5 ms·

There is so much more to our report than what was focused on in the WSJ article. The full report will be shared shortly…

mzs 4y ago
>Rensch had previously said that Chess-com had never shared a list of cheaters or the platform’s cheat detection algorithm with Carlsen. So who did chess.com share those with?
- largepeepee 4y ago
  And why would they ever share full details of confidential agreements? Ie, their secret sauce.
  - mzs 4y ago
    Cause they shared Dlugy's private emails last week? Cause they leaked this report to the WSJ before putting it on their site? Cause Rensch worded the non-denial denial specifically like that?
    - largepeepee 4y ago
      Like I had mentioned previously, why would they reveal their entire hand? It makes sense to show the relevant part of their upcoming case and who knows what kind of agreement they had with Dlugy and with lawyers before deciding to reveal that snippet. Like in poker. Just because they showed one card, doesn't mean they are now obligated to show their hand.
      - jimmySixDOF 4y ago
        Yes if there are legal avenues this takes it will involve Dlugy and the Chess Max Academy. The problem is unless there is a caught in the act smoking gun it's all lot of statistics and inuendio that's very hard for anyone to prove in either direction. I'd feel more comfortable if Chess.com ran the exact same report they are releasing now on 50 other top players to see how close to a hundred anomalies they get. Still its a fascinating story with deep implications far beyond the world of chess.
- jquantf 4y ago
  [flagged]
Tenoke 4y ago
I appreciate the increase in transparency here. Can we expect similar transparency for all other (or at leasted titled) cheater cases?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
gaws 4y ago
How did the Journal obtain a copy of the report?
ffggvv 4y ago
so you guy invest a lot in magnus then when he loses claim his opponent cheated?
bjourne 4y ago
Even more!? Whats in the WSJ article is more than plenty enough to conclude that Nieman is a dirty cheater.
nikcub 4y ago
I hope you revise your policy of keeping all known instances of cheating amongst titled players on chess.com private. Further, as part of this report also reveal who the other professional players who confessed to cheating are. I attribute part of the reason why this scandal has reached as far as it has is that Niemann was able to retain his reputation and enter professional OTB tournaments up until the Sinquefield Cup. Nobody knew about any of this until it was alluded to vaguely, and then implicitly after Magnus was defeated OTB
klwww 4y ago
Will readers of the report be tracked for suspicious viewing patterns?
maegul 4y ago
Thread on full report here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33088332 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33088332
yodsanklai 4y ago
I'd be curious to know about the cheating rate on chess.com. I'd expect at lot of people to cheat occasionally, e.g. kids with too much time on their hand, people trying to "fix" their ranking, or getting a bit of help when they play against their friend and so on... And also... who cares? there are no stake, just playing against random people, who cares if they cheat as long as you have fun playing. It's less fun for the cheater, but doesn't impact non-cheater.
- hackerfromthefu 4y ago
  The people playing against the cheats care.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    I think it is an interesting question. Aside from consent, playing against an anonymous cheater is indistinguishable from playing against a better player. Presumably people are elo matched so it should not matter
    - Retric 4y ago
      A cheating player isn’t going to have equivalent elo when cheating and not cheating.
    - rayiner 4y ago
      I’m pretty sure that just proves that your mental model is too simplistic to explain the real world.
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        This is true for everyone and everything.
    - ajkjk 4y ago
      It is definitely not indistinguishable, both because "someone with this rating shouldn't be winning like this" and because engine moves look very different than human moves, especially at lower ratings.
Dave_Rosenthal 4y ago
The report was great, and answers a lot of questions everyone had. I'm especially glad to see you applied your tools to OTB games. The only disappointing thing was the focus on how fast Hans' rating soared after he hit 2500, and how much it rose between ages 11 and 19.25. These thresholds were very cherry-picked to make Hans look bad, which you didn't need to do. For example, Hans's rating lingered at 2450 for two years and then popped. If you charted ratings rise starting at 2450, Hans would be on the other side of the chart!
- mannykannot 4y ago
  If the rate of increase is highly unusual, then the rate itself is the relevant datum, and the interval over which it occurred is not being cherry-picked, even though it may appear to be. In other activities, more than one cheater has been caught out by presenting data that contains a brief period which was physically impossible, and the fact that the averaged data had no such problem did not, of course, make the concern go away. To be clear, as there is no equivalent to a physical impossibility here, I am not claiming that the rate of rating increase is conclusive; I am saying it seems to be a legitimate concern regardless of how reasonable the broader averages are.

mzs 4y ago

>Rensch had previously said that Chess-com had never shared a list of cheaters or the platform’s cheat detection algorithm with Carlsen. So who did chess.com share those with?

largepeepee 4y ago
And why would they ever share full details of confidential agreements? Ie, their secret sauce.
- mzs 4y ago
  Cause they shared Dlugy's private emails last week? Cause they leaked this report to the WSJ before putting it on their site? Cause Rensch worded the non-denial denial specifically like that?
  - largepeepee 4y ago
    Like I had mentioned previously, why would they reveal their entire hand? It makes sense to show the relevant part of their upcoming case and who knows what kind of agreement they had with Dlugy and with lawyers before deciding to reveal that snippet. Like in poker. Just because they showed one card, doesn't mean they are now obligated to show their hand.
    - jimmySixDOF 4y ago
      Yes if there are legal avenues this takes it will involve Dlugy and the Chess Max Academy. The problem is unless there is a caught in the act smoking gun it's all lot of statistics and inuendio that's very hard for anyone to prove in either direction. I'd feel more comfortable if Chess.com ran the exact same report they are releasing now on 50 other top players to see how close to a hundred anomalies they get. Still its a fascinating story with deep implications far beyond the world of chess.
jquantf 4y ago
[flagged]

Tenoke 4y ago

I appreciate the increase in transparency here. Can we expect similar transparency for all other (or at leasted titled) cheater cases?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

gaws 4y ago

How did the Journal obtain a copy of the report?

ffggvv 4y ago

so you guy invest a lot in magnus then when he loses claim his opponent cheated?

bjourne 4y ago

Even more!? Whats in the WSJ article is more than plenty enough to conclude that Nieman is a dirty cheater.

nikcub 4y ago

I hope you revise your policy of keeping all known instances of cheating amongst titled players on chess.com private. Further, as part of this report also reveal who the other professional players who confessed to cheating are. I attribute part of the reason why this scandal has reached as far as it has is that Niemann was able to retain his reputation and enter professional OTB tournaments up until the Sinquefield Cup. Nobody knew about any of this until it was alluded to vaguely, and then implicitly after Magnus was defeated OTB

klwww 4y ago

Will readers of the report be tracked for suspicious viewing patterns?

maegul 4y ago

Thread on full report here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33088332 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33088332

yodsanklai 4y ago

I'd be curious to know about the cheating rate on chess.com. I'd expect at lot of people to cheat occasionally, e.g. kids with too much time on their hand, people trying to "fix" their ranking, or getting a bit of help when they play against their friend and so on... And also... who cares? there are no stake, just playing against random people, who cares if they cheat as long as you have fun playing. It's less fun for the cheater, but doesn't impact non-cheater.

hackerfromthefu 4y ago
The people playing against the cheats care.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  I think it is an interesting question. Aside from consent, playing against an anonymous cheater is indistinguishable from playing against a better player. Presumably people are elo matched so it should not matter
  - Retric 4y ago
    A cheating player isn’t going to have equivalent elo when cheating and not cheating.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    I’m pretty sure that just proves that your mental model is too simplistic to explain the real world.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      This is true for everyone and everything.
  - ajkjk 4y ago
    It is definitely not indistinguishable, both because "someone with this rating shouldn't be winning like this" and because engine moves look very different than human moves, especially at lower ratings.

Dave_Rosenthal 4y ago

The report was great, and answers a lot of questions everyone had. I'm especially glad to see you applied your tools to OTB games. The only disappointing thing was the focus on how fast Hans' rating soared after he hit 2500, and how much it rose between ages 11 and 19.25. These thresholds were very cherry-picked to make Hans look bad, which you didn't need to do. For example, Hans's rating lingered at 2450 for two years and then popped. If you charted ratings rise starting at 2450, Hans would be on the other side of the chart!

mannykannot 4y ago
If the rate of increase is highly unusual, then the rate itself is the relevant datum, and the interval over which it occurred is not being cherry-picked, even though it may appear to be. In other activities, more than one cheater has been caught out by presenting data that contains a brief period which was physically impossible, and the fact that the averaged data had no such problem did not, of course, make the concern go away. To be clear, as there is no equivalent to a physical impossibility here, I am not claiming that the rate of rating increase is conclusive; I am saying it seems to be a legitimate concern regardless of how reasonable the broader averages are.