I think the "real reason" is at about 8:10, where the video essentially states that Nieman admitting to cheating once at age 16 is supposedly grounds enough to exclude him from the chess world for life. I personally don't know how I feel about that, I don't think actions as a minor should be held against someone once they have become an adult.
@@drugsorme2714Not something that you're good at. Take for instance how to play the guitar in a song that you wrote. You memorize the strumming of the entire song and then we it came to teach someone else your song you can't. You just say watch and imitate. The same does not go with chess , every move has a reason to be. And if you know the reason you can explain it, even in a complex way that is hard to grasp for some people but no for fellow grand masters.
I think it's because Chess is ultimately a 0 variance game that involves only one operator. Top engines are so much better than humans, and you can let them play the game for you. No matter how many steroids I took, or how much I corked my bat, or how many people were in the dugout banging trash cans, I am never, ever hitting a home run against an MLB pitcher. But give me Stockfish? I'm the greatest Chess player who's ever lived.
@@mort45954 I know it's been a while, but I just wanted to say that your answer was the most well-thought-out and articulated opinion I've heard on this subject. I was so impressed by your reply that I would be willing to bang on a trash can to help you out if you were ever playing chess. And when the arbiter comes to throw me out of the playing hall and asks "what the heck are you doing," I will keep my mouth shut, or I could frame another player of your choosing. Have a great day.
When you play games with 100% correlation with computer moves you are done, it is simple as this. Precision and correlation are two different things. Even Kasparov, Fischer and Carlsen have never done it. A 95% precision may mean 75% correlation. Nieman played several games with 100% correlation which is more than dubious. In his best year Fischer had 72% correlation and never played a single game with 100% correlation
Unfortunately there is no way to sort like this, so the task would be tedious to little reward as I doubt it would change your opinion. Nevertheless, I would be willing to bet that between the lichess ratings of 1900 to 3xxx there will be a considerable amount of games where 1 player plays literally perfectly. This could be because their opponent throws, this could be because they play a totally theoretical draw, this could be because one is - in some way - quite an expert on an opening. Your accusation is baseless and illogical
@@diannelovesyouthis was based on many games and not just one or selected games. There also was a game where Nieman and another kid were both playing perfect chess and it is just one of the many instances where Nieman played like a top computer. Take note that humans cannot beat modern AI chess nowadays.
The remarkable ability for GMs to remember mad details about their games have been embellished in some cases, but I think it was mainly the online cheating reputation that labled him as suspect from the beginning!
Exactly: he tarnished his own reputation by cheating -- which he knew better than to do, but did it anyway -- and because of those bad choices, he will be forever suspect.
Things became more suspicious when Hans could not even explain his moves at several crucial positions against alireza. Point to be noted he played few very unusual but computer best moves in that game.
you mean; when someone is exhausted after a game against someone who (at the time) was considered a contender for the world chess championship can't properly articulate themselves in a formal and time sensitive setting they're under suspicion for cheating? If I play an hour long game of chess, personally, I can barely fathom talking at all nevermind giving an interview at a level so high that it's barely likely the interviews themselves will 100% understand.
@@diannelovesyou If you watch chess at grand master lvl regularly, you would know that, there is always a interview section after important games. And all grandmaster happily discuss some lines with an interviewer. Its the tradition. If some one dont want do discuss he can ignore that and that also acceptable widely. And this is also very common. Unable to describe lines that someone played is extremely rare scenario. And giving some wrong moves and the interviewer refuting every move without even a computer analysis bar is something like "impossible to happen"
@@diannelovesyou If you know what you did, you naturally say it in all sports after games even if it took hours and players gets tired, they know what they did and is able to say it in interviews after games. Getting tired don't make people stupid.
I watch Hans’ CZcams videos sometimes. And in one video he said, “if somebody stole a comic book at 12, are they more likely to rob a bank (when they’re older)?” Obviously the answer in his mind is ‘no’. But I would disagree. I think showing a willingness to do bad things at a young age is a very good indicator that you are more likely to do bad things when you’re older. Another way to phrase it would be, “if I used to torture the cats in my neighborhood at 12, do you think I’m more likely to commit murder as an adult?” I would say the answer is obviously yes.
Hans never gives detailed interview about the games he wins. After the game like other GMs do.. if he is not cheating he can speak about the positions and critical moments that occurred during the game.. which is impossible to do if you are cheating. I think is the best evidence we can have. If you cannot explain your thought process in an interview, then you didn't had a thought process and just knew the correct moves.
His rating is not low in any case, Even if he is not 2600-2700, then he is at least 2500. At 2500 you can easily analyze the game and explain the positions. So it's hard to call it proof.
Okay that might be true, but please apply some Bayesian thinking. I'd rather believe that P(Hans shit at explaining things | didn't cheat) > P(Hans shit at explaining things | cheated) because P(cheated | all security measures) is extremely low and borderline conspirational. Also his performance and his ability to explain things don't change that much before and after all the security measures. If your personal Bayesian probability of Hans cheating never changes despite new information, then you're clearly biased.
I like hans. We need more top American gms. But we can't have cheaters it makes the u.s look bad. The fact he can't explain his moves is probably the best evidence you cant get in this kind of case.
@@npc2153 And the obvious anomalies in the statistics. Like how he plays quite poorly most of the time, then every now and then it's like someone flicks a switch and he suddenly has a perfect game, far better than any chess player ever in history. Inhumanly good you could say. Then immediately returns to being shit again the game after.
It's a bit funny how not playing for a while can help boost your elo. Fischer did this a few times in the 60s. Each time he came back stronger snd stronger.
Quit for just long enough that you struggle a bit. I've done it a handful of times with playing the keyboard impromptu, and once or twice with playing (almost exclusively my own concoctions) on electric guitar.
He’s a cheater, end of story. Just look at all those awful errors he has done in recent games, he doesn’t thrive in pressure and end games like before, and that has been his kriptonite before, he knows that, he knew that, that’s why he was cheating in critical positions.
In addition to everything else, Neimann showed no excitement about winning, absolutely no sign of release of mental tension upon finding out that the decisions he made at peak concentration and risk were correct. Nothing. He just was blank faced and then insulted the other player. That pattern is 100% cheater behavior. Robbie Lew did the same thing after that sketchy hand against Garrett Adelstein.
I think this is one of the most telling pieces of evidence. It was clearly what troubled Carlsen most in his later reflections on that game. The behaviour is what I would personally expect of someone who was cheating.
While I was watching the video I thought you were a really big channel due to the quality of the script and editing, imagine my surprise when I saw you only have 2000 subs at the moment. Keep it up man, you'll definetely grow on the platform in the long run!
Once a cheater always a cheater. He cheated (proven) to get prize money. That’s a person with no ethics. “But he was just a kid!!” No he was 16, and at 19 was playing magnus and beating not only him but many other top GM’s. 3 years isn’t a long time. Hopefully other up and comers see what happened to Hans as a warning, don’t ruin your reputation if you want people to take you seriously.
Yes once a cheater always a cheater! Once an addict always an addict! Once a shoplifter always a shoplifter! Once a vandal always a vandal! When will people learn that you are forever defined by your earliest mistake and there will never be any hope nor ability to change! Shame them and shame them well, for if you don't they might change their ways and be able to live down the faults of their past! Oh the horror!
@@dbob132 fail at sarcasm. Would you trust a reformed kid toucher around your kids? People change right? Let him babysit your 7 year daughter 🙄. See how exaggeration works?
@@soakedbearrdNot everyone understands Logic or Sarcasm. It’s Ok if you don’t get it. But he gave a Proportional Comparison but you are the One with the Magnus Logic. 🤪
You are out of your mind saying there is no evidence. Every single game he wins is 100% computer moves. When he plays 1 minute he is no better than me. I've watched him play.
I feel like this video was using the right means but reached a forced destination. Saying 'well Hans had bad reputation so slander is fine now' is what shows how flawed chess in itself is nowadays. If the legitimacy of matches depends on something as vague as reputation and not on stone-cold facts, that's not a very legitimate sport.
There is something I don't understand. When there is a criminal case, we can establish a proof based on DNA. DNA is not 100% perfect though, it is 'only' 99.99999999999% sure... yet we consider it as a proof because the likelihood of being wrong is negligible. Likewise, can't we calculate the likelihood for Niemann to play so many 'perfect' games without cheating, and if close enough to 0 then consider it a proof? It would make sens to me... don't know what your guys are thinking.
If there were a specific cutoff for that, all one would have to do is make sure they're below that cutoff. Hans Niemann is also not churning out a hundred perfect games in a row. Also, players do have such games, some more than others. The issue with Hans Niemann are as follows. 1. We don't have proof in this instance and short of a confession, we never will. 2. Hans Niemann is an established cheater. 3. Hans Niemann admitted to cheating but post Magnus thing lied about his other cheating which was later exposed, meaning that even if we count only post-Magnus, he's still lying. Thus, we have additional reasons beyond history not to trust him. He tries to characterize the cheating he admits to as something he did as a kid but in reality, he's been cheating provably as recently as less than 2 years before the Magnus incident, including events that had monetary prizes. 4. Hans Niemann behaves like a person who cheats, unable to explain his moves, saying that he doesn't need to explain himself in a setting with the purpose of getting his explanations, and so on. We have every reason to disbelieve him, though no hard proof in this instance. He claims to have prepped against Magnus's specific opening that morning but it wasn't an opening Magnus usually plays, just something he at one point played in a quick time control game that one time. No one in their right mind would have chosen to prep for that. Then there's the time that he raged over a laptop running out of power which allowed his opponent more time to think and had a rant about it afterwards. This objection is valid but more importantly, it is suspicious because that caused the stream to be delayed which is the most obvious thing he'd have been relying on if he was cheating. The list goes on and on. This is just the tip of the iceberg. There's a boatload of things that are circumstantial and make us raise our eyebrow at it but each of them individually do not suffice as proof. As a collection of evidence, I'd find it pretty hard to believe that he's innocent. 5. Hans Niemann has fluctuating results which see various cases of notably higher than usual performance with multiple very high accuracy games over the course of particular tournaments. This is difficult because it is entirely possible. Improbable but possible. Yes, there are some cases where the person is an idiot and just plays 100 perfect games in a row when last week they were rated 1400. We can catch those easily. However, in this case it is difficult to differentiate what's cheating and what's a really good game from someone who is also a legitimately really good player. Should Hans Niemann be banned for the Magnus thing? I wouldn't say necessarily as that particular instance isn't provable. Should Hans Niemann have already been permabanned from all competition, be it online or over the board? It obviously isn't my call but in my opinion, yes. This isn't a case where he was cheating at his local tournament with 30 people when he was in middle school. There was that too but I'm more focused on the cheating he did with money on the line as a titled professional. And he's still lying about it. If we went by 3 strike rule, he'd be gone. If we said it was ok in casual but not in money, he'd be gone. If we even only put him under oath for his interviews, he was lying there so he'd be gone. Every action from him tells me he's an unapologetic liar. He may be a great player in his own right but I don't think chess needs cheaters and unapologetic liars and he's both of these things in a pretty provable way unlike the Magnus incident.
It's more than that. Classical as you know is more than your casual Chess game. There's tons of hard work and prep that goes into it ONTOP of studying your opponent. Hans bested someone 200 points stronger than him, who also happens to be a Magnus (nuff said) he somehow managed to out play Magnus in an opening Magnus hadn't done before because Hans "decided to study it that night" and then in a post game interview couldn't explain his thought process of the game at all. Even I can take one of my games and explain why I did something. It's as simple as asking me "Why did you get a glass of water just now" "because I was thirsty.
Hans Niemann admitted cheating up to he was 16 years old. In chess that is already pretty old as we have 12 year old boys being GM:s (Abhimanyu Mishra, Karjakin, Gukesh, Praggnanandhaa as examples), and money comes into count already at that time. Its quite young to get punnished when one is16 yo, but he knew long time before that he shouldnt be cheating - that is well known on all chess platforms. And we can see how his rating is decreasing rapidy right now, and is today 2661. Together with some suspicious behaviour (ex. difficult to explain a game he played) and extreme rating increase, its rising huge red flags. Compared with sport, doping is a very sensitive thing. I believe this is about the same. A 16 yo using doping would be banned (Ex.15 yo Kamila Valieva).
Its not old in hans case he started playing at 14 also another difference is that hans did it online idk the case of Kamila but im sure it was on a official tournamment so all of your commentary is just a manipulative statement using incomplete information.
another important point: I doubt if there is a genius cheats as a young boy, did you ever see a genius cheating in his young age? no. Simply because geniuses have the ultimate joy and pleasure to play and tast their geniusty in that young age by beating their peers, and the other strong players as well.
5:18 TLDR: The website didn't ban Hans Niemann due to the Magnus Carlsen drama. They banned him because they had an internal report analyzing Hans Niemans games.
They knew for a long time that Hans had cheated on their site. He had been banned before and reinstated. It's no coincidence they banned him again right after Magnus accused him of cheating. They produced their report a month after that. That report showed that their "best in the world" cheat detection system found no OTB cheating by Hans at any time. They also consulted Ken Regan, FIDE's cheat detection expert, who said the same thing, but they decided to include their subjective opinion that some of Hans's games looked suspicious to them. Clearly their intention was to justify their action after the fact. They also broke their promise to Hans, the same one they give to all players who cheat and confess to them, that they would not publish anything about his cheating, including his private correspondence. This was very shabby behavior, and all of it because Magnus made a false accusation based on nothing more than a feeling. I lost a lot of respect for Magnus because of this, as well as for Erick Allebest and Danny Rensch.
Niemann was cheating. What is strange is, when tournaments start to delay moves from chess boards by 15 minuttes or more, Niemann result have dropped alot. He dont want to talk about his chess game, is also very guilty in my mind.
Hans was never even Banned man what are you talking about 😂 he just won a tournament a few weeks ago. Stop trying to pretend like Hans is "cancelled". He isnt. He is not banned from chess competition, he might be investigated but thats it. This is what you get when Chess noobs start to make CZcams video's and pretend they know anything about chess.
literally reiterated everything that has been discussed/reported for the past year. hans' history of cheating in 2020 was the first thing brought up when Magnus pulled out of Sinquefield.
@@darchie4950 nah dude your praising him for literally covering a 2 year old story with no new details. Besides, he doesn't even always tell the truth in my opinion. Sometimes he twists details and one of the reason's I'm going to start avoiding this channel. Seems like its just some clickbait drama queen show.
Cheating in chess is different from other sports, physical sports, since it's almost 100% winning chance. If a boxer, swimmer, mma fighter, runner etc use PEDs he/she will get an improved winning chances, but nothing as decisive as using Stockfish in chess
He didnt need to do that,just play consistently with all newly added security but instead, he losing so hard in elo and played badly every event it just adds more suspicion to his allegation
@@dereknichols4376 Guess you've never been competeing in a pro-scene of anything, otherwise you would know how little of an additional pressure is enough to destroy your performance...
@@milansvancara that's excuses, if Niemann was truly innocent, he would certainly continue playing well and these added scrutiny would only serve as a motivator to prove all his doubters wrong, instead Niemann only proved all his doubters have a point.
@@symbarh Yes it has, he reached 2700 when he cheated against Magnus. Then he stopped playing for some months and now in the summer he started playing regularly games again and his rating takes a very noticeable nose dive about 50 points already down from his highest point when he was cheating. In Sinefield Cup Hans was winning against 2700+ rated GMs, but now over the summer when he started playing tournament he is losing to under 2500, he even has multiple loses to 2300 rated players, a true 2700 rated player doesn't regularly lose to 2300.
Before you make such an Video you to inform more about chess. In Chess there ist Something Like Accuracy that means how good did you play against someone compare to Stockfish. Stockfish is a Program which hast an elo of 3800 and Niemann playes many Games with Accuracy to and that Up to 38 Turns. This is Impossible. This was bis Problem because No Human can Play Like Stockfish but He did and that multiple Times.
How you can explain that after winning Magnus Carsen best player of the word, and be the player who won more elo points in less time suddenly start lost agaisnt 2100 elo players after being carefully examinate for antiCheating devices? He went for 2700 elo player to 2100 or less just by accussasions also?,
51 yrs old and haven't played for over 30 years. don't even know what castling was!! From quick observations, Hans does look nuts, odd ball high on something perhaps (most likely... just a hunch, no evidence). very very hard to cheat in overboard chess. Everyone has a nemesis and Perhaps Hansis just one of those for Magnus. Repeat Hans do look bonkers. The size of his head and brain however do show a highly highly intelligent person.
Let's not forget that other players at that tournament thought Hans was cheating, they just kept quiet. Nepo, Caruana, ALireza. Magnus was the one who took the action to end this pathetic cheater's career.
It's quite obvious that Magnus knew about Hans past so he spend energy thinking about him possibly cheating and that is enough to make it unfair. So why would you wanna play someone at the top level if you think he might cheat at any given moment.
Hans is a GM so if magnus makes a mistake which he did he can win. Only other explanation is that he cheated to get that title. He didn't my chess coach is and IM and he played otb games against him not on tournaments but friendly and when i asked him if he thinks that Hans cheated he said no.
Possibility 1: Americans wanting an American to win. (Read carefully: I am not saying that all American will accept a cheater if he is American, just that the people who support Niemann are likely Americans who want to see an American win.) Possibility 2: people who don't like Magnus, for whatever reason.
Even if you totally discount all the over the board suspicions, the fact that he very recently publicly lied about how often and how recently he cheated is grounds enough to exclude him from tournaments. Like it or hate it, he is now a cautionary tale for future generations. He cheated in prize money events, live streams, 100s of online games. Someone like that only has one defense and it's to claim you're as clean as a whistle and you'll play naked to prove it. If you have to say that for other players to feel at ease enough for you to play at a tournament, you shouldn't be allowed at the tournament.
you dont know what you talking do you? there are several devices for cheating, he could have used a device inside his anus which could communicate through pulses. similarly there are advanced cheating devices.
Communicated somehow with someone signaling from an engine. I don't know how. That doesn't prove he didn't do it. As Eric Hansen said "Don't ask me how he cheated, I'm not a cheater, I don't know how to cheat."
If its in deep enough, your body has natural electrical current which goes undetected, if the device is low level and just gives off a small current, it will be indistinguishable to any current technology. Hence the accusations of the sex toy firing pulses to nemans magic spot.
This is just the beginning. I wonder how chess will be like when neural interfaces exist (I know that there are devices that, at a stretch, can be labeled as such but even those are unavailable to the general public).
I don't see this ever happening. The brain doesn't have some serial connection like an Arduino. Manipulating 86 BILLION custom neurons on each individual? No flipping way.
@fredkelly6953 That or a mad scientist augmenting a human both genetically and cybernetically to be able to calculate 50 - 100 variations in seconds, far beyond what a normal or even super GM could do. It would seem like cheating but having another Lee Sedol moment with chess engines with 4k elo would be borerline impossible today.
Other GMs dont have history of cheating is not true. Other GM.s never admitted that they cheated. Cheating 2200 player is easy to detect but 2600 player is much much harder. They know all about countermeasures and how to avoid them. 2200 Hans didnt know that because he was kid.
Chess DID show concrete evidence, they've documented other browser windows open right before he solves a position. What chess didn't say, but implicates, his ip shows he had analysts boards open in other browser windows Even without the at analysis window, the fact he opens windows in difficult position IS hard evidence
No one knows, but analysing his games statistically shows a very high likelihood of cheating, and his refusal/inability to explain key moves in post-game interviews puts the last nail in the coffin.
Well if the improbability of such sudden progress is beyond any reasonable doubt, that's what defines a guilty sentence. That said, allow him to play under very stringent control.
How improbable was it? What's the measure, the limit that says it can't be human? You have to answer those questions before you can make a judgment, but you can't, because people come along who change expectations. Magnus raised the bar for play that matches engine scores, for example. In any case, if you measure Hans' progress by games played instead of over time, it's no better than several other players. He just played a lot of games close together. Also, Levon Aronion had a more rapid rise over time than Hans. No one thinks he's a cheater, so such progress is apparently only suspicious if you're Hans.
@@GeorgeDCowley It was rapid over time. Over number of games it was similar to several other players. What he did was play a lot of games close together while he progressed, but apparently that's a sign of cheating.
If you have mind-demons that your opponent might be cheating those are _yours_ to deal with. It's up to organizers to make sure players don't cheat, and up to players to handle their nerves or whatever else goes through their minds.
hans maybe made unexpected moves that was similiar to a computer move, but so do alot of players every tournament. im not saying hans didn't cheat, but what is true that there is no proof. huge double standard, if another player gets accused they will say show me the proof, if hans gets accused they kick him out. it is true magnus has favortism in the chess league, this is wrong.
Can someone please rectify these two premises: 1) Hans is a huge cheater whose gains in chess were ill-gotten. 2) Hands performs at an extremely high level in OTB chess tournaments with the world's best? Like, he's admitted he cheated. Magnus lost to him without any evidence of cheating. Magnus loses sometimes (see Qatar Masters). Hans is a high-level player. If he dropped off completely in OTB games... I would get the hate, but he is still very competitive.
@@johnnydoe3603 Lamo,Alireza got called cheater multiple times,even by Hikaru now look at him excuse",go find another excuse kiddo getting bullied but sued magnus to court,amazing logic little kiddo imbecile as always
Proving that someone cheated is possible when it's caught at the spot. Proving that someone didn't cheat is a probatio diabolica. Magnus's accusation is based on no evidence. It's basically "I think he cheated. I don't know how, but he definitely cheated". But when you watch side-by-side comparison of GMs when they stream matches, you see that GMs could roughly tell what the other side wants to do only based on a single move. Being incapable of explaining your own moves, in addition to bad reputation and abnormal rating progression, probably are the combination that ends Han's career.
Unable to explain own moves is the biggest thing. I am not the biggest chess fan, but whenever I watch a GM play they always talk about the logic behind their moves and plan their next 5 or 6 moves vbefore the opponent even moves. Even after the games they can usually recall almost every move during the game
Nah, Hans just is a instinct player. And there are enough grand masters that dont can explain shit just look at Mamedyarov, Shakhriyar and only because they can explain stuff doesnt mean that they are right to be honest.@@bradycrowson
Once a cheater, always a cheater. The fact he wasn't permanently banned after being caught MULTIPLE TIMES is crazy to me. Imagine that at the Olympics. Someone caught using steroids, then 4 years later getting to play again and winning gold. One, a cheater has forever tarnished their reputation. Two, there's no proof to say he didn't cheat again, but just didn't get caught that time.
Your argument boils down to "guilty until proven innocent" for any person who has admitted to cheating at some time. You say this is necessary to preserve the integrity of the game. But is that really true? Not so easy to justify morally. What if he really is a brilliant up-and-coming player with an eccentric personality, like most geniuses?
Then why he suddenly lost all his skills once all these events added more security+delay on stream? He used to play with 98-100% accuracies every game in his 'prime' now suddenly all his accuracies have fallen below 90% If he's truly a genius=he will play consistently Also,u never check his elo history? Most gm like Alireza/Hikaru/kasparov/even fischer have a stable elo since young age,keep steady increase year by year But Hans elo is really flat until he got his new coach(the person who was caught multiple times cheating online too),and suddenly his elo increased so fast he even beat Fischer in term of elo inflation So its very easy for Hans to prove his skills=play consistently with the same skill he shows previously,even with all the added security if he;s truly a 'genius'=it will be easy
@@dereknichols4376 Maybe his performance suffered a drop because of the psychological pressure. How would you feel if you were being falsely accused in the public media, kicked around by the world's leading players, and then jumped on by so many chess followers? You have no definitive proof, and it is simply not right to jump to such a serious conclusion when you don't know. As to "genius." A genius is a human being with some extraordinary skills, not a superhuman figure who is not subject to psychological and emotional pressures. On the contrary, genius is often accompanied by extreme sensitivity. Try this exercise: Allow yourself to truly assume he is innocent. (If you can't do this, you should not be judging anybody.) Then put yourself in his shoes, and see how you feel. Yes I hate cheaters too, and I am only a weak amateur. I also often suspect online opponents of cheating. But I do not make public accusations with no certain proof.
@@dereknichols4376 As someone who was competing proffesionaly on a high level, just a little bit pressure is enough to totally destroy your performance... Imagine whole planet making fun of you dildoing your butt every chess match... Just a little bit of attention to me was destructive, can't even imagine what all this scandal caused him
Isn't the burden of proof is on anyone who accuses him of cheating? It seems like a certainty that anyone who attempts a claim of cheating will get sued for defamation, since it's already happened even without an explicit accusation of cheating. It's really not an option to try to prove someone is cheating. If a tournament throws in a controversial cheater to profit from the ensuing controversy, what should top players do? I think the best answer is to withdraw and leave the tournament busted. All Lance Armstrong's peers knew he was cheating prolifically clear as day, yet he had the resources to crush anyone who spoke up and the general public was sufficiently ignorant to entertain some disbelief. Well, if my livelihood were chess I'd sure think twice before playing against a sue-happy suspected cheater who won't share his ideas about his own games and insists on a coach who's a known cheating specialist. Maybe Hans could extend a little effort to dispel all the indicators that he's cheating?
Quote: re Magnus not entering tournaments with Hans: "Meaning the world chess champion fully believed Niemann was cheating". I have to call this line out - it does not in any way mean Magnus fully believed such a thing. To make a claim is a bit irresponsible - how can you claim to know what someone fully believes? There could be any number of reasons that Magnus refuses to play in tournaments with Niemann - the most likely being that he does not like him one bit.
We know Carlsen is not taking a stance because he has played others who were known cheaters... just a month after his statement he was playing Maghsoodloo. Carlsen and Niemann did a photo op on the Miami Beach at the FTX tournament two weeks before Sinquefield, so it wasn't that he didn't like him. Something had changed. You can see photos of Carlsen's standing by him watching his games at the Sinquefield. This was before their game though. Carlsen did not take too kindly to the trashtalk after the loss. It was in poor taste by Hans and that teenage mistake cost him dearly.
Magnus put his own reputation on the line with his actions, and he fully chose to risk it. The only possible reason is cheating. No one chose to refuse to play Kasparov although he was a massive jerk.
They were claiming online when Magnus Carlson was in the match with Hans Neiman that he was cheating when he used the same moves and opening the same way. That he did in a tournament, so what they should do is they should allow them a 3 out of 5 and need to use different openings every match. This should further give people an even greater idea of whether Hans Neiman was cheating or not.
yeah that is not a thing, all top level chess players spend a substatial amount of time memorizing the usual playing pattern and previous games of their opponent before meeting them. Hans claimed the game he played had the same 20 move opening as a game Magnus played against Wesley in 2018 but iirc that proved to be wrong, so he couldnt prove where he got the prep.
While I think it is fairly likely Niemann is a cheater, I don't like the idea of statistical evidence that merely adds up to a player making correct moves 'too often' for their previous rating and not necessarily being able to describe situations verbally in interviews. Alpha zero plays like a supercomputer based on pattern recognition, an AI version of intuition. It's not absurd that a human player someday might play intuitively and in fact be outstanding without having calculated everything. We should not assume all players must achieve excellence the same way. My strong suspicion of Niemann isn't based on the evidence, but on his attitude, which simply strikes me as guilty. I don't know that he's guilty, though, and the public evidence isn't that great.
You simply have to use statistical evidence. What would keep me, a 1200 elo player, from winning every single online chess tournament if not using that ?
@@donrane maybe there just isn't a good way to prove it. You don't have to accept evidence for a claim just because nothing better is available. That isn't logical.
thumbs down because of the misleading title. There is nothing new in this video, no „real reason“
Wdym misleading? The title is literally just saying the real reason for why he is banned, what part was misleading in the title???
@@p-s-x741 banned from what?
I watched the complete video and still I'm waiting for the real reason announced in the headline..
😂
True😂 I thought he was gonna say because Hans is rude and cynical and likes doing sarcastic jokes but ok
I think the "real reason" is at about 8:10, where the video essentially states that Nieman admitting to cheating once at age 16 is supposedly grounds enough to exclude him from the chess world for life. I personally don't know how I feel about that, I don't think actions as a minor should be held against someone once they have become an adult.
So where is the "REAL" reason Niemann is banned..? All this is known, nothing new here! Another clickbait video reiterating the same old things..
The red flag for me was how he was unable to analyze the game rationally afterwards. He did not seem to understand the game he just played.
Some people are just bad at explaining.
@@drugsorme2714Not something that you're good at. Take for instance how to play the guitar in a song that you wrote. You memorize the strumming of the entire song and then we it came to teach someone else your song you can't. You just say watch and imitate. The same does not go with chess , every move has a reason to be. And if you know the reason you can explain it, even in a complex way that is hard to grasp for some people but no for fellow grand masters.
One of the things I find fascinating about the this scandal is how viral it went. Cheating in chess is treated so differently than in other sports.
I think it's because Chess is ultimately a 0 variance game that involves only one operator. Top engines are so much better than humans, and you can let them play the game for you.
No matter how many steroids I took, or how much I corked my bat, or how many people were in the dugout banging trash cans, I am never, ever hitting a home run against an MLB pitcher. But give me Stockfish? I'm the greatest Chess player who's ever lived.
@@mort45954that's like asking for a ferrari to win a marathon
well said@@mort45954
@@mort45954 well said!
@@mort45954 I know it's been a while, but I just wanted to say that your answer was the most well-thought-out and articulated opinion I've heard on this subject.
I was so impressed by your reply that I would be willing to bang on a trash can to help you out if you were ever playing chess. And when the arbiter comes to throw me out of the playing hall and asks "what the heck are you doing," I will keep my mouth shut, or I could frame another player of your choosing.
Have a great day.
When you play games with 100% correlation with computer moves you are done, it is simple as this. Precision and correlation are two different things. Even Kasparov, Fischer and Carlsen have never done it. A 95% precision may mean 75% correlation. Nieman played several games with 100% correlation which is more than dubious. In his best year Fischer had 72% correlation and never played a single game with 100% correlation
Unfortunately there is no way to sort like this, so the task would be tedious to little reward as I doubt it would change your opinion. Nevertheless, I would be willing to bet that between the lichess ratings of 1900 to 3xxx there will be a considerable amount of games where 1 player plays literally perfectly. This could be because their opponent throws, this could be because they play a totally theoretical draw, this could be because one is - in some way - quite an expert on an opening. Your accusation is baseless and illogical
@@diannelovesyouthis was based on many games and not just one or selected games. There also was a game where Nieman and another kid were both playing perfect chess and it is just one of the many instances where Nieman played like a top computer. Take note that humans cannot beat modern AI chess nowadays.
@@nathanielrobles3284 Those data were fake and the people behind them have been exposed!
Hans Niemann 100% engine correlation is fake and if you actually followed the case you would've known that!
@@aminesosa8676the only fact we know is hans have cheating history. And that is why he have a bad reputation.
The remarkable ability for GMs to remember mad details about their games have been embellished in some cases, but I think it was mainly the online cheating reputation that labled him as suspect from the beginning!
Exactly: he tarnished his own reputation by cheating -- which he knew better than to do, but did it anyway -- and because of those bad choices, he will be forever suspect.
Things became more suspicious when Hans could not even explain his moves at several crucial positions against alireza. Point to be noted he played few very unusual but computer best moves in that game.
you mean; when someone is exhausted after a game against someone who (at the time) was considered a contender for the world chess championship can't properly articulate themselves in a formal and time sensitive setting they're under suspicion for cheating? If I play an hour long game of chess, personally, I can barely fathom talking at all nevermind giving an interview at a level so high that it's barely likely the interviews themselves will 100% understand.
@@diannelovesyou If you watch chess at grand master lvl regularly, you would know that, there is always a interview section after important games. And all grandmaster happily discuss some lines with an interviewer. Its the tradition. If some one dont want do discuss he can ignore that and that also acceptable widely. And this is also very common. Unable to describe lines that someone played is extremely rare scenario. And giving some wrong moves and the interviewer refuting every move without even a computer analysis bar is something like "impossible to happen"
@@diannelovesyou If you know what you did, you naturally say it in all sports after games even if it took hours and players gets tired, they know what they did and is able to say it in interviews after games. Getting tired don't make people stupid.
Go back and watch Alireza's interview he was the one clueless about the position.
Which game, when and where? Eh, who cares?
I watch Hans’ CZcams videos sometimes. And in one video he said, “if somebody stole a comic book at 12, are they more likely to rob a bank (when they’re older)?” Obviously the answer in his mind is ‘no’. But I would disagree. I think showing a willingness to do bad things at a young age is a very good indicator that you are more likely to do bad things when you’re older. Another way to phrase it would be, “if I used to torture the cats in my neighborhood at 12, do you think I’m more likely to commit murder as an adult?” I would say the answer is obviously yes.
The answer is indeed obviously 'no', actually; people change.
Willingness to do bad things can be overshadowed by the willingness to be a better person.
Hans never gives detailed interview about the games he wins. After the game like other GMs do.. if he is not cheating he can speak about the positions and critical moments that occurred during the game.. which is impossible to do if you are cheating. I think is the best evidence we can have. If you cannot explain your thought process in an interview, then you didn't had a thought process and just knew the correct moves.
or he could just have something like asperses and be unable to explain it externally
total nonsense, not evidence. neiman played in open soon after and performed well
His rating is not low in any case, Even if he is not 2600-2700, then he is at least 2500. At 2500 you can easily analyze the game and explain the positions. So it's hard to call it proof.
Hans is still a GM level player, he should be able to come up with a plausible explanation for a pivotal move.
Okay that might be true, but please apply some Bayesian thinking. I'd rather believe that P(Hans shit at explaining things | didn't cheat) > P(Hans shit at explaining things | cheated) because P(cheated | all security measures) is extremely low and borderline conspirational. Also his performance and his ability to explain things don't change that much before and after all the security measures. If your personal Bayesian probability of Hans cheating never changes despite new information, then you're clearly biased.
He can't even explain his moves. Even a FM can explain better than that. What else do we need for evidence?
Wrong. You apparently haven't seen all of his postgame interviews.
I like hans. We need more top American gms. But we can't have cheaters it makes the u.s look bad. The fact he can't explain his moves is probably the best evidence you cant get in this kind of case.
@@npc2153 And the obvious anomalies in the statistics. Like how he plays quite poorly most of the time, then every now and then it's like someone flicks a switch and he suddenly has a perfect game, far better than any chess player ever in history. Inhumanly good you could say. Then immediately returns to being shit again the game after.
Wrong. The chess game speaks for itself
the chess speaks for itself
It's a bit funny how not playing for a while can help boost your elo.
Fischer did this a few times in the 60s.
Each time he came back stronger snd stronger.
Quit for just long enough that you struggle a bit. I've done it a handful of times with playing the keyboard impromptu, and once or twice with playing (almost exclusively my own concoctions) on electric guitar.
It helps your brain slightly forget everything, including whatever bad habits were holding you back.
@@JakeKlineMusic i noticed this with skateboard too
He’s a cheater, end of story. Just look at all those awful errors he has done in recent games, he doesn’t thrive in pressure and end games like before, and that has been his kriptonite before, he knows that, he knew that, that’s why he was cheating in critical positions.
In addition to everything else, Neimann showed no excitement about winning, absolutely no sign of release of mental tension upon finding out that the decisions he made at peak concentration and risk were correct. Nothing. He just was blank faced and then insulted the other player. That pattern is 100% cheater behavior. Robbie Lew did the same thing after that sketchy hand against Garrett Adelstein.
I think this is one of the most telling pieces of evidence. It was clearly what troubled Carlsen most in his later reflections on that game. The behaviour is what I would personally expect of someone who was cheating.
Niemann, not Neimann…
@@mathildewesendonck7225I don't give a damn, his name isn't worth remembering.
"The beads vibrate for themself."
While I was watching the video I thought you were a really big channel due to the quality of the script and editing, imagine my surprise when I saw you only have 2000 subs at the moment. Keep it up man, you'll definetely grow on the platform in the long run!
Yeah his only been doing it since April. He will definitely get to 100k in no time at the rate his going. Just a matter of time and exposure.
Wow, five months later he's almost at 50K...
Once a cheater always a cheater. He cheated (proven) to get prize money. That’s a person with no ethics. “But he was just a kid!!” No he was 16, and at 19 was playing magnus and beating not only him but many other top GM’s. 3 years isn’t a long time. Hopefully other up and comers see what happened to Hans as a warning, don’t ruin your reputation if you want people to take you seriously.
Usa left the chat
China left the chat
Russia left the chat
Yes once a cheater always a cheater! Once an addict always an addict! Once a shoplifter always a shoplifter! Once a vandal always a vandal! When will people learn that you are forever defined by your earliest mistake and there will never be any hope nor ability to change! Shame them and shame them well, for if you don't they might change their ways and be able to live down the faults of their past! Oh the horror!
@@dbob132 fail at sarcasm. Would you trust a reformed kid toucher around your kids? People change right? Let him babysit your 7 year daughter 🙄. See how exaggeration works?
@@npc2153Logic Left the Chat 🤪
@@soakedbearrdNot everyone understands Logic or Sarcasm. It’s Ok if you don’t get it. But he gave a Proportional Comparison but you are the One with the Magnus Logic. 🤪
You are out of your mind saying there is no evidence. Every single game he wins is 100% computer moves. When he plays 1 minute he is no better than me. I've watched him play.
He could not explain the computer moves he played
I feel like this video was using the right means but reached a forced destination.
Saying 'well Hans had bad reputation so slander is fine now' is what shows how flawed chess in itself is nowadays. If the legitimacy of matches depends on something as vague as reputation and not on stone-cold facts, that's not a very legitimate sport.
There is something I don't understand. When there is a criminal case, we can establish a proof based on DNA. DNA is not 100% perfect though, it is 'only' 99.99999999999% sure... yet we consider it as a proof because the likelihood of being wrong is negligible.
Likewise, can't we calculate the likelihood for Niemann to play so many 'perfect' games without cheating, and if close enough to 0 then consider it a proof?
It would make sens to me... don't know what your guys are thinking.
If there were a specific cutoff for that, all one would have to do is make sure they're below that cutoff. Hans Niemann is also not churning out a hundred perfect games in a row. Also, players do have such games, some more than others. The issue with Hans Niemann are as follows.
1. We don't have proof in this instance and short of a confession, we never will.
2. Hans Niemann is an established cheater.
3. Hans Niemann admitted to cheating but post Magnus thing lied about his other cheating which was later exposed, meaning that even if we count only post-Magnus, he's still lying. Thus, we have additional reasons beyond history not to trust him. He tries to characterize the cheating he admits to as something he did as a kid but in reality, he's been cheating provably as recently as less than 2 years before the Magnus incident, including events that had monetary prizes.
4. Hans Niemann behaves like a person who cheats, unable to explain his moves, saying that he doesn't need to explain himself in a setting with the purpose of getting his explanations, and so on. We have every reason to disbelieve him, though no hard proof in this instance. He claims to have prepped against Magnus's specific opening that morning but it wasn't an opening Magnus usually plays, just something he at one point played in a quick time control game that one time. No one in their right mind would have chosen to prep for that. Then there's the time that he raged over a laptop running out of power which allowed his opponent more time to think and had a rant about it afterwards. This objection is valid but more importantly, it is suspicious because that caused the stream to be delayed which is the most obvious thing he'd have been relying on if he was cheating. The list goes on and on. This is just the tip of the iceberg. There's a boatload of things that are circumstantial and make us raise our eyebrow at it but each of them individually do not suffice as proof. As a collection of evidence, I'd find it pretty hard to believe that he's innocent.
5. Hans Niemann has fluctuating results which see various cases of notably higher than usual performance with multiple very high accuracy games over the course of particular tournaments. This is difficult because it is entirely possible. Improbable but possible.
Yes, there are some cases where the person is an idiot and just plays 100 perfect games in a row when last week they were rated 1400. We can catch those easily. However, in this case it is difficult to differentiate what's cheating and what's a really good game from someone who is also a legitimately really good player. Should Hans Niemann be banned for the Magnus thing? I wouldn't say necessarily as that particular instance isn't provable. Should Hans Niemann have already been permabanned from all competition, be it online or over the board? It obviously isn't my call but in my opinion, yes. This isn't a case where he was cheating at his local tournament with 30 people when he was in middle school. There was that too but I'm more focused on the cheating he did with money on the line as a titled professional. And he's still lying about it. If we went by 3 strike rule, he'd be gone. If we said it was ok in casual but not in money, he'd be gone. If we even only put him under oath for his interviews, he was lying there so he'd be gone. Every action from him tells me he's an unapologetic liar. He may be a great player in his own right but I don't think chess needs cheaters and unapologetic liars and he's both of these things in a pretty provable way unlike the Magnus incident.
It's more than that.
Classical as you know is more than your casual Chess game. There's tons of hard work and prep that goes into it ONTOP of studying your opponent. Hans bested someone 200 points stronger than him, who also happens to be a Magnus (nuff said) he somehow managed to out play Magnus in an opening Magnus hadn't done before because Hans "decided to study it that night" and then in a post game interview couldn't explain his thought process of the game at all. Even I can take one of my games and explain why I did something. It's as simple as asking me "Why did you get a glass of water just now" "because I was thirsty.
Amazing video, keep up the good work!
Hans Niemann admitted cheating up to he was 16 years old. In chess that is already pretty old as we have 12 year old boys being GM:s (Abhimanyu Mishra, Karjakin, Gukesh, Praggnanandhaa as examples), and money comes into count already at that time. Its quite young to get punnished when one is16 yo, but he knew long time before that he shouldnt be cheating - that is well known on all chess platforms. And we can see how his rating is decreasing rapidy right now, and is today 2661. Together with some suspicious behaviour (ex. difficult to explain a game he played) and extreme rating increase, its rising huge red flags. Compared with sport, doping is a very sensitive thing. I believe this is about the same. A 16 yo using doping would be banned (Ex.15 yo Kamila Valieva).
💯
Its not old in hans case he started playing at 14 also another difference is that hans did it online idk the case of Kamila but im sure it was on a official tournamment so all of your commentary is just a manipulative statement using incomplete information.
Your "12 year old boys being GMs" thing is incorrect. Only twice has a 12 year old become a GM
Obviously Hans cheated, admits it himself has done it in the past, and can't explain his current games... well because he's cheating
another important point: I doubt if there is a genius cheats as a young boy, did you ever see a genius cheating in his young age? no. Simply because geniuses have the ultimate joy and pleasure to play and tast their geniusty in that young age by beating their peers, and the other strong players as well.
5:18 TLDR: The website didn't ban Hans Niemann due to the Magnus Carlsen drama. They banned him because they had an internal report analyzing Hans Niemans games.
They knew for a long time that Hans had cheated on their site. He had been banned before and reinstated. It's no coincidence they banned him again right after Magnus accused him of cheating. They produced their report a month after that. That report showed that their "best in the world" cheat detection system found no OTB cheating by Hans at any time. They also consulted Ken Regan, FIDE's cheat detection expert, who said the same thing, but they decided to include their subjective opinion that some of Hans's games looked suspicious to them. Clearly their intention was to justify their action after the fact. They also broke their promise to Hans, the same one they give to all players who cheat and confess to them, that they would not publish anything about his cheating, including his private correspondence. This was very shabby behavior, and all of it because Magnus made a false accusation based on nothing more than a feeling. I lost a lot of respect for Magnus because of this, as well as for Erick Allebest and Danny Rensch.
Well, first they banned him to buy time, then they kept him banned due to the report findings.
@@MorningNapalm The objective report findings were that he never cheated OTB. The rest was self-serving b.s.
Niemann was cheating. What is strange is, when tournaments start to delay moves from chess boards by 15 minuttes or more, Niemann result have dropped alot. He dont want to talk about his chess game, is also very guilty in my mind.
"Reputations, you know - a lifetime to build, seconds to destroy. " --Shakespeare
(no, not William. Captain Shakespeare)
Hans was never even Banned man what are you talking about 😂 he just won a tournament a few weeks ago. Stop trying to pretend like Hans is "cancelled". He isnt. He is not banned from chess competition, he might be investigated but thats it. This is what you get when Chess noobs start to make CZcams video's and pretend they know anything about chess.
Wow, your channel is very underrated
His name is Hans, He is a villain per Definition.
Wow! Well said! I was not expecting such a well-presented video on the topic. Thanks!
I‘m still not sure and we‘ll never know
This analysis is extremely well made. You are so underrated, great video!
literally reiterated everything that has been discussed/reported for the past year. hans' history of cheating in 2020 was the first thing brought up when Magnus pulled out of Sinquefield.
@@flicfan416 bro that was the whole point of the video? to summarise the past year or so's events in a singular video.
@@darchie4950 nah dude your praising him for literally covering a 2 year old story with no new details. Besides, he doesn't even always tell the truth in my opinion. Sometimes he twists details and one of the reason's I'm going to start avoiding this channel. Seems like its just some clickbait drama queen show.
Cheating in chess is different from other sports, physical sports, since it's almost 100% winning chance. If a boxer, swimmer, mma fighter, runner etc use PEDs he/she will get an improved winning chances, but nothing as decisive as using Stockfish in chess
Nice analysis.
How to cleanup your damaged chess rep ?
Maybe he could change his name and start from scratch , it works in video games .
He didnt need to do that,just play consistently with all newly added security
but instead, he losing so hard in elo and played badly every event
it just adds more suspicion to his allegation
@@dereknichols4376 Guess you've never been competeing in a pro-scene of anything, otherwise you would know how little of an additional pressure is enough to destroy your performance...
@@milansvancara that's excuses, if Niemann was truly innocent, he would certainly continue playing well and these added scrutiny would only serve as a motivator to prove all his doubters wrong, instead Niemann only proved all his doubters have a point.
@@tomatoisnotafruit5670 Hans's rating hasn't changed a bit since he defeated crybaby Magnus.
@@symbarh Yes it has, he reached 2700 when he cheated against Magnus. Then he stopped playing for some months and now in the summer he started playing regularly games again and his rating takes a very noticeable nose dive about 50 points already down from his highest point when he was cheating.
In Sinefield Cup Hans was winning against 2700+ rated GMs, but now over the summer when he started playing tournament he is losing to under 2500, he even has multiple loses to 2300 rated players, a true 2700 rated player doesn't regularly lose to 2300.
Before you make such an Video you to inform more about chess. In Chess there ist Something Like Accuracy that means how good did you play against someone compare to Stockfish. Stockfish is a Program which hast an elo of 3800 and Niemann playes many Games with Accuracy to and that Up to 38 Turns. This is Impossible. This was bis Problem because No Human can Play Like Stockfish but He did and that multiple Times.
How you can explain that after winning Magnus Carsen best player of the word, and be the player who won more elo points in less time suddenly start lost agaisnt 2100 elo players after being carefully examinate for antiCheating devices? He went for 2700 elo player to 2100 or less just by accussasions also?,
Its ok to just dont like someone sometimes... :)
51 yrs old and haven't played for over 30 years. don't even know what castling was!!
From quick observations, Hans does look nuts, odd ball high on something perhaps (most likely... just a hunch, no evidence). very very hard to cheat in overboard chess. Everyone has a nemesis and Perhaps Hansis just one of those for Magnus.
Repeat Hans do look bonkers. The size of his head and brain however do show a highly highly intelligent person.
Head size has no correlation with intelligence.
Very nice video. Thank you❤
Yes it is public and they are able to see if you have other pages open on your computer and what pages you have open it's not rocket science
I find this analysis as excellent.
Let's not forget that other players at that tournament thought Hans was cheating, they just kept quiet. Nepo, Caruana, ALireza.
Magnus was the one who took the action to end this pathetic cheater's career.
ended his career? lol
It's quite obvious that Magnus knew about Hans past so he spend energy thinking about him possibly cheating and that is enough to make it unfair. So why would you wanna play someone at the top level if you think he might cheat at any given moment.
Are you saying that it is Person B's fault for the way Person A thinks?
Hans is a GM so if magnus makes a mistake which he did he can win. Only other explanation is that he cheated to get that title. He didn't my chess coach is and IM and he played otb games against him not on tournaments but friendly and when i asked him if he thinks that Hans cheated he said no.
is this the guy with A beads ?
Didn't concentrate much on critical positions and also seems to lack the mentality of GM
Once a cheater, always a cheater…
Why are people defending Niemann?I dont get it.
Possibility 1: Americans wanting an American to win. (Read carefully: I am not saying that all American will accept a cheater if he is American, just that the people who support Niemann are likely Americans who want to see an American win.)
Possibility 2: people who don't like Magnus, for whatever reason.
Even if you totally discount all the over the board suspicions, the fact that he very recently publicly lied about how often and how recently he cheated is grounds enough to exclude him from tournaments. Like it or hate it, he is now a cautionary tale for future generations. He cheated in prize money events, live streams, 100s of online games. Someone like that only has one defense and it's to claim you're as clean as a whistle and you'll play naked to prove it. If you have to say that for other players to feel at ease enough for you to play at a tournament, you shouldn't be allowed at the tournament.
This is all stuff we already knew.
How did he cheat? This is OTB, not an online tournament where you can just pull up an engine on the side screen.
you dont know what you talking do you? there are several devices for cheating, he could have used a device inside his anus which could communicate through pulses. similarly there are advanced cheating devices.
@@sharzo7728 There are checks with metal detectors and radio-frequency scanners. Try again.
Communicated somehow with someone signaling from an engine. I don't know how. That doesn't prove he didn't do it. As Eric Hansen said "Don't ask me how he cheated, I'm not a cheater, I don't know how to cheat."
If its in deep enough, your body has natural electrical current which goes undetected, if the device is low level and just gives off a small current, it will be indistinguishable to any current technology. Hence the accusations of the sex toy firing pulses to nemans magic spot.
He is banned from what ?
This is just the beginning. I wonder how chess will be like when neural interfaces exist (I know that there are devices that, at a stretch, can be labeled as such but even those are unavailable to the general public).
I don't see this ever happening. The brain doesn't have some serial connection like an Arduino. Manipulating 86 BILLION custom neurons on each individual? No flipping way.
An electromagnetic pulse would end that option real quick.
@fredkelly6953 That or a mad scientist augmenting a human both genetically and cybernetically to be able to calculate 50 - 100 variations in seconds, far beyond what a normal or even super GM could do. It would seem like cheating but having another Lee Sedol moment with chess engines with 4k elo would be borerline impossible today.
hans with ftx in the background... lol!
Character is destiny.
Anynomous chess next ? 😂
REally glad that cheater got caught.
What if he just remembered what the computer would do.
if you remember what stockfish would do are you a cheater? idk lmao
Other GMs dont have history of cheating is not true. Other GM.s never admitted that they cheated. Cheating 2200 player is easy to detect but 2600 player is much much harder. They know all about countermeasures and how to avoid them. 2200 Hans didnt know that because he was kid.
He's unbeadable
Chess DID show concrete evidence, they've documented other browser windows open right before he solves a position.
What chess didn't say, but implicates, his ip shows he had analysts boards open in other browser windows
Even without the at analysis window, the fact he opens windows in difficult position IS hard evidence
the thing i failed to understand is how did he cheat? no one really knows. or did he really cheat?
No one knows, but analysing his games statistically shows a very high likelihood of cheating, and his refusal/inability to explain key moves in post-game interviews puts the last nail in the coffin.
Well if the improbability of such sudden progress is beyond any reasonable doubt, that's what defines a guilty sentence. That said, allow him to play under very stringent control.
How improbable was it? What's the measure, the limit that says it can't be human? You have to answer those questions before you can make a judgment, but you can't, because people come along who change expectations. Magnus raised the bar for play that matches engine scores, for example.
In any case, if you measure Hans' progress by games played instead of over time, it's no better than several other players. He just played a lot of games close together. Also, Levon Aronion had a more rapid rise over time than Hans. No one thinks he's a cheater, so such progress is apparently only suspicious if you're Hans.
It does not matter how Hans Niemann reached 2650-2700, the point is that he is playing chess *now* like 2650-2700 in spite of all controls.
I recall that he had the second strangest growth curve out of the analysed Grandmasters.
@@GeorgeDCowley It was rapid over time. Over number of games it was similar to several other players. What he did was play a lot of games close together while he progressed, but apparently that's a sign of cheating.
I mean just 😂 get him to play blind folded with two people at the same time and then you will see the real magic 😂
Was that a Joke 🤮
@@johnnydoe3603 ur brain is a joke
@@johnnydoe3603I don't think so, top GMs can do that easily. So this is a good test for a Super GM
Hans Niemann is obviously an SCP
If you want to bring in SCP my choice would have been Fischer ....
why produce a recap video? Nothing new is added... just copy paste of old data.
So, he was banned for cheating online at 16 and because Magnus is salty. Nothing new here.
If you have mind-demons that your opponent might be cheating those are _yours_ to deal with. It's up to organizers to make sure players don't cheat, and up to players to handle their nerves or whatever else goes through their minds.
Just goes to show you, never admit to anything, because there is no forgiveness or second chances in the world.
hans maybe made unexpected moves that was similiar to a computer move, but so do alot of players every tournament. im not saying hans didn't cheat, but what is true that there is no proof. huge double standard, if another player gets accused they will say show me the proof, if hans gets accused they kick him out. it is true magnus has favortism in the chess league, this is wrong.
Hans has a history of cheating, so he does not get the benefit of the doubt like others clean chess players would.
@@tomatoisnotafruit5670 what about the proof he cheated, and how did he cheat what method did he use?
Good post
Let this guy play vs any 2600 player in best of 10 or 12 games and we will know what he is
Not really. If he wins he cheats, if he loses he cheats ?! Which both are true statements.
pretty good video for a 1k subs channel, congrats
Can someone please rectify these two premises: 1) Hans is a huge cheater whose gains in chess were ill-gotten. 2) Hands performs at an extremely high level in OTB chess tournaments with the world's best?
Like, he's admitted he cheated. Magnus lost to him without any evidence of cheating. Magnus loses sometimes (see Qatar Masters). Hans is a high-level player. If he dropped off completely in OTB games... I would get the hate, but he is still very competitive.
He should be banned. And that’s it. He deserved to be banned.
Unfortunately Hans N is slipping in Elo points, falling before 2700 Elo.
Well, how do you Think People would Perform getting Bullied by Magnus, a Big Chess Corporation and the Fangirls of Magnus ? 😂
@@johnnydoe3603 Lamo,Alireza got called cheater multiple times,even by Hikaru
now look at him
excuse",go find another excuse kiddo
getting bullied but sued magnus to court,amazing logic little kiddo
imbecile as always
Proving that someone cheated is possible when it's caught at the spot. Proving that someone didn't cheat is a probatio diabolica.
Magnus's accusation is based on no evidence. It's basically "I think he cheated. I don't know how, but he definitely cheated".
But when you watch side-by-side comparison of GMs when they stream matches, you see that GMs could roughly tell what the other side wants to do only based on a single move.
Being incapable of explaining your own moves, in addition to bad reputation and abnormal rating progression, probably are the combination that ends Han's career.
Unable to explain own moves is the biggest thing. I am not the biggest chess fan, but whenever I watch a GM play they always talk about the logic behind their moves and plan their next 5 or 6 moves vbefore the opponent even moves. Even after the games they can usually recall almost every move during the game
Nah, Hans just is a instinct player. And there are enough grand masters that dont can explain shit just look at Mamedyarov, Shakhriyar and only because they can explain stuff doesnt mean that they are right to be honest.@@bradycrowson
He is a cheater, cheaters cheats.
If he cheated once he'll do it again
Magnus jealous for miss botez
He doesn't know to explain what he is playing at the table like other grandmasters. So ? What does he know?
Bzzz bzzz
but Magnus must provide real evidence of how the cheat process works in over the board chess ?....
Once a cheater, always a cheater. The fact he wasn't permanently banned after being caught MULTIPLE TIMES is crazy to me. Imagine that at the Olympics. Someone caught using steroids, then 4 years later getting to play again and winning gold. One, a cheater has forever tarnished their reputation. Two, there's no proof to say he didn't cheat again, but just didn't get caught that time.
well said
Sad that this is true
everyone uses steroids tho, in chess is not
noicely made video brotha
THE KING IS BACK AND UNBANNED!!! BOW DOWN!!!!!!!!!
Maybe Hans Niemann is a robot
him walking away during an interview about his games is enough proof. this teenager is ridiculous and pathetic
Your argument boils down to "guilty until proven innocent" for any person who has admitted to cheating at some time. You say this is necessary to preserve the integrity of the game. But is that really true? Not so easy to justify morally. What if he really is a brilliant up-and-coming player with an eccentric personality, like most geniuses?
Then why he suddenly lost all his skills once all these events added more security+delay on stream?
He used to play with 98-100% accuracies every game in his 'prime'
now suddenly all his accuracies have fallen below 90%
If he's truly a genius=he will play consistently
Also,u never check his elo history?
Most gm like Alireza/Hikaru/kasparov/even fischer have a stable elo since young age,keep steady increase year by year
But Hans elo is really flat until he got his new coach(the person who was caught multiple times cheating online too),and suddenly his elo increased so fast he even beat Fischer in term of elo inflation
So its very easy for Hans to prove his skills=play consistently with the same skill he shows previously,even with all the added security
if he;s truly a 'genius'=it will be easy
@@dereknichols4376 Maybe his performance suffered a drop because of the psychological pressure. How would you feel if you were being falsely accused in the public media, kicked around by the world's leading players, and then jumped on by so many chess followers? You have no definitive proof, and it is simply not right to jump to such a serious conclusion when you don't know.
As to "genius." A genius is a human being with some extraordinary skills, not a superhuman figure who is not subject to psychological and emotional pressures. On the contrary, genius is often accompanied by extreme sensitivity.
Try this exercise: Allow yourself to truly assume he is innocent. (If you can't do this, you should not be judging anybody.) Then put yourself in his shoes, and see how you feel.
Yes I hate cheaters too, and I am only a weak amateur. I also often suspect online opponents of cheating. But I do not make public accusations with no certain proof.
@@dereknichols4376 As someone who was competing proffesionaly on a high level, just a little bit pressure is enough to totally destroy your performance... Imagine whole planet making fun of you dildoing your butt every chess match...
Just a little bit of attention to me was destructive, can't even imagine what all this scandal caused him
Isn't the burden of proof is on anyone who accuses him of cheating? It seems like a certainty that anyone who attempts a claim of cheating will get sued for defamation, since it's already happened even without an explicit accusation of cheating. It's really not an option to try to prove someone is cheating. If a tournament throws in a controversial cheater to profit from the ensuing controversy, what should top players do? I think the best answer is to withdraw and leave the tournament busted. All Lance Armstrong's peers knew he was cheating prolifically clear as day, yet he had the resources to crush anyone who spoke up and the general public was sufficiently ignorant to entertain some disbelief. Well, if my livelihood were chess I'd sure think twice before playing against a sue-happy suspected cheater who won't share his ideas about his own games and insists on a coach who's a known cheating specialist. Maybe Hans could extend a little effort to dispel all the indicators that he's cheating?
He admitted to cheating. Hans declared himself guilty.
Quote: re Magnus not entering tournaments with Hans: "Meaning the world chess champion fully believed Niemann was cheating". I have to call this line out - it does not in any way mean Magnus fully believed such a thing. To make a claim is a bit irresponsible - how can you claim to know what someone fully believes? There could be any number of reasons that Magnus refuses to play in tournaments with Niemann - the most likely being that he does not like him one bit.
We know Carlsen is not taking a stance because he has played others who were known cheaters... just a month after his statement he was playing Maghsoodloo. Carlsen and Niemann did a photo op on the Miami Beach at the FTX tournament two weeks before Sinquefield, so it wasn't that he didn't like him. Something had changed. You can see photos of Carlsen's standing by him watching his games at the Sinquefield. This was before their game though. Carlsen did not take too kindly to the trashtalk after the loss. It was in poor taste by Hans and that teenage mistake cost him dearly.
Magnus put his own reputation on the line with his actions, and he fully chose to risk it. The only possible reason is cheating. No one chose to refuse to play Kasparov although he was a massive jerk.
He cheated. How I dont know but it obvious he did.
I don't get it, the real reason is what we already knew? Ok
They were claiming online when Magnus Carlson was in the match with Hans Neiman that he was cheating when he used the same moves and opening the same way. That he did in a tournament, so what they should do is they should allow them a 3 out of 5 and need to use different openings every match. This should further give people an even greater idea of whether Hans Neiman was cheating or not.
yeah that is not a thing, all top level chess players spend a substatial amount of time memorizing the usual playing pattern and previous games of their opponent before meeting them.
Hans claimed the game he played had the same 20 move opening as a game Magnus played against Wesley in 2018 but iirc that proved to be wrong, so he couldnt prove where he got the prep.
Its an internet overreaction.
Magnus doesn't like Hans because he's the only other GM to have such a strong hair game.
If he was cheating prove it how he was doing that.
Grenke open winner otb.
While I think it is fairly likely Niemann is a cheater, I don't like the idea of statistical evidence that merely adds up to a player making correct moves 'too often' for their previous rating and not necessarily being able to describe situations verbally in interviews. Alpha zero plays like a supercomputer based on pattern recognition, an AI version of intuition. It's not absurd that a human player someday might play intuitively and in fact be outstanding without having calculated everything. We should not assume all players must achieve excellence the same way.
My strong suspicion of Niemann isn't based on the evidence, but on his attitude, which simply strikes me as guilty. I don't know that he's guilty, though, and the public evidence isn't that great.
You simply have to use statistical evidence. What would keep me, a 1200 elo player, from winning every single online chess tournament if not using that ?
@@donrane maybe there just isn't a good way to prove it. You don't have to accept evidence for a claim just because nothing better is available. That isn't logical.
2:35 both of these guys are banned.. i would rather be Niemann