If Hans is cheating, then how is he doing it?

@Katzenschinken said in #119:

And for you the same is valid as for Mr.@Nomoreusernames : You don't seem to have a single clue what is possible in terms of miniaturization.
Show us a link to the undetectable communication device you are referring to.

@Nomoreusernames said in #121:

Show us a link to the undetectable communication device you are referring to.

They are probably talking about that Talisman 0 thing, which would be detected because it uses a wireless signal.

@Nomoreusernames said in #120:

No, it's not an assumption, there only has to be one instance of catching Niemann with any device, not 160.

The question of the OP was: "If Hans is cheating, then how is he doing it?"
That's no restriction to the Sinquefield Cup but could be understood as "if Niemann cheated somewhere how did he do it?" So if he didn't cheat at the Sinquefield Cup that doesn't mean he didn't cheat anywhere else.

And at least one where there was, in fact at the venue Magnus started the drama

If the OP had specifically asked how Niemann cheated at the Sinquefield Cup I wouldn't have bothered to answer because I don't think he did (something which I said already a few weeks ago).

Can you ask him about a device which will get around electronics detectors, RF scanners and metal detectors and communicate chess moves to someone undetected whilst they are on video?

For the RF scanner I already gave an answer and I don't need to ask him. Switch the transmitter off while you enter the playing hall and you will not detect it. An RF scanner needs active emissions to pick something up. When these are not present any RF scanner will stay silent.

Concerning the metal detector - here is an example of a transmitter module from Alibaba with a size of 9.5 x 9.5 mm.
https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/A-promotional-price-nRF-wireless-transceiver_62070466187.html?spm=a2700.7724857.0.0.13a04bccp5MT4O
You can assess for yourself how much metal is on it and if that is sufficient to spot it when the metal detector is 100 or 200 mm away.

BTW, here is what Garrett, the manufacturer of the metal detector used at the Sinquefield Cup, wrote about his device:

Detects ferrous, non-ferrous and stainless steel weapons, contraband and other metallic objects.
Metallic objects like weapons. Not a PCB with a few electrical traces and contact patches on it.

Concerning the earpiece: One was shown in the Dubov-Tkachev video from 7 years ago I linked to. That was barely visible. Make it a bit smaller, put it a bit deeper into your ear and it will be completely impossible to spot. You don't even need long hair then like Niemann.

If it does just fine, then there's no concern, right? If it doesn't do just fine, then the Sinquefield's have the means and wherewithal to get the one which is actually fine, if not state of the art.

LOL. Do you really think it makes no difference whether you use the Walmart cheapo scanner or a device which costs several hundreds or even thousands of Dollars? How naive are you?

Oh dear god, whatever! There is so much subconcious emotional fighting and sooo much bias in this thread, it's unbelievable. Calm down, guys.

I am missing the psychological perspective towards OTB Cheating. You are discussing so many details, it seems like you are just so convinced by your perspectives. Some of these things are very interesting to be discussed and it's probably worth noting the difference of different scanners.

Though: If there is so much at stake, do you really believe that someone is risking all this in an on the board tournament where cameras are just moving around your whole body? Besides the fear of getting caught in front of a camera? Is it worth it? Even for Niemann, who has cheated as a teenie? Someone who is considered as being strong anyways by a lot of experts / GMs? So... even if it is possible to cheat with micro-adapters vibrating etc, Niemann is also just a human being. And he is playing very good chess since he is really young. He put years of effort into this part of his life. It's - in the end - his life. If you went so far, even Niemann knows that he couldn't fake his skill by cheating all the time, cause this is not possible all the time. I would rather believe in a theory that there is someone who told about the prep of Niemann, which could always be a problem. Maybe someone who wanted revenge to Carlsen. But C'mon, .... despite all this, carlsen was not really good in thie one game.

In the end... This thread is full of words about nothing but hot air. And my post is totally off-topic considering the tile :D

@Katzenschinken said in #123:

The question of the OP was: "If Hans is cheating, then how is he doing it?"
That's no restriction to the Sinquefield Cup but could be understood as "if Niemann cheated somewhere how did he do it?" So if he didn't cheat at the Sinquefield Cup that doesn't mean he didn't cheat anywhere else.
He has played 160 high profile games, and each one has a substantial risk of scanning a device etc, where other players in the same tournaments have been caught (or at least have been reported as caught).

If the OP had specifically asked how Niemann cheated at the Sinquefield Cup I wouldn't have bothered to answer because I don't think he did (something which I said already a few weeks ago).
The question doesn't specify which tournaments, but if his play is over 2650 FIDE at least, why would he cheat against 2300-2600, and then not cheat against 2750-2850 rated players? That's not really in the spirit of the question.

For the RF scanner I already gave an answer and I don't need to ask him. Switch the transmitter off while you enter the playing hall and you will not detect it. An RF scanner needs active emissions to pick something up. When these are not present any RF scanner will stay silent.
There are also jammers and RF signal scanners, which would catch cheating even if the device was off. Also, he would have to switch it on without being seen. It would have to be big enough to communicate with him, and also carry a battery. Anyway, I asked about the electronics detector, as I would have thought your brother in law would be interested in this field, it's called non-linear junction detection.

Concerning the metal detector - here is an example of a transmitter module from Alibaba with a size of 9.5 x 9.5 mm.
www.alibaba.com/product-detail/A-promotional-price-nRF-wireless-transceiver_62070466187.html?spm=a2700.7724857.0.0.13a04bccp5MT4O
You can assess for yourself how much metal is on it and if that is sufficient to spot it when the metal detector is 100 or 200 mm away.
How big is the battery?

BTW, here is what Garrett, the manufacturer of the metal detector used at the Sinquefield Cup, wrote about his device:
Metallic objects like weapons. Not a PCB with a few electrical traces and contact patches on it.
As you pointed out, they use other detectors also, this is probably only to detect a battery.

Concerning the earpiece: One was shown in the Dubov-Tkachev video from 7 years ago I linked to. That was barely visible. Make it a bit smaller, put it a bit deeper into your ear and it will be completely impossible to spot. You don't even need long hair then like Niemann.
Impossible? Even when all your opponents and the security are looking, and have the tech to find it?

Katzenchinken: It would be incredibly naive to think that any security guy worth his salt would pay that money when the 50 bucks device from Walmart does just fine.

Nomoreusernames: If it does just fine, then there's no concern, right? If it doesn't do just fine, then the Sinquefield's have the means and wherewithal to get the one which is actually fine, if not state of the art.

LOL. Do you really think it makes no difference whether you use the Walmart cheapo scanner or a device which costs several hundreds or even thousands of Dollars? How naive are you?
You said "the 50 bucks device from Walmart does just fine." I don't agree, I don't think it's naive to think that the security would have the appropriate equipment.

@Katzenschinken

I thank you for answering the implied question of the op.. Or the one that I wanted it to be.. How could one actually, in the current state of chess world OTB competitions actually cheat, without detection.

I do not think that making us aware of the technical aspect is actually helping cheating. Closing our eyes to the possible means of OTB cheating methods and opting for the stance of "cheaters once always cheaters" when children or teenagers are involved, although self-contained and conservative assumption, when in doubt (lacking information), is not really the solution either, not a progressive one at least.

Since, it seems that in order to be able to compete, one has to start at a young age, where social wisdom is clearly not the priority (and should not be either). Condemning youth for early mistakes is not a good principle, I do not wish it, in general.

However in the absence of precise information about wisdom or actual change, the possibility that cheating might still be a top behavior in someone scale of values, even in adulthood, makes important to consider the basis of physical impossibility, that one often assumes, for OTB to be susceptible to cheating.

This is not about the particular person, accused or not. I think you actually answered the relevant question.. which is how could he have done it, if he (or anyone with intention) had wanted. That is a prerequisite question, I had no clue about.

At least, I wanted to know, as an outsider, chess amateur, curious about other chess practices and mores, the physical possibilities. We might want to start thinking about whether the only thing one can do against deliquescent competitive atmosphere, is to put barriers to cheating. So that the only reason for someone to not cheat would be the chance of getting caught. Everything else staying the same. For example, one saying they change, only because they were caught, or us not believing actual change is possible, as a safety against being on the wrong side of cheating, or projecting oneself onto such cheating victim.

@Onyx_Chess said in #26:

Magnus did not imply anything.

Magnus stated, flat out, that there was a plethora of abnormal, bizarre, and suspicious behaviours and circumstances, and it made him uncomfortable; he stated that it was unfair that he should have to play under such pressure, and that, therefore, he had no choice but to withdraw from the tournament.

This is not the same as an accusation.

implied, not accused.

Go back and look at what people were saying in the hours and days after magnus quit, they all said things along the lines of "I don't know why magnus quit, but I assume it's because magnus suspects hans cheated"

2 weeks later, magnus made a statement after watching what everyone was saying. I don't give that statement much value

idea. someone had a similar one in on thread as a joke, perhaps.. but joke is imagination, anyway.

What if instead of focusing and recording only the move "sent" on the board, players had to also submit the pre-move thinking. some sufficient trace.

Isn't the core of the cheating problem, the existence of machine executed programs, with their own ways of thinking, that is not really human (if one had more informative output in general, most people would understand that, and perhaps my suggestion of thinking process sharing, for post-game evaluation, of human source would make it a non-joke suggestion).

Plans. That is human. Perhaps, instead of shocking habits by changing current ways, more format of competitions could be had, that would attract more trust. Even having to record which candidate moves were explored, or skeleton of variations, even if aborted in light of an impulse perception.. of course perhaps the clock pressure parameters would have to be revised. One would not need to have words to express the thinking, they already have notation.. or they could have an analysis board with them consigning their thinking...

I am obviously trying to use my correspondence experience, where the notion of cheating, while more physically possible, seems such a psychological waste of time, and not the spirit at all.. The fun is in the games themselves, more than their outcome (I might not be the only one with that philosophy attracted to that format). Anyway, now on lichess we can keep traces of your thinking till post-game....

Would that not be possible in OTB? use the digital for good.. and check that there was actuall human thinking?

Edit: eventually that human format, might even makes its way to how engine compete.. almost kidding, but sarcastic, for sure.

@Katzenschinken said in #119:

I gave an example in #95. And for you the same is valid as for Mr. @Nomoreusernames : You don't seem to have a single clue what is possible in terms of miniaturization.

Well, is that how Niemann cheated? How do you know that? It was asked how he cheated and not how he could have cheated. That's a small but subtle difference.

And direct evidence of this is also lacking. It doesn't matter what's possible these days. Niemann was examined by security personnel at the Sinquefield Cup. Nothing was found. Well, he didn't do it that way.

@odoaker2015 said in #129:

Well, is that how Niemann cheated? How do you know that? It was asked how he cheated and not how he could have cheated. That's a small but subtle difference.

That's why I already pointed out that the question is just stupid. Nobody can know if and how Niemann cheated until he is caught red-handed. The only meaningful discussion to have is how someone could have cheated. Nothing else.

If you insist that the question is answered in the way you think it was meant then you don't understand anything.