50:40-51:30
www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCFB_rNGTaw&t=3040s
www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCFB_rNGTaw&t=3040s
He also says c****.com has the best anti-cheanting detection in the world. Lichess needs to catch up!
He also says that Hans's interview is not a reason to suspect him. But yeah, when you're cherry-picking...
Caruana is trying to trash Regan from the standpoint of utter ignorance of what Regan does with his analysis. He believes that chess . com has the best algorithms around for detecting cheating?? Does Caruana know that Regan helped chess , com set up its anti-cheating system?
This is all sounding increasingly like disgruntled piling on against Niemann with NO factual proof that Niemann cheated otb in St. Louis. Nepo also made similar comments that are factually missing proof of cheating, except for what Niemann has admitted to at ages 12 and 16. Nepo produced NO factual evidence that Niemann cheated in St. Louis.
I have no horse in this race. If it is proved factually that Niemann cheated otb in St. Louis, let Niemann be sanctioned. It's time for Carlsen and all of these other GMs to put up or shut up. Where's the beef children?
This is all sounding increasingly like disgruntled piling on against Niemann with NO factual proof that Niemann cheated otb in St. Louis. Nepo also made similar comments that are factually missing proof of cheating, except for what Niemann has admitted to at ages 12 and 16. Nepo produced NO factual evidence that Niemann cheated in St. Louis.
I have no horse in this race. If it is proved factually that Niemann cheated otb in St. Louis, let Niemann be sanctioned. It's time for Carlsen and all of these other GMs to put up or shut up. Where's the beef children?
@VTWood said in #4:
> I have no horse in this race. If it is proved factually that Niemann cheated otb in St. Louis, let Niemann be sanctioned. It's time for Carlsen and all of these other GMs to put up or shut up.
That's basically what Caruana is saying, if you watch the full interview. But someone cherry picked the one time where he says something that could potentially be used against Hans.
> I have no horse in this race. If it is proved factually that Niemann cheated otb in St. Louis, let Niemann be sanctioned. It's time for Carlsen and all of these other GMs to put up or shut up.
That's basically what Caruana is saying, if you watch the full interview. But someone cherry picked the one time where he says something that could potentially be used against Hans.
@PxJ said in #5:
> That's basically what Caruana is saying, if you watch the full interview. But someone cherry picked the one time where he says something that could potentially be used against Hans.
Caruana has clearly implied that Niemann has done something wrong. The striking part of his statement is the utter ignorance he displays as to Regan's work. We can debate the conclusions one can draw from a Regan analysis finding suspect games or no suspect games, particularly an analysis of a small sampling of games. The larger the sample, the more likely the accuracy of conclusions that may be drawn from his statistical analysis. And that goes both ways. Here Regan has analyzed pretty much all of Niemann's games from the past two years comprising a substantial sample size with no finding that any of them indicated cheating.
Where's the beef Magnus?
> That's basically what Caruana is saying, if you watch the full interview. But someone cherry picked the one time where he says something that could potentially be used against Hans.
Caruana has clearly implied that Niemann has done something wrong. The striking part of his statement is the utter ignorance he displays as to Regan's work. We can debate the conclusions one can draw from a Regan analysis finding suspect games or no suspect games, particularly an analysis of a small sampling of games. The larger the sample, the more likely the accuracy of conclusions that may be drawn from his statistical analysis. And that goes both ways. Here Regan has analyzed pretty much all of Niemann's games from the past two years comprising a substantial sample size with no finding that any of them indicated cheating.
Where's the beef Magnus?
@PxJ said in #2:
> He also says c****.com has the best anti-cheanting detection in the world. Lichess needs to catch up!
nah, I think both are good.
> He also says c****.com has the best anti-cheanting detection in the world. Lichess needs to catch up!
nah, I think both are good.
You rarely prove factually that someone cheats, so all you can count on is circumstantial evidence. Is there circumstantial evidence?
-- he couldn't properly analyze his games, his brilliant moves in particular
-- he cheated in the past
-- he lied about the amount of cheating he did on c.com
-- his trainer is a known cheater
-- he keeps making moves 2800 players call strange, failing to exhaustively explain them in interviews
We don't know whether he cheated, but there is enough material for suspicions to be legit.
-- he couldn't properly analyze his games, his brilliant moves in particular
-- he cheated in the past
-- he lied about the amount of cheating he did on c.com
-- his trainer is a known cheater
-- he keeps making moves 2800 players call strange, failing to exhaustively explain them in interviews
We don't know whether he cheated, but there is enough material for suspicions to be legit.
I think Fabi's being somewhat misinterpreted in this case. He said in the podcast (which is great, by the way!) that Regan's analysis should be taken with a "large grain of salt". I believe he's saying that Regan's analysis is neither definitive nor of the scope to make broad-brushed declarations. Regan himself (in other interviews and detailed discussions of his findings) actually agrees - other evaluations *must* be done to reach a sound conclusion. Regan's tools are just one component.
Fabi's tongue-in-cheek joke about Regan's tools being able to identify Hans' cheating in the timeframe prior to 2020 is fair as well. Regan works with chess.com as well as FIDE (and others) so it seems reasonable that comparisons of his results against other indicators of cheating would be done (as any sane statistician would do).
As usual on the Interwebby Thing, people are painting what someone says with their own incomplete assumptions/ignorance and spinning their own biases into that mashup. Fabi's a (really, really) smart guy - do you think he'd actually take a hard position that Regan's tools are both definitive and untested with positive-result training data? Really?
Fabi's tongue-in-cheek joke about Regan's tools being able to identify Hans' cheating in the timeframe prior to 2020 is fair as well. Regan works with chess.com as well as FIDE (and others) so it seems reasonable that comparisons of his results against other indicators of cheating would be done (as any sane statistician would do).
As usual on the Interwebby Thing, people are painting what someone says with their own incomplete assumptions/ignorance and spinning their own biases into that mashup. Fabi's a (really, really) smart guy - do you think he'd actually take a hard position that Regan's tools are both definitive and untested with positive-result training data? Really?
@VTWood "The striking part of his statement is the utter ignorance he displays as to Regan's work."
Meh, I found Caruana's thoughts and explanations well-thought out. His assessments clear, fair and aware of possible pitfalls. Caruana's claim comes down to type II error, or in diagnostics the problems of sensitivity (true positives) and specificity (true negatives). There is nothing wrong with his idea that Regan's analysis, like all such analyses, is imperfect and may lead to false positives and false negatives. Nothing to do with 'utter ignorance'.
Especially given the negative consequences of false positives in professional chess, the specificity is somewhat more emphasized. This has the downside that the rate of false negatives is necessarily somewhat higher than in most online cheating detection. It is, as I am used to seeing from Caruana, a clear, lucid and logical position.
Meh, I found Caruana's thoughts and explanations well-thought out. His assessments clear, fair and aware of possible pitfalls. Caruana's claim comes down to type II error, or in diagnostics the problems of sensitivity (true positives) and specificity (true negatives). There is nothing wrong with his idea that Regan's analysis, like all such analyses, is imperfect and may lead to false positives and false negatives. Nothing to do with 'utter ignorance'.
Especially given the negative consequences of false positives in professional chess, the specificity is somewhat more emphasized. This has the downside that the rate of false negatives is necessarily somewhat higher than in most online cheating detection. It is, as I am used to seeing from Caruana, a clear, lucid and logical position.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.