one thing about tactical puzzles: it tends to be the case that *because* you are presented the puzzle, you know a winning solution is there. in real games, you don't know this (though some alleged forms of cheating are not specific moves, but 1 bit of information conveying something like this). thus tactical puzzles are training pattern recognition. i wonder if that couldn't be organized more efficiently than chess.com does it (like chaining many different looks of the same tactical idea together and and then doing 100s of those).
Oh yeah.
One thing that was brought up quite recently by, Magnus I think? And corroborated by Ben who disagrees with him about Hans-
But like, if you know on which move to look for a game winning move, and you're a GM strength, you don't need to be told the move.
You just need to be told to treat this one move like a tactical puzzle. Just this move.
Spend 20 minutes on this one move. If you know that, and you're a GM, it might only take one or two pings from outside for you to beat Carlsen.
That's mainly the sort of thing Carlsen is suggesting is happening: It's not that Hans is being fed engine moves over the board. You'd need to get a lot of communcation or go away from the board a lot.
It's that he's somehow being signalled to spend time on this one move above all the others.
With that kind of advantage, like.... I usually solve the agadmator puzzles where he says pause the video and find the winning move.
If I know to spend all my time on this one move, I've found moves that have beaten super GMs, and I suck out loud over the board.
The advantage of knowing WHEN to think because you've been given the help to know to think right now, is the real threat.
And since it's simply a signal, to think now, the communication can be quite covert and difficult to detect.
And that's a very realistic theory, a fine theory, and one I think anti cheaters should think about very much, it looks like for the next championship they're keeping spectators out and no electronic devices and making sure radio signals can't get in, which should largely shut down this form of cheating, if it exists.
But.... again, to harp on this point: It's a fine theory. It does explain why someone as brilliant as Hans could outplay Carlsen without it being mentally very taxing, and then lose every match in a tournament that took place a week or two back. That is very swingy.
But a theory is not proof. Theorycrafting ways to stop cheating, and suggesting the ways it could have been done, perfectly fine.
Until someone actually catches Hans doing it, he should go to tournaments and play.
Like, I think there's a chance Magnus is right, and that's how he's been able to do it.
What would prove the point is by letting Hans play more, and making sure that method of cheating can't be done.
If he's innocent, no further harm done to his reputation and he can earn his reputation back by beating strong players without any detectable cheating, repeatedly, earning his ELO in everyone's mind.
If he can do it without cheating that IS his ELO even if he cheated in the past.
If he's guilty, more instances of allowing him to try out his cheating method and catching it happen will prove the point.
Let Hans play. Everyone wins. He's innocent of the charge until proven. Let him prove himself, or let the cheating speak for itself. The truth will come out, if it isn't out already: He used to cheat, now he doesn't. Until proven otherwise.
