Chess Grandmaster 'Likely Cheated' In More Than 100 Matches, Report Finds (thedailybeast.com) 209
An investigation into the career of Hans Niemann, the chess grandmaster embroiled in an alleged cheating scandal, has found a disturbingly widespread pattern of suspicious behavior far beyond what the 19-year-old had previously publicly admitted to. The Daily Beast reports: The 72-page report, compiled by online platform Chess.com and reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, alleges that Niemann had "likely cheated" in more than 100 online matches, including several played for prize money. The Chess.com report noted the "many remarkable signals and unusual patterns in Hans' path" as an in-person chess competitor, but did not accuse him of cheating in any classical over-the-board matches, instead suggesting that "further investigation" was merited.
The chess world's governing body, FIDE, is conducting its own inquiry into Niemann's playing after Magnus Carlsen, the Norwegian world champion, all but directly accused Niemann of cheating in a game last month. Following the scandal, the younger American player confessed to having cheated -- but only twice, in instances he chalked up to his age, having been 12 and 16 years old when the incidents supposedly occurred.
The chess world's governing body, FIDE, is conducting its own inquiry into Niemann's playing after Magnus Carlsen, the Norwegian world champion, all but directly accused Niemann of cheating in a game last month. Following the scandal, the younger American player confessed to having cheated -- but only twice, in instances he chalked up to his age, having been 12 and 16 years old when the incidents supposedly occurred.
At the casino (Score:5, Interesting)
"If you win too much, we know you cheated."
Re: (Score:2)
That is basically what the evidence seems to amount to: Anomaly detection. That one is not reliable in any way.
Not saying he did not do it, but any real accusation is premature at this time. That is were "motive", "means" and "opportunity" comes in. None of these have evidence so far. There are some suspicious things that should be looked at (and that is happening), but no proof.
Re: (Score:2)
no proof.
What exactly would "proof" be to you?
What sort of investigation would you suggest? A retroactive strip search months after the game ended?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you not understand the concept of proof? Are you willing to just believe any random accusation made without evidence because you don't personally see any way that such an accusation could be proven?
Carlsen shouldn't toss out accusations like that if he can't back them up. All that does is unfairly tarnish the kids reputation. That's a real scumbag move if you ask me.
Re: At the casino (Score:2)
It's unsportsmanlike conduct. It other games that's punished in some way.
Re: (Score:2)
They care if you cheated or not. They just ban you for winning.
Re:At the casino (Score:5, Informative)
actually GMs disagree with your assessment. THey do say that simply knowing that there is a great move that's uncommon can be enough to help them significantly. And that's before being pointed to which piece to move.
Re: (Score:2)
actually GMs disagree with your assessment. THey do say that simply knowing that there is a great move that's uncommon can be enough to help them significantly.
Equally: Knowing that the most obvious move is the best one would save a lot of clock time.
Re:At the casino (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
During the game, yes. Maybe evidence will be forthcoming, but so far the allegations haven't said much about that that I can make out. At least they haven't suggested any specifics. As for over-the-board-playing, Carlsen said "His over the board progress has been unusual, and throughout our game in the Sinquefield Cup I had the impression that he wasnâ(TM)t tense or even fully concentrating on the game in critical positions, while outplaying me as black in a way I think only a handful of players can
Re:At the casino (Score:5, Interesting)
How is that in any way a parsimonious explanation?
It doesn't explain the fact that Carlsen has never made accusations like this over the course of his 15 year career, much of it spent as the top player in the world.
It doesn't explain the fact that Niemann has repeatedly been caught cheating, has confessed to only what he's been caught doing and claimed he didn't do anything else, and then has confessed to having done more when he was caught doing more.
It doesn't explain the fact that Niemann trained with an expert on chess cheating who's been banned from events with cash prizes after confessing to cheating.
It doesn't explain the fact that Niemann played games against other players in the same tournament where there were clear hallmarks of cheating, and that he couldn't explain anything he'd done after the fact.
Re:At the casino (Score:5, Interesting)
Those of us who spent large portions of our lives competing knew their performance was not possible without doping but it was nearly impossible to convince a lay person of same. The story was simply too appealing, and the evidence almost entirely circumstantial, so the whole ruse was able to continue for a very long time.
Re: At the casino (Score:2)
I don't think it was hard to convince lay persons that doping was going on. It was only hard to find people who cared. This is cycling we're talking about.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Knowing that it exist in that particular configuration is an important bit of information. If it does not exist you may spend clock time to find it. And so if you know there are no obscure good move in a configuration you gain time.
Similarly if you know for sure that an obscure good move does exist then you can allocate time to find it.
Re: (Score:2)
We have two different accusations against Niemann. One from chess.com that he cheated in his online games (although they never explain to us how he cheated in the articles I read). Then there's the accusation from Carlsen that this young man cheated in his over-the-board games because he wasn't nervous enough and played advanced moves?
If someone (or a computer tool) was watching the game and doing analysis for him and communicating that to him, then yes that is cheating. Completely agree. Is this what happ
Re: (Score:2)
> If someone (or a computer tool) was watching the game and doing analysis for him and communicating that to him, then yes that is cheating. Completely agree. Is this what happened on chess.com?
The analysis on chess.com does not specify HOW the (alleged) cheating happen. Just that the moves are overly good in way that are statistically inconsistent.
> Having memorized and recognized obscure moves in advance that gave him an advantage against Carlsen, I can't see how it is cheating.
That would not be che
Re: (Score:2)
chess.com will not publish the ways they use to find cheaters, as that could be used to "finetune" the cheaters actions. but there are many small things, like detecting if the game lost focus (ie: switch to another program) or where it clicks (like a program clicking exactly in the center of each square, not anything a human could do, even if they tried)
Notice this isn't just "simple" tests as above, you also have very complex statistical analysis and even AI.
catching a cheater that cheats ALL the time is u
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, provide proof that he's cheating or get slapped with a slander/libel lawsuit like you deserve.
This freaking CHESS, not a murder trial.....
Re:At the casino (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine you have a machine in your pocket. This machine is aware of your life and your surroundings as you go about your day. But, once in a while, it'll sound an alert with a message:
"STOP WHAT YOU'RE DOING. Think VERY carefully about where you are right now. Here's a list of 7 things you could do in your situation *right now*, and ONE of them will lead to you having a VERY good day". The machine even doesn't tell you what will happen, only that you will really really like the outcome if you choose one of the 7 options. When someone receives that alert, you can bet that person will have a better chance of having a VERY good day vs not having such a machine at all.
This is the advantage that's being talked about. At this level of chess, there aren't 50 possible move options per turn. There are maybe 10 that will be considered seriously. Simply being alerted to take more time to analyze a position whenever the possible outcome has the potential to be extremely favourable is a huge advantage. If a person can do this with their own brain, they become a world-class chess player. If a machine does this, the person who uses such a machine is cheating.
I don't know if the accused player cheated or not, but this is the cheating mechanism people are talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait so knowing about rare or unusual moves is cheating?
If people know about it then it's not rare or unusual, it it?
Having watched a computer do something in the past and remember how that worked is cheating?
Your opponent has also watched that computer do that and negated the "brilliant" move before it ever came up.
Re: (Score:2)
No, this is not how chess works. There are too many possibilities and almost all the positions are unique. Its not a matter of having watched a computer do something and remembering it.
There is a lot of memorization in the opening, but at some point you are out of it and on your own, and that is the point at which games start to be won or lost. Apart from opening traps, which nowadays no master will fall into.
Re: (Score:2)
Its not a matter of having watched a computer do something and remembering it.
Of course not, but GP was suggesting that it was.
Re: (Score:2)
> They aren't accusing him of running a computer program on another device to feed him moves to play in the on-line game?
That's precisely what they're accusing him of doing.
The thing is, if you run the computer program and make all the moves it tells you to, it's *very* easy for someone to catch that by analyzing the moves after the fact. So, instead, you want to have the computer program running, but you don't copy all its moves. You cheat on one or two moves where it matters.
Re:At the casino (Score:5, Insightful)
You obviously do not play at any serious level. Its not a matter of knowing. Its a matter of seeing.
There are two ways in which cheating is possible, both reliant on the fact that the best modern chess programs are far stronger than any human players. They depend on having a program running and analyzing the game.
The first and minimal way is the program sees a forced winning sequence, and the player is alerted to the fact that there is such a sequence in the position. Given that knowledge he can find it.
This is very unlikely to be an issue in the current controversy because the hard part is getting into a position where you have such a winning combination. If there is a large disparity in strength, it will not be possible for the weaker player to get to such positions. Its not knowing moves. Its that he will not recognize what he has to do to get there. And the opponent will not make the kinds of errors that allow such positions to arise.
You don't just automatically find yourself in a position where there is a winning forcing sequence. You have to be aware that in a possible future position there will probably be such possibilities, and then you have to play to get to that position. But against a stronger player, he/she will also realize the possibilities and will avoid getting forced into that position.
You can see this for yourself if you look at books or columns with a position labelled white or black to play and win. They are usually examples from grandmaster play. Once you know its there, even a 2000 rated player will mostly be able to see it. Not always however. Some will be so counter-intuitive for humans that they will have a hard time.
The second way is more plausible, though no-one has shown he has done it or even provided a plausible method by which he could have done it in over the board play. It is much easier in online play, obviously.
That is, the moves suggested by the program are supplied to the player as he plays.
The way you might detect this is by relying on the difference between programs and humans in their approaches. A grandmaster will look at a game and see moves being made that are not at all natural human moves but are nevertheless very strong. If you go through a game and find that after the opening just about all the moves chosen are those which are first or second choices for a strong program, AND ALSO that several of these moves are not natural, that is, very unlikely for a human to have considered, then this will arouse suspicion.
A sequence of games from a player many or all of which have this characteristic will be prima facie evidence that there is something which merits investigation. Its a bit like someone trading shares who consistently buys in advance of announcements which result in a rise in price. Its not proof, but its grounds for suspicion and investigation.
If you want insight into how chess thinking works, watch the youtube clip where some of his games are considered by very strong players. Here is a very instructive long piece featuring Caruana:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
There are a couple of others on youtube.
If you are not a reasonably strong player you may not understand Caruana's commentary, why he takes some moves to be natural and others not, why he says he doesn't understand some moves, and the speed with which he goes through variations may be difficult to follow.
In that case you aren't equipped to think about this issue.
Re:At the casino (Score:4, Interesting)
Is it possible that a human observing a computer making those kinds of moves could learn to imitate them?
Re: (Score:2)
Is it possible that a human observing a computer making those kinds of moves could learn to imitate them?
No.
It's not a question of style or thinking like a computer, it's a question of being able to evaluate games at an inhuman rate to figure out the strength of the move.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, of course. But your problem is probably not that the moves are there but you cannot see them.
Your problem as a low rated player is that you do not see how to get into positions with possibilities. But your opponent can, or can see better than you how to get into them or avoid them.
You are probably not seeing the forced sequences because they are not there in the position, and you haven't been able to see how to get to one where they would be there.
The classic example is positional sacrifices, eg pawn
Re: (Score:2)
yes, it would be cheating. Coaches are usually not allowed in the area where the players play. Actually I don't think anyone but the players and the judge are allowed there.
Re:At the casino (Score:5, Funny)
Despite all these allegations, I still have not seen one single *SPECIFIC* example of something that he has done that qualifies as "cheating". I find this very suspicious.
Maybe Niemann is being very strategic, thinking several move ahead -- like ... he's playing ... damn, I can't think of the right analogy ...
Re: (Score:2)
like ... he's playing ...
Checkers?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, all games between grandmasters are draws because they all know exactly what move to make. It's like watching tic tac toe.
Re:At the casino (Score:5, Informative)
1) You realize that the Chess.com is talking about online matches right? Not over the board games. Putting the moves into a chess program and doing the move the AI does is cheating.
2) You wouldn't need anything that complicated. Just a pattern (1-8) for row, column, or even piece type. The players are high level level enough to fill in the missing information.
Evidence so far:
1) Hans has gained the most points in the shortest amount of time than any other player in history, by a large margin
2) Has admitted to cheating in the past
3) Is being coached by a player who had his own cheating scandal back in the day
4) Behaves oddly during and after matches (doesn't appear to be focusing, has trouble articulating why he made certain moves, etc.)
5) Beats the #1 ranked player in the world, after that the tournament switches to a tape delay system and he doesn't get any more wins for the tournament.
6) Program specially designed to find cheaters says he cheats a lot
7) Magnus loses all of the time, it happens. This isn't boxing where #1 never loses. Normally he is gracious and congratulates and commends the person he lost to. He sees something up with Hans.
Sure several points alone wouldn't mean much, but there is a big tread.
Re: (Score:2)
By your criteria no such evidence could exist unless they hacked his system and installed spyware, or broke into his house.
He's not going to jail or anything, it's a private business that says "here are reasons why this person is not allowed back". That is within their rights, it's also the ethical choice. Every person he beats he lowers their ranking, why should he be allowed to continue to take points from people when the preponderance of evidence says he is cheating.
If he continues to play in live even
Re: (Score:2)
By your criteria no such evidence could exist unless they hacked his system and installed spyware, or broke into his house.
If there's a big difference in level between somebody's online play and their real-life play then it's almost certain that they're cheating when they're online.
The only other explanation is that they get very nervous when playing in public or something like that.
It could happen but it doesn't seem to be the case here - he's taking on the greatest player ever in public without breaking a sweat.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about? People are convicted of serious crimes all over the world everyday based on circumstantial evidence.
Chess.com did an investigation, they found more then 100 times he cheated online. That's more than enough to ban him from their service.
What are you even advocating for? Are you saying they shouldn't ban him?
Re: (Score:2)
All of the aforementioned stuff is potential evidence of potential cheating... which warrants looking for further and more conclusive evidence.
Statistical evidence can be "evidence" (Score:3)
I'm reminded of a long while back when an online poker player was outed with statistics. Some folks mined the data and graphed the results, and the guy was a crazy outlier.
It would be different if AI was only as capable as Battle Chess in 1988 (although I couldn't beat that at all levels), but modern AIs are unbeatable. If your play routinely aligns with such an AI in difficult situations, yeah. That's pretty damning. And such statistical data should be treated as real evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need to. He admitted it.
Re: (Score:2)
"I don't know how to recognize an X. I find it suspicious that I have never seen an X."
It's fine for people to be confused by what they don't understand.
But you find it strange that you don't see something you don't understand how to recognize?
Dude...
Re: (Score:2)
I can't even figure out how you would cheat at chess.
Clue: Maybe you should stop posting here until you've figured that part out.
Re: (Score:2)
> I can't even figure out how you would cheat at chess.
Can you tie your own shoes? File your own taxes? What else can't you figure out?
Chess AI (Score:2)
I can't even figure out how you would cheat at chess. You move a piece, and anyone can see what you did.
It has been rumored that he was wearing a wireless, vibrating buttplug and he was receiving messages in Morse code. But that seems silly. When you get to the grandmaster level of chess it seems unlikely that you need help figuring out what move to make.
Clearly the person on the other end would be feeding the game to a Chess AI which have been consistently better than human players for over a decade now.
Re: (Score:2)
The same can be said for bringing a dictionary to a spelling bee. The words are there and anyone can see what you spelled
Human chess players, even grand masters, are human. They make mistakes, they regularly play sub-optimal moves. Skilled players can even recognize a style in well-known players games.
Computers, on the other hand, will always play the (according to their algorithm) optimal
Re: (Score:2)
Despite all these allegations, I still have not seen one single *SPECIFIC* example of something that he has done that qualifies as "cheating". I find this very suspicious. I can't even figure out how you would cheat at chess. You move a piece, and anyone can see what you did.
Cheating here is not the physical movement of the pieces, but the figuring out which move to make. And a computer can do that for you (and they are better than GMs) and that is considered cheating.
Since they very clearly state that they "did not accuse him of cheating in any classical over-the-board matches", these instances of cheating were all online matches where you are in the confines of your own home and play via the internet. If there is no official present when you are playing, it seems to me it is
I always have to wonder (Score:2)
There can't be that much money in chess championships. Can there? So what's the motivation? You just want people—or "the world"—to love you? Kinda depressing.
Re: (Score:3)
anyone being paid to play a game has motivation, they are being PAID to play a GAME
Re:I always have to wonder (Score:4, Informative)
Some event are 6 digit first prize:
https://www.chess.com/news/vie... [chess.com]
Re:I always have to wonder (Score:5, Insightful)
People are weird.
Re: (Score:2)
People are weird.
Tell me about it. There's this poster on Slashdot who thinks everything in life is exclusively about money!
Re: (Score:2)
People cheat in games where there is no money involved. People who lose a game sometimes get all butthurt over it, even when there is little or no money involved.
People are weird.
Yep, you just have to look at competitive online games, some people literally pay to cheat in those games.
Re: (Score:2)
The 2021 world chess championship had a purse of 2 million euros. In 2020, Magnus Carlsen earned about half a million dollar just from online chess. That's not including sponsorships.
Re: (Score:2)
people cheat in computer FPS against unknown people why? to say they are the best
people even cheat in single player games
not everything is about money, feeling good, feeling success, gaining status or even the rush of cheating and not be caught
Re: (Score:2)
The tournament in question is 13 days long, the winner makes $100k, and the top ten finishers all make over $10k.
The online tournament a few days later that Niemann was subsequently kicked out of has a $200k top prize, and the top 32 finishers all make over $10k.
And there are lots more tournaments like this.
Magnus Carlsen has an estimated net worth of $50 million. So you can't exactly make subvert-democracy money, but you can make movie-star or pro-athlete money playing chess.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Watch this 8-hour game and tell me chess isn't interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
(I mean properly watch it...)
Re: (Score:2)
Watch this 8-hour game and tell me chess isn't interesting:
I would literally rather watch paint dry for 8 hours than watch that chess match. I'm not shitting on what you enjoy, you do you. But I can say with absolute 100% certainly that TO ME that chess isn't interesting.
So... (Score:2)
Faraday cages (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
Just put the players inside a Faraday cage on the bright side of a one-way mirror. Now the only cheaters we should watch out for are cyborgs with embedded electronics inside their heads.
Not really. You are not an engineer, I take it? Because I can still think of a lot of approaches that would work even in that situation. Remember these people are Grand Masters. A simple "spend more time on this move" one-bit signal is already a massive help. You can do wonderful things here that do not require any electronics. Also, Faraday cages are not perfect.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you can deal with the problem on the outbound side -- broadcast the chess match on a 30 minute time delay.
Even the world's best supercomputer is going to have a tough time assisting a cheating player, if the computer doesn't know what the current state of the board is.
Re: (Score:2)
That will just give you a problem in the other direction. Maybe one that is easier to solve, maybe not. I guess a lot will depend on what FIDE finds out. These days, data-transfer is something that can hardly be controlled though, so a capable cheater with good tech access can always cheat with little risk of discovery.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: So... (Score:2)
How about metal detectors? Anything electrical needs metal.
Re: (Score:2)
That raises an interesting non-chess-related question, would checking all cavities make women or men more likely to bow out? Are women more tired of constantly being probed or are men more homophobic? Inquiring minds, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Fine line (Score:3)
There's a fine line between calling someone a genius or a cheater. This is not to say that Niemann did not cheat but statistics and arguments starging with "we believe that..." have no merit without concrete evidence.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, they have a method to detect cheaters. They identified a list of 25 or so potential cheaters. 19 have fessed up. The last one is Hans who sits in the middle of the confidence of their analysis.
So is it circumstantial yes? But there is a shit ton of circumstantial evidence. Would that pass a burden of proof "beyond a reasonable doubt"? Maybe not. But to make policy on their own platform, they don't need that. Would that pass a burden of proof "more likely than not"? Yeah, probably. And to make decision
Re: (Score:2)
The report is not about the OTB game. They only talk a little bit about it and say that their analysis points out that his move during the OTB game are unusually high but they are not in the statistical "that's cheating" range.
Re: (Score:2)
Read the chess.com report. Hans admitted the 2020 cheating they detected.
Note that chess.com only accused (and got admission) of online cheating on their site. White noting irregularities of his recent win against Magnus, they are not accusing him of cheating, although they do note that in the post-game interview he was lying about his online cheating which prior to that that had been dealing with as a private matter.
That is a LOT of anal vibes (Score:2)
perhaps that's his true motivation?
Chess.com not impartial (Score:4)
Chess.com has direct financial ties to Magnus Carlsen. They cannot provide an impartial analysis.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, "Local ID10T", they cannot provide an unbiased analysis because they are biased. Thank you Captain Obvious.
But that doesn't mean they're automatically wrong. I'd love to take someone who's consistently wrong to Vegas, we'd play Blackjack or Roulette and I'd do the opposite of everything they say and make millions!
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't make them right either. On the contrary. You can't trust anything they have to say. That means that it's a complete waste of time to entertain anything they put forward.
You'll notice that they're not willing to make a definitive statement. Everything is qualified. That's also a real scumbag move. They're going to completely trash this kids reputation and not even try to provide any actual evidence. All because Carlsen got his feelings hurt when the kid gave him a thrashing.
Re: (Score:3)
You can't trust anything they have to say.
You can't trust anything anyone says. Trust isn't an automatic given. But to simply throw something out because of some financial link is almost dumber than to take everything on face value.
Scrutinize. Don't take a stupid approach of either trusting or distrusting blindly.
You'll notice that they're not willing to make a definitive statement.
Indeed. Speaking of Trust it shows a certain amount of trustworthyness when someone who has a model that is based on assumptions and points to a likely outcome, doesn't make a definitive statement. If they did they would be drawing conclus
Re: (Score:2)
This is a position worth exploring. Maybe Magnus knows enough of Hans' history to be thoroughly disgusted. Maybe that's further exacerbated because of his ties to Chess.com. But that doesn't immediately mean that Magnus is wrong. Or Chess.com either.
Re: (Score:2)
chess.com banned hans even before they have played, so that is not a good argument
Re: (Score:2)
Chess.com has direct financial ties to Magnus Carlsen. They cannot provide an impartial analysis.
Sure, though if you read the report they're actually pretty even handed.
All the accusations are based on evaluation by their standard anti-cheat tools. As for OTB play they explicitly say their tools can't detect anything (though there are statistical red flags). And they even debunk some other anti-Hans analysis that other people have done.
Why? (Score:2)
Re: Why? (Score:2)
Re: Why? (Score:4, Interesting)
that argument was exactly why Carlsen used a opening that he never used before... yet it was the exact opening that Hans studied ... that only increased the suspection around him
Re: (Score:3)
that argument was exactly why Carlsen used a opening that he never used before... yet it was the exact opening that Hans studied ... that only increased the suspection around him
And with good reason. It is highly unlikely to pick the needle in a haystack of potential moves. Had Carlson opened with one he used before and Hans made a brilliant move his explanation would be more plausible. As it is, Occam’s Razor seems more plausible than Han’s explanation.
Re: (Score:2)
There’s no need for cheerleaders if you’re clean.
Re: (Score:2)
Spying on an opponent isn’t studying their tendencies during match play. There’s no need for cheerleaders if you’re clean.
I didn’t say spy on, I said study. Looking at historical play can give insights on how they may react to a move; which is different than getting in match help.
In America, there are no cheaters (Score:2)
There are only winners and losers.
What wears out sooner? His butt or the toys? (Score:2)
Just asking on behalf of a friend.
How? (Score:4, Insightful)
It sounds like no mechanism for cheating has been found. If this guy was cheating someone should be able to figure out how. Until that happens it's not fact, it's conjecture.
Re: (Score:3)
It sounds like no mechanism for cheating has been found. If this guy was cheating someone should be able to figure out how. Until that happens it's not fact, it's conjecture.
This is online chess. The way he cheats is the way everybody cheats. Use a computer to find your next move.
Safeguards? (Score:2)
I know next to nothing about chess, and even less about online chess, so may this is a silly question: what safeguards does chess.com currently have to ensure fair play among elite players? Are the players filmed? Is spyware (from chess.com) put on their machine? Is there any network monitoring to ensure they don't have a second connection? I'm sure many people have thought of thousands of ways to cheat, but I'm wondering what efforts exist right now to prevent it, where I assume cheating here means using
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It should also be noted that Magnus owns 20% of chess.com, and that chess.com is looking to buy out Magnus's other chess platforms like chess24.com, etc.
This seems like a rather large and blatant conflict of interest.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously. Let's see what FIDE finds.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is not cheating because you do it. It is cheating because you lie about doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
That is a terribly dumb idea and completely worthless as evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously though, why not allow for a few helper moves?
If you want to organize your own assisted-chess tournament, go for it -- I too think it might be interesting.
However, the rules of the existing chess tournaments explicitly forbid accepting outside help during a match, and all the participants have agreed to abide by the tournaments' rules, so anyone surreptitiously breaking those rules is absolutely cheating and should be disqualified, regardless of any other concerns.
Re: (Score:2)
they are metal detector scanned at the begging of the game... it is possible to hide it better, but it also increase the difficulty
Re: (Score:2)
Whilst it is not fair to say, "once a cheat, always a cheat", neither is it wise to assume that a cheater has been reformed.
Yeah, most people never really change much unless they have to. It makes sense, too. If you have a working plan, you follow it until it stops working, and then you make a new plan.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)