As someone on Reddit put it, “not a nothingburger but a somethingburger Jr. at best”
some magnus haters I see
in things that bother me that probably shouldn’t magnus is former world chess champion though, he dropped that title when he vacated it choosing not to defend (this is how that works, you don’t get to keep it until the next one is decided, it’s just vacant until then)
he can call himself the GOAT that’s fine tho
speaking with actions kinda said more about him than hans though but I guess it brought the attention to it wanted
dunno what all the solution to try to prevent cheating in chess is gonna end up being live, like are they gonna have to play without shoes on?
I’m not in love with the way Magnus is going about this. It’s also a bit of an issue for me that he seems to think it’s likely he was cheated against in the Sinquefield game, whereas my opinion from looking at the game and the opinion of super-GMs generally is that Hans played a pretty normal 2600+ game and Magnus played uncharacteristically poorly. That gives me pause about how much Magnus might be susceptible to confirmation bias here.
It’s hard though because I do agree with Magnus that cheating is an existential threat to the game. As Fabi put it, he doesn’t want the game to become like cycling where everyone thinks they have to cheat just to be on a level playing field. What I mostly disagree with is Magnus refusing to play Hans on an ongoing basis, because that’s Magnus more or less forcing tournament organisers not to invite Hans even though he doesn’t have solid proof. If the point was simply an emphatic wake up call that cheating needs to be taken more seriously, I think he’s made that point.
I think the main issue here is the extant of Hans online cheating. If he indeed cheated more than he admitted to, I’m perfectly fine with Magnus decision. This is very much like poker players refusing to play against Ali and Schindler, even though they are clearly not cheating in live tournaments. Both were suspended from PokerGo Tour recently and I think most people supported that decision.
1 Like
just awful spew to try and suggest super GMs think that hans played a normal game.
multiple super gms have questioned hans play
posting a Ben Feingold tweet says it all though
Super-GMs have questioned his post match interview and his rapid rating rise and online play etc, they have definitely suggested he is cheating. However, I haven’t seen anyone say that the game against Magnus, in itself, seemed like evidence of cheating, which is what Magnus is saying.
Here for example is Fabi saying he didn’t think any of Hans’s games in the Sinquefield were anything out of the ordinary and Hikaru is nodding along to this.
chess.com depth 30 analysis with Stockfish shows Magnus 83.9% accuracy, Hans 93.4%. Hans is shown as making 3 inaccuracies and 3 mistakes plus another 8 moves rated less than “Excellent”. Magnus didn’t play well in the game and Hans did not play at superhuman level, these are just facts.
I think this is because Magnus is saying it felt like cheating to him because Hans wasn’t as engaged over the board as someone “should” be playing a game that difficult. This is an unfalsifiable claim by Magnus (you can’t measure how “tense” Hans was at the board of how much he was concentrating by analyzing the moves with an engine) and he’s making a claim that no one else can relate to because no one else was sitting across the board from Hans. It’s a bit bizarre - on the one hand everyone is going to trust Magnus’s judgement on stuff like this, on the other hand if he starts spiraling into paranoia then he’ll just say that everyone who beats him didn’t look “tense” and imply they cheated.
3 Likes
Yeah if this was a rando chess player I would outright laugh at this claim that he can soul read his opponent, it being Magnus moves it up to a “meh, whatever”. Hans is clearly a weird dude, I’m not sure it’s so easy to read his behaviour.
Nothing to do with recent discussion but I got a kick out of this…
Funny comment:
The second best player in the world is drunk Magnus
1 Like
Yeah fuck this guy. First he was clean. Then he admits to cheating bUt OnLy tWiCe and OnLy OnLiNe. That turns out to be false, because of course it does since that’s the way this always goes down. I don’t really care what happens after that point.
It really feels like many in the chess community are framing this as, “Sure, he’s a known cheat that lied about the amount of cheating he did, but can you prove that he cheated in this particular game?” Now they’re onto like analyzing Lance Armstrong’s individual stage times in races where he may have been clean or some shit. I can’t think of a bigger waste of time. On the other hand, Chess.com or whoever has this additional cheating data needs to make it public.
I’m only 5 minutes in but it’s already getting spicy
2 Likes
So Magnus takes over rated games on someone else’s account and then complains about other people cheating?
2 Likes
Yeah I’m at the part where he played a 45 move game over the board with 100% correlation with the engine
https://twitter.com/IglesiasYosha/status/1574390514132127744
https://twitter.com/ikepoker/status/1574563212921544706
https://twitter.com/ikepoker/status/1574564188277510145
Technical question: Is it possible to feed Stockfish board positions through an API or whatever and get it to spit raw data? Or are these chess engines all GUI only?
Yes some dude was using a Raspberry Pi in his pocket with something in his shoe to input all of the moves. He was just testing it out playing against a friend and his input wasn’t completely accurate and the computer was feeding him illegal moves at some points
Oh yeah that’s SOCKfish, I’ve seen that article. I think I’ve asked a poor question though w.r.t. to what I’m wanting. Let’s say I have an enormous data set of matches played and want to append engine analysis to that with a script to create a richer data set. Is there generally a way to do that through UCI or whatever it’s called?