undefined | Better HN

0 pointsvikingerik3y ago0 comments

The somewhat-concrete evidence is that analyzers have now found many instances where Niemann's moves correlate highly with engine-suggested moves.

I don't know the details as to whether that claim is credible. Is this correlation really any more for Niemann than any other grandmaster of similar strength? Are the analyzers cherry-picking data points that fit the narrative? And of course it is possible that Niemann is legitimately that good.

Reddit's /r/chess has loads of viewpoints and speculation, if you want to read more there.

0 comments

Dave_Rosenthal3y ago

There is a guy named Ken Regan who is one of the leading experts in this question of whether the correlation with engine moves is at a normal or abnormal level. His statement is that he analyzed the last two years of Hans' games and found no evidence of cheating. So, yeah, the people on Reddit are probably cherry picking.

(https://en.chessbase.com/post/is-hans-niemann-cheating-world...)

The counter to that is that it looks likely that a clever high-level player could probably use an engine once or twice in a game in a judicious way and not raise statistical alarm bells. But still, Ken's work tries to suss out things like that--e.g. does the player in question make good moves in 'key' positions. Plus, continued use of such techniques over time would leave a statistical trail.

Honestly, Magnus' statement of, "well, he beat me and it didn't look like he was thinking hard" is pretty thin. Magnus knows that Hans has a history of cheating in online games when he was younger and to me it feels like he's just seeing ghosts and deep into confirmation bias territory. Especially since the game in question took place at a high-level tournament with rigorous anti-cheating scanning, etc.

hellcow3y ago

Fabi (for those that don’t know, he’s another one of the best chess players in the world) gave a statement along the lines of, “I know of at least one case where I was certain cheating happened, and Regan’s analysis missed it, so take any of his analysis with a huge grain of salt.”

So here we have a whole bunch of the world’s best chess players and chess.com believing that Niemann repeatedly cheats, in addition to Niemann’s own admission to cheating in the past, and Regan taking the opposite stance.

roflyear3y ago

Fabi also said (during the same interview, I'm sure) that he doesn't think Hans cheated. Your last statement there is really misleading and even dishonest.

1 more reply

ouid3y ago

having a history of cheating in a game that is mostly otherwise honor bound is a very very very bad sign. Don't be fooled by the "when he was younger" bit. Everything that you did you did when you were younger, it has been less time since hans was last caught cheating than the interval between that time and the previous one.

Don't let the statisticians convince you that they know what they're doing either. Statistics, as a discipline, is essentially predicated on the principle that the objects of study do not know that they are being observed. Without this assumption, the domain is now more accurately described as game theory. Statisticians will happily and confidently ignore this and draw very wrong conclusions as a result.

Maursault3y ago

> Statistics, as a discipline, is essentially predicated on the principle that the objects of study do not know that they are being observed.

There is no such "principle" in statistics. Statistics is based on statistical methodology, i.e. formulas, models, and techniques that are used in statistical analysis of raw research data, which is collected, organized, analyzed, interpreted and presented. The Hawthorne effect, "a type of reactivity in which individuals modify an aspect of their behavior in response to their awareness of being observed,"[1] arose from analysis of a statistical study.

> Without this assumption, the domain is now more accurately described as game theory.

Game theory is utilized for decision-making in strategic environments where rational agents interact with each other. Statistics, on the other hand, is employed for reasoning in non-adversarial settings where the samples are assumed to be generated by some stationary and non-reactive source.

> Statisticians will happily and confidently ignore this and draw very wrong conclusions as a result.

Contradiction. You've already claimed that statistics is "essentially predicated on the principle that the objects of study do not know that they are being observed." Yet now you're claiming experts "confidently" ignore their discipline's "essentially predicated" principle.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

Dave_Rosenthal3y ago

(https://en.chessbase.com/post/is-hans-niemann-cheating-world...)

hellcow3y ago

roflyear3y ago

Fabi also said (during the same interview, I'm sure) that he doesn't think Hans cheated. Your last statement there is really misleading and even dishonest.

1 more reply

ouid3y ago

Maursault3y ago

> Statistics, as a discipline, is essentially predicated on the principle that the objects of study do not know that they are being observed.

> Without this assumption, the domain is now more accurately described as game theory.

> Statisticians will happily and confidently ignore this and draw very wrong conclusions as a result.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse