The Hans Niemann Effect

I feel like it is kind of a pity, no one addresses the results of the game analysis by Stockfish.

• 80 moves

• 0 inaccuracies, 0 errors, 0 blunders

• 98% accuracy

• 5 avg. centipawn loss

  for both, Hans any Yangyi

In the past months, far less exciting results were brought up as proof for whatever the world champion and some streamers did not accuse Hans of.
Now ,that Yu Yangyi is on par with Hans Niemann, I was hoping for an explanation.

@new_player_123 said in #31:

• 0 inaccuracies, 0 errors, 0 blunders

98% accuracy in 1200-rated rapid games would be very suspicious. But these are 2600-rated 90-minute games, so naturally they're making almost the same moves as Stockfish would in the same position. There were two other 98% games in that round alone with 0 inaccuracies. https://lichess.org/broadcast/2022-fall-chess-classic-a-group/round-3/dp1t6oNE

@doombot133 said in #32:

98% accuracy in 1200-rated rapid games would be very suspicious. But these are 2600-rated 90-minute games, so naturally they're making almost the same moves as Stockfish would in the same position. There were two other 98% games in that round alone with 0 inaccuracies. lichess.org/broadcast/2022-fall-chess-classic-a-group/round-3/dp1t6oNE

I think that's exactly the point @new_player_123 was making - numbers like this aren't particularly unusual for players of this standard, yet a few weeks ago, games like this were being held up as purportedly irrefutable proof that Niemann was cheating.

You're right @ClayAndSilence, he was just being a little cagey (understandably). Nothing to see here, just another instance of rabid fans "trusting the data" they don't understand, because their idol said so - in a very unprofessional manner. Oh well, at least nobody's using this dumpster fire as an excuse to take away my car or inject me with mad science experiments.

Okay, first of all, how is this even helpful? The "Hans Niemann effect".

accuracy percent means absolutely nothing if you don't deduct forced moves

How is that helpful??

@PROSPECTARI said in #24:

Hans cheated done and done

@BeaverB1xQD8 said in #23:

Hans can play high level chess, obviously.
Though, when someone argue there is no proof he cheated, there are proofs.
There isn't 3 types of people -online cheaters, OTB cheaters and non cheaters.
There is no room for cheaters anywhere.

So what do we do about this? Magnus is cheating in front of your eyes in this video (and it's not the only time). Is there no room for Magnus Carlsen anywhere?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-Kz7bo5tKE

Extenuating factors: He was drunk, He is rated high, People like him. .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttM2AYnUb5Y&t=1s

"Too fast, too strong.."
"Too weak, too slow."

Wow, it just may be that --

Only a handful of players in the world can beat Magnus with 98% accuracy in a bullet game.

But in any case, the obvious issue in this character abuse scandal is 1) the background and underwater hostility and toxicity of chess which truly should Not be there. To praise some winner and insult the loser is a problem that always leads to some conflict sooner or later. If it cannot get aired, then it simply pushes the toxicity underwater until it comes up at some huge blow-up like this, in which case the "mob decision" gets the hamper.

And 2) relating to this, the mass loss of logic and so forth.

But what seems obvious to you, me, @Nomoreusernames, @VTWood, @AlexiHarvey, and others; seems incomprehensible to most others... right and wrong, etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tnLDdDzEeQ

To you and me @Nomoreusernames it's very strange. Why insult your opponent after the game? Why not just have fun? There's a difference between having a high desire for self-perfection, and for gaslighting and toxicity.

[Edited: Two hours later.]

This is just in reply to Cedur's incoherent discontent. The problem is toxicity, hostility and the rest are Not part of chess in the pure form, nor of any kind of reasonable form around it. Incendiary and inflammatory (constant ridicule, high-pitched emotional outburst from Hikaru, the all-content around the incendent,) etc.

1.) Being drunk does not excuse cheating.
2.) Being high-rated does not excuse it.
3.) Your opinion that it's okay does not excuse it.

So on and so forth.

And the incoherent animosity which says, "Yes it does" or anything else is certainly not logical in any way shape or form. Why do you think those defending the person who does such things constantly curse out and so on and so forth?

It's just so sad because it's so heinous. Do you think constant toxicity (Calling opponents moron- actually that's what I was looking for, when the "Idiot" one came up) is beneficial for chess in any way shape or form?

An attempt to black-list someone just when they win a game?
Do you not see how such rampant toxicity are exceedingly harmful?
Well obviously but yeah.

The final point which of course you will not care a whit about is this: Professionals in any capacity are usually better than this.
Professional doctors do not make fun of you for not knowing the symptoms or the causes of an ailment.

I dunno --- Mike Caro explains it better LOL.

He condemns a 'professional' poker player for their bad behavior or "making fun" of their opponents -- who as he points out are professionals in many capacities... For example a professional doctor may play poker with someone lose some money etc.

The 2500-rated player that Carlsen called an "Idiot" in that video may have been a professional musician, doctor, tennis player, or any of those or None of those
and he Still and absolutely deserves respect.
Constant and absolute erosion of this are not befitting a "professional" of any field.

Lookie there. Rofl. But the incoherent animosity will not advance, will not grow. Will not learn; and will continue downvoting my posts on the Caro-Kann or anything rofl.

[Edit;

Let's say you play a game with Carlsen. You got a draw! Then, you see after the game, he called you an "Idiot" or a "Moron." You were so happy you got a draw with him then only saw his abuse. Maybe you give up chess, or maybe you just pass his animosity along to the next player.

Then let's say you think you're playing Tari but it was Carlsen playing. So on and so forth.

It is completely understandable that now, when proof of consistency and skill supports Hans, folks like @Tim_Pool @Cedur216 @Tim_Pool @PROSPECTARI @VINCENTYU @BeaverB1xQD8 relate to hollow phrases "cheater is a cheater" and suddenly become tired of any discussion.

The fun of collectively bullying someone on the basis, as it now turns out, of unfounded allegations and amateur statisticians. The enjoyment of siding with an "idol" fighting for the "good and righteousness" and spinning conspiracy theories.
Culminating in something like an act of group-catharsis, projecting own flaws on a powerless scapegoat to be publicly shamed, convicted by mob opinion and crucified vicariously.

And I call everyone, who claims to have never cheated in some way in life, a liar.

Understandably Hans has to stay buried now. Fun is over.

... well, he wont ...