Intersting thing is Hans Niemann Report (Cheaters are rare 2.0)

It's just that popular opinion cannot be the judge and arbiter.

And to accuse someone so slanderously as has been done, it's been horrific to say the least.

yes. cheating is misrepresentation and disrespectful of the 2 person contract implied when agreeing to play a game.
The moral is clear. But the online prevalence and players experience as potential victim, is not.

We commit energy and time.. as advertised by rating, we would expect to have a good time playing with another of same rating band per large populatoin random pairing.. So i would not like to waste my time.

But how would i know the difference, given what lichess is filtering out... Why ruin our own energies in apprehension, on something could ruin one game (an possibly improbable one given the lichess context at least). That is really ruining, or burning serotonin away, in advance...

yet i keep coming. this time it was the hope for some quantitation.... but chess.com.. always will have the shaky ground of it being half-truth so no truth.. when the reproducible logical set of context data or data analysis assumptions is not given with the results, it is like no result at all.. . love emoticon to myself for this post..

@LegendaryQueen said in #51:

It's just that popular opinion cannot be the judge and arbiter.

And to accuse someone so slanderously as has been done, it's been horrific to say the least.

I was with you in your post about Socrates, until you wrote Hans' misbehaviour out of history, and made Carlsen's reactions towards him to be the whole story.

Carlsen, and other GMs, were actually put in a very awkward position...and it was cheaters who them in that lose-lose position.

Perhaps you'd like to actually read my disposition on the turmoil that Carlsen and others were facing...how cheating fits in...and then saliently explain which fact you take issue with...instead of thumbs downing it 10 seconds after I posted it?

ok now back to the other threads...

@dboing said in #52:

yes. cheating is misrepresentation and disrespectful of the 2 person contract implied when agreeing to play a game.
The moral is clear. But the online prevalence and players experience as potential victim, is not.

We commit energy and time.. as advertised by rating, we would expect to have a good time playing with another of same rating band per large populatoin random pairing.. So i would not like to waste my time.

But how would i know the difference, given what lichess is filtering out... Why ruin our own energies in apprehension, on something could ruin one game (an possibly improbable one given the lichess context at least). That is really ruining, or burning serotonin away, in advance...

yet i keep coming. this time it was the hope for some quantitation.... but chess.com.. always will have the shaky ground of it being half-truth so no truth.. when the reproducible logical set of context data or data analysis assumptions is not given with the results, it is like no result at all.. . love emotion to myself for this post..

You're right. It'd be nice if the conversation of cheating would just disappear.

I think my issue is how people are attacking those who are reacting towards the cheating and doing the best as they can, and how they are simultaneously exonerating and protecting the cheaters and writing them out of history as though honest chess players have no legitimate concerns, and as though they should just be quiet and continue to do almost nothing about it.

It looks as if upon hearing the discussion and concerns by his comrade GMs, Carlsen realized that he was in the best position to voice their concerns, and it looks like that's exactly what he did:

"Take 6 months off and then keep cheating until you find a way to undermine our efforts to catch you, again, for a 3rd 4th 5th time, and feel free to carry on as normal, unabated, alongside all of your honest colleagues." - Not A Powerful Dissuasion Against Cheating

"If you are a habitual cheater, who has recently cheated, all of the best chess players in the world will not want to play against you without first expressing their reticence and exposing you for being a dishonest person and a poor sport who is willing to destroy chess just so that you can cheat." - A Powerful Dissuasion Against Cheating

At least, now, GMs will think twice...and...at least...now...chess players will begin to understand that it's actually a very destructive thing to cheat.

@LegendaryQueen said in #46:

There is a lot of hype out there..... i may not have read the links exactly, but i think, that better look at what the code actually does when given chess land input, and spitting out chess land output (ideally, it would spit it out as the mathematical function that an algorithm is supposed to construct, but with the current goals of engine competitions, that would be a loss of ELO).

while the input-ouput story is still mysterious, the next thing one could do is look for documentations.... Well, not that either, it is not chess land documentation. Only hints at blog level.

Then there is source code. .. and i lose my energy to continue here. i suggest looking at other thread in forum for my thoughts on that.. Also studies by jomega. about anything engine in title, or the blogs too...

I trust that kind of information more that the other end, because there is a gap between open source code, and user level documentation.(not dumb, chess rational user curious enough to ask the right questions, but not wanting to be initiated as coder of the thing).

The motto of soure code as documentation, does not allow the chess land relevant information to make its way to the links (i am guessing, because tires of reading there, and knowing that the gap in between makes them likely to be hidden opinioins transmitted so many times around that they gain some truth by social resonance in the Big social meda of the WWW.

No they could not evoved from what i descrbed, in spite of having positional features names in the code.... theh parameter values chosen ,and the mathematical function space never thought of in the construct, being the real story, but too dispersed over an accumulated pull requests soucre code, so that only the initiatied could be interogated to get the whole story, that i am depicting. so no i did not get to the bottom of the soure code4. I would have to be one of the few, in order to have the complete chess level model of it.. i have enough to make the claims that it did not evolve from above, until NNue.

@LegendaryQueen

Question:

You're giving Hans, and cheaters like him, all of the grace in the world. Why not extend that same grace towards Carlsen?

@Nomoreusernames said in #25:

We should be careful to not claim without evidence that he was using an anal device to justify assertions that he cheated, for example. He didn't set that in motion, people twisted what happened more than 2 years ago to try to be as nasty as they could be. Bullying is never a solution, especially when you are accusing someone without proof of something unrealistic.

This is all much better discussed in this thread where the discussion can do some good:

https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/intersting-thing-is-hans-niemann-report-cheaters-are-rare-20?page=5

As for your contention about making claims without evidence:

Carlsen said: "I am uncomfortable playing against this individual because he has a history of cheating and the extent of it is unclear. Further, he miraculously nailed my opening prep. Further, other GMs voiced their concerns prior to the tournament. Further, something was off about his demeanour. Further, he's seen taking pictures with confirmed cheaters who tweet things about how they're proud of Hans being a good student. It's all just too suspicious for me to know what to make of it or to feel comfortable with it." (paraphrased)

When you cheat, you cause people to suspect you of cheating.

Hans is NOT allowed to cheat in the first place.
Hans' colleagues ARE allowed to feel suspicious around him until they no longer do.
Hans caused that injury and damage, not them.

Yes. Magnus is human. Yes. Magnus, and the other GMs, can be expected to have their suspicions.

Also, it's a known fact that when you suspect your opponent of possibly cheating...that you can't play as good as you would otherwise.

These are all legitimate concerns. No formal accusations made.

And on the topic of "formal accusations"...we are dealing with an unprecedented example of "cheating in sports".

Cheating in chess, at this level, is nearly impossible to detect.
Cheating in chess could catastrophically devastate and destroy it from the face of the planet.

Naturally, the GMs, and honest chess players, are concerned about cheating in the sport.

All of that said, I don't think that cheating started with Hans and I don't think that he should be a permanent pariah.
I think that he'll mature and start to learn to respect people and respect chess.
And I'll be glad to see that day arrive.

This is an extremely complex issue that rises FAR above, "I hate Magnus for making accusations without a smoking gun," and "I hate Hans for cheating!"

By the way, it's an issue that could be 100% resolved, to perfect effect, if people would refuse to cheat...or if people would immediately discontinue cheating.

@Onyx_Chess said in #58:

This is an extremely complex issue that rises FAR above, "I hate Magnus for making accusations without a smoking gun," and "I hate Hans for cheating!"
By the way, it's an issue that could be 100% resolved, to perfect effect, if people would refuse to cheat...or if people would immediately discontinue cheating.

Please read what I said again? Bullying is bullying. Not you, but you shouldn't make excuses for them.

@Nomoreusernames said in #59:

Please read what I said again? Bullying is bullying. Not you, but you shouldn't make excuses for them.

Ah...OK...so on this particular point...I'm conflicted.

On the one hand, one of the only penalties that the chess world has the power to enforce in order to dissuade cheaters...is to at least make it clear that it's socially unacceptable.

On the other hand, you're perfectly correct that there shouldn't be mean attacks against Hans.

In my view, voicing the suspicion that his cheating has caused, and saying "we're not OK with this", is legitimate and doesn't qualify as bullying.

Anything else, I suppose, could cross that line.

With that said, given the frustrations that serious chess fans have with cheating...I totally get that we don't always speak about Hans with endearing terms.

And, I suppose, I also totally get how someone like Hans, with whatever factors have contributed towards his cheating, is on the trajectory that he's on.

I agree, there should be no bullying.
I agree, there should be no cheating.

And at the same time, I can't reiterate enough that the problem of cheating has caused all of these undesirable reactions to occur.

From the bullying to Magnus' reactions...all of it was set in motion by cheaters.

Cheating is the problem...so let's all just decide to not do that any more.