Harder to Cheat at Chess 960

@Sacmaniac said in #20:

In fact he wouldn't even need that. All he would need to know is if there was something in the position to be aware of.
If he knew there was something to be found in the position he could devote the time to pause and figure it out.
At his level of super grandmastery they don't need the actual coordinates of the move, just that there is something that is either good or bad about the position. It's very binary.
He spread terrible false stories about Niemann and the beads etc, but I agree with Nakamura on this. Where to allocate your time is extremely important facet of calculating, and indicating somehow to spend 15 mins more on a move, when there is potential to find an inaccuracy, is valuable. It is not ridiculous to speculate that there are innocuous ways to cheat that people need to look for, but bear in mind they have a lot less opportunity at the time of the move, than one can casually account how it potentially happened afterwards. Like considering the theory of sending a bit of metal to space, compared to it actually being in space. People seem to have a natural tendency to underestimate the itty bitty niggles that can potentially blow up the whole endeavour.

And extremely clever people typical find the methods and look for them, before the comparatively stupid people with a propensity to take risk, try to use them. If you know which move the cheat is likely to happen, then you are more easily able to spot it ;-)

Either way, it is ridiculous to blame someone without evidence, in disagreement with highly qualified and unbiased experts' thorough analysis.

@Sacmaniac

In a fast game, yes. Slow game, no difference.

That's why I play fast 960 games. The noob cheaters have to take a whole minute loading the position, if they even know how to do it. And it's pretty obvious when they stall in the opening.

Society loves the live conformists and dead criminals and the only justification for a crime is if you are successful at it.

I would actually have more respect for Hans if he did accomplish some form of cheating OTB and duped everyone, more than actually winning the tournament on his own merit, simply because it's much rarer to cheat OTB nowadays.

It's just sexier to get away with it and the reason why movies like Ocean Eleven or some art heist movie are so appealing to the masses.

All I know about Hans is that personally I think he is young and arrogant and obsessed with chess to the point of becoming elite at it. Apparently he admitted he cheated online when he was a bit younger and I get that.

@Nomoreusernames Cheating online at chess includes a lot of things. You can use engines, have books handy or ask a friend.

So if you want to get technical about it than Magnus cheated on Banter Blitz against Jan Gustuffson(sorry about the spelling) because he played instead of a weaker friend. It's a small thing, but technically Jan thought he was playing against another person and he wasn't.

Perhaps money wasn't being exchanged and Jan is a friend of Magnus but the point is it was cheating. There are degrees of course, and I'm just not convinced that Hans is guilty and on the flip side, if he has enough to sue Magnus or Chess.com etc.

@Sacmaniac said in #23:

Society loves the live conformists and dead criminals and the only justification for a crime is if you are successful at it.
I think this is a societal flaw. I don't believe in making heroes of people for their poor ethics and morals.
I would actually have more respect for Hans if he did accomplish some form of cheating OTB and duped everyone, more than actually winning the tournament on his own merit, simply because it's much rarer to cheat OTB nowadays.
We don't agree here, and I think he would be self defeating in this action.
It's just sexier to get away with it and the reason why movies like Ocean Eleven or some art heist movie are so appealing to the masses.
This may be true, I myself find truth to be more "sexy".
All I know about Hans is that personally I think he is young and arrogant and obsessed with chess to the point of becoming elite at it.
Agree completely.
Apparently he admitted he cheated online when he was a bit younger and I get that.
I see this as tasking account of his actions.
@Nomoreusernames Cheating online at chess includes a lot of things. You can use engines, have books handy or ask a friend.
So if you want to get technical about it than Magnus cheated on Banter Blitz against Jan Gustuffson(sorry about the spelling) because he played instead of a weaker friend. It's a small thing, but technically Jan thought he was playing against another person and he wasn't.
I agree this is suspicious, even if in the form only of not challenging the claim he cheated, for the actual benefit of taking a fair play stance in chess. Instead he seems to have created a power struggle for calling people a "cheat", in that if you're the best player, you get to falsely call others a "cheat" potentially without consequence, while getting away with cheating potentially, yourself.
Perhaps money wasn't being exchanged and Jan is a friend of Magnus but the point is it was cheating. There are degrees of course, and I'm just not convinced that Hans is guilty and on the flip side, if he has enough to sue Magnus or Chess.com etc.
I think Niemann did cheat when he was a minor, and I hope the rest of the accusations get sufficiently scrutinised in court, for the good of chess. False accusations should not run havoc in the most established mind sport, it's bad for the mind.

Good point @RickRenegade. You rarely if ever see cheating at bullet or less than 3 minute games, imo. The longer the time controls, the more cheating can occur.

For 960 in particular, you never have to worry about prepared opening lines and there is actually an advantage to being black because you have more time to look at crucial opening moves.

If it's a casual game your opponent has a greater tendency to abort because you are taking all your time to look at weaknesses or quick mating potentials. But if it's a rated tournament game they are forced to sit there.

In essence 960 offers a more even playing field than the standard chess and in theory should be far less draws.

I know myself when analyzing my 960 games I never play the suggested opening sequence more than a few moves deep.

If someone blunders pieces away in the opening and then plays the endgame flawlessly, I'd be very suspicious indeed.

It takes time to set up positions that have never been seen before.

I spent 3 years uploading puzzles I created to a phone app, I can tell you personally it ain't that easy to get it right sometimes, even if you have several minutes.

The only sure way to not be cheated is to play fast and casual games because few if any cheaters get a thrill if there is nothing on the line to lose.

The trade off is that all the time a player has invested in opening theory is wasted. But for players new to chess, I'd suggest they only play Chess 960 because it really is the purest form of chess in my opinion. or Fischer's.

To clarify @Nomoreusernames I have a tendency to be flippant. When I talk about Hans cheating and condoning it and respecting Hans for getting away with it, I'm saying it tongue-in-cheek of course.

Furthermore, if Hans is actually proven to have cheated I believe he should never have an opportunity to do it again. His title should be stripped and he needs to find another way to make money.

It's one thing to cheat and own up nd another to double down and gaslight the chess world after stealing money.

@Sacmaniac said in #20:

This is kind of related but barely. I was watching Hikura on the Lex Fridman podcast recently and he claimed the only information he'd need to cheat is either one buzz or two. In fact he wouldn't even need that. All he would need to know is if there was something in the position to be aware of.

This makes sense, one buzz for "there is something non-obvious that will result in only one move improving your score significantly", ie look for an attack. Two buzzes for "there is something non-obvious that will result in your score staying roughly the same, with all other moves having a significant reduction in score", ie watch for a trap.
Figuring out how to have a computer detect when something is non-obvious for a GM level player is the interesting part for me. I can easily have it detect when something is non-obvious for me because it takes more than a 2-ply materiel only search to find the best move, but GM players are at a much different level :)

@Nomoreusernames said in #21:

Either way, it is ridiculous to blame someone without evidence, in disagreement with highly qualified and unbiased experts' thorough analysis.
There are plenty of evidence. What you meant is proof. They are not blaming, they are suspecting, they have a right to be.

@xged said in #28:

There are plenty of evidence. What you meant is proof. They are not blaming, they are suspecting, they have a right to be.
no, I meant evidence. The evidence is in favour of Niemann not cheating.