinion in private.
@@cooloutac "no other GM" *that you know of*. Understandably not everyone's willing to engage in public shenanigans. Ivanov was never "proven" to be cheating either but judging by what happened after being accused, it's pretty fair to conclude he had been cheating. It will be more or less the same with Niemann if he's cheating, although he also is a stronger player so as the OP says he would need less to cheat and get away with it, just like most true-strength GMs would. If he's clean, it should become apparent if he sustains these kinds of OTB performances under stricter measures and for a longer period. At this level, you just cannot fool everyone for a long time. If multiple top-level GMs are seriously suspecting someone's an imposter based on his play and way he discusses and analyzes ideas (not to mention proven cheating history), taking them seriously is less foolish than waiting for the guy to get caught red-handed OTB to do so.
Instead of a specific time delay, I propose having a move delay. That greatly simplifies things and prevents cheating. A move isn't broadcast until the next opponent's move is made.
I am enjoying your videos quite allot. The cadence you both have is awesome and the interview you did was amazing! Audio ballance was a bit daft in this video though :D
1:36:40 this is why I love Fabi. Keeps bringing Christian back to reality and remains logical. As humans we WANT to find the dirt because drama is fun for us and because we feel like little detectives. But love how Fabi is all about the truth and constantly keeps Christian logical and honest.
The issue however is that Fabiana isn't being logical. If every suspicion he has is being bookmarked by benefits of doubt, then there's no reason to analyse. The conclusion was set beforehand so there's no objectivity. He's a 2800 GM who has trouble keeping up with Han's chess. That's crazy.
Magnus has decided, rightfully or wrongfully, that Hans is going to be the Barry Bonds of the online chess cheating era. It's an era that needed to end. There need to be harsh, strict penalties for cheating (2 yr bands under 18, 2nd penalty is lifetime ban) and to disclose the names of ALL online cheaters so far (a la Mitchell Report in baseball). There also needs to be better prevention and detection methods but the exposure of all names now would go a long way in deterring future cheating
@@KenDanieli he does but so do so many others. It's kinda messed up to have one scape goat, unless you're going to call everyone else out. That was probably the biggest issue I had with Fabi's comments this video, wanting to give a pass to those previously caught is not cool when you hang Hans like this
Woah that ADCC shirt! That takes me back. I used to have the old DVD w/e.g. the Arona/{Ortiz, Belfort, JJM} matches on it from Abu Dhabi in 2001-2003. XD
During the analysis, is it really possible for Hans, who was only 15 or 16 y/o at the time to come up with impressive and unnatural moves, which is either 1st or 2nd choice for a chess engine consistently? I’m asking.
I don’t think it was just the loss… I think Hans’ arrogance in his interviews, specifically the interview where Hans said that Magnus must feel bad for losing to him, motivated Magnus to do this. This is just my pure speculation but I hallucinate it was part of the decision to withdraw.
@@cooloutac EXACTLY! He’s like that arrogant guy in the movie IP Man who comes into town and tries to kick the crap out of all the masters. (Or every arrogant guy in any kung fu movie). He’ll grow out of it :)
He beat him as well in one game of another tournament and made a comment "the chess speaks for itself" which may have annoyed him. carlsen beat him in subsequent games of the same tournament. He may have got under Carlsens skin in that tourny for winning the 1 game and for making the comment.
There were people in the live chat calling Magnus a cheater. Googled it, found nothing. His wikipedia entry doesn't have the word "cheat" in it until the final paragraph, about this scandal. What am I missing?
at 45:06 the dude top right says scanning equipment was trash. back at 14:08 he says its not trash but serious high tech scanners that cost a lot. interesting that he says completely opposite things at two points.
@@Kodaira023 I may have. Can u explain what you mean? I made an assumption based on what you said and did a google search and it apparently they and you are reffering to a tournament called candidates tournament. It would be helpful if they were more explicit and also would be helpful if you were. the word candidates is generic and I took it to mean they were more security measures for the last candidates (players) in the sinquefield (because of the accusation) then there were for earlier candidates (players) prior to the accusation. I remember seeing extra wanding showed in a video and thought they said that extra wanding happened due to the accusation and thought that was what he was referrencing. it would be easier to follow if they weren't using a abbreviating a tournament reference that also applies in a more generic way to players in any tournament.
@@estebanelguapo the candidates is a tournament. It determines who challenges the world champion for the title. The sinquefield cup is a different tournament held at the Saint louis chess club, this is the tournament Magnus dropped out from. Even if they later stepped up security there at Sinquefield, Fabi mentioned the scanners they used at Saint Louis were trash compared to what's available ( for example compared to the scanners used in the candidates 2021 and 2022 tournament)
Well, Magnus claims that, if Hans gives permission, Magnus can give something more solid in the way of proof. I'll be very interested to see if Hans gives permission.
Great commentary and reflections from Fabi but, respectfullly, Christian should stop interrupting Fabi, especialy when he is about to make an important point. For example, at around 2:26:09 Fabi attempts a meta observation beginning "... Ok, now that we've seen a bunch of games, the only thing you can really conclude is that he does have games that look suspicious but it's a..." and before Fabi can finish the thought, Christian cuts him off with , "Ok, Ok, just one second, look at the game..." So annoying!
Someone give poor fabi a mic stand.
The mic must be vibrating the correct analysis to his hand
@@dav3yify or, this must be his punishment for betraying eric rosen.
@@bongclown9302 wym
No, it makes it seem like hes holding a bong and talking about chess shit
@@Merc49 He promised Eric he would play the Stafford Gambit in a titled Tuesday. But he decided against it at the last minute.
"The only viable deterrent for Chess cheating is public execution by way of crucifixion" -Yasser Seirawan (2022)
Hes right, hes always right.
We wont know until we try
I dont think he actually said that
@@flipstigman6482 He's said it many times...even before the Hans Controversy...sometimes he'll say it just randomly while commentating...its scary
@@wwd5149 Its absolutely outrageous.
This feels like chess-wokism
Developing new levels of respect for Fabiano each time I see him.
Yeah same here!!
It's is the first game played by an alien I've ever seen, really impressive
Totally apart from the "Is Hans cheating?" question, the game analysis in the second half of this video provides a super instructive insight into how strong players think!
It's actually not totally apart from the question. One of the incriminating pieces of "evidence" that people have against Hans is his relative lack of analytic depth as seen in his interviews. If his analysis was as quick and deep as Fabiano's, then people would have far less suspicion about his play.
thats why i am here.
There is no question after analize.
Indeed, it seems like the conclusion is that in brief spurts Hans is the greatest player that ever lived and doesn't even know exactly how he does it
Very impressive
Hans is an impulsive and intuitive attacking player;he takes risks and doesn't always win, either.
When Fabi thinks that some of the moves are beyond his level ... you know that something is up!
He his analysis on interview its different aginst he his in tournament i mean focused
@@prathameshlotake1318 🥴🥴🥴🥴🥴🤯🤯
I'm so glad that Fabiano is doing this. It's amazing to hear him talk sensibly about different topics and especially about chess.
Please keep it up🙌
2844 peak rated fabi struggling to analyze endgame of abhimanyu's game with hans was a masterful real life demonstration of the power of stockfish
True. But then again, even other 3200+ engines struggle to understand stockfish. It's scary stuff
Han's "weird" endgame moves were not on the engine's moves. They were bad moves.
@@nomoreblitz really? Isn't that the game where he had 100 percent correlation with engine
*middlegame
That was an incredible game
Timestamps that's probably interesting and what they are about. From here, the video is about Magnus statement where they discuss every paragraph:
5:21 Magnus Carlsens statement, they talk about how they agree that cheating is a threat to the game now more than ever because of the big prize moneys and discussing how OTB cheating might be possible
11:43 Carlsen mentions cheat detection to be implemented in his statement and they give their opinion on that
13:12 FIDE did have quite serious security measures for the last candidate, but not before. Describing the scanners and how efficient they are, which Saint Louis Chess Club have not yet implemented
14:32 Opinion on delay on broadcasts during live matches
15:27 How do you adress matches being played with a big live audience, should it be allowed or not?
17:23 Chat asks: "What's to stop a spectator to go in and out and check their phone and go back?"
20:19 Discussing the part about Magnus statement where he accuses Niemann of having cheated more recently than what he has admitted
21:08 Discussion is interrupted to welcome Maurice
21:48 Maurices take on Magnus statement
24:04 Maurice doesn't believe Hans is the only one cheating in the top rankings, what about the others?
24:46 Should you be able the get another chance if you get caught cheating or be done?
26:26 Who oversees banning procedures? Chessdotcom, FIDE, etc? What if Chessdotcom thinks it's confirmed to be a cheat but not FIDE, what's the solution?
28:36 How is Magnus going to select who he's going to play against if he doesn't want to play with people who has been cheating before, and how will he know?
30:59 Is what Magnus is doing to Niemann without proof wrong?
35:34 Discussion about Magnus statement that he is limited to what he can say
39:24 Magnus had the impression that Niemann wasn't tense and wasn't fully concentrated during important moments, is it suspicious?
43:18 Sad times for chess, but can this lead to something positive in the future?
51:29 Maurice leaves the discussion, and they talk about what was most valid about Maurices opinions
54:53 When do you start monitor a player, and if that player has been banned before what is the correct decision to take?
57:00 They expect bigger statements in upcoming days
58:54 Comments about Andrew Tangs tweet, which apparantly was a friend of Niemann before allegations, and his solidarity with Magnus
1:02:36 Another tweet by Andrew Tang, where he basically says innocent until proven guilty
Actual game analysis (total 4 games is going to be analysed):
1:04:35 First match analysis between Niemann (he is 16 years old at this time) and Soto. Apparantly all of the matches they selected are from a 2250 FIDE women chess player, whose name I couldn't comprehend. She made a video about them herself and claimed the evidence to be damning. They mention her somewhere around 1:03:44.
1:06:08 Move 8 is the first move by Niemann which is not considered theory in the first game
1:07:12 They change their mind and say it's theory. Qc7 is apparantly a really strong move because it momentarily gives a piece. Explained on 1:08:22
1:12:22 Conclusion of the first game, which in my opinion was a waste of time and 1:16:15 was apparantly the only mistake by Niemann, everything else was first line but they don't think anything is weird about it
1:17:10 Game number 2 between Niemann and Abhimanyu (Hans plays black)
1:19:20 Position is theory, but Caruana has an opinion of a move not being automatic
1:21:55 They are suspicious about previous 4 moves so they have now activated a super strong engine to see anything odd
1:24:27 Caruana proposes Be6 which is a horrible moving according to the engine
1:15:16 Niemanns next move that he played is the only move to keep an edge and is not natural according to them
1:26:10 Because g3 was played, the follow ups are not strange. They argue that g3 could be the cheating move, if he cheated
1:29:20 Rh7 is not obvious according to them
1:30:50 Pause here. Niemann didn't take the rook. What was the strongest move?
1:32:59 Another weird move, according to them
1:40:15 They don't understand this move
1:43:40 Niemanns thought process made sence
1:47:56 Pause from here. Can you spot the ONLY move that wins for Niemann? It took him 6 minutes 50 seconds to find this move, which they saw a few minutes later from this time stamp
1:50:03 Conclusion game 2
1:50:53 Game 3, Niemann vs Hjorvar (imo a waste of time to watch this game):
2:00:22 Literally the first remark they have about a move and it's on move 19. Caruana says that the move order is weird, not that the move itself is strong. He is reaching here imo
2:02:57 A move he doesn't think is automatic
2:08:34 Conclusion game 3
2:12:20 Game 4 Niemann vs Yoo
2:19:35 What move does black play? Pause here. This is the only move they found odd
2:25:05 Thought of game 4, only thing that was weird is that Niemann apparantly blitzed out his moves (according to chat)
2:26:07 Final thoughts after checking all 4 games
2:28:00 Discussing if all players could potentially have weird games
2:15:13 This is my opinion about the whole thing happening right now after having checked the whole video and following the latest. Hans is just weird, in a brilliant way.
Very helpful, thanks.
Here's your award for such great comment with timestamps :)
🏆
How is this not the top comment?
omg best comment by far
You missed out and misinterpreted some very important timestamps in the actual games. You need to pay attention to what Fabiano is saying.
I was thinking about Maurice's comments today for some reason and how he compared engine use in chess to doping scandals in other sports which come with temporary bans. I don't agree, there are already temporary bans for doping in chess with Modafinil and other cognitive drugs of that nature. Cheating using an engine in chess is more akin to match fixing in other sports which comes with a lifetime ban (see Daniel Köllerer in Tennis). Engine use in OTB tournament play should come with a lifetime ban. That is all. This is not a take on the current drama, just a commentary on what should happen when someone is caught red-handed cheating with an engine in an OTB tournament game.
Great video! I love hearing Fabi’s thoughts on positions!
And his thoughts on chess, too!
Fries
Actually Fabi said, that you always should go for f6.
You're a good man Charlie Brown
@1:35:10 Fabi thanking chat for pointing out c6 protects d5...LOL too funny!
Stockfish was in chat
That was hilarious!!
ya that was funny...fabi must think chat is full of idiots
Comparatively, I would love to hear more about or see the the game that Fabi had mentioned where he KNEW there was cheating going on. Would put some of the suspiciousness off these games into perspective.
Sure, but he would then say who it was, or people would atleast find it. Thus defemation etc
Hearing Fabi say “what the fuck” is so funny
timestamp?
@@tbhideciaintshowingup 1:32:23 "Playing the first line in any sort of complicated game... is pretty fucking weird."
@@tbhideciaintshowingup 1:34:13 "Rh6 is what the fuck? I mean it allows Nd5. How can you play Rh6?"
1:34:15
@@Lol-qy1dy it's a word. Who cares?
Big fan of the game analysis, would love to see more stuff like it in the future (not just about potential cheaters).
I think you should examine games of Hans as doubleblind to prevent confirmation bias. Meaning you don't know if its Hans' game or some other youngster who we know doesn't cheat. Therefore you will analyze the game without bias and just objective thoughts. This might give better insight to if Hans is truly suspicious or not from a chess and not a statistical perspective from your super grandmaster strength.
best idea, this is used in smartphone world and it always make you realize how biases work insanely.
Take 10 games, 2 are hans games and rest are others, see what is the most suspicious ones and see if hans even 'enter' in the sus category
@@harnageaa Nooooow we're talking!!🔔 👏 👏
How do you know that the other youngster doesn’t cheat?
Makes sense but might be incredibly time consuming? I suppose if you pick 8 games and 4 involve Hans that might be good. HOWEVER, you COULD NOT analyze games the GMs had seen before because they would simply recognize it.
@@harnageaa I am not sure what advantage this approach has. Every strong player will have an excellent game (for example fisher couldn’t have cheated, but has some near perfect games when analyzed by an engine). On the other hand counting the amount of excellent games and analyzing them can give more insights to a player. If no other player then hans has so many games that are close to perfection, then he has to be either a genius or a cheater.
Maurice Ashley may know chess, but he knows jack all about the law.
Magnus isn't asking for permission, Magnus was saying "I have to say something because everyone demands it, but I can't say what I would like to without Niemann's permission. So if you are mad I am not saying more, don't blame me." There is only one reason he would need that permission. There would have to be some sort of legal or investigative procedure occurring that legally binds him from making a total statement without legal authorization from the other party. This isn't "the world of chess" it isn't even "new" situations like this have happened many times in many fields.
As for Neimann being a cool customer like Erigaisi... Well his recent stream where he got beat 3-0 by Hikaru then threw his mic suggests that nah he aint that cool.
Could you guys add chapters or time stamps so it’s easier to scroll through the video?
This
No. You're not that busy or important.
No way, Cristian is too busy with martial arts...
10k subs is not enough to afford
In time
seeing a top player going over these games really adds perspective because he actually plays the same game and knows what you have to see / evaluate to reach certain decisions
Since these podcasts have begun, Fabi has become my favorite chess pro!
Christian at 4:42 : You guys can try and guess who the special guest is gonna be
Me who didn't watch it live and can just skip ahead: I am 4 parallel universes ahead of you
or just read the description
just to add a bit psychological speculation, cuz I have never seen it mentioned.. when Niemann talked about the chess elite and that it's so exclusive, him never being able to reach it (see his Hikaru rages) and him also being a chess nerd that kinda went all-in on his chess career should be very revealing. apart from the fact that his +90% accuracy streak is just ridiculous. he must be using stockfish , probably not the latest iteration and/or opting for 2nd best choice
Weirdly enough, that was very instructive I could listen Fabiano analysis 24/7
I think we need to have some sort of debate between the statisticians, because, on the one hand, you often see the argument that smart cheaters are impossible to catch and Regan's algorithm is useless against them; but at the same time, you also see the argument that Danny Rensch's mysterious algorithm does work, and that analysing weird games and tournament performances can be proven to be more than just cherrypicking random luck and confirmation bias. We need more clarity on what statistical analysis can or cannot do, but we are limited by the fact that the supposed leaders on anti-cheating algorithms are private companies which don't reveal anything about their methods.
The thing about "random luck" is that randomness follows rules. Suppose I come out and factorize one of the RSA challenges large numbers and claim the prize. I tell the world that it was just luck. Months later I reveal the factorization of another of RSA's large numbers. I again tell the world that it was just luck. Do you live in the universe where I am lucky, or the one where I am lying about how I got them?
@@styleisaweapon I agree, but at this moment in time it seems to me that there is much disagreement on how to determine that. People have used different statistical methods to compare Hans games to other players, and some say they are unusual, others (like Regan) say they are not. I'm not well versed in the field, so I just want to hear the experts addressing those differences.
I say this as a professional statistician - I think one of the tricky things is that at the level of strong GMs, you don't need to cheat much to make a decisive difference. If someone is cheating every move, of course this is not that hard to detect. If someone is cheating on 1-2 moves a game, that may be enough to swing a game, even between Magnus and someone who is a very strong player but not really at his level (like Hans, or say some player who is a 2650 level player), but this is very hard to detect. Maybe there are statisticians working on approaches to address this, it is not my area of expertise, but just thinking as a statistician this is what strikes me as a very difficult aspect of the problem.
The problem I have with some of the approaches I've seen is that they don't set out with a clear definition of what cheating should look like. They choose a game (or search lots of games, even) and find something that they determine is evidence of cheating. This is a version of what statisticians call "p-hacking" - essentially you don't have a clear question in mind, you dig through data looking for an answer and then back-formulate your question to fit it. Someone who a priori outlines an approach and what would constitute evidence of cheating and then pursues that analysis would generate a much more useful and interpretable result. This also requires a clear definition of what type of cheating you think Hans is doing (e.g. is he cheating every game? one or two moves in big games? etc.), which I realize is hard.
I'm not saying Hans isn't cheating, he could be, but a lot of the popular lines of argument are not sound.
I agree we need deep statistical analysis of Niemann as the French player Yosha done compare to what the Indian players like Gukesh and Erigaisi done over the past three years and how Arjun done in the online final game
@@Mattefuller The definition of cheating in this sort of statistical analysis is not well-defined because you can cheat in many different ways and all of them accomplish the same goal, that is, winning the game. The other important aspect is that playing with the help of an engine gives you perfect information, so the cheater can always choose any move, even if it is suboptimal, provided it gives them sufficient advantage to win.
Given plausible deniability, it is not possible to detect very sophisticated cheaters that only need 2 or 3 moves per game. However, you can catch unsophisticated cheaters by looking at outliers. You certainly need to start somewhere, and this is often done in exploratory data analysis. As long as you keep track of your procedure and maintain the same level of consistency with your initial choices, you can always correct for multiple comparison. If after such correction, you still have extremely small probability measures, you have to conclude that foul play was more likely to occur.
By the way, these games were not isolated incidents. In fact, according to the calculation for Niemann's games since November 2019, he has been playing at 2850 level and correlation measures for several back to back tournaments show very unlikely results.
I absolutely love Fabi quoting Anish's funny post about "taking the *juicer* on f4" at 1:31:17! It shows they both keep track of the memes also!
1:31:11
You can feel Fabiano is the most serious person in the room. Well, remove first the cyan puppet on his couch. 😂
So according to Ashley if there's a statistical evidence like 100% accurate moves in consecutive tournaments only then should a player be banned. But what if the cheater has assistance in only critical moments, maybe once or twice in a game? Then there will be no statistical evidence. So the cheater should get a pass? This will encourage more and more cheaters considering the stakes.
@@cooloutac there should be a crackdown against any sort of cheating be it online or offline. The fact that he was young and naive and cheated online shouldn't give him a pass. Remember Magnus, Fabi all were young at one point but they held their integrity and did not cheat.
A strong player who's cheating doesn't need 100% accurate engine moves. He only needs 3 or 4 engine moves the entire game to be unbeatable.
The video referenced here actually describes such correlation measures at 100% with engines for several tournaments in a row, so it is very convenient that Maurice asked for that bit of statistical evidence.
Prevention is the best cure. There’s a lot of ways to make it harder to cheat, and the punishments for cheating could be harsher.
The system needs to be reformed.
That's not what he meant 🤦♂️
Love how Fabi articulates his thoughts. He's very clear.
Would love to see some more game analysis from you guys too.. love the channel and podcast! I could listen to Fabi analyze positions all day
For a game as complicated as chess I don't think there should be as much of a burden of proof on accusers; it's not something that can be simply and irrefutably proven by a blood test after all. I'm with Ben Finegold who says that cheating should be discussed in an open forum. The alternative is what we've had, where cheating has been an elephant in chess' room for the past 5-10 years and as Fabi said, you make an accusation through 'proper channels' and it's tucked away in a draw and never spoken of again.
@@cooloutac I think there needs to be a structured system for dealing with accusations, something like 1. A player is accused, 2. Some sort of investigation protocol is followed in an entirely transparent manner, 3. All findings are published in some kind of newsletter along with some kind of decision or statement. I also think that the accusations should be factored based on the situation, i.e. all accusations should be investigated but things like the accuser being an arbiter, an organiser, a chess website, the World Champion, and/or multiple people, should be factored higher. The biggest factor to the investigation should be if the accused is already a proven cheater. FIDE could do this instead of doing nothing like they have been. If you really cared about poor Hans you'd want some kind of system like this in place, right?
I generally agree with your statement but some details need to be ironed out, for example, if the accusations are public, then what happens to the player during the course of the investigation? Chess investigation may take a pretty long time, does he get to play when they are proceeding? If he does, wouldn’t that affect the mental state and thus the play of any opponents he faces? Also, what happens when the algorithm is wrong? Hard evidence is extremely hard to come by as you said, which means we have to rely on statistics, but that has a pretty big grey area and a margin of error. The biggest problem in all of this is not how transparent or public accusations should be, the problem is there is no reliable method of investigation once an accusation has been made.
@@cooloutac lol Yeah right that's "essentially what happens" talk about arguing in bad faith.
Guess what's more complicated than chess ? Real life.
@@cooloutac I'll say it again: you are arguing in bad faith.
A great point that Magnus couldn't have just handled things internally and quietly, and that he had to take visible action. Putting aside chess specifically, let alone Hans, and look at sports in general. These kinds of discussions have to be in the open, because at the end of the day, a lot of the burden goes on the organizers, too. Whenever there's a sport that doesn't have strong anti-doping testing, regardless of what the rules are, the institutions of the sport are also to blame if there's a lot of steroid use. If the authorities within a sport mostly turn a blind eye to cheating, that's as good as permission to some number of players. The existential threat to a sport isn't just one cheater--it's a governing body that lets it fester.
I love these podcasts and you guys are on it!! Big fan of both of you guys! Subbed!
The problem with Hans is the number of suspicious events and situations he has added to the ones that he already admitted to cheating. As to why Magnus withdrew after the match with Hans, imagine you are playing against a suspicious player, who acts suspiciously during the game and then gives an interview as if he has an ELO of 2000 and claims he coincidently analyzed this opening just hours before the game mentioning a game and opening that Magnus never played. Now, this still does not prove anything but I can understand Magnus' reaction.
I don't know that any of you will see this, but if so, I would just like to suggest maybe raising the general volume of the podcast a bit. I listen to the podcast on the way to / at work & I often struggle to hear either of you speak over even my air conditioning running at full blast, with my speakers on maximum volume, and they're quite loud speakers. Lovely podcast that I'll continue watching regardless, would just love to be able to hear it a tad more clearly
Pardon me; I see people in chat have already expressed this & you've addressed it, thank you
Fabi gives leeway due to the fact that most of the moves played vs Soto were natural. The problem is that multiple moves in each position can be considered natural. And Hans Consistently chose the engines #1 move. Lets say in a 25 move game there are an average of three natural looking moves(considered by GM's) per move (position). Hans consistently chose the natural move (Engine #1) out of the 3 possible natural moves per position every single time. This is why the fact that the moves can be considered natural should not take away from this games oddity.
Many Many Many times once you see the engine move you start to realize the point behind it and the move begins to feel more "natural"
Fabi is hands down the most reasonable person in the chess world. Thank god for someone influential with a much more grounded and nuanced view of things. 🙏
with that said. I totally agree with his views that Hans is an Alien instead ( 1:40:25 ) after all this.
Hear, hear!
I don't know what people mean when they say they need "proof" players are cheating. I mean, they've convicted so-called murderers on circumstantial evidence alone, like DNA or hair at certain location, or a "smoking gun" used in the fatal act even though there were no witnesses who saw the gun being used. So what would be classified as sufficient evidence for someone to be found cheating? Would finding a tiny earpiece, buzzing device or modified shoes in their hotel room constitute "guilty of cheating" or is there a need for more to qualify this?
Presumed innocent until proven guilty
@@scythermantis what does a slogan have to do with francisco's comment
@@cronosdimitri4584 it's not a mere slogan it's an ideal, that should guide how we think and who we listen to
"Maybe he's not a cheater, maybe he is an alien" xD
Although Fabi is a bit biased as he mentioned before, he is aware of that and tries not to jump to conclusions and keeps his objectivity. I really respect that, great sign of intelligence.
Anti-cheating in esports is so much more advanced. Chess needs to catch up.
Leaving the responsability of judging who is guilty of cheating or who is not to computers gives me no hope for the future. It's a world controlled by algorithms that are not perfect and never will. Don't remove the human part for any decision.
Computers are the human part
All the cheaters should be outed!!
I normally like Maurice Ashley but he really was showing so much bias in this intervju. The point he is making about not having hard proof and even that the hard proof has to be so concrete that it is not refutable is really bad. In other words you might say that it is ok to cheat abit as long as you dont get caught and dont look like a engine doing so. It is REALLY hard to get concret evidence. We are talking about really smart people with really smart helpers that know how to hide it.
Yes, good point! Hate the insanely high bar he set there - there is such a thing as intuition. I heard there was a player who was never caught officially, but all the players refused to play him and so he just disappeared. That happens I think more than we know.
The quality of the discussion on these videos is great.
bring sagar shah as guest in your podcast, would love to hear the conversation between him and Fabi
Yes! Petition to bring @chessbaseindia please!!
True
Wow hi Brock!! Chess boxing or chess wrestling when
I'm reaaly happy to see Maurice! Great Guest!!
If you like the corporate tool's opinion, yeah.
He always gives SMOOTH interviews!
Totally agree with Caruana on the phone thing. There is NO WAY that ANY phones should be in the playing area. Should also not allow the players to have visual on non-participants. Also, electronically shielded playing area would be good to see.
Can we have timestamps? Cheers!
I'm only 30 minutes into the video and I'm enjoying it, but I think we're looking at it too much in a vacuum, let's not forget Levon and Alireza both said he plays strange moves that they dont understand as well and Hans couldn't back up his positioning and reasoning in the post game analysis. Again I know these are all just circumstantial, but it definitely doesn't help Hans' case
@@cooloutac i haven't forgotten
@@cooloutac Alireza was banned ? What was the reason?
@@abhishekanil5326
He played very good and he was not famous. Ban was removed shortly after.
@@cooloutac Dude you're defending Hans on every post but don't know what ur talking about. Alireza was unbanned a few days after once they knew it was him, nothing to do with cheating.
i mean if you're scared that the players have communication devices that are not detected by the wands then having the live audience hand in their phone cannot be the solution.
Glad I found this, subscribed
2:32:53 Fabi confirms he's keeping his promise to Eric Rosen :)
Congratulations guys! Such a fantastic podcast
Jeez, Maurice is so intelligent. I understand Fabi playing defense for Magnus but wow was Maurice very on point with what he was saying.
2:30:07 someone needs to clip and ship this to Anish Giri.
Pretty sus games to be honest...😇😇
As Fabi suggests, it would be really interesting, if you guys analized some other super GM matches in similar fashion. Do other GMs (like Magnus) have wins with moves where its really hard to understand how they find the idea or how quicky they play?
I don't think it would fair to look at any super GMs games.
Fabi knows them all. He knows every game Magnus ever played cause that's how you do prepare for championship match.
Maybe they can look at other juniors like Alireza, Arjun, Pragg, Keymer.
Good idea! They should definitely do as many as they can. Just get a good spread of GMs. Players from different periods, with different styles, different ages etc
I would love to see that!
Great podcast. But having GM Maurice Ashley comment was the highlight of the show, no fluff no BS just simple truth, once again great job guys is the only channel my notifications are on.
@@cooloutac ahaha he's black therefore he's a gangster. Cornball
Nice insights from Fabi
Hi - thank you for putting together this podcast! I had stopped playing chess for many years and only got back into spectating chess when the pandemic had started. I have enjoyed the games at the high-level competitions and I would like to enjoy watching these games without the cloud of cheating hanging over it.
In sports, there is WADA that handles cheating in sports - so it is much easier to have a more coordinated ways of detecting and suspending athletes for cheating.
As there is a lack of a central anti-cheating body in chess, I think a practical way going forward is to have the players self-declare their past cheating episodes on various platforms for up to say five years. Then, it will be up to the organizers to determine whether they still wish to let the player participate in the tournament if the player declared he had multiple recent cheating episodes. In the event that the player makes a false declaration, the organizers may check with the other platforms and then forfeit the player's games, etc.
He should do a chessable course I will definitely buy
Dlugy is Hans's mentor. Dlugy is a professional cheater. Hans has a history of cheating online. Dlugy knows what cheat detection takes into consideration. Dlugy knows what moves to transmit to avoid detection. In conclusion, the games look weird because they are weird. They're ultra cherry picked. The cheating speaks for itself.
You'd have to at least build a hypothesis of how it could have happened. You'd have to include occasions where this happened, in the method you think. Just saying "you could have done it, so you did it" is an extremely fallacious argument. We, as a chess community, should spend more time building these hypotheses rather than gathering more circunstancial evidence. That's why lawyers " build a case" in which many aspects are inspected. History is certainly one dimension but not enough... Motivation, opportunity, etc.. Are all equally important facets
@@Canonall Like many of the parties involved have stated, cheating over the board is easy and can be done in a number of different ways using different evolving methods. If you have been cheating since age 12, you have 7 years of experience at least. Imagine if you were IM level and dedicated 7 years to gathering data about how to cheat and avoid detection rather than on improving your game, or even while doing so (though it is hard to imagine how one could really do both). He's a reclusive person, obviously Magnus would not name drop Dlugy randomly, and if Dlugy and Hans are spending all their time together in seclusion, I doubt they are improving at chess together but rather enabling each others cheating, possibly even being the ones relaying the moves to each other using the same method. I think we should be analyzing the correlation between Hans' and Dlugy's winning games, as well as the subset of winning OTB games Hans played recently against top opponents. This might give some insight into methodology.
@@Canonall lawyers are trying to build a case because they are working in a court of law with well-defined standards of evidence, hearsay exceptions, etc etc. We're just chess fans trying to make sense of what's going on and discussing it. We don't need to aim for that level of rigor.
@@tgwnn ‘let’s ignore any standards of evidentiary burden because we’re chess fans’
@@woodandwandco saying cheating is easy without actually making even 1 guess of how it could have happened is worth nothing. If it's so easy we should be swimming in ideas. Until now all we heard was, taking a cellphone to the toilet and anal beads. None of which would make sense in Hans case. So if it's so easy we'd have no issue in coming up with possibilities.
If Fabi removed his glasses, cut his hair, and started cracking jokes--I would not be surprised if he revealed himself to be Andrew Schulz in disguise.
now that you mention it , damn i see it
loved the special
I don't see it at all
Yeah I don't see it lol
My favorite is still the Fabi is a hunk-a-hunks burning love chess interview. All good.
To tell a top GM at an otb event that "you have a winning move in the current position," all you gotta do is put on a pair of glasses. 😎
when you have an extremely complex closed game some guy in the audience putting on glasses isn't going to do it.
@@lolmanyeah1 It's already been said before by top GM's that they dont need to know every variation. .They only need to know there's a move to be found, and that will be enough for them to find it.
@@Corteum a top gm doesn't need to be told a move can be found though. They can find it without help lmao. Again, some guy putting on glasses in an extremely complex position isn't going to do a thing.
@@Corteum even top GM's don't think like computers. So you can't assume they would even find the computer move just because they are a gm. Computers are 1000 points stronger than GM's. Yeah I know some gm said it and you take everything a gm says as gospel, but I'm here to show you the value of critical thinking.
@@lolmanyeah1 _"a top gm doesn't need to be told a move can be found though."_
Sure, that's why top GM dont play to the level of computers lol They make mistakes (computers dont).
Han's Opponents are playing in desperation pretty much... of course because they are trying to out calculate a calculator as humans.
Great video, subscribed. Some good chess analysis & really informative about the whole issue.
Is it just me or at first glance does this not look like David Beckham interviewing Screech from saved by the bell?
Maurice with the Hans defence lmao
It's absurd. Maurce is the corporate weasel type. Just filler.
more like bashing into magnus by saying he might give chess a bad reputation for certain billionaires bcs they care about sponsors and shit and 'anal beads + Chess' is not something sponsors are interested into associating. Maurice is old and he always think more in grand scheme of things and not particularly
Maurice and Levy are basically like, "he's a kid, just a kid!"
@@KenDanieli Maurice spoke facts. And how is he a weasel?
He's way past his expiration date.
Great pod! One other concern regarding live spectators - seems like a spectator with an earpiece is a potential risk. The players get all the scans but if the spectator has the signaling device that would remain undetected
1:40:25 now THIS is the conspiracy theory I want to get into
As a chess outsider who is interested in how professionals cheat, the reason I got interested in this whole mess specifically because of Hans' bizarre losses to much lower rated players in the recent blitz tournament.
His match with Quparadze where he literally made the only move that could put him in checkmate and the game with Shamsiddin where he made a move so baffling his opponent had to basically take two minutes in a blitz game to try and figure out what was happening come to mind.
The intrigue is less that he sometimes plays perfect games (which is suspicious) but more that paired with the fact he sometimes plays horrendous games against lower ranked opponents
Thank you for the commentary! Would be nice for Fabiano to get a better camera to match the quality.
I'm just an amateur player who doesn't use any engines even for preparation or analysis. Still I got to see up close how seductive it is to cheat, to some people at least. I invited a former colleague to a friendly game on lichess. As a beginner he didn't play very well at first, and I beat him easily three times while hanging pieces here and there, just to keep the game alive and hoping he would pick up something on the way.
His fourth game was already better, but then in the fifth game (this is within a matter of weeks) he totally destroyed me, every move was just brilliant and soon I was completely lost. I knew he was using an engine but when hinting to the fact he simply changed the subject.
This showed me that sometimes people desire to win so badly that they are willing to cheat, pretending it was them who won instead of a computer.
It was a weird experience but it did teach me something about human nature.
The final bit about kickboxing was fracking hilarious. Awesome podcast; I hope to find the time to watch them all.
YOOOOO I SEE YOU WITH THE ADCC SHIRT ON!!!! JIU JITSU PRACTITIONERS UNITE!!!!!
I think that cheating in a tournament for money is a criminal act and should be treated like theft.
Awesome stuff, as usual ! Keep it up guys !
So, is Hans's cheating very sophisticated (1-2 moves per game and/or evaluation at some points) or is it blatant (top moves all the way)? If it's the latter, why is there still no statistical evidence, if it's the former what's the point in looking at this biased set of games?
Even in this format, it might have better to give Fabi a random sample of top games by Arjun, Keymer, Gukesh and Hans etc and ask to pick the weirdest ones.
Yeah this is why smart cheating is pretty much undetectable
He did check Arjun and Gukesh games and in more details Arjun games that's why he was saying the classical chess which Arjun in past 1- 1.5 years is playing is very good
By this everyone is suspicious evev magnus
Watch yosha-echecs
"I think humans in general are really bad at reading body language" - well said, Fabi! There are whole books written on this topic, my favorite would be "Talking to Strangers" by Gladwell. It's too hard to read people we don't know.
Maurice's point on the confirmation bias is well put. "Blink" by Gladwell is another great book on that whole concept. People tend to double down on their mistaken presumptions.
So accusing Hans of cheating on a weird feeling/read of Hans cannot be enough to end Hans' career. Bobby Fischer was a bit "weird" too in interviews and would say weird things like in the Dragon Sicilian "after this move, Black can just resign", and it's move 10 maybe 12 of a 40-move game. I'm not good enough at chess to understand Bobby's comment/analysis. Maybe that's how it is for Hans? Hans could just be a "weird" guy when he plays over the board.
Christian interrupts Fabi a lot. This is not so pleasant for us viewers who are watching. Just a little suggestion for future consideration.
Agreed 100% on having broadcast delays as standard. There is no good reason not to.
How can you say that you don't detect any cheating in Hans' Sinqfield games and then also say that all a strong GM needs is a hint? I'm not saying that he cheated but if you're expecting to see a bunch of computer moves then you'll not catch anyone at the top level.
What they can do is make it theoretically not possible. The problem is its currently security theater. You think the Saint Louis Chess Club has a crack security team with professional electronics detection equipment? All it takes is a tiny receiver and an accomplice when the event is broadcast live, and when all you need is a True or False signal a receiver can be made to be extremely difficult to detect, well beyond off-the-shelf security theater noise maker wands.
True dat, although I would add I really don't think you can fool a lot of top-level players for long when discussing ideas and analyzing games. It's no accident that all 3 of Nepo, Fabi and Magnus seem to think there's something fishy here, and who knows how many more share that opinion in private.
@@cooloutac "no other GM" *that you know of*. Understandably not everyone's willing to engage in public shenanigans. Ivanov was never "proven" to be cheating either but judging by what happened after being accused, it's pretty fair to conclude he had been cheating. It will be more or less the same with Niemann if he's cheating, although he also is a stronger player so as the OP says he would need less to cheat and get away with it, just like most true-strength GMs would. If he's clean, it should become apparent if he sustains these kinds of OTB performances under stricter measures and for a longer period. At this level, you just cannot fool everyone for a long time. If multiple top-level GMs are seriously suspecting someone's an imposter based on his play and way he discusses and analyzes ideas (not to mention proven cheating history), taking them seriously is less foolish than waiting for the guy to get caught red-handed OTB to do so.
@@cooloutac What. Imagine being this delusional
@@cooloutac I think he’s just projecting because you aren’t confirming his little bias
Instead of a specific time delay, I propose having a move delay. That greatly simplifies things and prevents cheating. A move isn't broadcast until the next opponent's move is made.
I am enjoying your videos quite allot. The cadence you both have is awesome and the interview you did was amazing!
Audio ballance was a bit daft in this video though :D
This is simple, if Hans has nothing to hide he should give Magnus permission to talk.
1:36:40 this is why I love Fabi. Keeps bringing Christian back to reality and remains logical. As humans we WANT to find the dirt because drama is fun for us and because we feel like little detectives. But love how Fabi is all about the truth and constantly keeps Christian logical and honest.
The issue however is that Fabiana isn't being logical. If every suspicion he has is being bookmarked by benefits of doubt, then there's no reason to analyse. The conclusion was set beforehand so there's no objectivity. He's a 2800 GM who has trouble keeping up with Han's chess. That's crazy.
Evan from chat, you the real special guest!
Magnus has decided, rightfully or wrongfully, that Hans is going to be the Barry Bonds of the online chess cheating era.
It's an era that needed to end. There need to be harsh, strict penalties for cheating (2 yr bands under 18, 2nd penalty is lifetime ban) and to disclose the names of ALL online cheaters so far (a la Mitchell Report in baseball). There also needs to be better prevention and detection methods but the exposure of all names now would go a long way in deterring future cheating
@@cooloutac avatar the last beads bender
Hans 100% asked for it by his cheating and his public behavior.
Regardless.... you shouldn't sacrifice Hans's career to achieve those changes. Everyone starts with a clean slate.
@@RubixNinja Hans has a very dirty slate. Pay attention.
@@KenDanieli he does but so do so many others. It's kinda messed up to have one scape goat, unless you're going to call everyone else out. That was probably the biggest issue I had with Fabi's comments this video, wanting to give a pass to those previously caught is not cool when you hang Hans like this
Woah that ADCC shirt! That takes me back. I used to have the old DVD w/e.g. the Arona/{Ortiz, Belfort, JJM} matches on it from Abu Dhabi in 2001-2003. XD
During the analysis, is it really possible for Hans, who was only 15 or 16 y/o at the time to come up with impressive and unnatural moves, which is either 1st or 2nd choice for a chess engine consistently? I’m asking.
yes possible look at prag, arjun, nehal and many younger players.
Love to hear fabi anytime
cool! we got timestamps now! thank you!
I don’t think it was just the loss… I think Hans’ arrogance in his interviews, specifically the interview where Hans said that Magnus must feel bad for losing to him, motivated Magnus to do this. This is just my pure speculation but I hallucinate it was part of the decision to withdraw.
@@cooloutac EXACTLY! He’s like that arrogant guy in the movie IP Man who comes into town and tries to kick the crap out of all the masters. (Or every arrogant guy in any kung fu movie). He’ll grow out of it :)
He beat him as well in one game of another tournament and made a comment "the chess speaks for itself" which may have annoyed him. carlsen beat him in subsequent games of the same tournament. He may have got under Carlsens skin in that tourny for winning the 1 game and for making the comment.
There were people in the live chat calling Magnus a cheater. Googled it, found nothing. His wikipedia entry doesn't have the word "cheat" in it until the final paragraph, about this scandal. What am I missing?
Nothing, those people are trying to flood the zone with shit, Steve Bannon-style.
Name the dinosaur plushie after the site of your favorite tournament victory!
at 45:06 the dude top right says scanning equipment was trash. back at 14:08 he says its not trash but serious high tech scanners that cost a lot. interesting that he says completely opposite things at two points.
Do you have attention issues? He's first referring to the candidates and later referring to sinquefield
@@Kodaira023 I may have. Can u explain what you mean? I made an assumption based on what you said and did a google search and it apparently they and you are reffering to a tournament called candidates tournament. It would be helpful if they were more explicit and also would be helpful if you were. the word candidates is generic and I took it to mean they were more security measures for the last candidates (players) in the sinquefield (because of the accusation) then there were for earlier candidates (players) prior to the accusation. I remember seeing extra wanding showed in a video and thought they said that extra wanding happened due to the accusation and thought that was what he was referrencing. it would be easier to follow if they weren't using a abbreviating a tournament reference that also applies in a more generic way to players in any tournament.
@@estebanelguapo the candidates is a tournament. It determines who challenges the world champion for the title. The sinquefield cup is a different tournament held at the Saint louis chess club, this is the tournament Magnus dropped out from. Even if they later stepped up security there at Sinquefield, Fabi mentioned the scanners they used at Saint Louis were trash compared to what's available ( for example compared to the scanners used in the candidates 2021 and 2022 tournament)
Well, Magnus claims that, if Hans gives permission, Magnus can give something more solid in the way of proof. I'll be very interested to see if Hans gives permission.
Evan… please can I have the ten seconds you owe me 😂😂😂
Great commentary and reflections from Fabi but, respectfullly, Christian should stop interrupting Fabi, especialy when he is about to make an important point. For example, at around 2:26:09 Fabi attempts a meta observation beginning "... Ok, now that we've seen a bunch of games, the only thing you can really conclude is that he does have games that look suspicious but it's a..." and before Fabi can finish the thought, Christian cuts him off with , "Ok, Ok, just one second, look at the game..." So annoying!
Agree!
Love this work you guys! Keep it going😁😁
Great podcast! Thanks!!