Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Games

Magnus Carlsen Releases Statement: 'I Believe Niemann Has Cheated More' (chess.com) 115

"I believe that Niemann has cheated more - and more recently - than he has publicly admitted," GM Magnus Carlsen wrote in a much-anticipated statement about GM Hans Niemann's alleged cheating. The world champion posted the statement on Twitter just moments ago. Chess.com reports: Carlsen starts by saying that he is "frustrated" about the situation like the whole chess community is. He then uses the word "cheating," finally becoming more concrete after the mysterious tweet that he sent on September 5, with a video in which Jose Mourinho can be seen saying: "I prefer really not to speak; if I speak I'm in big trouble." Carlsen then confirms what has been mentioned by GM Fabiano Caruana in a recent podcast: that the world champion already considered withdrawing from the Sinquefield Cup before the first round, when he heard that Niemann was the last-minute replacement for GM Richard Rapport.

The most important phrase in the statement reads: "I believe that Niemann has cheated more â" and more recently -- than that he has publicly admitted." Carlsen, however, doesn't specify if he is referring to online chess or over-the-board chess. Regarding online chess, Niemann has admitted to having cheated twice on Chess.com, when he was 12 and when he was 16 years old, and that he regrets that. In a statement posted on September 9, IM Danny Rensch wrote on behalf of Chess.com: "We have shared detailed evidence with him concerning our decision, including information that contradicts his statements regarding the amount and seriousness of his cheating on Chess.com." Carlsen, who lost his game to Niemann before leaving the Sinquefield Cup, reveals in his statement that he is suspicious about Niemann's play in that game as well.

The big question, whether the world champion has hard evidence that shows Niemann has cheated, remains unclear from the statement. It seems Carlsen is restricted for legal reasons, as he writes: "Unfortunately, at this time I am limited in what I can say without explicit permission from Niemann to speak openly."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Magnus Carlsen Releases Statement: 'I Believe Niemann Has Cheated More'

Comments Filter:
  • by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Monday September 26, 2022 @04:57PM (#62916065)

    "I believe that Niemann has cheated more - and more recently - than he has publicly admitted," GM Magnus Carlsen ...

    [citation needed]

    *crickets*

    • He's accusing an admitted cheater of cheating more than he admitted to. It came straight from the horses mouth,why would he need to cite himself?
      • He's accusing an admitted cheater of cheating more than he admitted to. It came straight from the horses mouth,why would he need to cite himself?

        Ya, but the admitted cheater hasn't admitted to cheating more than he's admitted to so, w/o any facts, anything beyond that is just speculation -- or, perhaps in Carlsen's Ego's case, wishful thinking.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by bhcompy ( 1877290 )
          Carlsen has earned the ability to have an ego and is an expert on high level play.

          As far as cheaters go, once a cheater, always a cheater. Doesn't really matter what it is they're cheating in. You don't suddenly grow a conscience
          • Doesn't really matter what it is they're cheating in. You don't suddenly grow a conscience

            I'm just going to say that sounds a bit ancedotal. That is all, you may continue your conjecture.

            • by bhcompy ( 1877290 ) on Monday September 26, 2022 @06:14PM (#62916311)
              Anecdotal, yes, but when you're caught you have a higher bar to earn trust, and Niemann has acknowledged multiple instances of cheating. When you're talking about circumstantial evidence, reputation is a primary defense, and Niemann has besmirched his reputation numerous times, which hurts any credibility he may have
            • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

              That's okay. You're a fauxtistic Slashdot nerd with no understanding of human behaviour.

              Out in the real world, when you're dealing with a wide range of people, you notice patterns.

              And one pattern that every non-fauxtistic person notices is that past behaviour is a very good predictor of future behaviour. This is borne out in the data as well. You can actually reasonably predict well enough that people will do what they've done before.

              Even moreso in cases of cheating.
              • past behaviour is a very good predictor of future behaviour.

                Yep, that's the meat of it right there. He's admitted to cheating previously and that does tend to mean something.

                Also, Carlsen said he believes Niemann has cheated more than he's admitted to, he doesn't claim he has proof. In other words, that's a fair statement to make.

                In short, I don't think it's unreasonable to suspect cheating from someone who's already an admitted cheater. (I mean, HELLO??)

                Maybe he's cheating, maybe he's not, but past behavior IS a good predictor of future behavior.

                • Past behavior is a reason to look closely at the guy and search for evidence, but to punish him, there should be evidence.

          • Welp, that includes 99.99999999% of the human race. Everybody's cheated at something.

            • by Anonymous Coward

              Sounds like you are projecting. Most people have never cheated at anything meaningful.

              • by Anonymous Coward

                That was wossname Niemann's claim too: Cheated online as a teenager, not over-the-board.

                At this point, though, I've kinda had it with both the whole affair --I don't play chess at any sort of level-- and the over-the-top whining and piecemeal drama and accusations.

                Let the officials sort it, that's what they're there for. So far they've frowned upon Carlsen's behaviour, and rightfully so. He's the top dog. If he privately tells them there might be cheating going on and please investigate, why wouldn't they

              • OP's statement was an absolute "once a cheater always a cheater", take it up with them.

          • by Anonymous Coward

            So far as I can tell, the cheating that has been admitted to is from when the guy was 12 and 16. I cheated at all kinds of shit when I was young that I'd be ashamed to do now and told all kinds of lies. Lots of us do at that age. Then we grow up. Didn't you ever cheat at a game during your childhood?

            • by narcc ( 412956 )

              Of course not! Why, he was a paragon of virtue! The very idea that he could have ever been anything less than perfect is unthinkable. Shame on you for even suggesting that someone of his outstanding moral fiber could have possibly made mistakes and grown as a person. Disgraceful!

          • Carlsen has earned the ability to have an ego and is an expert on high level play.

            Sure... but, as he was the one losing, then quitting, forgive me if I question his objectivity. Just sayin'.

          • by Petersko ( 564140 ) on Monday September 26, 2022 @08:38PM (#62916635)

            I would like the opportunity to evaluate you completely and irredeemably based on the worst thing you've ever done.

            Seems right. Nobody learns lessons or grows.

              • Geez, I've been screwing up my reply nesting just recently. To quote myself...

                Well, that would be an "Appeal to Extremes" fallacy.

                • Well you did say "worst thing you've ever done"
                  • Ah, yes. But I was replying to the poster. It is extremely unlikely that the poster is a murderer. In all likelihood the worst thing they have ever done fails to rise to such a standard. Taking it to an extreme like that doesn't help.

                    It's like I always say when somebody says, "Well, it can't get any worse!" I reply, "Sure it can. Just add 'And your dog died.'" Technically true, but not useful.

            • Well, that would be an "Appeal to Extremes" fallacy.

            • People learn and grow but certain professions expect a high bar to pass. If you're in a highly competitive game of skill, past evidence of cheating on that very sport should disqualify you. There's other things in the world you can be doing. No one is going after a chess genius who looked on their neighbours math exam.

              In the chess world what he did was irredeemable... The multiple times he's admitted to doing so. Fuck him.

        • or, perhaps in Carlsen's Ego's case, wishful thinking.

          If anybody can spot non-human level of play, it's Carlsen.

          • by narcc ( 412956 )

            Look more like he can spot a player better than he is to me.

            • Look more like he can spot a player better than he is to me.

              That's only because you know nothing about chess or who Magnus is.

              • by narcc ( 412956 )

                Carlsen is a petulant child throwing a tantrum. Find better heroes.

                • Please prove the other guy wasn't cheating.

                  Until then...

                  • by narcc ( 412956 )

                    The burden of proof lies with the person making the accusation.

                    • The burden of proof lies with the person making the accusation.

                      You're the one accusing somebody of lying, being scared to play properly, etc.

                    • by narcc ( 412956 )

                      Sigh... Not too big on this whole 'reason' thing, eh? Let's see if I can put it in terms even you'll understand...

                      You are a pedophile. Prove to me that you're not.

                      What's wrong? If you weren't a pedophile, you'd be able to prove it, right?

                      You mean you won't even try to provide proof? You say that the burden of proof lies with the person making the accusation?

                      Well, you are the one calling me a liar. Prove that I'm lying. Until then...

    • He was probably just referring to this accusation from chess.com [twitter.com], which makes the exact same accusation.

      Obviously Magnus made a very carefully worded statement that was read by lawyers before it was released.

      • by narcc ( 412956 )

        Given their ... entanglement ... there is no meaningful difference between Carlsen and chess.com on this particular issue. They are guaranteed to be in lock-step.

    • "I believe that Niemann has cheated more - and more recently - than he has publicly admitted," GM Magnus Carlsen ...

      [citation needed]

      *crickets*

      Citation supplied [twitter.com].

    • by lsllll ( 830002 )
      WTF does "[citation needed]" mean? It's a quote from the man himself. Oh, you mean you need citation that Niemann has cheated more? What part of "I believe" did you not understand? It's his opinion. You don't need citations for opinions.
    • Anyone else notice that the wireless logs are encoded in ASCII? Pretty definitive.
    • Chess.com, who have business dealing with Carlsen, confronted Niemann after Carlsen withdrew, with a dossier of alleged cheating on their site and suspended him from their site and tournament they run. So Niemann has probably cheated more online than he has so far admitted. But the main question is has Neimann cheated IRL. Carlsen reported him, anti-cheating protocols were invoked, Niemann was questioned, searched and scanned before his next match and nothing was found. But it's clear Carlsen wanted him ou

      • Yes, but no. Something stinks with the way chess.com is acting.

        Niemann had been suspended by chess.com years ago for cheating on their platform.

        Niemann had admitted it, and said it was only twice at 12 and 16 years old, and that he never cheated on real chess.

        Now Carlsen loses to him, accuses him off cheating, and suddenly chess.com, which is in business dealings with Carlsen, says Niemann cheated more and bans him, based on secret evidence.

        It's obvious that chess.com moved on Carlsen orders to lend credibi

  • I'm humbled by this kid, he's 1000s of times better than me and unlike me, pure fucking genius. One single move from him made me shit my pants so fast I had to quit. I'm done playing chess, retiring at the top of my game before someone even younger beats me. What a sore loser and great example of a very poor sport. My only regret is that I didn't retire before I heard this kid's name.

    • Magnus has lost badly to other people before. He hasn't accused them of cheating.

      I think some of you are thinking you're playing the giant-slayer.

      And no, he's not 1000s of times better than he is. You sound like a fauxtistic nerd trying to psychologically analyse someone, but forgetting that your fauxtism prevents from having a proper understanding of how people think and feel.
      • He hadn't lost in 54 games, is undergoing an early midlife crisis, and never lost to anybody with big hair before. Lots of players have a hard time playing against Niemann, just because they don't like him and his presence is distracting to them.

  • Core accusation (Score:4, Insightful)

    by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Monday September 26, 2022 @05:05PM (#62916095) Journal

    There are a lot of words in his accusation, but the core of it was Magnus felt Hans was acting weird during their game. Here are his words:

    "throughout our game in the Sinquefield Cup I had the impression that he wasn’t tense or even fully concentrating on the game in critical positions",

    That is the only new information here.

    • There are a lot of words in his accusation, but the core of it was Magnus felt Hans was acting weird during their game. Here are his words:

      "throughout our game in the Sinquefield Cup I had the impression that he wasn’t tense or even fully concentrating on the game in critical positions",

      That is the only new information here.

      The other new information is that Carlsen is standing his ground, meaning this probably isn't going away.

      Personally, I don't know if Niemann was cheating. He's certainly cheated in the past, more than he's admitted to, which creates a lot of valid suspicion.

      He's also shown unusual patterns both in his ratings improvement [reddit.com] and his quality of play when the games were broadcast live [twitter.com].

      None of these is proof, but considering how effective cheating could be (an AI is unbeatable) I understand why Carlsen would find

      • Magnus played remarkably badly in their game [youtu.be]. Hans didn't play incredibly well.

        • Re:Core accusation (Score:4, Insightful)

          by The Evil Atheist ( 2484676 ) on Monday September 26, 2022 @08:08PM (#62916583)
          Chess players play badly to test a game engine. Hell, Lee Se Dol, in his first public match against AlphaGo, was playing unconventionally to trying to find a weakness in it.

          Do people actually think Carlsen thought he was playing at his best? He seems to have been suspicious of cheating THROUGHOUT the game. He didn't have a sudden epiphany after the loss that Niemann may have been cheating. So his "bad play" is completely in line with someone who probably has been suspecting something for some time and was using it as an opportunity to test his suspicions.

          If Hans was really better than Carlsen, why did he also play badly? If Hans was better than Carlsen, then he would have known he was playing badly and would have beaten him with his ordinarily better play. To follow along with Carlsen playing badly sounds like someone trying to throw people off the scent that he is getting help from somewhere.
          • Wait, your idea is that if Magnus plays poorly, that somehow proves Hans used a computer? I don't see how that's logical.

            If Hans was really better than Carlsen, why did he also play badly?

            There is no one who thinks Hans is better than Carlsen. Just that Magnus played his worst game since 2019 at least.

            • I didn't say it proved it. I'm saying that's a valid explanation of why Carlsen was playing "poorly", especially given that Carlsen has admitted he has suspected Hans of cheating from before. When you're not playing to win, but playing to test out, the moves you play don't somehow still form a coherent plan.

              There is no one who thinks Hans is better than Carlsen.

              There are plenty of people, even on Slashdot, who thinks Hans is better.

              Just that Magnus played his worst game since 2019 at least.

              And somehow that doesn't strike you as strange. He just played his worst game for no apparent reason?

      • by narcc ( 412956 )

        He's certainly cheated in the past, more than he's admitted to,

        I suppose you have some proof to back that assertion

        None of these is proof,

        Oh, okay.

        • He's certainly cheated in the past, more than he's admitted to,

          I suppose you have some proof to back that assertion

          None of these is proof,

          Oh, okay.

          Quoting out of context does not a counter-argument make.

          As repeatedly documented chess.com has asserted they have evidence of additional undisclosed cheating.

          That is not proof of current cheating, but it is valid grounds for suspicion.

          • Quoting out of context does not a counter-argument make

            The entire context is that it is up to the accuser to present evidence, and logically, they should already have the evidence before they decide they think there was cheating.

          • by narcc ( 412956 )

            Counter argument to what? Assertions are not proof.

            That is not proof of current cheating, but it is valid grounds for suspicion.

            The exact opposite of that. Given their involvement with Carlsen, we have good reason not to trust any statements made by chess.com.

            • Counter argument to what? Assertions are not proof.

              That is not proof of current cheating, but it is valid grounds for suspicion.

              The exact opposite of that. Given their involvement with Carlsen, we have good reason not to trust any statements made by chess.com.

              So Niemann, with a documented history of cheating, is to be trusted uncritically.

              But chess.com, when they state they have evidence of additional cheating (it is fair they should share with Niemann before disclosing), is to be not trusted presumably because they bought a company from Carlsen... which somehow becomes enough of a motive to go out of their way to make a pro-Carlsen statement and potentially expose themselves to a defamation lawsuit when they have no history of making deceptive statements like t

              • by narcc ( 412956 )

                So Niemann, with a documented history of cheating, is to be trusted uncritically.

                Learn how to read. I never said anything of the sort.

                There is absolutely no reason to believe that Niemann cheated. None. Zero. Not a single shred of actual evidence. All we have is a baseless accusation from Carlsen, who is clearly throwing a tantrum, and equally baseless claims from chess.com, which has a serious conflict of interest.

                If chess.com had any actual evidence, they would have presented it by now. Get a clue.

                No. This is no more than a ham-fisted smear campaign. Chess.com should be embar

      • He's also shown unusual patterns both in his ratings improvement...

        Giri's rating rise was faster than Niemann's, but nobody accuses him because he's a nice guy who gets along with the other top players.

      • Yeah he admitted to cheatin in the past in regard to online chess games, but these are live ventures, where it's much harder to cheat, and IMHO almost impossible without an accomplice. And yeah an AI can be unbeatable, but how would the AI get the information on the live game and how would it get information back to the player? Getting/sending digital information could be blocked by using signal blockers around the players. Have them only wear clothes provided by the organization and have them checked for e
  • Anyone can say that they believe anything. Your belief has no meaning if you can't prove it.

    • How exactly would you "prove" that somebody was wearing anal beads last time you played them?

  • by SmaryJerry ( 2759091 ) on Monday September 26, 2022 @06:01PM (#62916279)
    I think the online cheating is not as bad as it sounds because chess.com's online rating system is not part of any regulatory body of chess and none of the games played there are recognized by FIDE or other bodies of chess in any way. It's still just another website for playing against others in chess, effectively just for fun, with the occasional minor (few hundred dollar) tournament. Now, in the last couple of years in a post covid environment it has grown to putting on full-fledged tournaments where they actually monitor the players with cameras but that when Hans stopped playing. Before Hans stopped streaming chess, he would play against GM Hikaru, the best blitz chess player in the world, and win a decent amount of games where it seemed clear he was not cheating. Supposedly according to Hans he only cheated to get his rating high enough to play against the top players, but didn't cheat against them. Literally any random player could cheat their way to the top and play against these other players, especially in Titled Tuesday, so it's not like it wasn't something the GMs weren't used to playing against on this website. To compare, it feels like if a NBA player was playing on a local basketball court was caught cheating, not comparable to someone getting caught cheating in an actual NBA game. I would love for Magnus to show more proof if besides a feeling.
    • I would love for Magnus to show more proof if besides a feeling.

      How exactly would he "prove" that somebody was wearing some sort of radio receiver last time he played them.

      The "proof" is that somebody suddenly played way above their rating.

      It's simply not possible.

      • But he didn't play above his rating, Magnus played below his rating. Magnus made blunders, a blunder is when you make a mistake so bad that you los ethe game if the other player takes advantage of it. Typically players win when their opponent makes many very minor mistakes over the course of the game but when a blunder (a large mistake) is made a win can be easy.
        • But he didn't play above his rating, Magnus played below his rating. Magnus made blunders.

          Magnus has made plenty of blunders before without accusing anybody of anything.

    • I don't understand that reasoning. If you're good enough to play against GMs, surely you don't need to cheat to get your rating high enough to play them? Because if you're not, it's just going to be an embarrassing curb stomping if you don't keep cheating.
      • There are various reasons why someine would cheat against weak opponents.

        Boredom, speed, consistency, mental fatigue...

        You want to raise your elo quickly, so you pay dozens of games a day, you're bound to lose some, to get tired, to make mistakes, to get bored, so you get a chess engine to "help".

      • There are different levels to GMs. Top level GMs won't play you if you are lower rating because say if you are say 3000 rating GM and play a 2700 GM then you gain like 1 point for a win, lose like 5 points for a draw, and lose like 20 points for a loss. So to play high level GMs you need to have a high rating.
  • by caseih ( 160668 ) on Monday September 26, 2022 @06:08PM (#62916297)

    Short of saying "look over there" and then moving a piece on the board surreptitiously, how does one cheat at chess? It's not like you can move a piece in an illegal way without the opponent or officials protesting. I suppose you could have your phone running an AI playing chess and communicating those moves to you surrepticiously. I dunno. I read somewhere that Niemann was accused of memorizing moves that were worked out by a computer. Since chess always starts from the same state (or one of two states), the game has become essentially deterministic unless one player makes a mistake. Maybe it's just time to admit computers have eliminated the professional chess playing space.

    • by nuckfuts ( 690967 ) on Monday September 26, 2022 @06:38PM (#62916353)
      This has been discussed previously. For expert players, merely knowing that a decisive move exists can encourage them to keep looking farther than they would have. This could be conveyed by someone in the audience simply scratching their nose or something.
      • by Budenny ( 888916 ) on Tuesday September 27, 2022 @03:09AM (#62917167)

        Yes. Knowing its there is all a strong player will mostly need in order to be able to find it.

        You can see this to some extent if you look at the standard books of positions. Knowing that some forcing sequence is there makes it much easier to find. You can to some extent reason backwards, its there, OK, what are the weaknesses in the other position that could produce it. Your thinking changes completely.

        When you don't know its there, your thinking is not just about tactical possibilities, its also about what kind of thing you should be trying to do. Should you be trying to simplify down to a small ending advantage? Should you be continuing to improve the position of your pieces? And so on.

        In grandmaster games you occasionally come on striking tactical winning sequences which the grandmaster missed. As soon as they are pointed out, they are obvious. As soon as you know they are there, even a 2000 rated player or lower will be able to figure out what they are.

        You don't need a chess engine suggesting moves to cheat. Though that will of course be do it.

        But the question about this episode is whether with the gap in strength between the players could be overcome simply by a signal to the effect of, there is something there. If all that happened was that an alert was sent, I doubt that is enough to do it.

        I think you would have to have more, suggestions of moves, the reason being that its necessary to get into the situation where there is a winning tactic for the hint to look harder to be of any value. With a several hundred rating point gap, I doubt it would be possible without assistance on the moves to be made.

        The gap between strong and weak players has this characteristic: the game becomes lost while the weaker player can't figure out why or how it happened. By the same token, the weaker player will be unable to get into a position where there are hidden winning tactical possibilities, so if all he has at his disposal is a signal when they are there, that will not be enough to let him win against a much higher rated opponent.

        • Does replaying games and looking at what irks and set plays to use against each team count as cheating? In football and other team sports replays are used by coaches to win. Now if you study chess openings of an opponent, and see where he/she uses too much time, that will work. So if you open with an unusual variant, and without hardly thinking your opponent plays the exact move to frustrate a series of advantages, is that just damn good homework and study of past games with errors. Now lets say you need a
    • by xwin ( 848234 )

      Maybe it's just time to admit computers have eliminated the professional chess playing space.

      What a stupid statement. Cannon can shoot a cannon ball much farther than human can, yet we have an Olympic discipline of throwing cannon ball. Also crane can lift much more weight than a man, car can move much faster than a man, etc.
      Humans do not compete with computers in chess, they compete with other humans. And cheating at chess is easy. One can run a computer analysis of a position and use the best move that computer can think of. Magnus Carlsed is rated 2882 points. The Stockfish chess engine is rat

      • by caseih ( 160668 )

        Sorry but your analogies aren't even close to relevant here. The point is that chess players have been learning from computers, and some with very good memories have been memorizing the moves and sequences of moves that they learned from the computer, either by playing against the computer, or by employing a computer to do analysis off-line. Sure if he's sitting there communicating with a guy in the audience who's running the analysis for him, that's definitely cheating. But I've not seen evidence that

    • Maybe it's just time to admit computers have eliminated the professional chess playing space.

      Computers have been beating humans for years.

      The whole point of this "scandal" is to allow humans to keep on playing chess between themselves.

    • Chess players have been exposed hiding a chess engine in the bathroom. When they get to tricky spot they put their hand up, go to the bathroom and load the match into the chess engine and find a killing move. Since matches are on vugraph, and accomplice and analyse the match and signal you. A chess move doesn't take many bits to transmit. Casino cheats invented radio devices where you could signal in Morse Code with your toe and receive data via a vibrating patch, all hidden in a shoe. It has been alleged

    • > How does one cheat at chess?

      By getting computer moves during the game.

      How did Niemann do it on the previous occasions he has admitted to cheating? I don't know - does anyone ?

  • by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Monday September 26, 2022 @06:47PM (#62916365)

    I think they're worried if the chess cheaters get hit today, the Final Fantasy and World o Warcraft cheaters will get hit tomorrow.

  • ... is shut down professional chess tournaments forever.

    If nobody's being paid to win, there will be accordingly less incentive to cheat.

    Meanwhile, people that love the game itself can continue to play for fun and no harm is done to the hobby.

  • Why don't they just play in a bloody faraday cage or even in the nude....

  • Can NIemann sue for defamation?
    • Yes, absolutely. Will he? Who knows, chess grandmasters are mostly nutcases.

      Suing them is really the only way to prevent this from being a continuing problem in the future. And his chess career is probably over, so it would be reasonable for him to recoup those losses from Carlsen, who can afford to pay the judgement. (And has enough business entanglements that he wouldn't be able to avoid paying)

  • by SuperDre ( 982372 ) on Tuesday September 27, 2022 @04:10AM (#62917255) Homepage
    Wel, that's easily fixed. Have the contestants wear clothes supplied by the organization and have them checked for any devices (that's easily done with a signal scanner). Or have them play in a faraday cage so no signals can get in or have signal scrambler around the table so any signal is blocked. Camera's for the organization can all be wired, so there can be viewers in the room.
    • by rew ( 6140 )

      The problem is that the electromagnetic spectrum is quite wide. If you know they will have a scanner that scans including the 433 MHz band and the 2.4GHz band, you can prepare a device that works at 147MHz (there is an amateur band there somewhere) or 5GHz (you know modern wifi).

      Whatever the scanners scan for you can find a way around it.

      With the public wanting to follow the game "live" the state of the game is available for everybody. So the only thing is to get the "suggested move" in to the player. Scann

      • But most live broadcasts are already delayed explicitly for this.
        And there are scanners that scan all frequencies, but ofcourse it's always possible to conjure something up that's outside the regular bandwidths, but that requires specialized hardware that not a lot of people can create.
        But having these 'simple' checks and have the contestants wear provided clothes (which could also have an extra jamming function), and delay the tranmission, and have spectators in the room not be able to use smartphones/devi

  • about chess. What am I missing here?
    • Chess is amusing. I like chess. Why it's here on slashdot, I have no clue. Maybe because players are measured against chess engines.

  • In the game that Carlsen lost to Niemann, where he accuses Niemann of playing inhumanly well, Niemann only played "very good" by engine ratings. Carlsen, however, played extremely poorly, possibly his worst ever. This from a Hikaru video.

    It seems likely that Carlsen was psyched out by Niemann, believing that he is cheating with engine moves and thus himself making bad moves.

Fundamentally, there may be no basis for anything.

Working...