Accusations of cheating in the highest tournament levels of chess


Not 'proof', but suspicious.

Summary of article:
Played a perfect game (100% how a computer would play) against Carlsen previously. Most great players are around 70%. 100% has been done, but very rare. Only player to consistently get at or near 100% was caught communicating with other people, and article explains how that was done.
 
I saw it argued in other videos that different chess AI give different "accuracy" (best move) stats, and in this video they (obviously) use one that gives higher stats more easily. Eg you can see some software give Magnus accuracy of 99% too, while other software gives him 70% (which is still incredibly high).
 
WRT to using anal beads to communicate, this paper just came out. Vibrating teeth make good hearing aids.

The sensitivity of bone conduction for dental implants

Dental implants are connected to the alveolar bone by osseointegration. Dental implants could be used as a potential bone conduction (BC) hearing assistive device in the mouth. However, the BC threshold of dental implants has not been reported. The present study aimed to examine the pure tone auditory thresholds of normal human subjects to BC stimulation of the implants. Dental implants showed a significantly lower BC threshold than natural teeth and mastoids. Mandibular dental implants had BC sensitivity similar to that of maxillary dental implants. The BC threshold of anterior dental implants was significantly lower than that of posterior dental implants. Dental implants exhibited excellent BC properties.​
 
This is a circus and in the long run won't help chess with anything - it seems highly unlikely that Hans can be proven to have cheated in any of the important games, including the non-online one where he defeated Magnus.

And, at least in theory, there is the chance he simply didn't cheat in those, which means his career is attacked (and harmed) out of the world champion's petty rage for losing a game to him.
 
In theory, there's also a chance that he did, and therefore that he's going to get away with it.

(I don't have a dog in this race, it's just interesting to watch the optics)

The reasons Magnus gave for thinking Hans cheated were just petty and dumb, he stated that (in his view) Hans was not concentrating on the game, and that (again in his view) while he played badly, there are only a few who could defeat him when he is playing badly (but not Hans).
Those are the opposite of proof :/
 
In theory, there's also a chance that he did, and therefore that he's going to get away with it.

(I don't have a dog in this race, it's just interesting to watch the optics)

Hans is a second rate player who has cheated before. It's a hard habit to break.
 

Chess Investigation Finds That U.S. Grandmaster ‘Likely Cheated’ More Than 100 Times​

An internal report reviewed by The Wall Street Journal alleges a previously unknown pattern of likely widespread cheating by Hans Moke Niemann, the player whose September victory over Magnus Carlsen has rocked the chess world​


When world chess champion Magnus Carlsen last month suggested that American grandmaster Hans Moke Niemann was a cheater, the 19-year-old Niemann launched an impassioned defense. Niemann said he had cheated, but only at two points in his life, describing them as youthful indiscretions committed when he was 12 and 16 years old.

Now, however, an investigation into Niemann’s play—conducted by Chess.com, an online platform where many top players compete—has found the scope of his cheating to be far wider and longer-lasting than he publicly admitted.
The report, reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, alleges that Niemann likely received illegal assistance in more than 100 online games, as recently as 2020. Those matches included contests in which prize money was on the line. The site uses a variety of cheating-detection tools, including analytics that compare moves to those recommended by chess engines, which are capable of beating even the greatest human players every time. The report states that Niemann privately confessed to the allegations, and that he was subsequently banned from the site for a period of time.

The 72-page report also flagged what it described as irregularities in Niemann’s rise through the elite ranks of competitive, in-person chess. It highlights “many remarkable signals and unusual patterns in Hans’ path as a player.” While it says Niemann’s improvement has been “statistically extraordinary.” Chess.com noted that it hasn’t historically been involved with cheat detection for classical over-the-board chess, and it stopped short of any conclusive statements about whether he has cheated in person. Still, it pointed to several of Niemann’s strongest events, which it believes “merit further investigation based on the data.” FIDE, chess’s world governing body, is conducting its own investigation into the Niemann-Carlsen affair. “Outside his online play, Hans is the fastest rising top player in Classical [over-the-board] chess in modern history,” the report says, while comparing his progress to the game’s brightest rising stars. “Looking purely at rating, Hans should be classified as a member of this group of top young players. While we don’t doubt that Hans is a talented player, we note that his results are statistically extraordinary.”

Chess.com, which is in the process of buying Carlsen’s Play Magnus app, is a popular platform for both casual players and grandmasters alike. It has more than 90 million members and also hosts big tournaments for elite players with lucrative prize money.
im-636311


Hans had the fastest and biggest increase in his score over time in comparison to his peers and other notable players, when considering all of their known Classical OTB games played from age 11-19.PHOTO: CHESS.COM

Niemann didn’t respond to requests for comment. When he addressed the controversy last month, he said that he had dedicated himself to over-the-board chess after he was caught cheating, in order to prove himself as a player.
The controversy erupted in early September at the prestigious Sinquefield Cup in St. Louis, where Niemann upset Carlsen while playing with the black pieces, which is a disadvantage. Carlsen then abruptly quit the tournament. Though the Norwegian didn’t accuse Niemann of impropriety at the time, the chess community interpreted his action as a protest.

The pair met again in an online event weeks later, and Carlsen quit their game after making just one move. Days later, the world No. 1 publicly confirmed his suspicions of Niemann. “I believe that Niemann has cheated more—and more recently—than he has publicly admitted,” Carlsen wrote in his first public statement on the matter on Sept. 26. “His over the board progress has been unusual, and throughout our game in the Sinquefield Cup I had the impression that he wasn’t tense or even fully concentrating on the game in critical positions, while outplaying me as black in a way I think only a handful of players can do.” When Niemann addressed the suspicions last month, he said the only instance in which he cheated in an event with prize money was when he was 12. He said he later cheated as a 16-year-old, in “random games,” and that they were the biggest mistakes of his life. He also said he never cheated while live-streaming a game.

“I would never, could even fathom doing it, in a real game,” he said.

im-636309
PHOTO: CHESS.COM
The Chess.com report contradicts those statements. It says several prize-money events are included in the 100-plus suspect games and that he was live-streaming the contests during 25 of them. It adds that he was 17 years old during the most recent violations, which subsequently led Chess.com to close his account. A letter sent to Niemann included in the report notes “blatant cheating” to improve his rating in various games, including in one against Russian chess star Ian Nepomniachtchi, Carlsen’s most recent challenger for the World Chess Championship.

Niemann in 2020 confessed to the allegations in a phone call with the platform’s chief chess officer, Danny Rensch, the report says. The report also includes screenshots of subsequent Slack messages between the two in which they discuss a possible return to the site, which is permitted for players who admit their wrongdoing.

Niemann last month questioned why he was banned from the Chess.com Global Championship, a million-dollar prize event. Shortly thereafter, Rensch wrote a letter to Niemann explaining that “there always remained serious concerns about how rampant your cheating was in prize events” and that there was too much at stake. The letter added that Niemann’s suspicious moves coincided with moments when he had opened up a different screen on his computer—implying that he was consulting a chess engine for the best move.

“We are prepared to present strong statistical evidence that confirm each of those cases above, as well as clear ‘toggling’ vs ‘non-toggling’ evidence, where you perform much better while toggling to a different screen during your moves,” Rensch wrote.

Chess.com has historically handled its bans privately, as it did with Niemann in 2020. The platform deviated from that over the last month with Niemann, the report says, after he publicly addressed his communications with Chess.com and his ban from the site’s Global Championship. The report said Chess.com felt “compelled to share the basis” for its decisions.

The report says that Chess.com uses a variety of cheat-detection tools, including: analytics that compare moves to those recommended by chess engines; studies of a player’s past performance and strength profile; monitoring behavior such as players opening up other browsers while playing; and input from grandmaster fair play analysts.

Computers have “nearly infallible tactical calculation,” the report says, and are capable of beating even the best human every single time. The report says dozens of grandmasters have been caught cheating on the website, including four of the top-100 players in the world who confessed.

Identifying violations in over-the-board games remains a major challenge. The main reason is that grandmasters who cheat require very little assistance. For a player operating in elite circles, a couple of subtle moves in critical spots can be enough to tilt the balance against a world champion. That makes definitively proving allegations of cheating difficult unless a player is caught in the act—by using a phone in the bathroom, wearing a small earpiece or receiving signals from someone in the audience.

Niemann first crossed 2300 in the ELO rating system used by chess in late 2015 or early 2016, as an obviously gifted preteen. It took him more than two years to push that number above 2400 and another two to begin flirting with 2500—grandmaster territory—in late 2020. He achieved grandmaster status at the age of 17 in January 2021 and began his drive toward the rarefied atmosphere of the super grandmasters. This made him a relatively late-bloomer compared to some of his peers.

In the ELO system, the fastest way to make large jumps is to win a lot and beat people who are rated above you. Over the next 18 months, Niemann picked up more than 180 ELO points. Data collected by chess.com measuring the strength of his play shows a rise steeper than any of the top young players in the world.

“Our view of the data is that Hans, however, has had an uncharacteristically erratic growth period mired by consistent plateaus,” the report says.

The report also addresses Niemann’s postgame analysis of the moves from his game against Carlsen, which top players say showed a lack of understanding of the positions he had just played. It says Niemann’s analysis seems “to be at odds with the level of preparation that Hans claimed was at play in the game and the level of analysis needed to defeat the World Chess Champion.”


im-636720


Magnus Carlsen said that when he played prodigies in the past, they exerted themselves with great effort. Hans Niemann, on the other hand, appeared to play effortlessly. PHOTO: ARUN SANKAR/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES

In a private conversation after the game, the report says, Carlsen said it was unlike any game he’s ever played. Carlsen said that when he played prodigies in the past, they exerted themselves with great effort. Niemann, on the other hand, appeared to play effortlessly.

The report also addresses the relationship during the saga between Carlsen and Chess.com, which is buying Carlsen’s “Play Magnus” app for nearly $83 million. The report says that while Carlsen’s actions at the Sinquefield Cup prompted them to reassess Niemann’s behavior, Carlsen “didn’t talk with, ask for, or directly influence Chess.com’s decisions at all.” Rensch had previously said that Chess.com had never shared a list of cheaters or the platform’s cheat detection algorithm with Carlsen.

Niemann, speaking at the Sinquefield Cup, shared his own views of Chess.com’s anti-cheating methods.

“They have the best cheat detection in the world,” he said.
 

Chess Investigation Finds That U.S. Grandmaster ‘Likely Cheated’ More Than 100 Times​

An internal report reviewed by The Wall Street Journal alleges a previously unknown pattern of likely widespread cheating by Hans Moke Niemann, the player whose September victory over Magnus Carlsen has rocked the chess world​


When world chess champion Magnus Carlsen last month suggested that American grandmaster Hans Moke Niemann was a cheater, the 19-year-old Niemann launched an impassioned defense. Niemann said he had cheated, but only at two points in his life, describing them as youthful indiscretions committed when he was 12 and 16 years old.

Now, however, an investigation into Niemann’s play—conducted by Chess.com, an online platform where many top players compete—has found the scope of his cheating to be far wider and longer-lasting than he publicly admitted.
They wrote a 72 page document accusing him, and the closest they got to describing their methodology is:

To detect such “selective cheating,” Chess.com utilizes sophisticated statistical methods that dig deep into the probability that any individual player could have achieved their results based on past performance. Our detection system requires robust methodologies beyond simply looking at best moves, player rating, and centipawn loss. To effectively identify the vast majority of cheating, Chess.com computes an aggregate Strength Score. Strength Score is a measurement of the similarity between the moves made by the player, and the moves suggested as “strongest moves” by the chess engine. In a sense, it is a measure of the accuracy of play. The longer the chess game time control (i.e., 3 hours per game vs. 3 minutes per game), the higher the Strength Score would be expected to be, since players with more time will be able to evaluate each position more deeply and carefully. The Chess.com Strength Score ranges from 0 to 150, where 150 is the closest to “perfect chess” with the chess engine at maximum depth and performance. A score of 100 is approximately the highest we have measured for human chess players that can be achieved over a several game span, and 90 is the highest score we have seen a top player sustain over time in classical chess time controls. Pure engine usage alone would typically show scores between 125-150 depending on time, device, engine, depth, etc.​

That would get get into a peer reviewed journal.
 
At this point it doesn’t matter whether Niemann cheated over the board or not. There’s sufficient proof he’s been dishonest about the scope of his online cheating in $prized events against elite chess players. Which likely means no organisers will invite him to top events any more and no self respecting grandmasters will be willing to sit down and play in the same tournament with a serial cheater.

He’s going to be alright though. At age 19 he is a chess grandmaster, one out of just ~2500 (iirc) on the planet. While competitive scene will be shut down for Hans, plenty of Very lucrative career opportunities in coaching lie ahead.

The chess world has grown considerably during lockdowns. Chess.com, lichess, other sites saturated to tens of millions of accounts and host big money events, such as a million dollar online event going on as we speak. Optically, to me, it seems online chess is already equally important as otb, it will only become more important in the future as more people connect with online infrastructure. In that light the hypothetical argument of “but he only cheated online few times and feels sorry now” falls short as the online scene is equally important as far as reputations and cash flows are concerned and is, essentially, an integral part of the chess landscape.
 
^It doesn't change the fact that he beat Magnus in a non-online game, and that regardless of his past there wasn't any issue raised by Magnus or other super GMs before.
If all it takes is one chess champion to accuse you of cheating (Chess.com's connections with Magnus were presented already; if anything, it is not a good look), this also can harm people's careers. Again regardless of whether Hans cheated in more online games or not.

Maybe he did cheat against Magnus in that game he won. But what will happen the next time someone defeats Magnus and he doesn't like it? (maybe young players would not even attempt such :) )
 
^It doesn't change the fact that he beat Magnus in a non-online game, and that regardless of his past there wasn't any issue raised by Magnus or other super GMs before.
If all it takes is one chess champion to accuse you of cheating (Chess.com's connections with Magnus were presented already; if anything, it is not a good look), this also can harm people's careers. Again regardless of whether Hans cheated in more online games or not.
Maybe he did cheat against Magnus in that game he won. But what will happen the next time someone defeats Magnus and he doesn't like it? (maybe young players would not even attempt such :) )

Are you really saying that someone with a long history of cheating isnt relevant ? That rather naieve, as I would logically assume the opposite that this make it more likely he cheated
Id imagine that he will eventually get caught as hes placed a spot light on himself and people will eventually figure out how hes doing
 
Last edited:
At this point it doesn’t matter whether Niemann cheated over the board or not.
actually, it does. the fact of the matter is that he was invited to an event at which there is no evidence he cheated. any unprofessional conduct in that scope matters.

i'm not a fan of the guy and am not impressed by the apparent lie about online games, trying to downplay the scope of his misconduct. nevertheless, the way much of the chess world has handled the accusations about the event in question and cherry-picking engines to give more 100% games than any single engine would give were both unprofessional. chess.com is more credible, in that it has an established means of catching cheaters. to my knowledge, chess.com knew about his misconduct previously though (and banned him for it), and are calling him out now because he wasn't honest about the scale of his cheating. i don't think they have new evidence? we knew he was a cheater in online games before he played a move in 2022. i don't like the idea that "magnus had an objectively bad game for his usual standard of play and lost" = "credible cheating accusation" by itself.

this was mishandled and is a major debacle. the correct way for this sort of thing would have been to continue to gather evidence, and only make accusations in the context of where the cheating was known. "this guy cheated a lot in 2020 and he beat me in late 2022, so i assume he cheated" is a bad look. even if you think it's probably true. could have gathered evidence of 2022 cheating in online games and used that and/or evidence of otb cheating to pin it down on him more definitively. that would have made the (soon to be former) world champion's behavior less of a farce, same for a few other top gms.
 
^It doesn't change the fact that he beat Magnus in a non-online game, and that regardless of his past there wasn't any issue raised by Magnus or other super GMs before.

The Issues were common knowledge among top GM’s at least a year before Sinquefield cup according to Nakamura’s stream and Caruana‘s interview. The fact that Niemann won last minute nomination might explain why Niemann’s appearance caught Carlsen and the rest by surprise, prompted a somewhat dramatic exit and the rest of it. Anyway, Hans was banned on public stream, the knowledge of that did spill over even further than GM inner circle. Had he been off stream ban would be in private knowledge between Hans and chess.com administration.

The issue of “I wouldn’t wanna sit in the same building with an online cheater superstar” was there, but it seems most people in the know were too polite (or unconcerned) to voice it or act on it.

If all it takes is one chess champion to accuse you of cheating (Chess.com's connections with Magnus were presented already; if anything, it is not a good look), this also can harm people's careers. Again regardless of whether Hans cheated in more online games or not.

That’s not All it took, don’t exaggerate. It took multiple investigations from independent titled players (look them up on youtube). It took a full blown investigation from the internet chess central (aka chess.com) using machine analysis. It took a prior ban. A whistle from Carlsen. It also took assorted opinions from very high ranked GM’s, some of which pointed out apparent rift between (very high) quality of games by Niemann and his prowess in post-match analysis.

So no, this isn’t just “one chess champion”. And it does matter if he habitually cheated online or in his otb travels. No one likes cheaters. Online or not.

Chess connection you mention (Chess.com buying out Carlsen) does present a conflict of interest, there we can agree.

Maybe he did cheat against Magnus in that game he won. But what will happen the next time someone defeats Magnus and he doesn't like it? (maybe young players would not even attempt such :) )

What will happen in future is more investigations. By multiple parties to eliminate possibility of conflict of interest. Exactly as it happened this time.
 
^Hans does have some curious fluctuations ( :) ) to put it mildly, which (as you likely know) has given rise to the theory that in online games he goes on and off in cheating.
Still, given the important game was the one were Magnus lost to him, and it was not online, there should be some type of reliable theory as to how Hans cheated there - otherwise it is largely a witch-hunt.
"I think I lost to him because he cheated in our non-online game, and here's some known info about him cheating in online games" should not cut it; literally anyone can cheat online, but there is no known/established way of cheating in a meeting irl.

As I mentioned in the OP, I am aware of his "peculiar" lack of analytical post-game skills, but if he is going to be accused of cheating when he won against Magnus, there surely should be some hard proof of it (stressing once more that the important game was the one Magnus lost, and it was not online).
 
Last edited:
I thought it was just a keen interest (and tbh I have no doubt that it still is), but there also seems to be an unwillingness to accept that he could've cheated. Why? Why the predisposition to undervalue evidence against him, repeatedly?
 
this was mishandled and is a major debacle. the correct way for this sort of thing would have been to continue to gather evidence, and only make accusations in the context of where the cheating was known.

A lot of it is fishing for clicks. It’s a wild west of millions of views and fierce competition between brands and individual GM’s. Got to factor in.
 
I thought it was just a keen interest (and tbh I have no doubt that it still is), but there also seems to be an unwillingness to accept that he could've cheated. Why? Why the predisposition to undervalue evidence against him, repeatedly?
I don't have such. He may have cheated, but there is no proof of it - only proof of cheating in online games, which is easy to do for anyone who logs into a server :) No known way of cheating offline (using chess engines; in the modern setting of the game with all the tech)

If they were to establish (say, scifi :) ) that he has eye implants that transmit the game to his co-conspirator who then uses some tesla secret tech to upload the chess engine's moves to his consciousness, then it would be proof. But "he cheated offline, because he cheated online" is just terrible on so many levels.

Btw, has Nakamura ever won any title? He is a bit too willing to massacre Hans imo :mischief:
 
Back
Top Bottom