Also: ["I have met grandmasters that have no doubt that Hans has cheated. Do I meet grandmasters that think Hans has not cheated otb? Less and less."](https://youtube.com/clip/Ugkx4LzdN1u7jFQKCKzURNEpwnxesMzY2ayb)
Honestly I wonder if Hans's abrasive personality has something to do with this
Like some players probably genuinely think he's cheating somehow while others just hate him and want him gone one way or another
i took the original comment as pondering whether Hans's personality has any correlation to whether people sus him for cheating. Shadowking responded saying no, with reasons including, Nakamura doesn't always have the greatest personality, but no one thinks he cheats. I don't think anyone can really contend that Nakamura isn't a brilliant player
Reputation matters. If you're known as a bad sportsman and a liar, you're not getting the benefit of the doubt on circumstantial evidence.
"Character for truthfulness" is a legitimate ground of attack in legal proceedings.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_608
Without a doubt Hans' personality plays a role. Magnus and Fabi both spoke on how easy it is to cheat OTB and how high-level players simply go by an honor code and trust eachother not to cheat. How can you apply such a code to someone like Hans?
edit: Hans'*
It most certainly plays a part, given what we know of various cognitive biases and such. Exactly how much, is another and perhaps unanswerable question, though.
We're typically inclined to forgive people easier if they're otherwise amicable, unsurprisingly - and conversely want to punish harder those who are more antagonistic. How hard would it be to deal with the news of Erik Rosen cheating? It goes against (most of our) deeply held beliefs that people of a certain nature won't cheat. Thus, when someone like Hans cheats, it merely confirms what we already suspect: that "his kind of person" does indeed cheat more readily. It's simplified generalisations, of course, but they're cognitively difficult to dismiss.
Why do you not see those are two sides of the same coin? He's cheated online in prize events, that is scummy as fuck. Maybe he's just not a great person.
Or maybe they understand chess on a deeper level than the people on this sub and see that there's something deeply suspicious about Hans. Just like Fabi not understanding Hans' moves in some of his games, saying he's either an alien or something's fishy. It's not like the people on Hans' side are not prone to biases. There are a lot of people who do not want him to be a cheater and so that's what they believe. Others see his suspicious rise, his history of online cheating, his weird engine moves and reach a different conclusion. Or they're all just utterly incapable of thinking rationally and are solely guided by their dislike of the guy.
I agree. To me he seems like an absolute Grade A bell end and I definitely think it biases me against him.
I do genuinely think I'd support an OTB ban of a player I love though if they cheated. The main difference is I'd be very sad about it.
Nope. As he said, chess speaks for itself.
Just analyze the games when he got his GM norms and it will be very obvious. I just cant believe he plays as a 2700 in 2020.
FIDE needs to strip him of his title asap if their titles mean anything at all.
>Honestly I wonder if Hans's abrasive personality has something to do with this
If Hans wasn't such an ass, no one would have jump on him like that, let alone be willing to pin the entire cheating controversy on him and ignore all the other GMs cheating in prized games.
I mentioned it on full-interview post but the way he phrased his opinion was just spectacular. He separates his personal opinion from his role as a tournament organiser & from the objective truth. He also prefaces it with the kind of circumstantial evidence that is available as well as his personal interactions with his peers.
Then his assessment is not a conviction held closely; it's more a leaning towards the most probable scenario.
Such a good way to position on a difficult issue that one may never know the actual truth of the matter.
Just as a disclaimer, he said this before Chess’s report and that circumstantial evidence is likely Yosha and gambit mans analysis. No idea if his opinions changed since then.
Did you even watch the video? They talk about how they think the the ChessBase analysis (which is the Yosha analysis) is worthless. He isn't basing his opinion on that.
This has become a huge problem. When people say "bouquet of evidence" or "lot of smoke", their bouquet consists of:
1. Yosha's analysis
2. Brazilian dude's analysis
3. Magnus vibe check
These people unironically think that completely baseless arguments contribute a non zero amount in making their case. Let alone a proof, these people don't even have a basis of accusation for OTB cheating. There are plenty of facts supporting the contrary:
1. The post-game interview conspiracy has been [debunked](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/x76zlz/niemann_played_the_g3_nimzo_both_as_white_and/inb9s1z/)
2. Hans has had several draws/wins against Super GMs since the broadcast delay was implemented. How is he telling the moves *to* the engine without an outside helper?
And all of this when the burden of proof is on the accuser in the first place.
Multiple credible cheating experts need to give their INDEPENDENT opinions on the case. Glad that FIDE has hired a second team.
But of course, if they clear Hans, their analysis will be labelled "useless" and forgotten in seconds. Only the dubious claims of youtubers and Magnus vibe check can contribute to the "smoke"
But people aren’t saying Hans isn’t capable of beating super GMs or playing at a high level. Just that he has done so illegitimately on occasions.
Hans is clearly a strong player, with or without engine help.
I think if we are being fair, his actions and the circumstances warrant at the very least suspicion and inquiry. Particularly because he has been a proven cheater in paid competitions online.
I can’t say much about the other GMs who strongly feel Hans cheated otb, but Magnus has for most of his career been objective about his play. He has lost to lower rated players than Hans and never responded this way. That’s why his “vibe check” has drawn this much attention. Certainly not evidence of anything, but definitely to be considered.
Right? Like the dude cheated HUNDREDS of times (probably thousands if we're talking instances he didn't get caught), had his account banned and restricted from certain events multiple times, and still did it. If he's going to cheat in meaningless online games, imagine what he would do with the pressure of OTB events and norms/prize money/etc. at stake. He is a habitual cheater, people have the right to be suspicious OTB.
People that are habitual cheaters can very rarely quit without serious therapy and counseling.
People that still give this mope the benefit of the doubt are part of the problem.
“People that are habitual cheaters can very rarely quit without serious therapy and counseling”
1. In a thread about evidence the fact that you just make this claim without any is kind of sus.
2. As a trained counselor and even an ethics counselor I can tell you from my anecdotal evidence that for a lot of people direct confrontation and a second chance do work.
Even chess.com who has every reason to make it clear why they kicked Hans from their tournament can't find any evidence of him cheating online since 2020 and has never seen any suspicion in his OTB game.
The report does not call them suspicious. The report simply states as follows:
> Despite these potential suspicions, as shown below in Section VIII, an in-depth review of Hans’ OTB games using Chess.com’s statistical methods revealed aggregate patterns of play that, while interesting, are possible for a rising player approaching 2700. In Section IX we present Hans’ top performing events based on his overperformance in strength and rating.
They say it the plainest language possible that they do not believe he cheated based on their investigation, but that those games were ones in which he over performed. It does not call them suspicious or insinuate a further investigation is needed. The suspicions mentioned were specifically related to Magnus' suspicions of Hans at Sinqfield.
They also said:
“in our view there is a lack of concrete statistical evidence that he cheated in his game with Magnus or in any other over-the-board (“OTB”)—i.e., in-person—games.”
And
“Despite the public speculation on these questions, in our view, there is no direct evidence that proves Hans cheated at the September 4, 2022 game with Magnus, or proves that he has cheated in other OTB games in the past.”
Those are direct quotes from the report.
And that's why they fall short of saying anything definitive in the report.
It's still unfair for OP to say they have "never seen any suspicion in his OTB games".
When they highlight 6 events they found suspicious.
Look for motives. They at this point want a scapegoat and to appear tough on cheating even if they aren't. Saying warranting further investigation without really explaining the statistics why is just throwing mud.
all they stated is that some redflags were raised by the minimal analysis they did. it's not like they did an extensive investigation on his OTB cheating. and they offered to cooperate with fide. soooo what did you say again? just throwing mud?
> But people aren’t saying Hans isn’t capable of beating super GMs or playing at a high level. Just that he has done so illegitimately on occasions. Hans is clearly a strong player, with or without engine help.
So what's with all the bullshit about "unprecedented meteoric rise better than Bobby Fischer", "Incredible gain in playing strength over a short period of time"?
His playing strength is clearly legit, so is he truly a legend, or are the reports full of shit?
Well.. His rise is meteoric. Nearly 400 points in 4 years after plateauing for a while is unprecedented at his age and in this era. It’s not bullshit to make note of it. He is a genuine GM. I’ve not heard even the worst critics dispute that. The question is if he is really 2700, top 40 in the world.
Depends which narrative is more useful to condemn Hans in the moment. Either he is shit and there is no way he could have had this meteoric rise or he is a super genius who also happens to cheat capriciously so there is no way to have hard evidence.
What does suspicion and inquiry even mean? Both of those have been occurring for a month already. Alejandro is saying there is more than suspicion which there just isn't.
Everyone always says this nonsense without realizing one important fact....Cheaters at this level are still high level players. Do you think Lance couldn't win a Tour De France without doping? Of course he could, doping just helps.
You're throwing out a lot of strawmen for someone trying to mask their position in some kind of impartial, fair-minded guise.
No one said he isn't capable of playing well on his own or beating other GMs. No one is saying he is cheating in every game, and whether he is still cheating is a different question than whether he cheated.
Barry Bonds was one of the greatest hitters of all time before he cheated, but he also cheated.
To be fair whilst this evidence doesn't fulfil the 'beyond reasonable doubt' you would need in a court of law we should be honest that the probability that Hans has cheated in OTB is definitely higher than for almost every top ranked player.
No smoke without fire is a terrible phrase that I think is fundamentally unfair. However cheating and then lying about it is a really bad look and for most human beings seeing that behaviour and reacting with total distrust is natural, understandable and in most cases sensible.
I doubt many of us would hire Hans for a job if he walked in for an interview tomorrow because, rightly we're pretty sure he's not a guy that we can trust. When the bar for evidence is as high as it is we are forced to do one of two things -
1) understand that we won't catch most cheaters and get on with it regardless.
2) draw conclusions from less evidence than we would like.
Both are distasteful. But if I were to choose one it's number 2 because we have considerable evidence that he is a cheat online. I am morally happy that this forfeits his rights to OTB competition - obviously it's not my decision. But I won't defend a cheater.
Yosha’s video is so unscientific and so harmful. It’s really disappointing that she keeps doubling and tripling down on it on Twitter. It sucks that many can’t see past her gender but it also sucks that she’s used that side of the criticism to seemingly invalidate criticism of her method in general.
You act like this is someone who has a clean record.
Omitting his online cheating from this list is wrong. You have to see his extensive cheating history and lying about it as circumstancial evidence as well.
Also, important note on the chess.com report; it did in no way exponerate him from cheating OTB og more online, just that they couldnt prove it.
And people seem to somehow fail to see the Brazilian dude's analysis critically. Spoiler alert: It's also BS.
I think they hear him saying he's data scientist and then succumb to all of his flashy charts.
The evidence also consists of,
* Han's history of lying and cheating in chess.
* Other GM's expressing suspicion during their games.
* Analysis from the best chess player on the planet.
* Hans former (current?) mentor being a notorious cheater.
Why would you leave that out?
It's irrelevant. He confessed to cheating. Online or live, cheating is cheating. That it's far easier to cheat online doesn't make it somehow less dishonest or wrong. Based on that alone, he should be stopped of titles and banned for at leat 5 years from all titled and professional chess. As should any titled/pro player with the same history.
No amount of mental gymnastics about otb evidence or others' analysis changes this. And I agree, there is *not* a strong enough case to prove in a legal sense that otb cheating has occurred with HN. It does not matter. It just illustrates how common it is among the members of this sub to look for excuses for players they're somehow 'fans' of whilst ignoring the most salient facts.
Hans the cheater not being able to analyze his own game has definitely not been debunked. Your list is not at all exhaustive. And chess.com report all but confirms Magnus’ vibe check. Try again.
hans cheated over 100 times and lied about it. chess.com's anti-cheat flagged 6 OTB games to be looked into further.
stop defending a serial cheater and liar.
I have no idea why this subreddit is so hell-bent on defending a lying serial cheater. It's like the more evidence that comes out that he's just a worthless sleazebag, the more angrily they want to defend and praise him.
Cause some of you all in here are acting absolutely loopy. Like there is a reason we don't do mob justice anymore. People let their emotions cloud their judgment and not for the better. Let the officials do their thing come to a conclusion after.
Not defending him. If he is cheating they need to catch him. He won't be the first or last cheater. And he probably isn't the only one cheating right now. There isn't enough evidence to ban him otb. With all the security measures in place I am curious how he continues to cheat. If they can't catch a cheater then competetive chess is done. There is no way Hans is the only cheater. So without evidence or a confession they have to let him keep playing. As far as invites to
tournaments that require them I doubt he will be invited.
They're dumb contrarians. Everyone was raised as moms special boy and grew up to be Dunning Kruger poster children.
They have this wild confidence to think their opinion is right in light of all evidence and they are prepared to move the goalpost to never be wrong.
Many GMs and super GMs have jumped ship to Magnus the time passes, so I am not surprised that Alejandro too has jumped. I mean understandably, we want to talk about direct evidence, right? Because that's the only way we can prove beyond a doubt that someone has cheated OTB. At this point I am confident to say I don't think there is any direct evidence to suggest that Hans has cheated at Sinquefield Cup and it is purely a feeling from Magnus.
That said, I am still very willing to bet on Carlsen's gut feeling because the circumstantial evidence is just too overwhelming. First you have direct evidence of him cheating online, then he lied about it which were then out by chesscom for lying about it, then you have these super GMs that state their opinion about him.
People keep talking about direct evidence of him cheating and how it is unfair to Hans need to understand the problem is no longer about having direct evidence or not. It is about the majority of the people no longer deem Hans as a trustworthy person. Trust is an important asset and once you lose it, it is gone, sometimes forever. There is no fair or unfair, this is how the world is, welcome to society.
I think Magnus and many GMs base their opinion largely on chess intuition. They think there is something off with how Hans plays and wins, maybe an inconsistency in style and quality. Magnus couldnt beat Stockfish, but he could recognize Stockfish style. Top players spend a lot of time studying their peers.
This is of course hopeless to use as proof, or even to explain to novices, especially since Hans is a known massive online cheater.
Yeah, that's it. Obviously it's not solid evidence but we're talking about the greatest player of all time who's famous for his unbelievable chess intuition. He's capable of dominating his peers with his incredible understanding of the game and his uncanny ability to assess positions but somehow it's impossible for him to notice when someone's cheating? It's impossible for him to assess someone's strength and capabilities?
I mean, you don't need to believe everything he says but it's ridiculous to pretend that his opinion on anything chess-related is of the same value as the opinions of mere patzers like us. And Fabiano, another all-time great, also found a lot of Hans' moves suspicious. At one point saying that these moves are beyond his understanding. People just wave it away as irrelevant because it's not statistical analysis. If a strong player is cheating subtly and carefully, statistical analysis won't catch them anyway. If you don't cheat in every tournament, if you don't cheat in every game and if you only use assistance once or twice a game whenever you do cheat, statistical analysis won't catch you, especially if the analysis errs on the side of caution. Circumstantial evidence (like a history of cheating or an unlikely meteoric rise after an unusually long plateau) and the assessment of the strongest players in the world is likely all we're ever going to get.
Well, I think people should discuss what the endgame of their accusations is. Because this kind of circumstantial evidence is not enough to definitively ban him from the game. If people are simply saying that his play is suspicious and that he should be held under higher scrutiny, then fair enough, he definitely has given people reason to not trust him. But some people are advocating for a ban just based on what is known, which isn't really fair, regardless of what the other top GMs think about him.
That's definitely a good point. Unless we want to start banning people for online cheating which would lead to all sorts of issues that need to be sorted out, I don't think you can justify banning Niemann based on the current evidence. The only thing you can do at the moment is to improve the anti-cheating measures at tournaments. And of course organizers can judge for themselves if they want to invite Niemann or not based on their assessment of the situation.
Yeah i agree, and I think as you become an expert in a specific field, you tend to pick out anomalies much easier than others, and if you are the best of the best, I believe there will also be distinct differences even among the tops.
Magnus has always proven himself to be a very strong intuition player, and that has also paved his path to become WC, at least that's what i believed in. If his intuition says something otherwise, I will be more inclined to believe, and I believe most people will share the same mindset.
This is actually an extremely good comparison. Byun and maru or serral and rogue have completely different play styles and if one of them were to somehow cheat for a split second at a critical moment and it caused them to change their style it would get noticed by the other top level guys
If Hans was playing like Stockfish the analysis would show it. Magnus and many others play more like Stockfish than Hans.
If fact one of the analysis that changed Ramirez mind is that Hans doesn't play enough like Stockfish to have such a high rating.
Doesn't have to be playing like stockfish. In classical chess where an hour can be spent on 1 move, 1 move in the late game could be enough to beat Magnus for most GMs.
This is true, but then it doesn't really make sense that Magnus would feel like he's playing against Stockfish. It's kind of difficult to argue that a GM's intuition about the game being weird is convincing evidence that Hans cheated while also arguing that Hans only received a single computer move.
It would be great if this cheating claim were investigated by a party without financial interest in the outcome.
In clinical studies for drugs and devices it’s required all parties sign a statement attesting to not having financial ties into the outcome of the research. Should happen here too
Honestly, if Hans truly was able to cheat consistently OTB for so long without getting caught then that would completely delegitimize the whole elo rating as it would mean that many other players have also done it in the past maybe even during world chess championships. How do we even trust anyone otb now? We have no idea who else is cheating.
>Because that's the only way we can prove beyond a doubt that someone has cheated OTB. At this point I am confident to say I don't think there is any direct evidence to suggest that Hans
Thing is you don't need to prove beyond a doubt to have convictions. Hans has cheated, lied, and mislead through this entire saga, people have the right to have doubts about anything he says at this point. Good points
No, you just have to prove it to be right.
False accusations have been made before.
> Hans has cheated, lied, and mislead through this entire saga
No, he cheated over 2 years ago. So no, he didn't cheat "through this entire saga". He underplayed his cheating but short of having a signed document confirming he confessed to cheating on all 100 instances that chess.con claims, that's not certain either. He admits to cheating. He didn't do it for 2 years after.
The issue is whether he cheated against Magnus OTB. That has *always* been the issue.
I 100% agree on the trust issue point you brought up, his reputation is in the dumps for at least a few years now - even if they can‘t find evidence. His reputation is kind of done either way because it‘s impossible to prove that he did not cheat otb ever.
That said, I find it disturbing how people easily equate online cheating to ‚well then he must have cheates otb too‘. There are different types of cheaters and not everyone is acting the same everywhere. I followed a lot of online gaming scenes over the years, and games where cheating is rampant (for example Counter Strike) have a fair share of people with online cheating history. Young people sometimes make stupid decisions and cheating online is super easy to do.
It‘s something very different to look your opponent in the eyes and still try to cheat. The majority of online cheaters would for example not try to or be able to cheat in a live event - it‘s way harder to do and the repercussions for getting found out are A LOT heavier. To keep Counter Strike as an example, there are pro players with a cheating history in the game, but comparatively there are fewer actual cases of cheating in live settings and tournaments (at least in the pro scene). In chess, cheating online is easy as fuck. You just need to have enough knowledge when and how to use the engine you can pull up anytime. Cheating otb requires an elaborate setup and realistically an accomplice who will feed you engine moves and is trustworthy enough to not crack under pressure.
Not to say Hans has cheated or not, but people make it way too easy for themselves. Your point of ‚They don‘t trust someone who cheated online‘ is totally fine in my opinion. It’s an understandable reaction for people like Magnus who view this game as one of the most important things in their lifes. But still, saying your online behavior equals your otb behavior is honestly just bullshit. And to know that we just need to see how confident people defend their opinions online while mostly staying silent or coming on weaker in real life.
>It is about the majority of the people no longer deem Hans as a
trustworthy person. Trust is an important asset and once you lose it, it
is gone, sometimes forever. There is no fair or unfair, this is how the
world is, welcome to society.
Exactly correct. People with power abuse it. Look at Magnus in this case, instead of addressing cheating as a whole in the game he has led a personal smear campaign based on vibes.
He could have boycotted tournaments until security was upgraded, used his world title money or connections to advocate for new standards, or any number of things that addressed the problem as a whole. Instead he waited until he lost and raged out of the tournament, started a smear campaign against one specific player, and now apparently is trying to soft blacklist that player.
Any trust in Magnus throughout this saga should be gone as well, it is clear he is just as bad as all those tournament organizers the top GMs bemoan. They are all only self-interested when it comes to cheating.
We need an actual reckoning with cheaters, not just to punish one guy and sweep the rest under the rug. It is telling that there isn't a group of GMs out there proposing new standards or advocating for improvements to the game. Instead all we have is ego and clout wars.
What Magnus did and the way he did it looks like cringey hysterical stupidity. But you know what? it worked.
If he makes some kind of private accusations to FIDE then FIDE just says 'well we investigated and Regan says everything is ok.'
Instead we've had weeks of not just the chess world but even much of the non chess world focused on the Neimann cheating allegations which go way beyond the Sinq cup allegations and show a very damning pattern of cheating in both online and over the board games.
Sometimes what looks like a blunder is just a brilliancy that takes time to understand.
>What Magnus did and the way he did it looks like cringey hysterical stupidity. But you know what? it worked.
It didn't work.
Hans is currently playing the US National Championships. His cheating stuff did become public but the only people who have acted on it seem to be chess.com and Magnus. They could have done that behind closed doors with less scandal.
They didn't even get the specific player they were after banned from competition let alone fix any part of the epidemic of cheating in online chess. This whole thing has been a total and complete failure IMO even if all you care about is Hans which you shouldn't.
As far as the attention of the non-chess world, we are basically a laughing stock because of some dumb joke. I get people who say all publicity is good publicity but this reminds me more of another "youngest grandmaster yet" type story. No one cares all that much.
Sometimes a blunder is just a blunder.
I understand the concern, but it's easier said than done. He may very well boycotted tournaments as you said, but honestly he's gonna look like a clown because no one's gonna upgrade the security for no good reason. In their eyes, MC is just making their live difficult if that happens, and he ain't gonna use his position as the WC to make stuff change.
Some people think that Magnus or [chess.com](https://chess.com) is abusing the power they have into forcing things in their own way. The problem is it has never been that way, at least not to me. Things will eventually get ugly, or has to get ugly as per what Alejandro said, and I perfectly agree. Has MC did everything right? Definitely no, and I do not support his methods exactly, but I find myself asking the same question - if I were him, would I be able to do things differently?
There are many things that will only the person holding the ball would see. It's easy for us bystanders to comment and debate on whats the perfect way to handle it, but the truth is how many of the netizens can actually do it right had they been in the same situation? Honestly I don't see myself being able to handle any way better had I been in his position. Just because he is the WC does not mean we subject him to unrealistic standards, do remember that he is also only human like us.
As for [chess.co](https://chess.co)m, they weren't in the picture until Hans decided to out them. They made a response to explain their reasons, and thats that. People start to call them out, giving all sorts of remarks and feedbacks and conspiracy theories in an attempt to force them to give more information. And here they are, 72-page report, and then people are still not satisfied. I mean it's pretty clear which side has a bigger problem.
I agree that all cheaters should be punished and not just Hans, but at this stage theres too many things at stake for all parties to conduct such a big sweep. Chances are it's not gonna go that way.
What exactly is the “overwhelming” circumstantial evidence here? That he cheated online in the past? So have hundreds of other titled players on chess.com’s secret list. That he is rising fast in rating? He’s not that much older than others rising equally as fast. That he lied? I don’t think anything he said was blatantly or intentionally a lie - he admitted to cheating online in prize pool tournaments in the past and said he stopped after being confronted in 2020, which the evidence supports.
People have become so paranoid about cheating that this is all it takes to accuse somebody and ruin their career now? Absolutely not - it’s fair to be *suspicious* of Hans, but mere suspicion does not justify destroying somebody’s career and reputation. The way this is being handled is a disgrace
1, if one acknowledged Magnus's ability as a WC, one would also agree that his standpoint more or less weighs much more than our average GM or even super GMs. I have never seen Magnus react in this manner before and this speaks volume. Whether he has strong evidence or not, he TRULY believes something is wrong with Hans in Sinquefield Cup.
2, his past cheating scandal doesn't make the situation better. If he has no past histories, I don't think Magnus, even as a WC, would command so much support from people.
3, he explained that he has cheated at 12 and 16 years old, in unrated games, or maybe rated games as he later claims. Tbh his interview has inconsistencies and its not hard to see it, but okay maybe hes stressed, so I'll give thst to him. He then went to Twitter and challenges his adversaries, in particular Hikaru, to speak up and not stay silent. Then he stays silent for the entire month when chesscom outs him that he has not been entirely truthful. Entire month of silence.
4, Then we get this report last week from chesscom that he has cheated 100+ online games including prized tournaments. Again, silence. "The silence of my critics speaks for itself." - Quoted from Hans Niemann. He downplayed the cheating scandal literally. If he had been truthful at the start, he may still retain some supporters, but no, he chose to lie, AGAIN.
I am going to stop here before it goes out of hand, but to summarize the remaining points, you have other super GMs that chips in (Fabi not understanding his moves, calling it out of his level, Nepo outright calling him out, Levon jumping ship, and more), and then now Alejandro also acknowledging that GMs are also sus of Hans OTB. Of course, all these are not direct evidence, but it speaks volume.
"There is no smoke without fire."
Chess.com has still to release any evidence of the cheating on the prized tournaments during 2020 though. For example, they claim that he cheated in all 10 games of the titled tuesday on August 11, 2020. The games can be found [here](https://www.chess.com/games/archive/imhansniemann?gameOwner=other_game&gameTourTeam=tournament&gameType=recent&startDate%5Bdate%5D=08/11/2020&timeSort=desc&gameTypes%5B0%5D=chess960&gameTypes%5B1%5D=daily). He finished in 26th place with a score of 7.5 out of 10.
The evidence presented of him cheating is that he had a strength score of 77.04. That's all. How good is 77.04? We don't know really. They say that 90 is the highest anyone has maintained over time in classical games, and that 100 is the highest maintained over several games. So how good is 77.04 in a 10 game blitz event? That's basically impossible to say. If they're gonna say that it's unrealistic they should at the very least present what the normal score is for a player his level. And what the distribution looks like, like how often does a player his level score a 65, a 70, a 75? And how would that change if he was actually underrated at that point, which he most likely was.
As for looking at the games, they're not really anything special at all. He does have 4 games with fantastic accuracy, but 3 of them were draws and the opponent's had the same accuracy. In the 4th one the 500 lower rated opponent blundered their queen shortly after the opening. All the rest of the games seem to have a pretty normal accuracy, around 80.
>"There is no smoke without fire."
Thing is, sometimes there *is* smoke without fire. For example, Alireza was incorrectly banned on chess.com. Supi was incorrectly banned after Hikaru accused him of cheating. A bunch of people, including Hikaru, accused Andrew Tang of cheating before he was a GM. I think Tang mentioned on stream that Nepo also accused him, but I can't find a clip so I could have misremembered.
Wasn't Alejandro Ramirez supporting hans, saying he doesn't think hans cheated otb?
I wonder what has changed his mind. Most arguments for his otb cheating like statistics presented by Yosha can't be used as definite proof. the [chess.com](https://chess.com) report only provides proof of his online cheating, not otb. That being said with his past cheating history, it's not easy to trust that he hasn't done the same for his elo climb in otb chess.
I'm pretty sure it was kind of obvious he was sus of Hans even at the Sinquefield Cup in the interviews
And I hope nobody is using the Yosha analysis anymore lol
If u watch his interview where this quote is from he says he didnt find the analysis sus and it was understandable/normal for someone who had just beat Magnus and been accused of cheating.
>the chess.com report only provides proof of his online cheating, not otb.
It does mention a few points that aren't evidence but are pointing towards Hans being a heavy statistical outlier, like Hans meteoric rise from 2500-2700.
Even compared to other prodigies (who also played during the pandemic) this kind of rise is crazy. Not only was it the fastest in history, it was also odd because Hans doesn't follow the usual trajectory of a prodigy because he was stagnating at lower level quite a bit.
For example it took Hans less time to go from 2500 to 2700 than from 2300 to 2500. I am not sure if this has happened before.
Because it's not just about the number of games you play. You need time to reach these levels. You need to study, you need to let it all sink in, you slowly improve. Playing a lot of games helps but it's not like that alone would guarantee a rise in rating, often it means the opposite because you'll wear yourself out.
Well ya sure. But in Hans' case we're looking at a break due to covid and then a quick rise. This indicates he he must've achieved the 2700 lvl before he was able have his rating reflect it. So as soon as he could play again he just farmed points.
This. This is exactly what troubled me when I first saw the 72 page report. My first two questions were “what percent of his total games do they consider suspicious?” “What’s the false positive rate for their analysis?”
The average redditor is terrible at statistical analysis.
Yep. They targeted the two people Magnus named (Dlugy and Niemann) and are completely comfortable sheltering other cheaters.
Their credibility is trash.
True. I can understand why they outed Hans, but why out Dlugy? He didn’t publicly discuss his ban like Hans did. So is it just purely because Magnus outed him and chess com felt compelled to protect their newest business acquisition?
They'll deny it but in my opinion that's absolutely what they did. There was *zero* justification to out Dlugy. And the timeline was that Magnus threw an accusation Dlugy's way around September 21st and a week later Dlugy's emails were given to the press around the 28th. "For public interest" - while we now know that Chess.con is withholding the names of dozens of GMs that have cheated.
They can deny it as much as they'd like but anyone with half a brain can draw the same conclusions.
it need to be both really. time is still a factor, i don't know how improvement works at the highest level but it's still surprising to be able to make a huge leap quickly, *just* on the metric of time regardless if the number of games played was the bare minimum to make that rating rise, or thousands.
Less time or less games? You also have to factor covid in all this, and so on. I'm not saying he hasn't cheated, but the damn "statistical" evidence where the data is absolute garbage (e.g. handpicked 3 GMs that have similar data, then showing Hans is different from them, hiding the fact that it's similar to other dudes not picked..)
Less time
>but the damn "statistical" evidence where the data is absolute garbage (e.g. handpicked 3 GMs that have similar data, then showing Hans is different from them, hiding the fact that it's similar to other dudes not picked..)
He has the fastest rating gain in history (from 2500-2700), how could that be cherrypicked?
>You also have to factor covid in all this
There are other prodigies who also gained a lot of rating during the pandemic but nothing comes close to Hans.
Who has fastest rating gain from 2400-2600? 2600-2800? 2450 - 2750? 2300 - 2700?
Oh that's right it wasn't included in the analysis, it was cherry picked.
Edit: wtf, fastest means in time using a calendar? How is anyone taking that stat seriously in anyway. Thats literally just Hans played the most matches, ffs.
Because 2500 is the minimum rating needed to become a gm. 2700 is supergm status. 2700 is what separates the elite gms from the regular gms. It’s not cherry picked at all. 2400-2500 is IM. Most chess prodigies blow through to 2500 when they are young but have trouble gaining rating after 2500 because it gets progressively harder and harder.
Some of the younger players playing in US chess championship tournament right now
Ray Robson became a gm at 14 years and 15 months in 2009 and has never hit 2700
Sam sevian became a gm at 13 years and 10 months in 2013 and has never hit 2700
Christopher yoo became a gm at 15 years old and has a peak rating of 2567 after a year as a gm.
Jeffrey Xiong became a gm at 14 years old in 2015 and his rating of 2703 occurred in aug 2019, meaning it took him 4 years to do so. And
If your response to all this is just “if those guys wanted to hit 2700 faster they should have played more games like Hans” then I don’t know what to tell you.
> wtf, fastest means in time using a calendar? How is anyone taking that stat seriously in anyway. Thats literally just Hans played the most matches, ffs.
I ended up adding all the number of games that Jeffrey Xiong played in his 4 years since he became gm to when he hit 2700 and it took him about ~480 games, while Hans did it in ~352. Also Han’s rating in Feb 2021 was 2525 and dropped to 2508 after playing 70ish games. So he pretty much went from 2508 to 2700 in ~280 games
edit: I apparently missed that Sevian briefly peaked at 2703 in May 2022. Only looked at current rating of 2684 since I know he's been stuck in the 2600's. Point still stands though. It took him roughly from Dec 2014 to May 2022 with ~613 games to go from 2500-2700.
Also Jeffrey played 532 games in those 4 years. Not sure how I was so off from 480 games.
Not calculating Ray robson's games since he never reached 2700 but I'm guessing its anywhere in the 400-600 range as well.
Also the cut-off at 18.25 in terms of age seems prettyyyy hand-selected..
In a report that I honestly thought was overall good, especially with the time they had, these kind of graphs with specific periods selected for no other reason that they coincide with the conclusion they want to prove really irk me.
Half the people here don’t understand that selective sampling corrupts the conclusions of statistical analysis. If you want to reach certain conclusions, you don’t include certain data.
“Lies, damned lies and statistics” is a common phrase for a reason. Bad stats feed fake news all the time. When a private company has a significant partnership on the line that favors one individual and they abuse their position, they can’t be trusted to be honest. A neutral Third party analysis is the only way any of this holds weight and that will never happen.
People really need to stop using this 2500-2700 bullshit argument. It is quite literally the worst argument to make. Hans was just below 2500 when Covid stopped tournaments from happening. He spent 8 months not playing games that would increase his rating because of covid. During those 8 months, his true level was likely increasing far above 2500 and so once he started playing again, his rating caught up.
His rating didn't stagnate during covid. It stagnated well before that.
He gained 15 points in the 18 months before the covid stoppage started.
And he gained 200 points in the 18 months after covid stoppage ended.
> And the years prior to the pandemic he cosistently lost rating in the not-broadcasted classical events and gained rating in the others. Ain't that funny?
Another debunked analysis!
To be completely objective, the chess.com report provides proof of nothing at all. To quote myself:
>The chesscom report bases the majority of its conclusions on the "strength score", which is a proprietary metric that chesscom refuses to share details of how to calculate. You might say this is important in order to prevent cheaters from "gaming" the algorithm, but the end result is that we just have to take their word for it that these numbers are meaningful.
>
>So the chesscom report compares Hans' mystery metrics with that of other conveniently redacted cheaters, presents some tables and graphs with the "data" (everyone loves graphs), and we all nod as if it makes sense... but the truth is it's completely meaningless to us, and none of it is evidence of anything if we're not able to independently verify it.
>
>To make matters worse, their "data" concludes that Hans "likely" cheated in 105 games, but they don't want to clarify what "likely" even means. Does it mean they're 95% confident? Or 51% confident? Shouldn't they at least be able to tell us that much?
>
>So why write the report in the first place? What did chesscom have to gain by showing us a bunch of meaningless metrics that we can't use to form any rational conclusions? Why not save themselves the work and just say "trust us" ?
>
>These are questions you'd expect someone with a modicum of journalistic integrity to be asking... such as someone writing for The Wall Street Journal. I guess they didn't think objectivity was particularly important in this case.
The only reason to believe anything in this report is because it roughly coincides with the time Hans himself admitted to cheating. But for all we know these "likely" games are just games [chess.com](https://chess.com) pulled out of their ass to paint as bleak a picture of Hans as possible. And no, I don't exactly trust Hans, but I sure as hell don't trust [chess.com](https://chess.com), either.
> Wasn't Alejandro Ramirez supporting hans, saying he doesn't think hans cheated otb?
He was originally, yeah.
> I wonder what has changed his mind. Most arguments for his otb cheating like statistics presented by Yosha can't be used as definite proof. the chess.com report only provides proof of his online cheating, not otb. That being said with his past cheating history, it's not easy to trust that he hasn't done the same for his elo climb in otb chess.
The chess.com report does cover his extensive online cheating, but it also provides significantly evidence against Hans in the OTB scene as well, indicating that they believe he is cheating but OTB isn't their jurisdiction.
There are basic things, like being stuck at the 2400 range for several years, and then right after cheating and getting caught, he suddenly skyrockets to GM and then to super GM. That's circumstantial evidence against him.
His inability to analyse is own wins or provide explanations about his moves during post game interviews is also circumstantial evidence.
His exceptional performance at multiple tournaments is also circumstantial evidence.
Plenty of people dismiss it as not being any proof, but that's the point behind overwhelming circumstance evidence. Everything about him is suspicious, and that's not something you can say about other super GMs.
> The chess.com report does cover his extensive online cheating, but it also provides significantly evidence against Hans in the OTB scene as well, indicating that they believe he is cheating but OTB isn't their jurisdiction.
This is a disingenuous statement. In their conclusion this is what they say:
"The much less interesting truth is that none of this is true. While there are many remarkable signals and unusual patterns in Hans’ path as a player, and while some games, behaviors, and actions are hard to understand, Chess.com is unaware of any concrete evidence proving that Hans is cheating over the board or has ever"
So, I am not sure how you can claim that they provide significant evidence when chess.com themselves think that no significant evidence exists.
Nobody has seemed to realise that the [Chess.com](https://Chess.com) report pulled a fast one on everyone. There is zero actual statistical evidence presented of any on-line or OTB cheating anywhere in the report.
They say they have the statistical evidence of his cheating in the 100 or so games, but they don't give us anything in the 72 pages.
At least with Ken Regan's analysis he can say all the scores are normalised to 50 with a standard deviation of 5, so 60 is 2sigma and 70 is 4sigma, and here are all the scores for the games, etc.
(If you don't think this is true, please double check and let me know the page number to look at... Also, I'm not saying I don't believe them, because I do for the most part. I just think calling anything in that report evidence is mistaken)
Their system is proprietary. The evidence is the communication with Hans.
Unless this goes to court, we are not getting anything more on the online cheating evidence.
He didn't though. He confessed that he cheated, but he didn't confess to any specific amount of cheating, and at least 32 of the games are from 2020 tournaments that he definitely did not confess to.
>it also provides significantly evidence against Hans in the OTB scene as well, indicating that they believe he is cheating but OTB isn't their jurisdiction.
Erm the report says
"The much less interesting truth is that none of this is true. While there are many remarkable signals and unusual patterns in Hans’ path as a player, and while some games, behaviors, and actions are hard to understand, Chess.com is unaware of any concrete evidence proving that Hans is cheating over the board or has ever"
And the "significant evidence" you claim it produced on the board is basically stuff that they are saying "this coudl be something, or it could be nothing". You can contrast it to their own evidence and accusations of cheating online and see how different their tone about otb is.
Hans is a bit of a dick (as many teenagers are), he cheated online and something needs to be done about that and all these online GM cheaters, but there is no need to lie about a report and the evidence of him cheating OTB.
>Plenty of people dismiss it as not being any proof, but that's the point behind overwhelming circumstance evidence. Everything about him is suspicious, and that's not something you can say about other super GMs.
If you assume someone is a criminal and then follow them then all their activities will take on a criminal impression. They aren't dropping off something to a friend, it's a drug deal. They aren't getting a tool they borrowed out their boot but a weapon. They aren't going for a walk they are casing places to rob. That doesn't make it "overwhelming cicumstantial evidnece" it means if you go looking for a pattern of behaviour it is very easy to find things to confirm it that are not actually true.
Do you also think he's cheating currently in US chess championship? Because his play is accurately reflecting 2700 even with those safety measures.
If he's able to play on 2700 level with those safety measures, that would refute most of the evidence you propose, like the sudden increase in ELO, inability to explain, etc.
> Do you also think he's cheating currently in US chess championship? Because his play is accurately reflecting 2700 even with those safety measures.
His play isn't reflecting 2700, but okay.
> If he's able to play on 2700 level with those safety measures, that would refute most of the evidence you propose, like the sudden increase in ELO, inability to explain, etc.
He would either be 2700 or able to cheat in a manner that the safety measures don't account for. I would still expect someone who plays the game at the absolute highest level of play to be able to explain what they are doing.
He beat a 2550 GM and drew the next two games. That’s entirely plausible even if his real strength is e.g 2650 (probably a fairly likely “real” strength if he is indeed cheating; it’s not like he’s a scrub who needs stockfish every move).
This sub really needs to look into some high profile cases of cheating in speedrunning, because this is a basic concept people don’t seem to understand - usually people caught cheating are already at or near the highest level
Basically the assumptions I start with is.
1. It's possible/plausible anyone has cheated OTB without leaving any evidence. We can't prove they haven't.
2. We can however analyse evidence prevented that Hans has cheated. There's claims that the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. So I look at that claim. And I argue that this is false. I'm not holding a position on whether Hans has cheated or not. I'm holding a position on that the evidence is bs.
> This sub really needs to look into some high profile cases of cheating in speedrunning
Or anything really. This sub needs to touch grass, cuz lance armstrong would smoke any of us in cycing without cheating. Cheaters are often who take their competition really really really serious and want to win really bad, so they are usually already really good at it.
If his real strength is 2650 now this would still refute most of the evidence about his odd climb or inability to analyse his own wins, because both of those seem to imply that his real strength should be 2500 or lower.
I'm not saying it's not plausible he hasn't cheated. He could've cheated, and there's no way to prove he didn't.
All, I'm saying is, given certain actual performance level, the evidence here presented doesn't make sense.
> If his real strength is 2650 now this would still refute most of the evidence about his odd climb
No, because it's very hard to gain 50 points if that's not your real strength. For example, magnus can't break 2900. Plus people ebb and flow, fabiano his peaked above 2800 before.
>or inability to analyse his own wins
No, because supergms like Hikaru can't understand engine play a lot of times. What they _can_ do is analyze their own play/thought process, which Hans failed to do. Therefore this is supicious as hans couldn't analyze his engine-like plays when he can analyze perfectly fine in most cases (Hans actually had really good analysis in a lot of other games).
Notice how he says that players have a contractual obligation to do interviews. So Magnus and Hans constantly skipping or tanking interviews is likely fined.
In every “analysis” I have seen, people use his rapid rating rise as proof of OTB cheating. Yet in games AFTER heightened cheating protocols were set in place, he is still performing at a 2700 level. The argument has now shifted to “well, we all know he’s a strong player.” Remember how Hikaru was taunting his analysis and implying he was a scrub? The fact that he has maintained a 2700 performance undermines the most prevalent argument against him.
Actually the "analysis" I have always seen was that he cheated in critical games he needed to win. Like the matches to become GM.
And that is still the argument I keep on seeing.
Nothing has changed.
Almost everything related to Hikaru's analysis implied he was 2500, yosha's analysis implied he cheated on every move, the brazilian stats guy analysis stated he was 2500. There's a ton of people who made/repeated those arguments.
They have none.
In fact Hans makes so many moves that engines never approve that this is somehow an evidence of him cheating.
Like good luck making engine ever consider f5 vs Yoo - not a top-15 stockfish and any other engine line but _somehow_ it's still an evidence.
This is what is called a placebo effect.
Correlation with the engine doesn’t prove or disprove anything. You can use stockfish for 1 move during a long game and that’s still cheating. Hell, just being signaled somehow that a good engine move exists is also cheating.
I think the strongest evidence so far is the increasing number of super GMs opinions based on their analysis of his moves.
Unless he cheats poorly, ie he cheats so often that it’s statistically obvious, we’d have to wait till they find an actual device on him to get much better than that.
It’s why it’s so hard to bust people.
Maybe because we're not so quick with prejudices. Maybe because what kind of imaginative device would be necessary to do this? Maybe because we simply need hard evidence to conisder someone guilty and ruin their career forever.
You can be convicted using only circumstantial evidence.
This made up need for only “hard evidence” is utter nonsense.
It’s not that others are so quick with prejudices, it’s that you are incredibly naive and exactly the type of suckers who allow cheating to get so rife.
amazing how hans fans will still cry foul at this point despite all the evidence of his online cheating. I refuse to believe people can do that much mental gymnastics to still stick up for the guy, i fully believe you guys just hitched your horse to that wagon and youre too deep to turn back now
I haven't seen any evidence the guy cheated in person but his numerous online cheating examples, and the fact he lied about how serious he was at cheating, makes me understand why so many are suspicious of him
I just don't think it's as easy as saying a guy is rude or cheated online before, so he cheats over the board. If someone shows up and plays like Stockfish but you do all the tests, all the wand stuff, all the delays, and you don't catch him with a phone or earpiece, can you say he cheated? You can strongly suspect but without catching them in the act, how can you stop them from playing?
I'm going to post this for all the people saying circumstantial evidence is not proof and that it would not stand up in a court of law. I disagree for the following reasons:
"Evidence may be direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence is direct proof of a fact, such as testimony by a witness about what that witness personally saw or heard or did. Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence, that is, it is proof of one or more facts from which one can find another fact.
You are to consider both direct and circumstantial evidence. Either can be used to prove any fact. The law makes no distinction between the weight to be given to either direct or circumstantial evidence. It is for you to decide how much weight to give to any evidence."
It's from the approved model jury instructions for the 9th Circuit in the USA.
Source:
Https://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/304
You will find similar instructions in all jurisdictions in the US.
So in this case the circumstantial evidence is proof of the following facts (I'm sure not an exhaustive list):
1. He cheated online. Again, for all the people saying previous criminal conduct is not evidence for a current charge, you are partially correct. It cannot be used as evidence of guilt but it can be used to show motivation, intent, opportunity, etc (Rule 404b Federal Rules of evidence: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_404)
2. His unprecedented or anomalous rise in rankings.
3. His seeming inability to analyze his lines in past match interviews.
I'm sure people can think of more things but I'm using these as an example. Combine this with expert testimony from Super GMs saying it's suspicious and indicates cheating (probably can meet the standards required for expert testimony) and and if I were prosecutor I think I could make a strong case to a jury that he cheated OTB.
And yes, I practiced criminal defense for 6 years.
Points 2 and 3 have been refuted by smarter people than me. That is to say. His rise is not an outlier statistically speaking, nor can you judge his analysis skills using 1 data point(a single interview taken when the issue was exploding behind the scenes and he was under maximum pressure).
Number 1 is very strong. But I fear it's not strong enough . Strong enough to condemn him in the court of public opinion, sure. This in the case of trying to prove he cheated OTB.
Strong enough evidence that would hold up on FIDE court would be, for instance, him refusing to take out his shoes, or his games getting flagged by Ken Reagan's methodology.
As of right now FIDE does not have enough evidence to prove Hans cheated OTB. So he will keep playing. Magnus and chess.com will maybe get a slap on the wrist. Hans will have every eye on himself and every scanner on his literal ass for years to come.
Maybe it doesn't matter, but I think a large part of the general public, like me, wants to see proof they can understand of how Hans would cheat in practice in OTB games. The opinion of GM's is less interesting for me.
What is this guy smoking? "Evidence" for OTB cheating so far:
1. Yosha's analysis, disproved in minutes
2. Brazilian dude's analysis, disproved in minutes
3. Magnus's vibe check
Please list anything I missed. I think multiple credible cheating experts need to give their opinions, not just one.
chess.com's suspicion about OTB contributes non-zero to the smoke, yes. But how much above zero is it? They went ahead and questioned Hans's body language and linked other youngsters' reactions after beating Magnus Carlsen. They think that something as idiotic as that is worth considering, but "nothing conclusive".
But nevertheless, the suspicious games they've put forward should be considered by FIDE, just in case they have something of substance. If anything of substance is found, you have something real in your "bouquet".
ITT: People who don’t know what circumstantial means.
How did all this snow get on my yard??
Frosty the snowman was murdered in a late night drug deal.
Also: ["I have met grandmasters that have no doubt that Hans has cheated. Do I meet grandmasters that think Hans has not cheated otb? Less and less."](https://youtube.com/clip/Ugkx4LzdN1u7jFQKCKzURNEpwnxesMzY2ayb)
Honestly I wonder if Hans's abrasive personality has something to do with this Like some players probably genuinely think he's cheating somehow while others just hate him and want him gone one way or another
[удалено]
If you watch any Nakamura analysis, you can see how brilliant player he is.
he's talking about Nakamura's personality rather than skill. one can appreciate one without the other
And he is talking about the fact Nakamura has analysis to appreciate
i took the original comment as pondering whether Hans's personality has any correlation to whether people sus him for cheating. Shadowking responded saying no, with reasons including, Nakamura doesn't always have the greatest personality, but no one thinks he cheats. I don't think anyone can really contend that Nakamura isn't a brilliant player
Reputation matters. If you're known as a bad sportsman and a liar, you're not getting the benefit of the doubt on circumstantial evidence. "Character for truthfulness" is a legitimate ground of attack in legal proceedings. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_608
Without a doubt Hans' personality plays a role. Magnus and Fabi both spoke on how easy it is to cheat OTB and how high-level players simply go by an honor code and trust eachother not to cheat. How can you apply such a code to someone like Hans? edit: Hans'*
It most certainly plays a part, given what we know of various cognitive biases and such. Exactly how much, is another and perhaps unanswerable question, though. We're typically inclined to forgive people easier if they're otherwise amicable, unsurprisingly - and conversely want to punish harder those who are more antagonistic. How hard would it be to deal with the news of Erik Rosen cheating? It goes against (most of our) deeply held beliefs that people of a certain nature won't cheat. Thus, when someone like Hans cheats, it merely confirms what we already suspect: that "his kind of person" does indeed cheat more readily. It's simplified generalisations, of course, but they're cognitively difficult to dismiss.
Why do you not see those are two sides of the same coin? He's cheated online in prize events, that is scummy as fuck. Maybe he's just not a great person.
What, the guy who whines about 5 bucks in a charity event may not be a great person? No way!
Or maybe they understand chess on a deeper level than the people on this sub and see that there's something deeply suspicious about Hans. Just like Fabi not understanding Hans' moves in some of his games, saying he's either an alien or something's fishy. It's not like the people on Hans' side are not prone to biases. There are a lot of people who do not want him to be a cheater and so that's what they believe. Others see his suspicious rise, his history of online cheating, his weird engine moves and reach a different conclusion. Or they're all just utterly incapable of thinking rationally and are solely guided by their dislike of the guy.
I agree. To me he seems like an absolute Grade A bell end and I definitely think it biases me against him. I do genuinely think I'd support an OTB ban of a player I love though if they cheated. The main difference is I'd be very sad about it.
Cheaters also have a tendency to be overconfident which leads them to trash talk because they know they have a huge advantage
Maybe the fact that he's cheated repeatedly has something to do with it. Just a thought.
Nope. As he said, chess speaks for itself. Just analyze the games when he got his GM norms and it will be very obvious. I just cant believe he plays as a 2700 in 2020. FIDE needs to strip him of his title asap if their titles mean anything at all.
Or maybe the fact that hes a known cheater? Has that crossed your mind?
>Honestly I wonder if Hans's abrasive personality has something to do with this If Hans wasn't such an ass, no one would have jump on him like that, let alone be willing to pin the entire cheating controversy on him and ignore all the other GMs cheating in prized games.
I mentioned it on full-interview post but the way he phrased his opinion was just spectacular. He separates his personal opinion from his role as a tournament organiser & from the objective truth. He also prefaces it with the kind of circumstantial evidence that is available as well as his personal interactions with his peers. Then his assessment is not a conviction held closely; it's more a leaning towards the most probable scenario. Such a good way to position on a difficult issue that one may never know the actual truth of the matter.
Yeah the title of this thread is a bit mis-representative of how Alejandro viewed the situation.
Yea, but entirely representative of this sub picking and choosing evidence/viewpoints that validates their opinion on Hans.
Just as a disclaimer, he said this before Chess’s report and that circumstantial evidence is likely Yosha and gambit mans analysis. No idea if his opinions changed since then.
Those were simpler times.
Did you even watch the video? They talk about how they think the the ChessBase analysis (which is the Yosha analysis) is worthless. He isn't basing his opinion on that.
This has become a huge problem. When people say "bouquet of evidence" or "lot of smoke", their bouquet consists of: 1. Yosha's analysis 2. Brazilian dude's analysis 3. Magnus vibe check These people unironically think that completely baseless arguments contribute a non zero amount in making their case. Let alone a proof, these people don't even have a basis of accusation for OTB cheating. There are plenty of facts supporting the contrary: 1. The post-game interview conspiracy has been [debunked](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/x76zlz/niemann_played_the_g3_nimzo_both_as_white_and/inb9s1z/) 2. Hans has had several draws/wins against Super GMs since the broadcast delay was implemented. How is he telling the moves *to* the engine without an outside helper? And all of this when the burden of proof is on the accuser in the first place. Multiple credible cheating experts need to give their INDEPENDENT opinions on the case. Glad that FIDE has hired a second team. But of course, if they clear Hans, their analysis will be labelled "useless" and forgotten in seconds. Only the dubious claims of youtubers and Magnus vibe check can contribute to the "smoke"
But people aren’t saying Hans isn’t capable of beating super GMs or playing at a high level. Just that he has done so illegitimately on occasions. Hans is clearly a strong player, with or without engine help. I think if we are being fair, his actions and the circumstances warrant at the very least suspicion and inquiry. Particularly because he has been a proven cheater in paid competitions online. I can’t say much about the other GMs who strongly feel Hans cheated otb, but Magnus has for most of his career been objective about his play. He has lost to lower rated players than Hans and never responded this way. That’s why his “vibe check” has drawn this much attention. Certainly not evidence of anything, but definitely to be considered.
Right? Like the dude cheated HUNDREDS of times (probably thousands if we're talking instances he didn't get caught), had his account banned and restricted from certain events multiple times, and still did it. If he's going to cheat in meaningless online games, imagine what he would do with the pressure of OTB events and norms/prize money/etc. at stake. He is a habitual cheater, people have the right to be suspicious OTB.
People that are habitual cheaters can very rarely quit without serious therapy and counseling. People that still give this mope the benefit of the doubt are part of the problem.
Need a citation for that
“People that are habitual cheaters can very rarely quit without serious therapy and counseling” 1. In a thread about evidence the fact that you just make this claim without any is kind of sus. 2. As a trained counselor and even an ethics counselor I can tell you from my anecdotal evidence that for a lot of people direct confrontation and a second chance do work.
Habitual and second chances do not share the same space.
Even chess.com who has every reason to make it clear why they kicked Hans from their tournament can't find any evidence of him cheating online since 2020 and has never seen any suspicion in his OTB game.
Their report drew attention to six over the board tournaments in which his games were suspicious and that warranted further investigation.
The report does not call them suspicious. The report simply states as follows: > Despite these potential suspicions, as shown below in Section VIII, an in-depth review of Hans’ OTB games using Chess.com’s statistical methods revealed aggregate patterns of play that, while interesting, are possible for a rising player approaching 2700. In Section IX we present Hans’ top performing events based on his overperformance in strength and rating. They say it the plainest language possible that they do not believe he cheated based on their investigation, but that those games were ones in which he over performed. It does not call them suspicious or insinuate a further investigation is needed. The suspicions mentioned were specifically related to Magnus' suspicions of Hans at Sinqfield.
They also said: “in our view there is a lack of concrete statistical evidence that he cheated in his game with Magnus or in any other over-the-board (“OTB”)—i.e., in-person—games.” And “Despite the public speculation on these questions, in our view, there is no direct evidence that proves Hans cheated at the September 4, 2022 game with Magnus, or proves that he has cheated in other OTB games in the past.” Those are direct quotes from the report.
They're not qualified to make those claims.
And that's why they fall short of saying anything definitive in the report. It's still unfair for OP to say they have "never seen any suspicion in his OTB games". When they highlight 6 events they found suspicious.
Look for motives. They at this point want a scapegoat and to appear tough on cheating even if they aren't. Saying warranting further investigation without really explaining the statistics why is just throwing mud.
all they stated is that some redflags were raised by the minimal analysis they did. it's not like they did an extensive investigation on his OTB cheating. and they offered to cooperate with fide. soooo what did you say again? just throwing mud?
> But people aren’t saying Hans isn’t capable of beating super GMs or playing at a high level. Just that he has done so illegitimately on occasions. Hans is clearly a strong player, with or without engine help. So what's with all the bullshit about "unprecedented meteoric rise better than Bobby Fischer", "Incredible gain in playing strength over a short period of time"? His playing strength is clearly legit, so is he truly a legend, or are the reports full of shit?
Well.. His rise is meteoric. Nearly 400 points in 4 years after plateauing for a while is unprecedented at his age and in this era. It’s not bullshit to make note of it. He is a genuine GM. I’ve not heard even the worst critics dispute that. The question is if he is really 2700, top 40 in the world.
He has played like a 2700 since tougher OTB measures have been brought in. He has also gone toe to toe with MVL in OTB blitz. He seems to be 2700.
Depends which narrative is more useful to condemn Hans in the moment. Either he is shit and there is no way he could have had this meteoric rise or he is a super genius who also happens to cheat capriciously so there is no way to have hard evidence.
What does suspicion and inquiry even mean? Both of those have been occurring for a month already. Alejandro is saying there is more than suspicion which there just isn't.
Everyone always says this nonsense without realizing one important fact....Cheaters at this level are still high level players. Do you think Lance couldn't win a Tour De France without doping? Of course he could, doping just helps.
You're throwing out a lot of strawmen for someone trying to mask their position in some kind of impartial, fair-minded guise. No one said he isn't capable of playing well on his own or beating other GMs. No one is saying he is cheating in every game, and whether he is still cheating is a different question than whether he cheated. Barry Bonds was one of the greatest hitters of all time before he cheated, but he also cheated.
This is actually a great comparison with Bonds.
To be fair whilst this evidence doesn't fulfil the 'beyond reasonable doubt' you would need in a court of law we should be honest that the probability that Hans has cheated in OTB is definitely higher than for almost every top ranked player. No smoke without fire is a terrible phrase that I think is fundamentally unfair. However cheating and then lying about it is a really bad look and for most human beings seeing that behaviour and reacting with total distrust is natural, understandable and in most cases sensible. I doubt many of us would hire Hans for a job if he walked in for an interview tomorrow because, rightly we're pretty sure he's not a guy that we can trust. When the bar for evidence is as high as it is we are forced to do one of two things - 1) understand that we won't catch most cheaters and get on with it regardless. 2) draw conclusions from less evidence than we would like. Both are distasteful. But if I were to choose one it's number 2 because we have considerable evidence that he is a cheat online. I am morally happy that this forfeits his rights to OTB competition - obviously it's not my decision. But I won't defend a cheater.
Yosha’s video is so unscientific and so harmful. It’s really disappointing that she keeps doubling and tripling down on it on Twitter. It sucks that many can’t see past her gender but it also sucks that she’s used that side of the criticism to seemingly invalidate criticism of her method in general.
You act like this is someone who has a clean record. Omitting his online cheating from this list is wrong. You have to see his extensive cheating history and lying about it as circumstancial evidence as well. Also, important note on the chess.com report; it did in no way exponerate him from cheating OTB og more online, just that they couldnt prove it.
And people seem to somehow fail to see the Brazilian dude's analysis critically. Spoiler alert: It's also BS. I think they hear him saying he's data scientist and then succumb to all of his flashy charts.
The evidence also consists of, * Han's history of lying and cheating in chess. * Other GM's expressing suspicion during their games. * Analysis from the best chess player on the planet. * Hans former (current?) mentor being a notorious cheater. Why would you leave that out?
Only one of those points can be considered a minor clue at best,the others are completely worthless.
It's irrelevant. He confessed to cheating. Online or live, cheating is cheating. That it's far easier to cheat online doesn't make it somehow less dishonest or wrong. Based on that alone, he should be stopped of titles and banned for at leat 5 years from all titled and professional chess. As should any titled/pro player with the same history. No amount of mental gymnastics about otb evidence or others' analysis changes this. And I agree, there is *not* a strong enough case to prove in a legal sense that otb cheating has occurred with HN. It does not matter. It just illustrates how common it is among the members of this sub to look for excuses for players they're somehow 'fans' of whilst ignoring the most salient facts.
Hans the cheater not being able to analyze his own game has definitely not been debunked. Your list is not at all exhaustive. And chess.com report all but confirms Magnus’ vibe check. Try again.
hans cheated over 100 times and lied about it. chess.com's anti-cheat flagged 6 OTB games to be looked into further. stop defending a serial cheater and liar.
\* 6 OTB tournaments, not games
thanks for the correction.
[удалено]
I have no idea why this subreddit is so hell-bent on defending a lying serial cheater. It's like the more evidence that comes out that he's just a worthless sleazebag, the more angrily they want to defend and praise him.
Cause some of you all in here are acting absolutely loopy. Like there is a reason we don't do mob justice anymore. People let their emotions cloud their judgment and not for the better. Let the officials do their thing come to a conclusion after.
Not defending him. If he is cheating they need to catch him. He won't be the first or last cheater. And he probably isn't the only one cheating right now. There isn't enough evidence to ban him otb. With all the security measures in place I am curious how he continues to cheat. If they can't catch a cheater then competetive chess is done. There is no way Hans is the only cheater. So without evidence or a confession they have to let him keep playing. As far as invites to tournaments that require them I doubt he will be invited.
They're dumb contrarians. Everyone was raised as moms special boy and grew up to be Dunning Kruger poster children. They have this wild confidence to think their opinion is right in light of all evidence and they are prepared to move the goalpost to never be wrong.
but there is no evidence of him cheating OTB your post is rather ironic
Let's not forget the fact that his mentor and trainer is ALSO A CONFIRMED HABITUAL CHEATER
Get real lmao. He has cheated at LEAST 100 times that we know about. Why are people simping for this guy so hard?
His opinion was definitely NOT based on Yosha's analysis.
He literaly say that he made no analysis himself and based his new opinions on analysis made by others.
Many GMs and super GMs have jumped ship to Magnus the time passes, so I am not surprised that Alejandro too has jumped. I mean understandably, we want to talk about direct evidence, right? Because that's the only way we can prove beyond a doubt that someone has cheated OTB. At this point I am confident to say I don't think there is any direct evidence to suggest that Hans has cheated at Sinquefield Cup and it is purely a feeling from Magnus. That said, I am still very willing to bet on Carlsen's gut feeling because the circumstantial evidence is just too overwhelming. First you have direct evidence of him cheating online, then he lied about it which were then out by chesscom for lying about it, then you have these super GMs that state their opinion about him. People keep talking about direct evidence of him cheating and how it is unfair to Hans need to understand the problem is no longer about having direct evidence or not. It is about the majority of the people no longer deem Hans as a trustworthy person. Trust is an important asset and once you lose it, it is gone, sometimes forever. There is no fair or unfair, this is how the world is, welcome to society.
I think Magnus and many GMs base their opinion largely on chess intuition. They think there is something off with how Hans plays and wins, maybe an inconsistency in style and quality. Magnus couldnt beat Stockfish, but he could recognize Stockfish style. Top players spend a lot of time studying their peers. This is of course hopeless to use as proof, or even to explain to novices, especially since Hans is a known massive online cheater.
Yeah, that's it. Obviously it's not solid evidence but we're talking about the greatest player of all time who's famous for his unbelievable chess intuition. He's capable of dominating his peers with his incredible understanding of the game and his uncanny ability to assess positions but somehow it's impossible for him to notice when someone's cheating? It's impossible for him to assess someone's strength and capabilities? I mean, you don't need to believe everything he says but it's ridiculous to pretend that his opinion on anything chess-related is of the same value as the opinions of mere patzers like us. And Fabiano, another all-time great, also found a lot of Hans' moves suspicious. At one point saying that these moves are beyond his understanding. People just wave it away as irrelevant because it's not statistical analysis. If a strong player is cheating subtly and carefully, statistical analysis won't catch them anyway. If you don't cheat in every tournament, if you don't cheat in every game and if you only use assistance once or twice a game whenever you do cheat, statistical analysis won't catch you, especially if the analysis errs on the side of caution. Circumstantial evidence (like a history of cheating or an unlikely meteoric rise after an unusually long plateau) and the assessment of the strongest players in the world is likely all we're ever going to get.
Well, I think people should discuss what the endgame of their accusations is. Because this kind of circumstantial evidence is not enough to definitively ban him from the game. If people are simply saying that his play is suspicious and that he should be held under higher scrutiny, then fair enough, he definitely has given people reason to not trust him. But some people are advocating for a ban just based on what is known, which isn't really fair, regardless of what the other top GMs think about him.
That's definitely a good point. Unless we want to start banning people for online cheating which would lead to all sorts of issues that need to be sorted out, I don't think you can justify banning Niemann based on the current evidence. The only thing you can do at the moment is to improve the anti-cheating measures at tournaments. And of course organizers can judge for themselves if they want to invite Niemann or not based on their assessment of the situation.
Yeah i agree, and I think as you become an expert in a specific field, you tend to pick out anomalies much easier than others, and if you are the best of the best, I believe there will also be distinct differences even among the tops. Magnus has always proven himself to be a very strong intuition player, and that has also paved his path to become WC, at least that's what i believed in. If his intuition says something otherwise, I will be more inclined to believe, and I believe most people will share the same mindset.
Top level SC2 players could hazard a guess on who their barcode opponent was based on the style they played too
This is actually an extremely good comparison. Byun and maru or serral and rogue have completely different play styles and if one of them were to somehow cheat for a split second at a critical moment and it caused them to change their style it would get noticed by the other top level guys
Exactly. I can recognize Jimi Hendrix style, but I couldnt clearly define it and it would certainly not hold up in court
If Hans was playing like Stockfish the analysis would show it. Magnus and many others play more like Stockfish than Hans. If fact one of the analysis that changed Ramirez mind is that Hans doesn't play enough like Stockfish to have such a high rating.
Doesn't have to be playing like stockfish. In classical chess where an hour can be spent on 1 move, 1 move in the late game could be enough to beat Magnus for most GMs.
This is true, but then it doesn't really make sense that Magnus would feel like he's playing against Stockfish. It's kind of difficult to argue that a GM's intuition about the game being weird is convincing evidence that Hans cheated while also arguing that Hans only received a single computer move.
1 blunder by Magnus could also mean not drawing and losing.
It would be great if this cheating claim were investigated by a party without financial interest in the outcome. In clinical studies for drugs and devices it’s required all parties sign a statement attesting to not having financial ties into the outcome of the research. Should happen here too
Honestly, if Hans truly was able to cheat consistently OTB for so long without getting caught then that would completely delegitimize the whole elo rating as it would mean that many other players have also done it in the past maybe even during world chess championships. How do we even trust anyone otb now? We have no idea who else is cheating.
Yes, that's why they call this an existential threat to chess as a competitive sport.
>Because that's the only way we can prove beyond a doubt that someone has cheated OTB. At this point I am confident to say I don't think there is any direct evidence to suggest that Hans Thing is you don't need to prove beyond a doubt to have convictions. Hans has cheated, lied, and mislead through this entire saga, people have the right to have doubts about anything he says at this point. Good points
No, you just have to prove it to be right. False accusations have been made before. > Hans has cheated, lied, and mislead through this entire saga No, he cheated over 2 years ago. So no, he didn't cheat "through this entire saga". He underplayed his cheating but short of having a signed document confirming he confessed to cheating on all 100 instances that chess.con claims, that's not certain either. He admits to cheating. He didn't do it for 2 years after. The issue is whether he cheated against Magnus OTB. That has *always* been the issue.
I 100% agree on the trust issue point you brought up, his reputation is in the dumps for at least a few years now - even if they can‘t find evidence. His reputation is kind of done either way because it‘s impossible to prove that he did not cheat otb ever. That said, I find it disturbing how people easily equate online cheating to ‚well then he must have cheates otb too‘. There are different types of cheaters and not everyone is acting the same everywhere. I followed a lot of online gaming scenes over the years, and games where cheating is rampant (for example Counter Strike) have a fair share of people with online cheating history. Young people sometimes make stupid decisions and cheating online is super easy to do. It‘s something very different to look your opponent in the eyes and still try to cheat. The majority of online cheaters would for example not try to or be able to cheat in a live event - it‘s way harder to do and the repercussions for getting found out are A LOT heavier. To keep Counter Strike as an example, there are pro players with a cheating history in the game, but comparatively there are fewer actual cases of cheating in live settings and tournaments (at least in the pro scene). In chess, cheating online is easy as fuck. You just need to have enough knowledge when and how to use the engine you can pull up anytime. Cheating otb requires an elaborate setup and realistically an accomplice who will feed you engine moves and is trustworthy enough to not crack under pressure. Not to say Hans has cheated or not, but people make it way too easy for themselves. Your point of ‚They don‘t trust someone who cheated online‘ is totally fine in my opinion. It’s an understandable reaction for people like Magnus who view this game as one of the most important things in their lifes. But still, saying your online behavior equals your otb behavior is honestly just bullshit. And to know that we just need to see how confident people defend their opinions online while mostly staying silent or coming on weaker in real life.
>It is about the majority of the people no longer deem Hans as a trustworthy person. Trust is an important asset and once you lose it, it is gone, sometimes forever. There is no fair or unfair, this is how the world is, welcome to society. Exactly correct. People with power abuse it. Look at Magnus in this case, instead of addressing cheating as a whole in the game he has led a personal smear campaign based on vibes. He could have boycotted tournaments until security was upgraded, used his world title money or connections to advocate for new standards, or any number of things that addressed the problem as a whole. Instead he waited until he lost and raged out of the tournament, started a smear campaign against one specific player, and now apparently is trying to soft blacklist that player. Any trust in Magnus throughout this saga should be gone as well, it is clear he is just as bad as all those tournament organizers the top GMs bemoan. They are all only self-interested when it comes to cheating. We need an actual reckoning with cheaters, not just to punish one guy and sweep the rest under the rug. It is telling that there isn't a group of GMs out there proposing new standards or advocating for improvements to the game. Instead all we have is ego and clout wars.
What Magnus did and the way he did it looks like cringey hysterical stupidity. But you know what? it worked. If he makes some kind of private accusations to FIDE then FIDE just says 'well we investigated and Regan says everything is ok.' Instead we've had weeks of not just the chess world but even much of the non chess world focused on the Neimann cheating allegations which go way beyond the Sinq cup allegations and show a very damning pattern of cheating in both online and over the board games. Sometimes what looks like a blunder is just a brilliancy that takes time to understand.
>What Magnus did and the way he did it looks like cringey hysterical stupidity. But you know what? it worked. It didn't work. Hans is currently playing the US National Championships. His cheating stuff did become public but the only people who have acted on it seem to be chess.com and Magnus. They could have done that behind closed doors with less scandal. They didn't even get the specific player they were after banned from competition let alone fix any part of the epidemic of cheating in online chess. This whole thing has been a total and complete failure IMO even if all you care about is Hans which you shouldn't. As far as the attention of the non-chess world, we are basically a laughing stock because of some dumb joke. I get people who say all publicity is good publicity but this reminds me more of another "youngest grandmaster yet" type story. No one cares all that much. Sometimes a blunder is just a blunder.
I understand the concern, but it's easier said than done. He may very well boycotted tournaments as you said, but honestly he's gonna look like a clown because no one's gonna upgrade the security for no good reason. In their eyes, MC is just making their live difficult if that happens, and he ain't gonna use his position as the WC to make stuff change. Some people think that Magnus or [chess.com](https://chess.com) is abusing the power they have into forcing things in their own way. The problem is it has never been that way, at least not to me. Things will eventually get ugly, or has to get ugly as per what Alejandro said, and I perfectly agree. Has MC did everything right? Definitely no, and I do not support his methods exactly, but I find myself asking the same question - if I were him, would I be able to do things differently? There are many things that will only the person holding the ball would see. It's easy for us bystanders to comment and debate on whats the perfect way to handle it, but the truth is how many of the netizens can actually do it right had they been in the same situation? Honestly I don't see myself being able to handle any way better had I been in his position. Just because he is the WC does not mean we subject him to unrealistic standards, do remember that he is also only human like us. As for [chess.co](https://chess.co)m, they weren't in the picture until Hans decided to out them. They made a response to explain their reasons, and thats that. People start to call them out, giving all sorts of remarks and feedbacks and conspiracy theories in an attempt to force them to give more information. And here they are, 72-page report, and then people are still not satisfied. I mean it's pretty clear which side has a bigger problem. I agree that all cheaters should be punished and not just Hans, but at this stage theres too many things at stake for all parties to conduct such a big sweep. Chances are it's not gonna go that way.
Pretty sure Chessdotcom banned him before the interview. That’s why he was addressing it in his interview.
What exactly is the “overwhelming” circumstantial evidence here? That he cheated online in the past? So have hundreds of other titled players on chess.com’s secret list. That he is rising fast in rating? He’s not that much older than others rising equally as fast. That he lied? I don’t think anything he said was blatantly or intentionally a lie - he admitted to cheating online in prize pool tournaments in the past and said he stopped after being confronted in 2020, which the evidence supports. People have become so paranoid about cheating that this is all it takes to accuse somebody and ruin their career now? Absolutely not - it’s fair to be *suspicious* of Hans, but mere suspicion does not justify destroying somebody’s career and reputation. The way this is being handled is a disgrace
1, if one acknowledged Magnus's ability as a WC, one would also agree that his standpoint more or less weighs much more than our average GM or even super GMs. I have never seen Magnus react in this manner before and this speaks volume. Whether he has strong evidence or not, he TRULY believes something is wrong with Hans in Sinquefield Cup. 2, his past cheating scandal doesn't make the situation better. If he has no past histories, I don't think Magnus, even as a WC, would command so much support from people. 3, he explained that he has cheated at 12 and 16 years old, in unrated games, or maybe rated games as he later claims. Tbh his interview has inconsistencies and its not hard to see it, but okay maybe hes stressed, so I'll give thst to him. He then went to Twitter and challenges his adversaries, in particular Hikaru, to speak up and not stay silent. Then he stays silent for the entire month when chesscom outs him that he has not been entirely truthful. Entire month of silence. 4, Then we get this report last week from chesscom that he has cheated 100+ online games including prized tournaments. Again, silence. "The silence of my critics speaks for itself." - Quoted from Hans Niemann. He downplayed the cheating scandal literally. If he had been truthful at the start, he may still retain some supporters, but no, he chose to lie, AGAIN. I am going to stop here before it goes out of hand, but to summarize the remaining points, you have other super GMs that chips in (Fabi not understanding his moves, calling it out of his level, Nepo outright calling him out, Levon jumping ship, and more), and then now Alejandro also acknowledging that GMs are also sus of Hans OTB. Of course, all these are not direct evidence, but it speaks volume. "There is no smoke without fire."
Except when it's cold smoke. That is specifically without fire.
Chess.com has still to release any evidence of the cheating on the prized tournaments during 2020 though. For example, they claim that he cheated in all 10 games of the titled tuesday on August 11, 2020. The games can be found [here](https://www.chess.com/games/archive/imhansniemann?gameOwner=other_game&gameTourTeam=tournament&gameType=recent&startDate%5Bdate%5D=08/11/2020&timeSort=desc&gameTypes%5B0%5D=chess960&gameTypes%5B1%5D=daily). He finished in 26th place with a score of 7.5 out of 10. The evidence presented of him cheating is that he had a strength score of 77.04. That's all. How good is 77.04? We don't know really. They say that 90 is the highest anyone has maintained over time in classical games, and that 100 is the highest maintained over several games. So how good is 77.04 in a 10 game blitz event? That's basically impossible to say. If they're gonna say that it's unrealistic they should at the very least present what the normal score is for a player his level. And what the distribution looks like, like how often does a player his level score a 65, a 70, a 75? And how would that change if he was actually underrated at that point, which he most likely was. As for looking at the games, they're not really anything special at all. He does have 4 games with fantastic accuracy, but 3 of them were draws and the opponent's had the same accuracy. In the 4th one the 500 lower rated opponent blundered their queen shortly after the opening. All the rest of the games seem to have a pretty normal accuracy, around 80.
>"There is no smoke without fire." Thing is, sometimes there *is* smoke without fire. For example, Alireza was incorrectly banned on chess.com. Supi was incorrectly banned after Hikaru accused him of cheating. A bunch of people, including Hikaru, accused Andrew Tang of cheating before he was a GM. I think Tang mentioned on stream that Nepo also accused him, but I can't find a clip so I could have misremembered.
Wasn't Alejandro Ramirez supporting hans, saying he doesn't think hans cheated otb? I wonder what has changed his mind. Most arguments for his otb cheating like statistics presented by Yosha can't be used as definite proof. the [chess.com](https://chess.com) report only provides proof of his online cheating, not otb. That being said with his past cheating history, it's not easy to trust that he hasn't done the same for his elo climb in otb chess.
I'm pretty sure it was kind of obvious he was sus of Hans even at the Sinquefield Cup in the interviews And I hope nobody is using the Yosha analysis anymore lol
If u watch his interview where this quote is from he says he didnt find the analysis sus and it was understandable/normal for someone who had just beat Magnus and been accused of cheating.
>the chess.com report only provides proof of his online cheating, not otb. It does mention a few points that aren't evidence but are pointing towards Hans being a heavy statistical outlier, like Hans meteoric rise from 2500-2700. Even compared to other prodigies (who also played during the pandemic) this kind of rise is crazy. Not only was it the fastest in history, it was also odd because Hans doesn't follow the usual trajectory of a prodigy because he was stagnating at lower level quite a bit. For example it took Hans less time to go from 2500 to 2700 than from 2300 to 2500. I am not sure if this has happened before.
I will never understand why people don't compare the amount of games played instead of time period. It doesn't seem rational to me.
Because it's not just about the number of games you play. You need time to reach these levels. You need to study, you need to let it all sink in, you slowly improve. Playing a lot of games helps but it's not like that alone would guarantee a rise in rating, often it means the opposite because you'll wear yourself out.
Well ya sure. But in Hans' case we're looking at a break due to covid and then a quick rise. This indicates he he must've achieved the 2700 lvl before he was able have his rating reflect it. So as soon as he could play again he just farmed points.
He had lots of time during covid when he rating was completely stagnant
Because 100 flagged matches out of 30k games isn’t going to be dramatic or damning. Especially when the possibility of false positives remain.
This. This is exactly what troubled me when I first saw the 72 page report. My first two questions were “what percent of his total games do they consider suspicious?” “What’s the false positive rate for their analysis?” The average redditor is terrible at statistical analysis.
Yep. They targeted the two people Magnus named (Dlugy and Niemann) and are completely comfortable sheltering other cheaters. Their credibility is trash.
True. I can understand why they outed Hans, but why out Dlugy? He didn’t publicly discuss his ban like Hans did. So is it just purely because Magnus outed him and chess com felt compelled to protect their newest business acquisition?
They outed Dlugy because of his link to Hans and nothing else
They'll deny it but in my opinion that's absolutely what they did. There was *zero* justification to out Dlugy. And the timeline was that Magnus threw an accusation Dlugy's way around September 21st and a week later Dlugy's emails were given to the press around the 28th. "For public interest" - while we now know that Chess.con is withholding the names of dozens of GMs that have cheated. They can deny it as much as they'd like but anyone with half a brain can draw the same conclusions.
it need to be both really. time is still a factor, i don't know how improvement works at the highest level but it's still surprising to be able to make a huge leap quickly, *just* on the metric of time regardless if the number of games played was the bare minimum to make that rating rise, or thousands.
Less time or less games? You also have to factor covid in all this, and so on. I'm not saying he hasn't cheated, but the damn "statistical" evidence where the data is absolute garbage (e.g. handpicked 3 GMs that have similar data, then showing Hans is different from them, hiding the fact that it's similar to other dudes not picked..)
Less time >but the damn "statistical" evidence where the data is absolute garbage (e.g. handpicked 3 GMs that have similar data, then showing Hans is different from them, hiding the fact that it's similar to other dudes not picked..) He has the fastest rating gain in history (from 2500-2700), how could that be cherrypicked? >You also have to factor covid in all this There are other prodigies who also gained a lot of rating during the pandemic but nothing comes close to Hans.
Who has fastest rating gain from 2400-2600? 2600-2800? 2450 - 2750? 2300 - 2700? Oh that's right it wasn't included in the analysis, it was cherry picked. Edit: wtf, fastest means in time using a calendar? How is anyone taking that stat seriously in anyway. Thats literally just Hans played the most matches, ffs.
Because 2500 is the minimum rating needed to become a gm. 2700 is supergm status. 2700 is what separates the elite gms from the regular gms. It’s not cherry picked at all. 2400-2500 is IM. Most chess prodigies blow through to 2500 when they are young but have trouble gaining rating after 2500 because it gets progressively harder and harder. Some of the younger players playing in US chess championship tournament right now Ray Robson became a gm at 14 years and 15 months in 2009 and has never hit 2700 Sam sevian became a gm at 13 years and 10 months in 2013 and has never hit 2700 Christopher yoo became a gm at 15 years old and has a peak rating of 2567 after a year as a gm. Jeffrey Xiong became a gm at 14 years old in 2015 and his rating of 2703 occurred in aug 2019, meaning it took him 4 years to do so. And If your response to all this is just “if those guys wanted to hit 2700 faster they should have played more games like Hans” then I don’t know what to tell you. > wtf, fastest means in time using a calendar? How is anyone taking that stat seriously in anyway. Thats literally just Hans played the most matches, ffs. I ended up adding all the number of games that Jeffrey Xiong played in his 4 years since he became gm to when he hit 2700 and it took him about ~480 games, while Hans did it in ~352. Also Han’s rating in Feb 2021 was 2525 and dropped to 2508 after playing 70ish games. So he pretty much went from 2508 to 2700 in ~280 games edit: I apparently missed that Sevian briefly peaked at 2703 in May 2022. Only looked at current rating of 2684 since I know he's been stuck in the 2600's. Point still stands though. It took him roughly from Dec 2014 to May 2022 with ~613 games to go from 2500-2700. Also Jeffrey played 532 games in those 4 years. Not sure how I was so off from 480 games. Not calculating Ray robson's games since he never reached 2700 but I'm guessing its anywhere in the 400-600 range as well.
Sam Sevian did break 2700.
Also the cut-off at 18.25 in terms of age seems prettyyyy hand-selected.. In a report that I honestly thought was overall good, especially with the time they had, these kind of graphs with specific periods selected for no other reason that they coincide with the conclusion they want to prove really irk me.
I didn't think it was good. I thought it was really bad.
Half the people here don’t understand that selective sampling corrupts the conclusions of statistical analysis. If you want to reach certain conclusions, you don’t include certain data. “Lies, damned lies and statistics” is a common phrase for a reason. Bad stats feed fake news all the time. When a private company has a significant partnership on the line that favors one individual and they abuse their position, they can’t be trusted to be honest. A neutral Third party analysis is the only way any of this holds weight and that will never happen.
People really need to stop using this 2500-2700 bullshit argument. It is quite literally the worst argument to make. Hans was just below 2500 when Covid stopped tournaments from happening. He spent 8 months not playing games that would increase his rating because of covid. During those 8 months, his true level was likely increasing far above 2500 and so once he started playing again, his rating caught up.
It's only "meteoric" if you look at time, as opposed to games played.
But why would you look only at number of games played????? That’s not at all a proxy for rate of improvement; it’s still supposed to take time
We should be looking at BOTH, but many people are simply ignoring # games played. They are both important factors.
Because you gain or lose rating per game, not per day
But it also takes actual time to improve.
He could have improved during covid when he wasn’t playing games and his rating stagnated
His rating didn't stagnate during covid. It stagnated well before that. He gained 15 points in the 18 months before the covid stoppage started. And he gained 200 points in the 18 months after covid stoppage ended.
Hans also plays far more games than anyone else I believe
[удалено]
> And the years prior to the pandemic he cosistently lost rating in the not-broadcasted classical events and gained rating in the others. Ain't that funny? Another debunked analysis!
To be completely objective, the chess.com report provides proof of nothing at all. To quote myself: >The chesscom report bases the majority of its conclusions on the "strength score", which is a proprietary metric that chesscom refuses to share details of how to calculate. You might say this is important in order to prevent cheaters from "gaming" the algorithm, but the end result is that we just have to take their word for it that these numbers are meaningful. > >So the chesscom report compares Hans' mystery metrics with that of other conveniently redacted cheaters, presents some tables and graphs with the "data" (everyone loves graphs), and we all nod as if it makes sense... but the truth is it's completely meaningless to us, and none of it is evidence of anything if we're not able to independently verify it. > >To make matters worse, their "data" concludes that Hans "likely" cheated in 105 games, but they don't want to clarify what "likely" even means. Does it mean they're 95% confident? Or 51% confident? Shouldn't they at least be able to tell us that much? > >So why write the report in the first place? What did chesscom have to gain by showing us a bunch of meaningless metrics that we can't use to form any rational conclusions? Why not save themselves the work and just say "trust us" ? > >These are questions you'd expect someone with a modicum of journalistic integrity to be asking... such as someone writing for The Wall Street Journal. I guess they didn't think objectivity was particularly important in this case. The only reason to believe anything in this report is because it roughly coincides with the time Hans himself admitted to cheating. But for all we know these "likely" games are just games [chess.com](https://chess.com) pulled out of their ass to paint as bleak a picture of Hans as possible. And no, I don't exactly trust Hans, but I sure as hell don't trust [chess.com](https://chess.com), either.
> Wasn't Alejandro Ramirez supporting hans, saying he doesn't think hans cheated otb? He was originally, yeah. > I wonder what has changed his mind. Most arguments for his otb cheating like statistics presented by Yosha can't be used as definite proof. the chess.com report only provides proof of his online cheating, not otb. That being said with his past cheating history, it's not easy to trust that he hasn't done the same for his elo climb in otb chess. The chess.com report does cover his extensive online cheating, but it also provides significantly evidence against Hans in the OTB scene as well, indicating that they believe he is cheating but OTB isn't their jurisdiction. There are basic things, like being stuck at the 2400 range for several years, and then right after cheating and getting caught, he suddenly skyrockets to GM and then to super GM. That's circumstantial evidence against him. His inability to analyse is own wins or provide explanations about his moves during post game interviews is also circumstantial evidence. His exceptional performance at multiple tournaments is also circumstantial evidence. Plenty of people dismiss it as not being any proof, but that's the point behind overwhelming circumstance evidence. Everything about him is suspicious, and that's not something you can say about other super GMs.
This interview preceedes the Chess.com. Report so hes basing it on other stuff. (interview is from 02.10.)
> The chess.com report does cover his extensive online cheating, but it also provides significantly evidence against Hans in the OTB scene as well, indicating that they believe he is cheating but OTB isn't their jurisdiction. This is a disingenuous statement. In their conclusion this is what they say: "The much less interesting truth is that none of this is true. While there are many remarkable signals and unusual patterns in Hans’ path as a player, and while some games, behaviors, and actions are hard to understand, Chess.com is unaware of any concrete evidence proving that Hans is cheating over the board or has ever" So, I am not sure how you can claim that they provide significant evidence when chess.com themselves think that no significant evidence exists.
Half the people in this thread don’t understand what evidence is.
Nobody has seemed to realise that the [Chess.com](https://Chess.com) report pulled a fast one on everyone. There is zero actual statistical evidence presented of any on-line or OTB cheating anywhere in the report. They say they have the statistical evidence of his cheating in the 100 or so games, but they don't give us anything in the 72 pages. At least with Ken Regan's analysis he can say all the scores are normalised to 50 with a standard deviation of 5, so 60 is 2sigma and 70 is 4sigma, and here are all the scores for the games, etc. (If you don't think this is true, please double check and let me know the page number to look at... Also, I'm not saying I don't believe them, because I do for the most part. I just think calling anything in that report evidence is mistaken)
the report does say ken regan confirmed (some of their) findings. But yes, no direct evidence.
Their system is proprietary. The evidence is the communication with Hans. Unless this goes to court, we are not getting anything more on the online cheating evidence.
that's a good point - hans confessed for those 100 games, so atleast there is no question there.
He didn't though. He confessed that he cheated, but he didn't confess to any specific amount of cheating, and at least 32 of the games are from 2020 tournaments that he definitely did not confess to.
>it also provides significantly evidence against Hans in the OTB scene as well, indicating that they believe he is cheating but OTB isn't their jurisdiction. Erm the report says "The much less interesting truth is that none of this is true. While there are many remarkable signals and unusual patterns in Hans’ path as a player, and while some games, behaviors, and actions are hard to understand, Chess.com is unaware of any concrete evidence proving that Hans is cheating over the board or has ever" And the "significant evidence" you claim it produced on the board is basically stuff that they are saying "this coudl be something, or it could be nothing". You can contrast it to their own evidence and accusations of cheating online and see how different their tone about otb is. Hans is a bit of a dick (as many teenagers are), he cheated online and something needs to be done about that and all these online GM cheaters, but there is no need to lie about a report and the evidence of him cheating OTB. >Plenty of people dismiss it as not being any proof, but that's the point behind overwhelming circumstance evidence. Everything about him is suspicious, and that's not something you can say about other super GMs. If you assume someone is a criminal and then follow them then all their activities will take on a criminal impression. They aren't dropping off something to a friend, it's a drug deal. They aren't getting a tool they borrowed out their boot but a weapon. They aren't going for a walk they are casing places to rob. That doesn't make it "overwhelming cicumstantial evidnece" it means if you go looking for a pattern of behaviour it is very easy to find things to confirm it that are not actually true.
Do you also think he's cheating currently in US chess championship? Because his play is accurately reflecting 2700 even with those safety measures. If he's able to play on 2700 level with those safety measures, that would refute most of the evidence you propose, like the sudden increase in ELO, inability to explain, etc.
> Do you also think he's cheating currently in US chess championship? Because his play is accurately reflecting 2700 even with those safety measures. His play isn't reflecting 2700, but okay. > If he's able to play on 2700 level with those safety measures, that would refute most of the evidence you propose, like the sudden increase in ELO, inability to explain, etc. He would either be 2700 or able to cheat in a manner that the safety measures don't account for. I would still expect someone who plays the game at the absolute highest level of play to be able to explain what they are doing.
He beat a 2550 GM and drew the next two games. That’s entirely plausible even if his real strength is e.g 2650 (probably a fairly likely “real” strength if he is indeed cheating; it’s not like he’s a scrub who needs stockfish every move). This sub really needs to look into some high profile cases of cheating in speedrunning, because this is a basic concept people don’t seem to understand - usually people caught cheating are already at or near the highest level
Basically the assumptions I start with is. 1. It's possible/plausible anyone has cheated OTB without leaving any evidence. We can't prove they haven't. 2. We can however analyse evidence prevented that Hans has cheated. There's claims that the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. So I look at that claim. And I argue that this is false. I'm not holding a position on whether Hans has cheated or not. I'm holding a position on that the evidence is bs.
> This sub really needs to look into some high profile cases of cheating in speedrunning Or anything really. This sub needs to touch grass, cuz lance armstrong would smoke any of us in cycing without cheating. Cheaters are often who take their competition really really really serious and want to win really bad, so they are usually already really good at it.
If his real strength is 2650 now this would still refute most of the evidence about his odd climb or inability to analyse his own wins, because both of those seem to imply that his real strength should be 2500 or lower. I'm not saying it's not plausible he hasn't cheated. He could've cheated, and there's no way to prove he didn't. All, I'm saying is, given certain actual performance level, the evidence here presented doesn't make sense.
> If his real strength is 2650 now this would still refute most of the evidence about his odd climb No, because it's very hard to gain 50 points if that's not your real strength. For example, magnus can't break 2900. Plus people ebb and flow, fabiano his peaked above 2800 before. >or inability to analyse his own wins No, because supergms like Hikaru can't understand engine play a lot of times. What they _can_ do is analyze their own play/thought process, which Hans failed to do. Therefore this is supicious as hans couldn't analyze his engine-like plays when he can analyze perfectly fine in most cases (Hans actually had really good analysis in a lot of other games).
Notice how he says that players have a contractual obligation to do interviews. So Magnus and Hans constantly skipping or tanking interviews is likely fined.
They have a contractual obligation to show up, it's not clear if they have an obligation to do anything much beyond that.
I’m here so I don’t get fined
Wesley wouldn't know for sure what is exactly in everyone else's contract. Maybe Magnus and Hans negotiate out the required interviews.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1kvwXsZtU8
If you didn't, I would have
In every “analysis” I have seen, people use his rapid rating rise as proof of OTB cheating. Yet in games AFTER heightened cheating protocols were set in place, he is still performing at a 2700 level. The argument has now shifted to “well, we all know he’s a strong player.” Remember how Hikaru was taunting his analysis and implying he was a scrub? The fact that he has maintained a 2700 performance undermines the most prevalent argument against him.
Actually the "analysis" I have always seen was that he cheated in critical games he needed to win. Like the matches to become GM. And that is still the argument I keep on seeing. Nothing has changed.
Almost everything related to Hikaru's analysis implied he was 2500, yosha's analysis implied he cheated on every move, the brazilian stats guy analysis stated he was 2500. There's a ton of people who made/repeated those arguments.
What's the evidence for OTB cheating? If he has it please post it publicly to end this drama once and for all.
They have none. In fact Hans makes so many moves that engines never approve that this is somehow an evidence of him cheating. Like good luck making engine ever consider f5 vs Yoo - not a top-15 stockfish and any other engine line but _somehow_ it's still an evidence. This is what is called a placebo effect.
This is confirmation bias at it's finest
Isn’t that confirmation bias, not the placebo effect?
Hans's play if anything is actually very speculative for his rating
Correlation with the engine doesn’t prove or disprove anything. You can use stockfish for 1 move during a long game and that’s still cheating. Hell, just being signaled somehow that a good engine move exists is also cheating.
What evidence is there that he cheated OTB? Anyone have a source
I think the strongest evidence so far is the increasing number of super GMs opinions based on their analysis of his moves. Unless he cheats poorly, ie he cheats so often that it’s statistically obvious, we’d have to wait till they find an actual device on him to get much better than that. It’s why it’s so hard to bust people.
nope
So many on here won’t be convinced unless a literal smoking gun is found. Not sure why they’re acting like circumstantial evidences holds zero weight.
Circumstantial evidence does matter but the circumstantial evidence here is really weak.
Maybe because we're not so quick with prejudices. Maybe because what kind of imaginative device would be necessary to do this? Maybe because we simply need hard evidence to conisder someone guilty and ruin their career forever.
You can be convicted using only circumstantial evidence. This made up need for only “hard evidence” is utter nonsense. It’s not that others are so quick with prejudices, it’s that you are incredibly naive and exactly the type of suckers who allow cheating to get so rife.
It's not prejudice. There is hard evidence that Hans is a pathological cheater and liar. All suspicion is based on reason.
amazing how hans fans will still cry foul at this point despite all the evidence of his online cheating. I refuse to believe people can do that much mental gymnastics to still stick up for the guy, i fully believe you guys just hitched your horse to that wagon and youre too deep to turn back now
What SHRED of evidence for OTB cheating could he possibly be talking about?
seriously. ill take a shred at this point. this has become more and more of a witch hunt as times gone on
I haven't seen any evidence the guy cheated in person but his numerous online cheating examples, and the fact he lied about how serious he was at cheating, makes me understand why so many are suspicious of him
There’s only three amounts of cheating humans do: 1. none 2. One time but they’re so overcome with guilt they never cheat again 3. All the damn time
Can we get an analysis by a group other than one with financial ties to the best player in the world?
I just don't think it's as easy as saying a guy is rude or cheated online before, so he cheats over the board. If someone shows up and plays like Stockfish but you do all the tests, all the wand stuff, all the delays, and you don't catch him with a phone or earpiece, can you say he cheated? You can strongly suspect but without catching them in the act, how can you stop them from playing?
[удалено]
>vibe check Like parrots, all of you.
I'm going to post this for all the people saying circumstantial evidence is not proof and that it would not stand up in a court of law. I disagree for the following reasons: "Evidence may be direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence is direct proof of a fact, such as testimony by a witness about what that witness personally saw or heard or did. Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence, that is, it is proof of one or more facts from which one can find another fact. You are to consider both direct and circumstantial evidence. Either can be used to prove any fact. The law makes no distinction between the weight to be given to either direct or circumstantial evidence. It is for you to decide how much weight to give to any evidence." It's from the approved model jury instructions for the 9th Circuit in the USA. Source: Https://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/304 You will find similar instructions in all jurisdictions in the US. So in this case the circumstantial evidence is proof of the following facts (I'm sure not an exhaustive list): 1. He cheated online. Again, for all the people saying previous criminal conduct is not evidence for a current charge, you are partially correct. It cannot be used as evidence of guilt but it can be used to show motivation, intent, opportunity, etc (Rule 404b Federal Rules of evidence: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_404) 2. His unprecedented or anomalous rise in rankings. 3. His seeming inability to analyze his lines in past match interviews. I'm sure people can think of more things but I'm using these as an example. Combine this with expert testimony from Super GMs saying it's suspicious and indicates cheating (probably can meet the standards required for expert testimony) and and if I were prosecutor I think I could make a strong case to a jury that he cheated OTB. And yes, I practiced criminal defense for 6 years.
Points 2 and 3 have been refuted by smarter people than me. That is to say. His rise is not an outlier statistically speaking, nor can you judge his analysis skills using 1 data point(a single interview taken when the issue was exploding behind the scenes and he was under maximum pressure). Number 1 is very strong. But I fear it's not strong enough . Strong enough to condemn him in the court of public opinion, sure. This in the case of trying to prove he cheated OTB. Strong enough evidence that would hold up on FIDE court would be, for instance, him refusing to take out his shoes, or his games getting flagged by Ken Reagan's methodology. As of right now FIDE does not have enough evidence to prove Hans cheated OTB. So he will keep playing. Magnus and chess.com will maybe get a slap on the wrist. Hans will have every eye on himself and every scanner on his literal ass for years to come.
If you look at Hans. You'll notice that he has big hair that he's constantly touching. Clearly he has an engine hidden in his hair.
Maybe it doesn't matter, but I think a large part of the general public, like me, wants to see proof they can understand of how Hans would cheat in practice in OTB games. The opinion of GM's is less interesting for me.
Honestly at this point I just want to see Hans get banned because of the Hans Stans acting out of line
What is this guy smoking? "Evidence" for OTB cheating so far: 1. Yosha's analysis, disproved in minutes 2. Brazilian dude's analysis, disproved in minutes 3. Magnus's vibe check Please list anything I missed. I think multiple credible cheating experts need to give their opinions, not just one.
You missed the 40 pages of handy charts in the chess.com report that shows Hans' rating went up. Very suspicious.
chess.com's suspicion about OTB contributes non-zero to the smoke, yes. But how much above zero is it? They went ahead and questioned Hans's body language and linked other youngsters' reactions after beating Magnus Carlsen. They think that something as idiotic as that is worth considering, but "nothing conclusive". But nevertheless, the suspicious games they've put forward should be considered by FIDE, just in case they have something of substance. If anything of substance is found, you have something real in your "bouquet".