And if so, how many other elite chess players cheated their way to the top in their careers? Heck, what if Carlsen was cheating all along? It takes one to know one after all.
A 99 cent chess app on your phone has an AI orders of magnitude better at chess than the best human players in the world. If games are broadcast live, any player receiving undetected signals from a co-conspirator with a computer is all but guaranteed to win.
At the top level of the game, even knowing how a computer evaluates the position at a few critical moments of the game (I.e., simply knowing that there exists a move gives advantage) would be enough to make dishonest elite players basically unstoppable.
Anyway as of now I don’t think Niemann was cheating over the board. I think the extent of his online cheating is probably more significant than has been revealed.
He has been caught cheating twice. What credibility does he have left? Put the situation in our sport. Someone like that would have had a 4-year ban after the first offense, and then a lifetime ban after the second offense.
In my opinion Hans cheated, there is too much circumstantial evidence here that I cannot ignore. While it's possible he didn't cheat OTB I believe it to be unlikely for several reasons.
1. His history of cheating online multiple times in the past.
2. His mentor Maxim Dlugy has cheated in the past and has also caught a cheater OTB who wore a device in his shoe that buzzed him engine moves during a game. Dlugy stated on record that
Maxim Dlugy wrote:
If I had this gadget I would be killing people left and right, and nobody would know. This is the real danger, because if a 2600 player has this thing, he knows exactly how to behave, he knows exactly when to think, and he doesn’t to use it more than four times during a game. That’s plenty to destroy anyone. At the critical junction you switch it on and find out which way do I go: oh, this little nuance I didn’t see, okay, fine, boom, goodbye! That’s it.
3. Combine the previous point with the fact that Hans Niemann, Dlugy's pupil has had a meteoric rise from 2400 to 2700 in three years, and analysis shows he played several extremely suspicious tournaments to acquire his GM norms and you start to question his achievements. It should also be noted that his performance in tournaments where his games were broadcasted (often without delay) were signficantly better than in those were his games had no audience.
4. The metal detector/RF detector that scanned him in the fourth round of the sinquefield cup beeped over his shoe (yet oddly he wasn't questioned on it?!?!)
5. Hans Niemann when interviewed did not want to reveal that Dlugy was his coach. This is normal at the top level since you don't want to give your future opponents any help on preparing against you (certain coaches may specialize in certain openings). However just look at his body language when asked this question from GM Yasser Seirawan
6. His performance in the sinquefield cup dropped off after they introduced a 15 minute delay to their broadcasted games.
7. Hans failed to provide concrete lines when pressed during his post-match interview. This isn't a crime in and of itself, but it's extremely bizarre for a supposed top level GM to play a move in a complicated position and to not have calculated any lines to justify that move because apparently it's "clearly winning".
8. Chess.com released a statement saying that Hans' take on the degree of his online cheating is much milder than reality, suggests he cheated extensively on their website throughout the last few years. His account (and Dlugy's, what a surprise), remain banned today.
9. Fabiano Caruana speaks of the drama in his latest c-squared podcast. On it he mentions how Magnus was suspicious of Hans even before the match at the sinquefield cup and was considering not entering. Seeminglt begind closed doors the inner circle of top GMs have been suspect of Hans for a while now.
10. Magnus purposely played a line he had NEVER played before in classical chess against Hans. Yet somehow Hans played the PERFECT refutation for the first 23 moves. In an interview afterwards he claims he studied this line the night before the game and that it was a "miracle". This is simply a bizarre thing to say and do (if he's telling the truth). You're telling me that in preparation against the world champion you decide to study a random sideline that he has never played for an hour on the night before the match? I just don't buy it.
In my opinion Hans cheated, there is too much circumstantial evidence here that I cannot ignore. While it's possible he didn't cheat OTB I believe it to be unlikely for several reasons.
1. His history of cheating online multiple times in the past.
2. His mentor Maxim Dlugy has cheated in the past and has also caught a cheater OTB who wore a device in his shoe that buzzed him engine moves during a game. Dlugy stated on record that
Maxim Dlugy wrote:
If I had this gadget I would be killing people left and right, and nobody would know. This is the real danger, because if a 2600 player has this thing, he knows exactly how to behave, he knows exactly when to think, and he doesn’t to use it more than four times during a game. That’s plenty to destroy anyone. At the critical junction you switch it on and find out which way do I go: oh, this little nuance I didn’t see, okay, fine, boom, goodbye! That’s it.
3. Combine the previous point with the fact that Hans Niemann, Dlugy's pupil has had a meteoric rise from 2400 to 2700 in three years, and analysis shows he played several extremely suspicious tournaments to acquire his GM norms and you start to question his achievements. It should also be noted that his performance in tournaments where his games were broadcasted (often without delay) were signficantly better than in those were his games had no audience.
4. The metal detector/RF detector that scanned him in the fourth round of the sinquefield cup beeped over his shoe (yet oddly he wasn't questioned on it?!?!)
5. Hans Niemann when interviewed did not want to reveal that Dlugy was his coach. This is normal at the top level since you don't want to give your future opponents any help on preparing against you (certain coaches may specialize in certain openings). However just look at his body language when asked this question from GM Yasser Seirawan
6. His performance in the sinquefield cup dropped off after they introduced a 15 minute delay to their broadcasted games.
7. Hans failed to provide concrete lines when pressed during his post-match interview. This isn't a crime in and of itself, but it's extremely bizarre for a supposed top level GM to play a move in a complicated position and to not have calculated any lines to justify that move because apparently it's "clearly winning".
8. Chess.com released a statement saying that Hans' take on the degree of his online cheating is much milder than reality, suggests he cheated extensively on their website throughout the last few years. His account (and Dlugy's, what a surprise), remain banned today.
9. Fabiano Caruana speaks of the drama in his latest c-squared podcast. On it he mentions how Magnus was suspicious of Hans even before the match at the sinquefield cup and was considering not entering. Seeminglt begind closed doors the inner circle of top GMs have been suspect of Hans for a while now.
10. Magnus purposely played a line he had NEVER played before in classical chess against Hans. Yet somehow Hans played the PERFECT refutation for the first 23 moves. In an interview afterwards he claims he studied this line the night before the game and that it was a "miracle". This is simply a bizarre thing to say and do (if he's telling the truth). You're telling me that in preparation against the world champion you decide to study a random sideline that he has never played for an hour on the night before the match? I just don't buy it.
I wanna preface this response by saying that most of it is a perfectly valid take, and I generally agree with your suspicions, especially as more and more info comes out. With that said, points (2), (6), and (10) are patently false.
On (2), Dlugy was caught cheating online, but there's no indication he ever cheated OTB. The incident you're thinking of was actually Dlugy catching the cheating Borislav Ivanov in an OTB tournament several years ago.
On (6), Hans still put up a ~2730 tournament performance after Magnus withdrew, securing draws against a handful of 2750+ players. It wasn't quite as strong as the first half of his tournament, but there wasn't any sort of statistically significant drop-off.
On (10), it's been confirmed that, while Magnus had never played the exact line he played against Hans, he had played lines that transposed into the same position on occasion.
I think points (1), (3), and (8) are the main ones to look at. Everything else is really just hearsay (I'd give credit to (9) since Caruano is clearly more familiar with the situation than the rest of us) or just sort of silly (i.e., (4) -- I've seen the video of this happening and it really feels like grasping at straws).
In my opinion Hans cheated, there is too much circumstantial evidence here that I cannot ignore. While it's possible he didn't cheat OTB I believe it to be unlikely for several reasons.
1. His history of cheating online multiple times in the past.
2. His mentor Maxim Dlugy has cheated in the past and has also caught a cheater OTB who wore a device in his shoe that buzzed him engine moves during a game. Dlugy stated on record that
Maxim Dlugy wrote:
If I had this gadget I would be killing people left and right, and nobody would know. This is the real danger, because if a 2600 player has this thing, he knows exactly how to behave, he knows exactly when to think, and he doesn’t to use it more than four times during a game. That’s plenty to destroy anyone. At the critical junction you switch it on and find out which way do I go: oh, this little nuance I didn’t see, okay, fine, boom, goodbye! That’s it.
3. Combine the previous point with the fact that Hans Niemann, Dlugy's pupil has had a meteoric rise from 2400 to 2700 in three years, and analysis shows he played several extremely suspicious tournaments to acquire his GM norms and you start to question his achievements. It should also be noted that his performance in tournaments where his games were broadcasted (often without delay) were signficantly better than in those were his games had no audience.
4. The metal detector/RF detector that scanned him in the fourth round of the sinquefield cup beeped over his shoe (yet oddly he wasn't questioned on it?!?!)
5. Hans Niemann when interviewed did not want to reveal that Dlugy was his coach. This is normal at the top level since you don't want to give your future opponents any help on preparing against you (certain coaches may specialize in certain openings). However just look at his body language when asked this question from GM Yasser Seirawan
6. His performance in the sinquefield cup dropped off after they introduced a 15 minute delay to their broadcasted games.
7. Hans failed to provide concrete lines when pressed during his post-match interview. This isn't a crime in and of itself, but it's extremely bizarre for a supposed top level GM to play a move in a complicated position and to not have calculated any lines to justify that move because apparently it's "clearly winning".
8. Chess.com released a statement saying that Hans' take on the degree of his online cheating is much milder than reality, suggests he cheated extensively on their website throughout the last few years. His account (and Dlugy's, what a surprise), remain banned today.
9. Fabiano Caruana speaks of the drama in his latest c-squared podcast. On it he mentions how Magnus was suspicious of Hans even before the match at the sinquefield cup and was considering not entering. Seeminglt begind closed doors the inner circle of top GMs have been suspect of Hans for a while now.
10. Magnus purposely played a line he had NEVER played before in classical chess against Hans. Yet somehow Hans played the PERFECT refutation for the first 23 moves. In an interview afterwards he claims he studied this line the night before the game and that it was a "miracle". This is simply a bizarre thing to say and do (if he's telling the truth). You're telling me that in preparation against the world champion you decide to study a random sideline that he has never played for an hour on the night before the match? I just don't buy it.
I'm glad you wrote this list. I didn't want to take the time, especially since so many have been criticizing Carlsen on this matter. (Carlsen's withdrawal from Sinquefield provided an incentive for knowledgeable people to speak out and tie the evidence together, as you have. I think that Carlsen has navigated this in a very savvy and principled way. It would have been silly for Carlsen to make any public accusations and risk one or more defamation actions by a shady character who has little to lose and much to gain.)
Regarding the specific game in Round 3 of the Sinquefield Cup, I'm somewhat on the fence, since Carlsen was on his heels as early as move thirteen. But Niemann's initial explanation of his computer-assisted prep that morning, just minutes before the game, seemed implausible, and his later retelling shortly thereafter was inconsistent with his initial story.
In any event, I was pleased to hear Aronian's recent comments on the matter, which indicated that he had found out much more about Niemann's shady history
More to come, I hope. I've been awaiting more extensive comments from chess.com, as well as more scrutiny of Niemann's OTB history. I watched and listened to Ken Regan's analysis of Niemann's OTB play, but was disappointed by the limitations that he imposed on his analysis. (I remember Regan from when he was about thirteen years old; it was odd to see him almost fifty years later.)
I wanna preface this response by saying that most of it is a perfectly valid take, and I generally agree with your suspicions, especially as more and more info comes out. With that said, points (2), (6), and (10) are patently false.
On (2), Dlugy was caught cheating online, but there's no indication he ever cheated OTB. The incident you're thinking of was actually Dlugy catching the cheating Borislav Ivanov in an OTB tournament several years ago.
On (6), Hans still put up a ~2730 tournament performance after Magnus withdrew, securing draws against a handful of 2750+ players. It wasn't quite as strong as the first half of his tournament, but there wasn't any sort of statistically significant drop-off.
On (10), it's been confirmed that, while Magnus had never played the exact line he played against Hans, he had played lines that transposed into the same position on occasion.
I think points (1), (3), and (8) are the main ones to look at. Everything else is really just hearsay (I'd give credit to (9) since Caruano is clearly more familiar with the situation than the rest of us) or just sort of silly (i.e., (4) -- I've seen the video of this happening and it really feels like grasping at straws).
In defense of "Maxim Dlugy," points 2, 6, and 10 were not "patently false," as you asserted. I think you may have simply misread point 2. Regarding point 6, Niemann's performance rating in the first three rounds of the Sinquefield Cup was, in fact, much higher than his performance rating thereafter. (The "statistical significance" of that difference is another matter, although I do think it's reasonable to predict that someone with Niemann's results after three rounds would do considerably better than Niemann's results thereafter.) I believe that point 10 was accurately stated. I'm really not sure why you described those three points as "patently false," even if you questioned their significance.
I wanna preface this response by saying that most of it is a perfectly valid take, and I generally agree with your suspicions, especially as more and more info comes out. With that said, points (2), (6), and (10) are patently false.
On (2), Dlugy was caught cheating online, but there's no indication he ever cheated OTB. The incident you're thinking of was actually Dlugy catching the cheating Borislav Ivanov in an OTB tournament several years ago.
On (6), Hans still put up a ~2730 tournament performance after Magnus withdrew, securing draws against a handful of 2750+ players. It wasn't quite as strong as the first half of his tournament, but there wasn't any sort of statistically significant drop-off.
On (10), it's been confirmed that, while Magnus had never played the exact line he played against Hans, he had played lines that transposed into the same position on occasion.
I think points (1), (3), and (8) are the main ones to look at. Everything else is really just hearsay (I'd give credit to (9) since Caruano is clearly more familiar with the situation than the rest of us) or just sort of silly (i.e., (4) -- I've seen the video of this happening and it really feels like grasping at straws).
In defense of "Maxim Dlugy," points 2, 6, and 10 were not "patently false," as you asserted. I think you may have simply misread point 2. Regarding point 6, Niemann's performance rating in the first three rounds of the Sinquefield Cup was, in fact, much higher than his performance rating thereafter. (The "statistical significance" of that difference is another matter, although I do think it's reasonable to predict that someone with Niemann's results after three rounds would do considerably better than Niemann's results thereafter.) I believe that point 10 was accurately stated. I'm really not sure why you described those three points as "patently false," even if you questioned their significance.
D’oh — I’m a moron. Completely misread point (2), which was the main one I took issue with. I apologize for adding more confusion to this discussion.
I still think it’s disingenuous to pretend Niemann’s Sinquefeld Cup fell apart after Magnus’s withdrawal. He had a winning position against Alireza in round 4 before blundering a draw (which absolutely happens to top level players — note Wesley So blundered a loss in a +5 position against Alireza this tour), and held LDP, Nepo, and MVL to draws in the last few rounds while under tremendous external pressure that would’ve certainly impacted his ability to prep. To me, it simply looks like his tour performance regressed to the (expected) mean of a ~2700 player in a field full of 2750+ guys — heck, Niemann’s last five rounds were still overperforming his rating, despite the losses to So and Fabi.
I'm not convinced one way or the other, but I think it's likely that he cheated.
I'm "only" 2300 FIDE, and I've analyzed some of my bullet (mainly 1 minute) games online with Chess.com's feature. In games I play well I'll have between a 0.3-0.4 centipawn loss, but this would go down to <0.2 if I could change a couple of moves. If you're legitimately 2500+, you're good enough that you can see nearly everything Magnus can and won't need it all the time. So, for the truly complex positions, if you're able to play the best move (and it doesn't even have to be that much of a differential - taking yourself from 0.3 to 0.5 or 0.5 to 0.7 pawns up according to your engine is a lot at that level; being 0.7 up will make you very, very likely to get a positive result (I'd say probably 40% win, 55% draw, 5% loss). Think of it like a 14:00 5k'er with no kick racing against 15:00s - he can basically TT the race and make it nearly impossible for them to have a chance.
I still think it’s disingenuous to pretend Niemann’s Sinquefeld Cup fell apart after Magnus’s withdrawal. He had a winning position against Alireza in round 4 before blundering a draw (which absolutely happens to top level players — note Wesley So blundered a loss in a +5 position against Alireza this tour), and held LDP, Nepo, and MVL to draws in the last few rounds while under tremendous external pressure that would’ve certainly impacted his ability to prep. To me, it simply looks like his tour performance regressed to the (expected) mean of a ~2700 player in a field full of 2750+ guys — heck, Niemann’s last five rounds were still overperforming his rating, despite the losses to So and Fabi.
I think it's accurate to say that, in the rounds following Magnus's withdrawal and the imposition of additional security measures, Niemann's performance was well within the range of a player with 2700+ playing strength, which is why I haven't found his performance in the later rounds to bolster the case that Niemann has systematically cheated his way to his current OTB rating. At the same time, it's also true that one might reasonably expect more from a guy whose first three rounds included a draw against Aronian followed by wins against Mamedyarov and Carlsen. A small point, perhaps, but one of many that seem to have been overlooked or unduly discounted by many of those who have come to Niemann's defense.
The more I've come to learn about Niemann, the more unsympathetic and untrustworthy he's become to me. I think he may have won some fans with his seemingly heartfelt confession of a little bit of cheating when he was younger, but even that "confession" turned out to be, according to chess.com, a set of lies about the extent and severity of his history of cheating.
I still think it’s disingenuous to pretend Niemann’s Sinquefeld Cup fell apart after Magnus’s withdrawal. He had a winning position against Alireza in round 4 before blundering a draw (which absolutely happens to top level players — note Wesley So blundered a loss in a +5 position against Alireza this tour), and held LDP, Nepo, and MVL to draws in the last few rounds while under tremendous external pressure that would’ve certainly impacted his ability to prep. To me, it simply looks like his tour performance regressed to the (expected) mean of a ~2700 player in a field full of 2750+ guys — heck, Niemann’s last five rounds were still overperforming his rating, despite the losses to So and Fabi.
I think it's accurate to say that, in the rounds following Magnus's withdrawal and the imposition of additional security measures, Niemann's performance was well within the range of a player with 2700+ playing strength, which is why I haven't found his performance in the later rounds to bolster the case that Niemann has systematically cheated his way to his current OTB rating. At the same time, it's also true that one might reasonably expect more from a guy whose first three rounds included a draw against Aronian followed by wins against Mamedyarov and Carlsen. A small point, perhaps, but one of many that seem to have been overlooked or unduly discounted by many of those who have come to Niemann's defense.
The more I've come to learn about Niemann, the more unsympathetic and untrustworthy he's become to me. I think he may have won some fans with his seemingly heartfelt confession of a little bit of cheating when he was younger, but even that "confession" turned out to be, according to chess.com, a set of lies about the extent and severity of his history of cheating.
Completely reasonable.
I would also generally agree w/r/t your views on Niemann. My rationale behind defending him at this point has less to do with his actions / lack of evidence -- frankly I would be fine with online cheaters being banned from the game altogether -- and more just disappointment with his lopsided media treatment (Niemann's career may well be over after this) versus, say, Maghsoodloo, Sindarov, or Yakubboev, all of whom have been banned online for fair play offenses within the last few years.
I understand if Magnus has chosen Niemann to make an example of here as part of a general movement towards rooting out cheaters...but his approach still seems personally targeted, especially after there were apparently no issues in the Olympiad beyond some vague on-stream comments from Shakh.
His 300 point increase in rating at his relatively old age is unheard of, considering he's been playing since an extremely young age. To my knowledge it's never happened before. Most new GMs get it at 14-16 years old.
You only get on average 5-6 points increase by beating someone your own rating. So he basically won 50-60 games more than he lost, playing against people stronger than he was. Not believable at all.
He has been caught cheating twice. What credibility does he have left? Put the situation in our sport. Someone like that would have had a 4-year ban after the first offense, and then a lifetime ban after the second offense.
Exactly and cheaters cheat waaaaaaay more often then just the times they get caught.