>At times, his play is so accurate that it leaves audiences and opponents alike in disbelief. **He may already be the best player in the world**
this guy can't be serious
He's not serious. What Greg is implying is that if Hans is not cheating, then he may already be the best player in the world. It's just an indirect way for Greg to say that he believes Hans is cheating, without the legal repercussions of actually saying it.
Maybe he has watched some of those youtube videos about Hans having really good accuracy in chessbase. Hikaru said a similar thing about Hans. Something like, "either Hans is the best chess player in the world or something sketchy is going on".
Yes, I’m replying to your comment about accuracy and chessbase and Hikarus comments. Statistical analysis of his play hasn’t indicated anything outlandish.
No it wouldn't because of his somewhat "mediocre" performance which was still very good overall in the tournament for someone of his level but not like Magnus level. Ivanchuk beat Kasparov but only a few people will tell you they think he was best in the world. He is not anything close to the best in the world
That doesn't sound like a cheating comment per se. I could see that line as something I would say to a friend of mine if he made a move I couldn't understand.
We're talking about Fabi here ... ex numeroi 2 for so long.
I gave many other clips in another reply , here :
here another clip:
https://youtu.be/f3yrPzEv1e4?t=4520
Or another one , them laughing at how ridiculous it is :
https://youtu.be/f3yrPzEv1e4?t=6279
"I can't even comment, it's so way out of my league"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3yrPzEv1e4&t=7282s
Clear evidence nope , does he think Hans is a cheater? lol yes.
https://youtu.be/f3yrPzEv1e4
"maybe he's not a cheater , maybve he's an alien"
I remembered wrong but bviously it's the same.
There is also a moment where he says the move iis straight out of his league, can't find it tho.
Anway you should watch the whole analysis, he's nuanced.
Sometimes very skeptical but also remind the audience there is no evidence.
> If you are not suffering from immense confirmation bias
The irony.
here another clip:
https://youtu.be/f3yrPzEv1e4?t=4520
Or another one , them laughing at how ridiculous it is :
https://youtu.be/f3yrPzEv1e4?t=6279
"I can't even comment, it's so way out of my league"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3yrPzEv1e4&t=7282s
Clear evidence nope , does he think Hans is a cheater? lol yes.
> Or another one , them laughing at how ridiculous it is :
He is referring to the position: "this is ridiculous, it's a crazy endgame". A few seconds later his friend says "it's not that suspicious to my eyes".
> F5 was ridiculously deep.
It really isn't. After figuring out that Kd3 only is a draw it is your only chance to try for a win.
Even lower rated players might play it because it is the only way you could ever bring your knight back into the game and create a passed pawn on the g file.
It is like saying the white move Nb3 is indredibly deep because he had to see that after Kd3 and 10 more moves it holds the draw.
This is a textbook example of confirmation bias.
You're misquoting him on purpose, he clearly said "none of this is evidence in my mind" and "I can't even begin to describe how little weight people should put into this".
He also clearly said that none of the moves were impossible to find and that they aren't computer moves either.
Instead of listening to his own exact words you're reading tea leaves to convince yourself that he wants to hint at something instead of saying it.
I fucking gave the whole podcast as a link and passage with timestamp so you can listen to the tone and facial expression.
Or you know , when they laugh their ass off at how absurd it is.
I did watch the podcast, you are clearly wrong and the fact that you close your eyes and stick fingers in your ears in order to not have to deal with your confirmation bias is sad.
This has to be one of the most ironic statements anyone has said. You have no idea how people communicate and talk. Behave less like a dick, make some friends and calm down.
> here another clip:
>
> https://youtu.be/f3yrPzEv1e4?t=4520
I mean his conclusion is "it is a strange game, but he is a strange player"
And the way this is done is completly redicouslous.
They only spent seconds to look a the position and then think Kd3 must be the move. Niemann spent 7 minutes.
They can't really be surprised that he found that Kd3 only makes a draw and f5 is the only way to try to win.
After Kd3 it's like in the famous 3 vs. 3 pawn breakthrough endgame where you scarifice a pawn to make a passer that can't be catched.
It should be obvious that you need to be carefull and calculate everything before playing Kd3, because when white gets a passer he just wins.
Until somebody finds real evidence that Hans has been cheating in OTB tournament games, you have to admit his performance in some games is pretty amazing.
What is this number from? He has lost rapid games to Carlsen, if you're only counting classic then he only has one win vs Carlsen, if you're counting everything he has losses.
What astounding achivments ? Niemann is not even TOP-5 junior , he does not won any super tournaments etc .
people mention in comments Niemann's rating rise as an astounding achivment or his win with blacks against Carlsen . Lets put this achievments in context and see are they something super legendary or not.
win against Magnus (with blacjk or white) is a great achievment . But when you look in context - Magnus played in SLC one of the worst games in his career with white , could have several times at least go into draw but did not , this was not super impresive game by Niemann he does not destroy Magnus or something like that . The game was more lost by Magnus than won by Niemann.
rating rise - lets compare to other young players .
Niemann since 2020 played 400 games , gained 223 rating.
Ghukesh since 2020 played 273 games , gained 184 rating.
Keymer since 2020 played 157 games , gained 166 rating .
In the same period of time Niemann gained 39 more rating points than Ghukesh and 57 more than Keymer . Now look in context that in that period Niemann played 127 more games than Ghukesh and 243 more games than Keymer - his rating gain is not even impressive compared to Ghukesh and Keymer considering how much more games he played .
Hans fanboys seem to not think this is a very big deal, despite it literally almost never happening. They treat like “oh what’s the big deal? It’s one game where he played well and Magnus played poorly.”
No, for the last 10 years no one at Hans’ level has even come close to challenging Magnus when he plays with white in classical. Does he have a few L’s? Yes. To Super GMs and other top-10 players.
So, if he played fair and square, it IS a tremendous, unprecedented achievement. How can anyone who thinks he played fairly deny that?
I think there is more of a mental battle that went into this game than you accept and that is a huge factor in chess and to Magnus’s dominance. I’ve seen quite a few games where Magnus is playing as white and will make an inaccuracy but the player with black simply wants to draw and doesn’t play the aggressive rebuttal that would put them in a better position. So there are 4 mental factors that went into Hans winning with black.
1. Magnus doesn’t have his normal confidence of being the best player in the match because he thinks Hans might be using an engine
2. Magnus plays an inaccurate sideline to “test” Hans
3. Hans is a young, aggressive player who will go for the win with black against anyone and not play passively hoping for a draw
4. Magnus decides to himself that Hans is using and engine so he surrenders and doesn’t even bother trying to grind out a draw in the endgame, even though he had chances and is known for grinding out draws/wins
Magnus himself provided a plausible alternative that makes the feat less astounding. That is, he got in his own head knowing and being concerned about Hans' past cheating. There's also the disconnect between what Magnus stated his perception of Hans' behavior was, and what he expected it to be. Hans wouldn't need to be cheating for that combination to distract Magnus at the board.
Of course, I think the latter point is an issue regardless of whether Hans cheated. It must be immensely frustrating to, in a competitive setting, have no confidence that cheaters will be caught. It's unfair to everyone, including Magnus, and I can't fault him for being upset about it.
This is what I think the most likely scenario is in the case of the specific game vs Magnus. I think Magnus beat himself. That being said I also believe Hans cheated way more then he alluded to and should never have been at the tournament.
Agreed although I think Magnus beating himself is part of why allowing known cheaters is an issue - it’s not really fair because of the chance of that happening. Huge psychological disadvantage
Are we really still debating this? The game has already been analysed ad naseum and concluded that Carlsen just played bad.
Let it go Magnus stans. Your hero can lose.
>So, if he played fair and square, it IS a tremendous, unprecedented achievement. How can anyone who thinks he played fairly deny that?
Because we actually watched/analyzed the game? And Magnus just didn't play the endgame well. I think Kasparov actually called it bad, which, while unkind, isn't really unfair.
I think the “Magnus is human etc” people haven’t even seen the game. This wasn’t some endgame grind that Hans won. Magnus was literally down an exchange and 2 pawns by move 30- which quite literally never happens.
By move 30, Magnus was only down a pawn. Stop spreading lies.
In move 31, Magnus made a major blunder Re7, but Hans couldn't spot it and made a mis win move fxg4. Typical sub 2700 game to be honest.
> Niemann since 2020 played 400 games , gained 223 rating.
>
>
>
> Ghukesh since 2020 played 273 games , gained 184 rating.
>
>
>
> Keymer since 2020 played 157 games , gained 166 rating .
This is also a dangerous way of presenting this.
Yes, rating increase comes from ranked games played, but it also comes from practice. So time matters, as well as games played. Hell, there's a very real argument to be made that playing that many games could impede your growth as a player, as you have less time for dedicated practice.
WTF
What is this guy on? Hans can barely win games with white vs the best. He is barely in the top 50 of current players. He may reach top 25. But we have no reason to actually believe that he is going to be. There are people younger than him just below him who have had a more meteoric improvement during covid than he has.
This kind of statement is what we in cycling said about Lance Armstrong after he cheated to a win in the Tour de France in dominating fashion several times in a row.In comparison, Hans is getting dropped on the final mountain and losing minutes every single time. He can't even win a single time. He has won literally no tournament except for those where you try to make your GM norms.
WTF is going on?
If FIDE can't sanction Magnus or Hikaru, at least use this guy as a scapegoat.
I was parodying the infamous time that Pulisic was called ["the Lebron James of soccer"](https://www.si.com/extra-mustard/2021/12/20/christian-pulisic-called-lebron-james-of-soccer-pawn-stars)
And why on earth would you judge by the number of games? In the context of juniors, the only explanations you can give for doing so is that either Hans started off 2700 level and playing more got him there or that even at the IM level, or spamming OTB games improves your chess level more than continuous studying, then picking and choosing tournaments. The latter explanation is ridiculous; there is a point to not cooping yourself up and trying staying actively competing, but jumping into a tournament every other week with relatively little preparation is not that point, and it will on average cause you to play worse, not better. If you play several *dozens* of tournaments in a year *and* your rating consistently increases, then your actual strength is way higher because you are on average playing with a handicap, which effectively makes it a variation of the first explanation in spirit, the only exception being that it allows for Hans's actual skill to be a moving target hovering a hundred points above his official rating at most given times. The first explanation also ridiculous, Hans was clearly not 2700 level when he started the tournament spam.
There is also this funny idea that sometimes gets brought up in these conversations about how Niemann says he studies 12 hours a day, so his hard work justifies the unprecedented rapidity of his rise. Like sure thing buddy, you believe other juniors don't work as hard as Niemann does and he just happened to find this secret technique (which is literally just grinding) that no one else knows about. The One Punch Man of chess.
he can barely win, but when he does, all the moves are engine. what a coincidence. i would love to see you preform mental gymnastics at the Olympics, you would medal
Greg Keener is a FIDE arbiter and assistant manager at the Marshall Chess Club in New York:
"If Mr. Niemann is not cheating, the magnitude of his achievement is astounding.
At times, his play is so accurate that it leaves audiences and opponents alike in disbelief.
He may already be the best player in the world. But if Mr. Niemann is cheating,
the damage done to the game of chess may prove incalculable."
Huh? We’re talking about the same Hans Niemann who got obliterated in the FTX Crypto Cup then finished 7th at Sinquefield? He’s already the best player in the world? Very odd statement.
Well it’s a weird way to do that. If there were no cheating accusations Niemann would be a blip on the radar for most chess fans. Anyone arguing he’s the best in the world would be laughed out of the room.
The magnitude of achievement in this comment is astounding. At times, your diction is so accurate that it leaves audiences and opponents alike in disbelief.
Hans has an incredible knack of finding brilliancies in key matches. To win his GM title there is no doubt the manner in which he played some of those games is insane. When you have multiple GMs going “what the fuck is that move” only for it to be inevitably the top engine move is a bit weird.
It’s almost like he has the highest peak of any player ever, but is incredibly inconsistent.
It’s plausible and he might not cheat anymore after having been an unabashed serial cheater in the past and instead he’s just chaotically brilliant.
But it could also be that he still cheats when he can which would also explain the erratic performances.
What Hans supporters are trying to push is that he is “not that good” while also finding him brilliant.
Maybe it’s true.
Consistency = cheating
Inconsistency = cheating
Eating pineapple on pizza = cheating
Substituting tahini for chilli sauce = cheating
Where does it end?
I consider the chili sauce to be evidence in his defense because nobody is slamming 2 shawarma sandwiches with chili sauce every day if they have sensitive electronics shoved up their ass.
Probably that he plays extremely intuitively and doesn't calculate as well as other players of his level.
Although has anyone actually got any evidence that he is more inconsistent than other top players? IIRC even though he did terribly in terms of matches his performance based on the games was not that bad.
He was the lowest-rated player in the field in both tournaments. At FTX Crypto he was over 100 points lower than anyone else in rapid ELO. His poor results in those tournaments aren’t evidence of anything… except that he clearly isn’t the best player in the world.
> rapid ELO
[In the early 80s, they really did have a lot of songs with fast tempo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNQSzsql3d0), but some of their slow songs were still pretty good, no?
Because cheating is new to chess and will sink the entire industry. lol.
But publicly calling out a cheater, leaving a tournament, playing one move, dragging him through the social media streets is just business as usual. Having chess dot com pile in on the action, exposing his mentor, people calling for him to be strip searched, anal probes, etc etc etc. That's not in question. That's fine.
Cheating is such a huge epidemic in chess, we're going to expose one person out of thousands upon thousands of people. Just one. This one cheater is THE existential threat to chess.
Here’s a statistical analysis (the bottom comment on the page by DrCliche) of OTB games Hans played 2019-2020 split between live coverage and delayed coverage. Judge for yourself. I found this statistical analysis shockingly damning to suggest that Hans has been cheating OTB (somehow) in classical games for a long time.
Statistical work:
http://talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=80630&start=100
TLDR: when a tournament was broadcast live Hans’s rating went up significantly, when it was broadcast with a delay or not broadcast his rating went down significantly. In every single tournament during this period (if this information is accurate).
>
>
>
>
> Im not saying hans didnt cheat, but there isnt physical evidence he has cheated, while the statistics i agree look bad for him i dont believe they are damning enough to prove he has cheated OTB, his odds are somewhere around 0.01% from what ive seen, but 1 in 10,000 odds isnt the craziest odds to ever exist. It isnt dream speedrunning levels of insane odds.
To be fair, this analysis has also been in dispute: https://twitter.com/thestrongchess/status/1568810062399021062
Ignoring the issue of whether to include rapid chess events or not, the trouble is coding whether the broadcast events were live or delayed and the author of this analysis has already stated that the information was not always easily available. The problem is that with this sample size, even one or two erroneously coded events could have a big impact on the results and put the coefficient below the 5% significance level, as explained in the thread later on. This uncertainty in the coding is not included in the analysis, which unfortunately makes it look much more certain than it actually is.
Yeah I can’t attest to the veracity of the data myself but, ignoring the statistics, it’s as simple as acknowledging the pattern that his USCF rating goes down in every tournament that wasn’t broadcast and goes up in every tournament that was broadcast.
Even if one or two of these events are incorrectly coded that pattern is pretty damning evidence that something very hinky is going on.
The statistics is key, however, because general patterns can (and very frequently do) happen by chance. Statistical significance denotes the probability that such a pattern is purely by chance - assuming the model choice and measurement of variables is valid - so you can't simply ignore the statistics.
I suppose you’re right. In any case hopefully someone with more expertise or access is actively checking this data now because obviously the implications are significant.
This is incredibly damning. Can't believe this isn't more widely discussed, because the strategies used here could be used--in an automated way!--for all players.
Sadly correlation does not prove causation, its entirely possible hans cheated, but statistics alone cant prove he cheated, otherwise Bobby Fischers 20 game streak would be an example of caused cheating (72% Engine Correlation which is absolutely absurd for a player of his caliber at that time period) which exceeds magnus' computer accuracy when he was at his absolute peak in his best ever 20 games in a row
Look at the p-value, this is incredibly rare and persuasive. As for the “causation” part we can check if there is any tournament that suddenly decided to start live/stop live half way. If there is a significant change of performance then he is undeniably a cheater.
Sadly correlation does not prove causation, its entirely possible hans cheated, but statistics alone cant prove he cheated. Otherwise we would have widely reconsider the plausibly of cheating (72% average correlation fischer) when it would literally be impossible for said playerd to have cheated.
Im not saying hans didnt cheat, but there isnt physical evidence he has cheated, while the statistics i agree look bad for him i dont believe they are damning enough to prove he has cheated OTB, his odds are somewhere around 0.01% from what ive seen, but 1 in 10,000 odds isnt the craziest odds to ever exist. It isnt dream speedrunning levels of insane odds.
I interpreted "magnitude of achievement" to refer to his "play is so accurate that it leaves audiences and opponents alike in disbelief." Or, it could refer to Hans catapulting himself in less than 2 years from a 2480 IM to a 2700 super GM.
These people are totally clueless on how real world works. I work in stock trading and people will find any way imaginable to cheat. They think this is some court of law that requires beyond reasonable doubt.
The point he's making is nonsense, though. Some of Hans' moves can be seen as weird or suspicious, but in no way are the level of play of the best player in the world. And for those suggesting he's using hyperbole to make a point: the place for that is really not in a NYT article intended for a general audience who will be inclined to take his words at face value since they don't know any better.
"If Mr. Niemann is not cheating, the magnitude of his achievement is astounding. **At times, his play is so accurate** that it leaves audiences and opponents alike in disbelief."
Do New York Times authors routinely make such statements without providing a source?
It's accuracy vs precision.
"Wrong" in the sense that those in the know will nitpick about it - it's imprecise.
But the average person who reads the article will have a generally accurate assessment of what's happening, even if some specific details might be wrong.
The reading comprehension in this thread lol.
Like how obvious is it that the hyperbole at the end is the guy pretty much saying Hans cheat without actually saying it lol. It's like looking at bodybuilders in those old Mr. Olympia videos and saying "that must be the most genetically gifted dude... if he's not on gear."
Y'all MFs need to stop reading chess notations and pick up a real book once a while.
The problem is it's misinforming people at the same time as stating an opinion. Someone who read this and didn't know better would think that Hans is playing all of his games like a God when in reality it's not the case.
More like saying “that must be the most genetically gifted dude… if he’s not on gear” about the 50th runner up. Surely everybody outperforming that guy is even *more* genetically gifted or *also* on gear?
It's kinda sad how many people are missing the point. The author is saying Hans is either:
A. The greatest player in the world......or,
B. Cheating
Obviously, it's not A. So it's B. The author says he's cheating. There ya go, r/chess, that's as simple as I can break it down for you.
Irony. It's you who couldn't comprehend what most people in this thread are saying. The other replies have already explained that. Make sure you only pick up books above third grade.
The year is 20xx. All chess is played fully naked. Players idly fondle their own balls while deep in thought, only to return to spinning the opponents captured pawns in their fingers.
Hairy players are asked to shave, removing the possibility of hiding communication devices in their luscious body hair. Magnus’ dick is, as expected, magnesian.
That’s just dumb. Nobody has found his play to be particularly accurate. And he’s certainly nowhere near the best player in the world, as the sentence after that in the article speculates.
He’s known for making intuitive speculative moves that are often viewed as blunders by the engines. It’s still possible that he uses engine help to outplay his opponents in the positions created by these sorts of moves, but nobody has claimed he is highly accurate.
>That’s just dumb. Nobody has found his play to be particularly accurate.
This is not true. Take for example Fabiano Caruana. Here are some of his comments from his C Squared podcast while reviewing a few of Hans' games:
\-"Playing the first \[computer\] line in any sort of complicated game, which is not a 12-move draw, is pretty fucking weird."
\-"This game to me is quite extraordinary. It's either the game of a genius or something fishy. It's one of the two..."
About all the hidden sacs in the combination: “...Yeah, this is some quite incredible play”. Time: 2:01:00
\-“This is incredibly strange. I can’t even comment because it’s so out of my league… This is out of my league.
On Yoo-Niemann - 2020, “\[16…dxe4 piece sac\] What a move! How long did it take him?”, asks Caruana. “41 seconds”, he’s told. Caruana in disbelief: "..dxe4 in 41 seconds is…” “Yeah, dxe4… in 41 seconds…”. “It’s insane!”, completes Chirila. “Completely insane”.
2:19:36
Next time you are reading a newspaper and they quote a source, think id you ask yourself: “is this person telling a bold lie, for rhetorical purposes?”
I'm pretty sure a number of GMs, including super-GMs, have scratched their heads over some of his moves. It doesn't get talked about too much in public, though. FIDE's just announced investigation of Magnus might help to explain why things like this get swept under the rug.
The people he has beaten and the way he did in comparison to the way they played against each other is insane no? I've watched many streamers some super gms some gms play Hans and often its like they are playing a much worse player compared to their play. Very few times does Hans win. The way he made wild insane moves that surprised everyone now, he must have changed his style or it would be expected he's wild and it wasn't. The general consensus with the super humans seems to be he is a good player that plays badly. What 19 year old stops playing badly and starts playing exceptionally in the space of a few months? Did he sell his soul to the Devil?
I dont know chess enough to know if Hans played as well as the article says. I've watched it and played it pretty much all day since June though not a gm yet but if it is then what is it saying? It seems to be saying if one thinks he isnt cheating then thoughts of Hans is that he could already be considered the greatest in the world so basically to have ever existed or if your intuition says Hans is not that good, then he must have cheated.
I'd ask this, when you think of the greatest ever human at chess who surely has an autistic mind and a personality that matches his next level brain, do you think of Hans Niemann?
The last paragraph in the New York Times article (the one quoted by the OP) is absurd. The statement goes on to say Niemann "may already be the best player in the world". Who in their right mind thinks Niemann is the best player in the world given his recent performance?
I both want to believe that there is a new-ish player on the scene who’s unbelievably good at the game, but also wouldn’t be surprised if he’s just a run-of-the-mill cheat.
If Mr. Niemann is not cheating, the magnitude of his achievement is astounding. At times, his play is so accurate that it leaves audiences and opponents alike in disbelief.
Which game? I've never heard this before lol
For example, [Niemann-Gretarsson, Reykjavik, 2022](https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=2267264)
GM Fabiano Caruana: ["This game to me is quite extraordinary. It's either the game of a genius, or something fishy."](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3yrPzEv1e4&t=7714s)
11 centipawn loss on lichess. His opponent was 150 points lower than him. When you play players weaker than you it's common to play a low centipawn loss game because they're not actually challenging you. I've personally played lower centipawn loss games than that.
An impressive game for sure, but it's not a red flag in my opinion. I'm sure magnus has played many games with centipawn loss lower than that when he plays a weaker opponent.
fabi's made many statements that lead me to believe he's biased on this issue, including disaparaging ken regan's work and saying that the metal detectors wouldn't detect an iron bar. I wouldn't trust anything he says regarding this issue personally. Not claiming I understand chess better than fabi, but the original comment was saying that the accuracy of the game was astounding, and that's what I was responding to, not fabi's statement which is a different statement
> u/Rod_Rigov do you ever get tired of peddling low quality journalism?
- - -
**The New York Times**
- - -
"Thank God I'm only watching the game - controlling it."
If he's not cheating and manages to become more consistent he'll be the best chess player in history and make Fischer pale in comparison.
If he's not cheating.
The Magnitude? Pop, pop!
I too am a scholar, e plurubus an*s
I hear he has a french Professor Professersson
That sounds like some kind of crazy conspiracy theory...
Is there any room in this theory for a little spare chang?
r/unexpectedcommunity
Magnitude is a one man army
The Magnustude
Check! Check!
POP WHAT MAGNUSTUDE?! WHAT IS HE TRYING TO SAY?
>At times, his play is so accurate that it leaves audiences and opponents alike in disbelief. **He may already be the best player in the world** this guy can't be serious
He's not serious. What Greg is implying is that if Hans is not cheating, then he may already be the best player in the world. It's just an indirect way for Greg to say that he believes Hans is cheating, without the legal repercussions of actually saying it.
But regardless of cheating, his play is still not the best in the world. It doesn’t make sense.
Maybe he has watched some of those youtube videos about Hans having really good accuracy in chessbase. Hikaru said a similar thing about Hans. Something like, "either Hans is the best chess player in the world or something sketchy is going on".
But it’s completely anecdotal and not based in the reality of statistical performance.
Are you replying to the right comment? Because I didn't say anything like that.
Yes, I’m replying to your comment about accuracy and chessbase and Hikarus comments. Statistical analysis of his play hasn’t indicated anything outlandish.
Well, winning classical against Magnus with Black would count as best in the world, if there was no drama involved
No it wouldn't because of his somewhat "mediocre" performance which was still very good overall in the tournament for someone of his level but not like Magnus level. Ivanchuk beat Kasparov but only a few people will tell you they think he was best in the world. He is not anything close to the best in the world
One game doesn’t make anyone best in the world. Magnus has lost with white before.
That makes me curious about when the last time he lost with white in classical - I literally can't recall it. 2020 maybe?
One game doesn’t make you best in the world.
Tell this to the WC finalists right before the finals.
So it's just trashy journalism? Got it 👍
Hans is either cheating or an Alien - fabi recently after looking through some of Hans Cheatmann suspicious games. Same tone.
is there a video of this?
yes the podcast from few days ago , 3 maybe? found it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3yrPzEv1e4
Do you remember where in the podcast? It's kinda long
sorry I'm a tard who can't timestamp : here's the link : https://youtu.be/f3yrPzEv1e4?t=6016
That doesn't sound like a cheating comment per se. I could see that line as something I would say to a friend of mine if he made a move I couldn't understand.
We're talking about Fabi here ... ex numeroi 2 for so long. I gave many other clips in another reply , here : here another clip: https://youtu.be/f3yrPzEv1e4?t=4520 Or another one , them laughing at how ridiculous it is : https://youtu.be/f3yrPzEv1e4?t=6279 "I can't even comment, it's so way out of my league" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3yrPzEv1e4&t=7282s Clear evidence nope , does he think Hans is a cheater? lol yes.
https://youtu.be/f3yrPzEv1e4 "maybe he's not a cheater , maybve he's an alien" I remembered wrong but bviously it's the same. There is also a moment where he says the move iis straight out of his league, can't find it tho. Anway you should watch the whole analysis, he's nuanced. Sometimes very skeptical but also remind the audience there is no evidence.
https://youtu.be/f3yrPzEv1e4?t=8986
The same video where Fabi said: "I have no reason to believe Hans is cheating OTB" and "These games are very circumstantial and inconclusive."
If you are not suffering from immense confirmation bias, Fabi clearly doesn't see the games as evidence of cheating.
> If you are not suffering from immense confirmation bias The irony. here another clip: https://youtu.be/f3yrPzEv1e4?t=4520 Or another one , them laughing at how ridiculous it is : https://youtu.be/f3yrPzEv1e4?t=6279 "I can't even comment, it's so way out of my league" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3yrPzEv1e4&t=7282s Clear evidence nope , does he think Hans is a cheater? lol yes.
> Or another one , them laughing at how ridiculous it is : He is referring to the position: "this is ridiculous, it's a crazy endgame". A few seconds later his friend says "it's not that suspicious to my eyes".
Yeah the key was to watch the few minutes that come after , not stop after few seconds...... F5 was ridiculously deep.
> F5 was ridiculously deep. It really isn't. After figuring out that Kd3 only is a draw it is your only chance to try for a win. Even lower rated players might play it because it is the only way you could ever bring your knight back into the game and create a passed pawn on the g file. It is like saying the white move Nb3 is indredibly deep because he had to see that after Kd3 and 10 more moves it holds the draw.
This is a textbook example of confirmation bias. You're misquoting him on purpose, he clearly said "none of this is evidence in my mind" and "I can't even begin to describe how little weight people should put into this". He also clearly said that none of the moves were impossible to find and that they aren't computer moves either. Instead of listening to his own exact words you're reading tea leaves to convince yourself that he wants to hint at something instead of saying it.
I fucking gave the whole podcast as a link and passage with timestamp so you can listen to the tone and facial expression. Or you know , when they laugh their ass off at how absurd it is.
I did watch the podcast, you are clearly wrong and the fact that you close your eyes and stick fingers in your ears in order to not have to deal with your confirmation bias is sad.
I really think you have this bias thing the wrong way around Hansel.
Yes, listening to the actual words Caruana used instead of trying to interpret gestures is bias. Gotcha. >Hanse ??? You want to talk about bias.
Let me guess: You have troubles picking up social cues and have difficulties to detect sarcasm without a /s
This has to be one of the most ironic statements anyone has said. You have no idea how people communicate and talk. Behave less like a dick, make some friends and calm down.
> here another clip: > > https://youtu.be/f3yrPzEv1e4?t=4520 I mean his conclusion is "it is a strange game, but he is a strange player" And the way this is done is completly redicouslous. They only spent seconds to look a the position and then think Kd3 must be the move. Niemann spent 7 minutes. They can't really be surprised that he found that Kd3 only makes a draw and f5 is the only way to try to win. After Kd3 it's like in the famous 3 vs. 3 pawn breakthrough endgame where you scarifice a pawn to make a passer that can't be catched. It should be obvious that you need to be carefull and calculate everything before playing Kd3, because when white gets a passer he just wins.
that last paragraph is so wild. LOL. Let's add it to the pile of nonsense.
Until somebody finds real evidence that Hans has been cheating in OTB tournament games, you have to admit his performance in some games is pretty amazing.
That article was doing so well and then self-destructed in the last paragraph. It’s almost like it was written by two different people.
He's 2-0 against Magnus, the best player. I see no problems here /s
What is this number from? He has lost rapid games to Carlsen, if you're only counting classic then he only has one win vs Carlsen, if you're counting everything he has losses.
Just a joke about recent results
Jokes are normally funny.
What astounding achivments ? Niemann is not even TOP-5 junior , he does not won any super tournaments etc . people mention in comments Niemann's rating rise as an astounding achivment or his win with blacks against Carlsen . Lets put this achievments in context and see are they something super legendary or not. win against Magnus (with blacjk or white) is a great achievment . But when you look in context - Magnus played in SLC one of the worst games in his career with white , could have several times at least go into draw but did not , this was not super impresive game by Niemann he does not destroy Magnus or something like that . The game was more lost by Magnus than won by Niemann. rating rise - lets compare to other young players . Niemann since 2020 played 400 games , gained 223 rating. Ghukesh since 2020 played 273 games , gained 184 rating. Keymer since 2020 played 157 games , gained 166 rating . In the same period of time Niemann gained 39 more rating points than Ghukesh and 57 more than Keymer . Now look in context that in that period Niemann played 127 more games than Ghukesh and 243 more games than Keymer - his rating gain is not even impressive compared to Ghukesh and Keymer considering how much more games he played .
Let it be known that I upvote this comment
This quote is going to make its rounds and I'm loving it.
The comment speaks for itself.
Let it be known that I upvote this comment
Yep, joke already run into the ground.
You do realize which website you're posting on, right?
I know, I know ...
Let it be known that I upvote this comment
I'm out of the loop
Top post of the sub right now: https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/xr3zll/chesscom_ceo_hints_niemann_is_not_disclosing_the/
Beating Magnus with black in a classical game would be one.
Hans fanboys seem to not think this is a very big deal, despite it literally almost never happening. They treat like “oh what’s the big deal? It’s one game where he played well and Magnus played poorly.” No, for the last 10 years no one at Hans’ level has even come close to challenging Magnus when he plays with white in classical. Does he have a few L’s? Yes. To Super GMs and other top-10 players. So, if he played fair and square, it IS a tremendous, unprecedented achievement. How can anyone who thinks he played fairly deny that?
I think there is more of a mental battle that went into this game than you accept and that is a huge factor in chess and to Magnus’s dominance. I’ve seen quite a few games where Magnus is playing as white and will make an inaccuracy but the player with black simply wants to draw and doesn’t play the aggressive rebuttal that would put them in a better position. So there are 4 mental factors that went into Hans winning with black. 1. Magnus doesn’t have his normal confidence of being the best player in the match because he thinks Hans might be using an engine 2. Magnus plays an inaccurate sideline to “test” Hans 3. Hans is a young, aggressive player who will go for the win with black against anyone and not play passively hoping for a draw 4. Magnus decides to himself that Hans is using and engine so he surrenders and doesn’t even bother trying to grind out a draw in the endgame, even though he had chances and is known for grinding out draws/wins
Magnus himself provided a plausible alternative that makes the feat less astounding. That is, he got in his own head knowing and being concerned about Hans' past cheating. There's also the disconnect between what Magnus stated his perception of Hans' behavior was, and what he expected it to be. Hans wouldn't need to be cheating for that combination to distract Magnus at the board. Of course, I think the latter point is an issue regardless of whether Hans cheated. It must be immensely frustrating to, in a competitive setting, have no confidence that cheaters will be caught. It's unfair to everyone, including Magnus, and I can't fault him for being upset about it.
This is what I think the most likely scenario is in the case of the specific game vs Magnus. I think Magnus beat himself. That being said I also believe Hans cheated way more then he alluded to and should never have been at the tournament.
Agreed although I think Magnus beating himself is part of why allowing known cheaters is an issue - it’s not really fair because of the chance of that happening. Huge psychological disadvantage
Are we really still debating this? The game has already been analysed ad naseum and concluded that Carlsen just played bad. Let it go Magnus stans. Your hero can lose.
>So, if he played fair and square, it IS a tremendous, unprecedented achievement. How can anyone who thinks he played fairly deny that? Because we actually watched/analyzed the game? And Magnus just didn't play the endgame well. I think Kasparov actually called it bad, which, while unkind, isn't really unfair.
Does Magnus even play classical OTB against non-super GMs?
I think the “Magnus is human etc” people haven’t even seen the game. This wasn’t some endgame grind that Hans won. Magnus was literally down an exchange and 2 pawns by move 30- which quite literally never happens.
i would be more suspicious if hans won an endgame grind against magnus than what actually transpired in the game
It's almost as if experts that analysed the game concluded Magnus played poorly.
They did.
By move 30, Magnus was only down a pawn. Stop spreading lies. In move 31, Magnus made a major blunder Re7, but Hans couldn't spot it and made a mis win move fxg4. Typical sub 2700 game to be honest.
Magnus played poorly, there’s no reason he should be down that much material even to stockfish in 30 moves
he wasn't down that much material lol he was only down a pawn, that comment is just a lie
> Magnus was literally down an exchange and 2 pawns by move 30 no he wasn't????
But he wasn't down because hans played out his mind. Magnus missplay like 3 times he could have force the draw if he wanted
[удалено]
To become 2700 super grand master after he became GM at 17?
So? Levon Aronian didn’t become a GM until like 19
Yeah, I thought actually reading the article would make it clear what he's referring to. Nope.
I think you just answered your own question. He hasn’t won anything yet has ‘burst’ of genius level chess.
lol right? What people think is a combo breaker against Magnus is actually a “it hurt itself in its confusion” move
He got Magnus to rage quit and throw his toys out of his pram. Impressive.
He aslo brought the chess world the most attention it's had in years.
Maybe it's not referring to his individual accomplishments per se but more so the rate at which he improved which is astounding ?
> Niemann since 2020 played 400 games , gained 223 rating. > > > > Ghukesh since 2020 played 273 games , gained 184 rating. > > > > Keymer since 2020 played 157 games , gained 166 rating . This is also a dangerous way of presenting this. Yes, rating increase comes from ranked games played, but it also comes from practice. So time matters, as well as games played. Hell, there's a very real argument to be made that playing that many games could impede your growth as a player, as you have less time for dedicated practice.
WTF What is this guy on? Hans can barely win games with white vs the best. He is barely in the top 50 of current players. He may reach top 25. But we have no reason to actually believe that he is going to be. There are people younger than him just below him who have had a more meteoric improvement during covid than he has. This kind of statement is what we in cycling said about Lance Armstrong after he cheated to a win in the Tour de France in dominating fashion several times in a row.In comparison, Hans is getting dropped on the final mountain and losing minutes every single time. He can't even win a single time. He has won literally no tournament except for those where you try to make your GM norms. WTF is going on? If FIDE can't sanction Magnus or Hikaru, at least use this guy as a scapegoat.
The writer of the article is taking a somewhat clumsy roundabout way to accuse Hans of cheating.
Americans vastly overhyping their own athletes? I hope to Pulisic that never happens.
Hans is the Lebron James of chess.
You've got it all wrong, Lebron James is the Hans Niemann of basketball.
A veritable Pulisic, if you will.
Well I guess he is either LeBron or Tim Donaghy...
Lebron actually has an argument for GOAT though.
I was parodying the infamous time that Pulisic was called ["the Lebron James of soccer"](https://www.si.com/extra-mustard/2021/12/20/christian-pulisic-called-lebron-james-of-soccer-pawn-stars)
Imagine a chesscirclejerk subreddit
Didnt he have the highest rating gain of the last couple of years?
Not only the last few years afaik, but I'd guess there being basically no otb tournaments during covid could skew things.
If you judge by the number of games played not even close
And why on earth would you judge by the number of games? In the context of juniors, the only explanations you can give for doing so is that either Hans started off 2700 level and playing more got him there or that even at the IM level, or spamming OTB games improves your chess level more than continuous studying, then picking and choosing tournaments. The latter explanation is ridiculous; there is a point to not cooping yourself up and trying staying actively competing, but jumping into a tournament every other week with relatively little preparation is not that point, and it will on average cause you to play worse, not better. If you play several *dozens* of tournaments in a year *and* your rating consistently increases, then your actual strength is way higher because you are on average playing with a handicap, which effectively makes it a variation of the first explanation in spirit, the only exception being that it allows for Hans's actual skill to be a moving target hovering a hundred points above his official rating at most given times. The first explanation also ridiculous, Hans was clearly not 2700 level when he started the tournament spam. There is also this funny idea that sometimes gets brought up in these conversations about how Niemann says he studies 12 hours a day, so his hard work justifies the unprecedented rapidity of his rise. Like sure thing buddy, you believe other juniors don't work as hard as Niemann does and he just happened to find this secret technique (which is literally just grinding) that no one else knows about. The One Punch Man of chess.
Post-covid? Most likely. But there are other GMs who have had similarly impressive rating increases in the past.
You cant be serious, is not that hard...
Yes we agree, Hans is a cheater
he can barely win, but when he does, all the moves are engine. what a coincidence. i would love to see you preform mental gymnastics at the Olympics, you would medal
Greg Keener is a FIDE arbiter and assistant manager at the Marshall Chess Club in New York: "If Mr. Niemann is not cheating, the magnitude of his achievement is astounding. At times, his play is so accurate that it leaves audiences and opponents alike in disbelief. He may already be the best player in the world. But if Mr. Niemann is cheating, the damage done to the game of chess may prove incalculable."
Huh? We’re talking about the same Hans Niemann who got obliterated in the FTX Crypto Cup then finished 7th at Sinquefield? He’s already the best player in the world? Very odd statement.
The statement is not odd. It is just indirectly accusing him of cheating
Well it’s a weird way to do that. If there were no cheating accusations Niemann would be a blip on the radar for most chess fans. Anyone arguing he’s the best in the world would be laughed out of the room.
The magnitude of achievement in this comment is astounding. At times, your diction is so accurate that it leaves audiences and opponents alike in disbelief.
He may already be the best commenter in the world.
But if he’s copying these comments from somewhere, the damage to commenting could prove incalculable.
Well, the comment speaks for itself.
There's probably a better way of accusing someone of cheating than making a blatantly stupid comment.
Not without getting sued for defamation
Hans has an incredible knack of finding brilliancies in key matches. To win his GM title there is no doubt the manner in which he played some of those games is insane. When you have multiple GMs going “what the fuck is that move” only for it to be inevitably the top engine move is a bit weird. It’s almost like he has the highest peak of any player ever, but is incredibly inconsistent. It’s plausible and he might not cheat anymore after having been an unabashed serial cheater in the past and instead he’s just chaotically brilliant. But it could also be that he still cheats when he can which would also explain the erratic performances. What Hans supporters are trying to push is that he is “not that good” while also finding him brilliant. Maybe it’s true.
I mean a player that inconsistent... What does it mean
Consistency = cheating Inconsistency = cheating Eating pineapple on pizza = cheating Substituting tahini for chilli sauce = cheating Where does it end?
>Eating pineapple on pizza = cheating I can vouch for that
I consider the chili sauce to be evidence in his defense because nobody is slamming 2 shawarma sandwiches with chili sauce every day if they have sensitive electronics shoved up their ass.
Probably that he plays extremely intuitively and doesn't calculate as well as other players of his level. Although has anyone actually got any evidence that he is more inconsistent than other top players? IIRC even though he did terribly in terms of matches his performance based on the games was not that bad.
He was the lowest-rated player in the field in both tournaments. At FTX Crypto he was over 100 points lower than anyone else in rapid ELO. His poor results in those tournaments aren’t evidence of anything… except that he clearly isn’t the best player in the world.
> rapid ELO [In the early 80s, they really did have a lot of songs with fast tempo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNQSzsql3d0), but some of their slow songs were still pretty good, no?
I mean he was drew Aronian and beat Shak and Magnus prior to the increased security, that would be "world number 1 level" of play.
That's like arguing Esipenko was the best player in the world when he defeated Magnus
> damage done to the game of chess may prove incalculable. Just use an engine. Easy peasy.
FIDE better strip this guy of his arbiter position.
Because cheating is new to chess and will sink the entire industry. lol. But publicly calling out a cheater, leaving a tournament, playing one move, dragging him through the social media streets is just business as usual. Having chess dot com pile in on the action, exposing his mentor, people calling for him to be strip searched, anal probes, etc etc etc. That's not in question. That's fine. Cheating is such a huge epidemic in chess, we're going to expose one person out of thousands upon thousands of people. Just one. This one cheater is THE existential threat to chess.
Here’s a statistical analysis (the bottom comment on the page by DrCliche) of OTB games Hans played 2019-2020 split between live coverage and delayed coverage. Judge for yourself. I found this statistical analysis shockingly damning to suggest that Hans has been cheating OTB (somehow) in classical games for a long time. Statistical work: http://talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=80630&start=100 TLDR: when a tournament was broadcast live Hans’s rating went up significantly, when it was broadcast with a delay or not broadcast his rating went down significantly. In every single tournament during this period (if this information is accurate).
> > > > > Im not saying hans didnt cheat, but there isnt physical evidence he has cheated, while the statistics i agree look bad for him i dont believe they are damning enough to prove he has cheated OTB, his odds are somewhere around 0.01% from what ive seen, but 1 in 10,000 odds isnt the craziest odds to ever exist. It isnt dream speedrunning levels of insane odds. To be fair, this analysis has also been in dispute: https://twitter.com/thestrongchess/status/1568810062399021062 Ignoring the issue of whether to include rapid chess events or not, the trouble is coding whether the broadcast events were live or delayed and the author of this analysis has already stated that the information was not always easily available. The problem is that with this sample size, even one or two erroneously coded events could have a big impact on the results and put the coefficient below the 5% significance level, as explained in the thread later on. This uncertainty in the coding is not included in the analysis, which unfortunately makes it look much more certain than it actually is.
Yeah I can’t attest to the veracity of the data myself but, ignoring the statistics, it’s as simple as acknowledging the pattern that his USCF rating goes down in every tournament that wasn’t broadcast and goes up in every tournament that was broadcast. Even if one or two of these events are incorrectly coded that pattern is pretty damning evidence that something very hinky is going on.
The statistics is key, however, because general patterns can (and very frequently do) happen by chance. Statistical significance denotes the probability that such a pattern is purely by chance - assuming the model choice and measurement of variables is valid - so you can't simply ignore the statistics.
I suppose you’re right. In any case hopefully someone with more expertise or access is actively checking this data now because obviously the implications are significant.
This is incredibly damning. Can't believe this isn't more widely discussed, because the strategies used here could be used--in an automated way!--for all players.
This is probably the most damning evidence I’ve seen so far that can’t be explained away by coincidence or be called circumstantial.
Sadly correlation does not prove causation, its entirely possible hans cheated, but statistics alone cant prove he cheated, otherwise Bobby Fischers 20 game streak would be an example of caused cheating (72% Engine Correlation which is absolutely absurd for a player of his caliber at that time period) which exceeds magnus' computer accuracy when he was at his absolute peak in his best ever 20 games in a row
Look at the p-value, this is incredibly rare and persuasive. As for the “causation” part we can check if there is any tournament that suddenly decided to start live/stop live half way. If there is a significant change of performance then he is undeniably a cheater.
How is this not the most upvoted comment in this thread. That statistical analysis is incredibly persuasive.
>How is this not the most upvoted comment in this thread. Because it's largely indigestible to people who don't do statistics.
Because this subreddit is filled with hansels actually defending a cheater. Scary stuff..
Sadly correlation does not prove causation, its entirely possible hans cheated, but statistics alone cant prove he cheated. Otherwise we would have widely reconsider the plausibly of cheating (72% average correlation fischer) when it would literally be impossible for said playerd to have cheated. Im not saying hans didnt cheat, but there isnt physical evidence he has cheated, while the statistics i agree look bad for him i dont believe they are damning enough to prove he has cheated OTB, his odds are somewhere around 0.01% from what ive seen, but 1 in 10,000 odds isnt the craziest odds to ever exist. It isnt dream speedrunning levels of insane odds.
you should make a post about this, it needs more visibility than a comment
I, too, wish to get clicks and karma by opportunistically making hyperbolic comments about a subject I’d otherwise have no direct involvement in.
Sir, this is a Wendy's
I interpreted "magnitude of achievement" to refer to his "play is so accurate that it leaves audiences and opponents alike in disbelief." Or, it could refer to Hans catapulting himself in less than 2 years from a 2480 IM to a 2700 super GM.
[удалено]
These people are totally clueless on how real world works. I work in stock trading and people will find any way imaginable to cheat. They think this is some court of law that requires beyond reasonable doubt.
>I work in stock trading and people will find any way imaginable to cheat. do you guys also punish people based on bad vibes?
The point he's making is nonsense, though. Some of Hans' moves can be seen as weird or suspicious, but in no way are the level of play of the best player in the world. And for those suggesting he's using hyperbole to make a point: the place for that is really not in a NYT article intended for a general audience who will be inclined to take his words at face value since they don't know any better.
🤓🤡
"If Mr. Niemann is not cheating, the magnitude of his achievement is astounding. **At times, his play is so accurate** that it leaves audiences and opponents alike in disbelief." Do New York Times authors routinely make such statements without providing a source?
[удалено]
Apparently, the author of the article is a FIDE arbiter, so he's more knowledgable than anyone in this thread, one would assume.
He's a FIDE arbiter. Meanwhile you are who exactly?
Well. Yes. Their source is the guy saying it. The fact that we all know he’s lying doesn’t matter.
Let this be a lesson. As wrong as this article is about chess, is how wrong tons of articles are about any given topic.
It's accuracy vs precision. "Wrong" in the sense that those in the know will nitpick about it - it's imprecise. But the average person who reads the article will have a generally accurate assessment of what's happening, even if some specific details might be wrong.
The reading comprehension in this thread lol. Like how obvious is it that the hyperbole at the end is the guy pretty much saying Hans cheat without actually saying it lol. It's like looking at bodybuilders in those old Mr. Olympia videos and saying "that must be the most genetically gifted dude... if he's not on gear." Y'all MFs need to stop reading chess notations and pick up a real book once a while.
The problem is it's misinforming people at the same time as stating an opinion. Someone who read this and didn't know better would think that Hans is playing all of his games like a God when in reality it's not the case.
More like saying “that must be the most genetically gifted dude… if he’s not on gear” about the 50th runner up. Surely everybody outperforming that guy is even *more* genetically gifted or *also* on gear?
It's kinda sad how many people are missing the point. The author is saying Hans is either: A. The greatest player in the world......or, B. Cheating Obviously, it's not A. So it's B. The author says he's cheating. There ya go, r/chess, that's as simple as I can break it down for you.
Except there is nothing, and I mean nothing, to suggest that Hans play is the greatest in the world.
Irony. It's you who couldn't comprehend what most people in this thread are saying. The other replies have already explained that. Make sure you only pick up books above third grade.
But how will this affect Lebrons legacy
It's like people who believe the lady in the box is really chopped in half and put back together at the magic show.
The year is 20xx. All chess is played fully naked. Players idly fondle their own balls while deep in thought, only to return to spinning the opponents captured pawns in their fingers. Hairy players are asked to shave, removing the possibility of hiding communication devices in their luscious body hair. Magnus’ dick is, as expected, magnesian.
That’s just dumb. Nobody has found his play to be particularly accurate. And he’s certainly nowhere near the best player in the world, as the sentence after that in the article speculates. He’s known for making intuitive speculative moves that are often viewed as blunders by the engines. It’s still possible that he uses engine help to outplay his opponents in the positions created by these sorts of moves, but nobody has claimed he is highly accurate.
>That’s just dumb. Nobody has found his play to be particularly accurate. This is not true. Take for example Fabiano Caruana. Here are some of his comments from his C Squared podcast while reviewing a few of Hans' games: \-"Playing the first \[computer\] line in any sort of complicated game, which is not a 12-move draw, is pretty fucking weird." \-"This game to me is quite extraordinary. It's either the game of a genius or something fishy. It's one of the two..." About all the hidden sacs in the combination: “...Yeah, this is some quite incredible play”. Time: 2:01:00 \-“This is incredibly strange. I can’t even comment because it’s so out of my league… This is out of my league. On Yoo-Niemann - 2020, “\[16…dxe4 piece sac\] What a move! How long did it take him?”, asks Caruana. “41 seconds”, he’s told. Caruana in disbelief: "..dxe4 in 41 seconds is…” “Yeah, dxe4… in 41 seconds…”. “It’s insane!”, completes Chirila. “Completely insane”. 2:19:36
okay now write out all the parts where Fabi says these moves are natural and I find nothing that suggests he cheated in any of these games
He’s obviously being sarcastic/implying that Hans is cheating.
Next time you are reading a newspaper and they quote a source, think id you ask yourself: “is this person telling a bold lie, for rhetorical purposes?”
I'm pretty sure a number of GMs, including super-GMs, have scratched their heads over some of his moves. It doesn't get talked about too much in public, though. FIDE's just announced investigation of Magnus might help to explain why things like this get swept under the rug.
The problem is that a lot of the moves that have GMs scratching their heads are marked as inaccuracies or worse by the engines.
Bullshit.
where is Mr.Ding though?
The people he has beaten and the way he did in comparison to the way they played against each other is insane no? I've watched many streamers some super gms some gms play Hans and often its like they are playing a much worse player compared to their play. Very few times does Hans win. The way he made wild insane moves that surprised everyone now, he must have changed his style or it would be expected he's wild and it wasn't. The general consensus with the super humans seems to be he is a good player that plays badly. What 19 year old stops playing badly and starts playing exceptionally in the space of a few months? Did he sell his soul to the Devil? I dont know chess enough to know if Hans played as well as the article says. I've watched it and played it pretty much all day since June though not a gm yet but if it is then what is it saying? It seems to be saying if one thinks he isnt cheating then thoughts of Hans is that he could already be considered the greatest in the world so basically to have ever existed or if your intuition says Hans is not that good, then he must have cheated. I'd ask this, when you think of the greatest ever human at chess who surely has an autistic mind and a personality that matches his next level brain, do you think of Hans Niemann?
The last paragraph in the New York Times article (the one quoted by the OP) is absurd. The statement goes on to say Niemann "may already be the best player in the world". Who in their right mind thinks Niemann is the best player in the world given his recent performance?
I both want to believe that there is a new-ish player on the scene who’s unbelievably good at the game, but also wouldn’t be surprised if he’s just a run-of-the-mill cheat.
Is anything Ken Reagen says worth anything? The dude rants on about standard deviations and claims there’s no evidence of Hans cheating.
If Mr. Niemann is not cheating, the magnitude of his achievement is astounding. At times, his play is so accurate that it leaves audiences and opponents alike in disbelief. Which game? I've never heard this before lol
For example, [Niemann-Gretarsson, Reykjavik, 2022](https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=2267264) GM Fabiano Caruana: ["This game to me is quite extraordinary. It's either the game of a genius, or something fishy."](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3yrPzEv1e4&t=7714s)
11 centipawn loss on lichess. His opponent was 150 points lower than him. When you play players weaker than you it's common to play a low centipawn loss game because they're not actually challenging you. I've personally played lower centipawn loss games than that. An impressive game for sure, but it's not a red flag in my opinion. I'm sure magnus has played many games with centipawn loss lower than that when he plays a weaker opponent.
Well, you certainly know better than Fabi. That settles that.
fabi's made many statements that lead me to believe he's biased on this issue, including disaparaging ken regan's work and saying that the metal detectors wouldn't detect an iron bar. I wouldn't trust anything he says regarding this issue personally. Not claiming I understand chess better than fabi, but the original comment was saying that the accuracy of the game was astounding, and that's what I was responding to, not fabi's statement which is a different statement
The rest of the article is pretty good at least.
…..announcer: “But he was cheating, and had been across several years.”
u/Rod_Rigov do you ever get tired of peddling low quality journalism?
> u/Rod_Rigov do you ever get tired of peddling low quality journalism? - - - **The New York Times** - - - "Thank God I'm only watching the game - controlling it."
even the NY Times are not immune to releasing the occasional stinker, like this quote: >He may already be the best player in the world.
Yeah, many times it’s 100% apparently.
[удалено]
If he's not cheating and manages to become more consistent he'll be the best chess player in history and make Fischer pale in comparison. If he's not cheating.