Is This Proof That Hans Niemann Cheated?
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 09. 2022
- On September 26, Hikaru Checks Out Yosha's Theories on Hans Cheating by reviewing her video and discussing it with chat and with HER in chat! Also Hikaru whips out chessbase and does his own calculations. He's not a mathematician, but it is what it is. Original video found here: • The most incriminating...
👕 MERCH ► streamlabs.com/gmhikaru/merch
♟️ LEARN CHESS & PLAY WITH ME ► go.chess.com/hikaru
🎁 GIVE 💎 CHESS ► www.chess.com/membership/gift...
🎬 CLIPS CHANNEL ► czcams.com/users/GMHikaruCli...
🎞️ MORE GMHIKARU ► czcams.com/users/moregmhikar...
💜 TWITCH ► / gmhikaru
💖 INSTAGRAM ► / gmhikaru
🐦 TWITTER ► / gmhikaru
✨ TIKTOK ► / hikarugm
💛 DISCORD ► / discord
💙 FACEBOOK ► / gmhikaru
💚 SUPPORT ► streamlabs.com/gmhikaru
🖤 SUPPORT MY ORG Misfits Gaming ► us-shop.misfitsgaming.gg/
🤣 REDDIT ► / hikarunakamura
━━━━━━━━━━━━━
🎨 Thumbnail ► Jaron / jaroniscaring
👌Channel Management ► Team Hikaru
📧 Business inquiries ► TeamHikaru@WMEAgency.com OR GMHikaruBiz@yahoo.com
#gmhikaru #chess #chessdrama - Hry
just imagine, you got absolutely destroyed in 45 moves by some guy and get tilted, and then find out that you held for 45 moves against stockfish
@ Assuming the WHOLE game is Mate in 45 moves and you play the best moves, then I have no complaints.
@ If you finish a game in 8 moves and it's 100% engine accuracy, that's one thing. But 45 moves in a row 100% engine accuracy? That is unheard of.
@Oscar csdj You know nothing to chess, so stop spreading lies:
1) The game was only 30 moves (first 15 moves were theory).
2) Chessbase's correlation stats do not only consider only Stockfish, but as many engines at as many settings as people cared to compare the game with. In Niemann's case, people have been all over his games and many such comparisons have been made.
3) So the 100% correlation in Chessbase database isn't with Stockfish alone, but with any combination of a big number of engines. If you compare the moves against 50 different engines there's bound to be one of them suggesting your move, so it's much easier to get 100% correlation here. So 100% correlation here doesn't mean Niemann is playing exactly like Stockfish, it means he is playing a move at least one of the numerous engines is suggesting. Basically this proves absolutely nothing and no conclusions can be drawn from this.
@ wow you’re more precise than the best chess players of all time random guy on CZcams congratulations
@ Niemann had multiple tournaments with higher engine correlation than Magnus and Kasparov, not just 1 game. Obviously it does not prove anything that he has mutlitple 100 correlation (not just accuracy) games whilst Carlsen and Fabiano have almost none
Props to the guys that lasted 45 moves against someone with 100% accuracy
The chess has spoken for itself!
I was curious... If he lasted 45 moves against 100% what was that person's score... That seems to be a very important question
@@1fast72nova it doesnt really connect he could have won position by move 30 and fully accurate for next 15 moves which were just transition, it would make his oponent be max 66% which is fine
@@krosserq3737 but what was the actual number. Could be 66... Could be 98
@@1fast72nova They were at 62%, they show the result at 28:46 - so in the lower range of a 'Super GM' average engine correspondence
The thing I’m most impressed with is the dude who managed to take Stockfish to a 45 move endgame.
The dude was probably hanging on for dear life.
Plot twist: he used Stockfish as well.
Hahahaha TRUE! 😂😂
@ I agree to a certain extent. The issue is other players should also be getting 100% if it’s that easy to get one of those moves, but they don’t. Pretty much all your arguing is that all the super GMs are so bad they can’t find one of the moves from hundreds of different engines, only Hans can.
@ if anything to me that suggests he could be attempting to hide the fact he is cheating by not using the best stock fish move everytime, but using a different engine for a certain proportion of moves. So no singular engine will match exactly what he plays, making detection of cheating harder.
Congrats to hikaru on scoring 100% on this video, he got a perfect score by making us all watch one hour of him messing with his computer..
I didn't need to be called out like that today, damn
FREE MY BOI HANS
An hour ? I skipped a ton..... didn't everyone ?
Garry Kasparov was so good that he intentionally had his percentage at 69%
Musk level geni right there.
nice
nice
nice
nice
Congratulations to the player who managed to hold 45 moves against stockfish
Plot twist- Opponent was also using stockfish
lmao
@@hemanghuria4956 😂😂
Legend🤣
Plot twist 2: When Gotham shows engine games it’s Hans’s games against other robots
Hans is not a cheater, he just has a good gaming chair
😂😂😂
Is it a really tiny bar stool?
Just to be clear, I'm talking small enough to go up someone's backside...
And it has a vibrate feature
original joke
Magnus: Hans is getting 100%? I’m getting 72!
Hikaru: magnus is get 72%? I’m getting 61!
Me: you guys are getting percents???
Lol, sounds about like my chess playing 😆
My games justs gives a popup that says why did you run this?
I get basis points
0.001% is still % just not a whole percent.😅
He really did pull some great moves out of his ass
morse code thru the ass to 45 straight stockfish moves.
@@EricM93 lmfao
Literally 😂
XD
😂😂😂😂
At this pace, Hans will be the World Champion in no time. As long as he doesn't forget to replace the batteries
Was going to like your comment but… Casper’s number!
I wanted to like this, but you currently have 69 likes. Nice.
Giving like just because it will reach hans elo rating gains
He can but not for moore then half the games.
Maybe he should replace anal beads from time to time as well.
When your moves correlate 100% with stockfish and you cant explain why you made them in the post game interview.
Not only does the chess speak for itself, it plays for itself.
Hans is really buzzing with excitement every time he plays.
Bruh 😂
💀💀💀
Buzzing with pleasure. 🤤
in the rear end chess speaks for itself
Bbbbbbb4
It's not only that Hans gets high computer correlation scores, it's also that he struggles to explain his moves versus other potentially good moves when interviewed.
Yep. If you consistently make an effort to think through very complex positions then it's only natural that you can talk about it from the top off your head, sometimes too fast for other people to catch up (seriously, look at all the WCC interviews post game)
This is a big red flag tbh. Any other player of his level being interviewed, and they will rattle off like 3 15 depth alternate lines they considered before going with the move they did, or they will be like “yea I’m a huge idiot for playing that because after (insert 20 move line where there are -0.3 after)”
Yeah because even if he is fed say the entire top engine line for 5-6 moves, he will instinctively stop considering other moves and just try to figure out why this line is actually that great OTB. And then when say Alejandro Ramirez asks him but what about this or that move in this position then he has no clue why this is good/bad because he never thought about it for too long and even if he did he does not have the understanding of a super GM to come up with the full proper analysis why this move is good/bad.
@@Devilfish6666 Yes
His interviews are suspicious without question
But these past events are far, far more damning, I am now nearly certain Hans has cheated OTB in the past
That’s still not proof whether or not he cheated in the Sinquefield cup, and we will probably never know for sure
But it’s clear Hans is a serial cheater
Yeah man, some people are just bad at speaking in front of cameras, i would fold for sure
My opinion: Hans was a regular iM who was super desperate to break into the GM barrier but just couldn't. So he started cheating and now that he is playing with GMs and super GMs, he cannot stop cheating or else he will be exposed. I mean just judging by how idiotic his post game analysis was in Sinquefield, it kinda makes sense.
I think you have a point here.
He did the same to make a breaktrough online...
If Hans is not banned for life, chess is basically ruined.
even from blitz and bullet you can see he isn't a regular IM. He's for sure strong, and that's what makes him a potentially dangerous cheater.
Your opinion is absolutely stupid, because all the Yosha video and stats are filled with massive methodological mistakes. The biggest are:
1) Chessbase's correlation stats do not only consider only Stockfish, but as many engines at as many settings as people cared to compare the game with. In Niemann's case, people have been all over his games and many such comparisons have been made.
2) So the 100% correlation in Chessbase database isn't with Stockfish alone, but with any combination of a big number of engines. If you compare the moves against 50 different engines there's bound to be one of them suggesting your move, so it's much easier to get 100% correlation here. So 100% correlation here doesn't mean Niemann is playing exactly like Stockfish, it means he is playing a move at least one of the numerous engines is suggesting. Basically this proves absolutely nothing and no conclusions can be drawn from this.
If you looked closely when they showed the tournaments where he played over 70% for several in a row, he had many games over 80 and over 90%. It wasn't just the 100% ones that are suspicious. He's clearly cheated in many more. Firmly on team Magnus now.
He clearly cheated? Because of some statistics? That is the response of an ignorant human who operates based on assumptions. Innocent until PROVEN guilty, not suspected. I won't pretend like I know this man cheated because I don't know it, and neither do you. People like you are the reason innocent people have died throughout history because someone wanted to go after someone else before they had absolute proof.
The math and logic in this video are just plain wrong....
Really?
Why dont you explain genius
@@Awardeez Theyre not matching his moves to a single engine but what ever engine happened to match hos move that turn. There is an assumption that Magnus is and always will be better than everyone else.
Niemann has played live games since against top players and won, there has been no drop in his skill , as you would expect if he wasnt cheating anymore, u less you think his cheat method is so undetectable that he continues to use it even umder extreme scrutiny.
It stretches the vounds of belief.
Magnus did something cowardly when he slyly acused him.
As for cheating in the past when he was a kid, ive seen videos of magnus as an adult feedingovers to a kid so he could beat a chess hustler, ie cheating. so there goes that argument too.
@@stoppernz229 just curious what extreme scrutiny are you talking about?
Bc at the Magnus game they didn't even have metal detectors ...
The amount of moves Hans played at 100% correlates to the number of beads at that moment
Gaped
Hold on to your butts...
You don't realise even when you play Stockfish moves that doesn't mean you are cheating-provided you memorised those moves before the play.
@@oosmanbeekawoo You don't realise that it is practically impossible to memorise the whole game because there is so many variations on the board.
@@korditsch7792 When you are at high level, it is _imperative_ that you memorise most of the book moves, and he admitted himself he got lucky to have looked that one up!
How does Hans look older than Magnus? The stress speaks for itself..
That's because he is
@@frostdemon6787 You think he cheated on the birth certificate?
@@Sasoridellasabbia maybe that’s when he found out he’s skilled at something
@@Sasoridellasabbia Oh shoot sorry I thought you said Hikaru, anyways yeah Hans looks really old for a 19yr
Short telomeres
51:18
Hikaru enters one of his two best games of his career in the engine to analyse.
He expects (hopes,wishes...) for an 100%. Ok, maybe 95.
...gets a 66
:D
@Rvve Duio Wow! a smart comment ! worth repeating many times!
This engine correlation is something new and innovative and so folks still calibrate how to interpret the percentages. 66 still stacks update as Super GM and world class performance...
@Rvve Duio That's not a good joke regarding this situation:
A good joke would be like "Why the frustration Mr. Hikaru? After all, just 5 seconds ago you said "2648. I wasn't a very good player back then" :)
Or: Hikaru's new nickname: "Mr.-best-game-ever-66". (already circulating amongst the members of the small SuperGMs society)
Or: After the video session Nakamura turns the laptop off. Lowens the screen Lowens his stare... (Slow moves). "Damn... I thought I knew this game well... My whole life is a lie... " :)
Or: next morning,after a bad sleep with nighmares, he wakes and goes to the bathroom. Goes to the mirror. Looks to the mirror. Talks to the mirror:
"Sixty Six? SIXTY SIX? You're just a HUSTLER! Not a Grandmaster!" :)
etc
Ps. yeah i know i have a rich imagination...
@@giovanni_7191 shut up u r the one who is cringe there
Hikaru is also just good because of his play style
10 games with 100% correlation, 23 games at 90+ while other super GMs hardly have one or two games at that level really shows Hans is the GOAT of chess.
This is honestly sad to see. I love Hans postgame interviews so much.
Haters gonna hate
You're so certain he is magically as good as a chess engine?
@FLIXX REMIXX’D very obvious sarcasm r/woooosh
Anomaly identified but still no practical proof of foulplay.
Hikaru being disappointed with a 2/3 correlation of his moves with the engine is so funny.
I mean... playing 45 top engine moves in a row is.... impressive, to say the least.
Prep. hans just has a perfect memory.
@@edntz prep doesn't go 45 moves
Pov: u dont know what prep is
In theory, if you are capable of memorizing all possible moves played till move 45 by your opponent and also memorize all moves to make yourself, then it does go to move 45. But of course, my comment was merely a joke.
@@edntz hans just know 10^123 position....more than atoms in the universe.....this theory makes sense
The closed captions have about a 10% accuracy rate.
It's not just about opponents.
1. When Carlsen was asked which player he would most like to play in a match he said Fischer.
2. Fischer was ranked extremely high in accuracy by engines not just in his famous winning streak.
3. Keep in mind this was in the era before clock increments and delays. It's more difficult to maintain high accuracy with no increment or delay.
Fischer was praised by the engines
Then there's Hans who's vibing with them
@Silent Man I've heard they are comparing engine moves to Hans database now to double check engines accuracy...
What you are saying it’s just not true.
It is about opponents, Ill give you example.
If you play a noob and he gives his pieces for free of course computer move will be taking the piece, so does gm move. But when the opponent does not makes mistakes it’s way more difficult to find out the engine move.
@@Sugarrushhh90 You are comparing patzers to GMs.
@@dannygjk i am telling you that you don’t understand and I am explaining so you can understand. Do you understand?
8.21% of Hans' games are at least 90% engine match and 2.49% are 100% engine match.
Maybe he is the best chess player of all time. Just Kidding.
That's unbelievable...
@@bobtheslayer561 It is impossible not unbelievable.
@@Shipdacheese no its not impossible, its impossibly unprobable
@ Hans's rise through rating has been meteoric. He has games where he looks like an idiot and games (a lot of em) with 100% accuracy. His style has baffled pretty much all players who simply do not understand his moves. Can you imagine top GM's being baffled on some of his moves? On top of all this, he is being accused by Carlsen whom i never seen to behave like this. If this were Hikaru most people wouldn't bat an eye. If Hans is cheating he will be found eventually unless he has some sort of under the skin implant or something because all eyes will be on him and his games. Ofc he still just might be a genius and will become the strongest player in history in the years to come. We'll see but it's never a good idea to be put in this position...where you are either a genius or a cheater because one is more likely than the other.
Magnus loves chess. It’s his life’s passion. I bet even when he loses, as much as it may hurt, he appreciates his opponent’s play. I doubted he made these accusations baseless. And glad to see that’s very likely the case.
Magnus put his reputation on the line by doing this. That's what it took to get somebody who has been cheating for years caught. There really needs to be a lifetime ban for guys like Hans.
possibly but it was also certainly a very frustrating loss for Magnus regardless, seeing as he was about to reach his long-time goal of 2900 and losing to a lower rated player was a big setback
@@grottphd9090 he's gonna get his points back when Hans gets caught with his stockfish buttplug
@@chrimony he was caught, it was just shoved under the carpet
@@andriuscibas What source or evidence do you have for that?
Hans: The chess speaks for itself.
The chess: heEeeE's cHEatiiiNg...
*Hikaru puts video on 1.5x speed*
Me, who is already watching at 2X: oof
Would be fine, if the accent of the youtuber wouldn't be so intelligible
« It’s really a pain in the ass »
H. Niemann, 2022
"Looks like i fucked myself, literally" H. Niemann, 2022
Literally!!!
Lol
They found the beads. Had the Tesla T engraved on them.
Are you referencing the vibrator that’s up his butt sending him signals?
So Hans is far, far better than anyone who has ever lived. But only every once in awhile.
only when he feels that tingle
@@eatingjr1805 only when he's vibing.
Only when his batteries don't die.
To be fair, statistics and stochastics are like, predicated on that
only when he’s really plugged in
So many games at 100%, after playing for years under 65%.
Hans really has made some unbelievable progress!
He is still quite young... it's not surprising that he is improving a lot in his late teens and early 20s
He is playing so many more games than all other gm's and his games are all much harder analysed. All this correlation is not a proof of anything. If Nieman studies more from stockfish moves, than he will play more like an engine by feel. All of the bests play mostly by feel and than calculate lines they see. Like Hikaru said, once you see it it's obvious. They(old gms, like Hikaru) have a problem cause when Hikaru was learning his 'feel' engines were not available. I think that we will see a big raise in these '100%' players as chess naturally evolves.
@@SchimbaChannelthe Dewa Kippas strat, learn from the engines.
@@SchimbaChannel He's not playing more than the top 20 FIDE bro and it's not more hard analysed
@@hexillionvitry4762 show me who exactly from top 20 FIDE attended as many open tournaments as Hans. I'll wait.
You have made such a complex subject easy enough to understand by us non-chess players. Thank you.
Be warned though, that statistics are not intuitive.
While the "number of games played at 100% best engine moves" is a really important number, the "how many games in a row" segment was a very big "no no" in statistics - you can essentially "prove" anything by selecting the right sequence. It might be true that Hans cheated a lot in those games, but it also might not be.
But it does prove that Hans is better at playing exactly like an engine, than any other player we've seen.
@@tokeivo it's not a statistical proof, it's just 'laymans logic proof' and that's good too. You would expect that someone who cheats in such a poor way (generating those 100% and 90%+ outliers) would simply sometimes be tempted to turn cheats on for a period of time. The fact that he has a streak is sort of convincing if you believe he cheated in the first place. It's not basis for cheating on its own, her math is wrong, but it looks like thing human did, to turn on cheats for 5 consecutive tournements, then turn it off.
@@thenukeduke6949 that's... pretty much exactly what I said, isn't it?
I am consuming this chess drama in a very unhealthy manner.
nice checkmark
Same
Same
Hahaha naligaw ka boss
Kamatis check! HAHAHAHHAHHA
Not Hans’ fault if his opponents keep running into his perfect 45 move prep
Considering his game against Magnus, we should have expected miraculous preparations from Hans.
What lube does he prep with?
@@Zeromus725 lube is cheating Hans don't cheat ;)
@@AB-dd4jz Lube isn't cheating, it's a perfectly reasonable tool to reduce friction
4.5 inch prep
In my experience as a chess fan, no human puts it in the dead center move after move 30-40+ times in a row.
With Magnus experience, it's prob very intuitive to feel/see that the moves he is facing are computer generated.
Human players make mistakes, even mistakes in not exploiting opponents mistakes. That's what make chess fun, to play And watch.
Must have been a very confusing moment when he realized he had lost that match against Hans
What are the odds of someone who cheated in his RECENT past end up statistically being the best chess player in the history of chess 😅
Walking Hikaru through how to use ChessBase was like showing my dad how to make a Gmail account
Yea great comparison, very fascinating
And like your dad he'll still kick your ass. 😄
LMAO
It's funny because he's probably been using Chessbase for 20 years or so. It's the standard program that's used by all professional players.
Thank you
It might be interesting to examine the security measures used for the tournaments where he played suspiciously versus the security measures where he played more normally.
I'd rather see them hire people attempting to cheat personally.
There's already been an analysis that showed Hans's rating in over the board tournaments that were broadcast versus not broadcast. Huge difference.
it doesnt matter, st louis said that he did not cheat, thats all
Good idea!
@@gaboelexo *Well of course St Louis said that. "We investigated **_ourselves,_** our contest, and security checkpoints and found no wrongdoing".*
For me the most interesting statistic is Hans' performance at the 2021 Third Sat Mix 157 (line 21 in the spreadsheet) where, apparently, he had computer correlations of over 90% three times in the same tournament, along with five very average (at least for a top GM) performances in the other six rounds. I am not saying this proves he is cheating, but it does raise questions. The National Open 2021 (line 29) also makes interesting reading.
The problem is that you don't compare Niemann results with the results of other players. It's sad to see that you believe this ridiculous video, that is filled with big methodological mistakes. Yosha's "analysis" has no value at all. She never compares Niemann's results with other players results. Carlsen and Caruana, for example, in their World Championship Match, were almost constantly over 95% accuracy, in each game.
@ He said correlations, not accuracy.
Note he takes about 20 seconds to find such amazing moves!!!
I feel bad for doubting Magnus on his accusations
Edit: Sorry everyone, my original comment was wrong and basically I am not even qualified to talk about this topic.
Some people have given very plausible explanations, as to why my comment was not correct - Check the replys
Original comment: So the Hans games correlating 100% with Stockfish in over 40 move games is just such a close to impossible coincidence. You have to play EXACTLY like Stockfish to achieve that, because if a person played better than stockfish, it would be less than 100% correlation.
This is such a good point.
Well said. This isnt caught red handed but Ill be damned if it isnt right next to it.
Chessbase's correlation stats do not only consider stockfish but as many engines at as many settings as people cared to compare the game with. In Niemann's case people have been all over his games and many such comparisons have been made. This will push the correlation score way up.
@@zetacrucis681 All the way up to 100% right? I mean magnus and hikaru, probably barely anyone has ever run their games through.
Did you not notice that even in the supposedly 100% games, Hans did not play exactly like Stockfish? A good example is the ...Kb7 move that Hikaru spent some time over. Stockfish actually recommends ...Rh5 there but some lesser engines (Deep Fritz was one) suggest Kb7 *at this time control*. If you were to extend the analysis time beyond 600, most likely the lesser engines would see ...Rh5 too. The final number you get is dependant on the parameters you choose and the hardware you are running it on. I am not saying there is nothing potentially suspicious here, far from it, but I do think it needs further analysis, particularly as I trust Ken Regan somewhat more than what we are seeing here.
At this point there are only two options: 1. Hans cheated. 2. Hans is the greatest chess player in recorded history.
2. Hans had the greatest performance in the chess history according to her data.
3 rd would be that the algorithm is wrong. But 2 and 3 are just not likely at all.
I mean he is the same age as Firouzja. Everyone would have talked about Niemann if he would really be that good.
@@Infiltator2 Everyone *is* talking about Hans …
nah, 100% Korelation in 45 moves is impossible. Not even for the best performance of his life. Hikaru, in the best performance of his life got to 80% in fewer moves.
I'm thinking the algorithm is wrong and the games he got 100% the opponents had very low scores dipping down to the 18%. Just like why Fischer had such a high %, because his opponents were worse back then. The one with 45 moves and 65% from the opponent is very sus but in my mind he's innocent until proven guilty.
That's why Hans always says the chess speaks for itself since Hans would not be able to speak for it since it was not him that did the moves. If someone doesn't make the actual chess moves then how the heck can he analyze his own game without embarrassing himself. If he could publicly analyze his game with Magnus and it made sense then I would believe him that he did not cheat. Usually when you play a great chess game you are anxious to tell people how you did it, Hans was not anxious after his game with Magnus.
It's definitely a big tell
Doesn’t mean anything
@@nictamer8754it means that you did something because someone told you to do so and you blindly followed without understanding what you were doing 😂
Hans is so full of himself.
Usually GMs remember their great games and can explain again and again after years how great they played them.
Hans never does that.
Love your channel Hikaru, you’re a rockstar in the chess world man..!!
Usually Carlsen when he loses will acknowledge the good play of the opponent or his bad play. So he knows something not right
Yeah, this is something a lot of people don't seem to get. Magnus loves great play. He really likes when a player fights and finds a way to best him. Sure, he doesn't like to lose. But I've always seen him give credit. This time, it's different and we all know why.
Minus Carlsen knows nothing. Minus Carlsen is a bad loser. That's all. His behavior is despicable.
So option 1) Hans has the most advanced (and secret) over the board cheating mechanism ever invented by mankind: anal beads. He has been training for years to use this to beat the best players at all time controls, undetectably. Option 2) Magnus played bad because he was suspicious and distracted and lost to a 2700
rated player.
@@grumpytroll6918 Why are these the only two options?
@@commonsense1527 please add options you think are missing
Congratulations to Hans “The 100%” Niemann, the chess truly speaks for itself
How ironic indeed.... The chess really does speak for itself...
@@Stain3610 chess speaks for itself
The chess has to speak for itself because Niemann can't understand his own moves.
I can't wait for chess to testify against Hans 🤣
@@boxofcans461 chess speaks for itself
We all know he cheated. What one must do now is recreate exactly how he "pulled it off" and we nominate you Hikaru!🤣
The funniest part is how there are many people, who obviously don't understand chess, statistics, or math, who still think that Hans is innocent.
@@ncs9753 I don't get the proof that he's not just a genius player, like what I am gathering here is that when a genuine genius will show up he can be called a cheat and thrown out for his extreme accuracy (or her). That's just stupid.
Someone has!
@@RassionellMaddman I think it also has to do with his behavior and the inconsistency of his play. Firstly, he has a track record of proven cheating in hundreds of online games. Secondly, he’s completely unable to provide analysis of his outstanding games, eg that against Magnus Carlsen. Finally, his OTB play is inconsistent, where some games he plays perfectly and others completely incompetent.
Not a chess player but I enjoy watching the game and also learning about it low key when I have time. I admire your social grace and sportmanship. I'm a fan.
How does it feel when you win?
Hans: I get a tingling sensation.
Ah you fucker 😂 made me spit coffe on my pc monitor
😂😂😂
I have a degree in mathematics. In general stuff being shown in the video can be used as evidence. Statistical analysis is not a tool for proving a specific conclusion but for showing if there is irregularity. A lot of math rigor has to be done to substantiate these irregularities. It should be possible to put all GM games through and calculate the normal range and the outlier frequency and determine the probability that any GM plays with the consistency as Hans does. Once irregularity is determined you have to consider the reasons these irregularities exist. Sometimes there are multiple possibilities, though cheating is the most obvious consideration.
the best players in the world at their peak are not even close to hans 😂🤣
@@victor6010 even the publicly know cheater not even close to hans
The answer is obvious. Stockfish is getting all its moves from Hans using an earpiece.
I got a phd in youtube commenting and from my expertise I can conclude that: Stockfish is probably not a human, probably.
🙏 i argue something similar. even tho it looks bad, i think it is bad precedent to start talking about this stuff before a more rigorous analysis of data has been made.
This is not proof in the literal sense, but its near irrefutable evidence. I’ll be interested to hear what other GM’s think on this matter
Fabi, Nepo, HIkaru, Levon, etc have all insinuated that Hans is a cheater already... it's not just Magnus.
Doesn't matter. Either it is evidence or it's speculation. All this is speculation no matter how you spin it..
People have been put behind the bars with far less circumstantial evidence.
@@Darth-Shadow this is evidence. It is not conclusive evidence, but it certainly is not speculation only
I wonder what the biggest accuracy difference is you can find in a game that ended in a draw between 2 GMs
Now, if you REALLY want to prove that this was cheating, find the person that was betting big on Hans with bookmakers for these 100% games....
Can you bet on chess players?
@@hackeronte7970 You can bet on anything
What sites to look for though?
That's what I thought. Follow the money. See if any big / regular payments are going out from Hans to somebody else and you will know who's on the other side of that stockfish.
What a stupid comment by a coward who likes to slander people without any proof, like in the worst dictatorships.
The great running coach Jason Coop was once asked what it took for someone to use PED's in racing and he answered in one word "Ego". You can see from his interviews that Han's has a 5,789 EGO rating.
Spot on comment!
Also, look at his meltdowns. He is unstable.
What do you get when you mix a high ego with unstable, uncontrollable emotion? And an admitted cheat?
You get Hans-“Stockfish in the flesh”…
@@lopezmt5 Stockflesh is actually such a good name for an edgy cyborg :o
So the thing that stands out to me as truly odd is that in a game that goes 45 moves I would expect there to be enough indiscernibly better moves (essentially 2 or 3 moves look equally good) that some of them are not what the engine suggests. If you are playing perfectly, there is even a chance that you pick a move better than what the engine is suggesting, which would also drop your correlation (in the best games ever played by the best players of all time I would expect there to be at least 1 move that was better than the engine). I believe that the way this calculates correlation is by running multiple engines and giving the highest correlation % to a single engine (suggesting that they are using that engine). This seems like crazy good evidence that someone is cheating. It's the chess equivalent of finding the entire essay a student submitted in the course textbook
Exactly, it’s a good example of “overfitting” which happens in stats / ML. You wouldn’t expect such consensus unless it’s “fit” to the engines perspective.
8:50 there is the argument that Magnus in the last 10 years has developed this play style where he plays a slightly less correct move around the late opening to early middle game in order to complicate the game or create inbalances, the evidence for that can be seen everywhere from the last few Tata steels and WCC matches.
Bobby Fischer was a beast holy shit. 72 percent pre - engine is NUTTY. I wish we could see a prime Magnus vs prime Fischer
I'd say that's why he hated engine so much. It's like you are good by default than others and then technology comes in and ruins his first 20 move advantage completely. No one would be happy in that situation.
Magnus would destroy Fischer. Not to take anything away from him, but the game now and how it's taught have evolved immensely over the last decades. Especially with the help of computers to formulate theory and tactics.
Prime Magnus vs Prime Fischer with the same training as Magnus. Now that would be interesting.
Opponent strength matters. The best moves may be more limited if your opponents are worse.
Remember when your opponents play bad moves it is easier to find the best move. When your opponents tend to play the same openings all the time it is easier to study lines and memorize the best moves for those lines.
There are way more openings /lines being played than ever before because players now have a way of knowing if a line is good without spending dozens or hundreds of hours of prep on that new idea.
I would be extremely shocked if those were not extremely important factors for this sort of a statistic.
Another thing to consider is that at the highest level, it's often times better to purposefully play a non computer move to pull your opponent out of prep and into a line you know better.
“ Garry Kasparov at 69% very nice “ 😂
69 like the sex position. 🤣High five!
Kasparov most like cheated with engines to lower his % to 69% lmao
@@lrvz7187 😂
Gary Casper*
This could be an amazing movie tbh...how one player manage to trick opponents and organizations sort of like Ocean's 11 or The Prestige
What really needs to be checked is the moves between 10-20. Once a big enough lead is gained it would be wise to choose the second or third best move to better disguise the cheating. If the game was 100% for the first 20 moves then diminishes then that is extremely sus. This could produce 70% games that fly under the radar.
Hikaru being 6/10ths the player Hans is at his best speaks for itself
6/10ths seems wrong. We should compromise at 3/5ths.
@@aaronwarwick9966 wow.... that is a dark joke
@@aaronwarwick9966 Jesus christ
@@steeal_wizzard4399 what’s the joke
my 8th grade history lesson has prepared me for this one joke
Hans Niemann, the greatest chess players to walk this earth. 45 moves 100% accuracy. Boss level.
Stockfish 14 is so good😂😂😂
He just had a good gut feeling about things.
It is not 100% accuracy, get your fact straight.
@@Lewd_Fox it speaks for itself?
@@davenoscope3836 No, it’s better. It’s 100% correlation with the best move of at least one of the main engines. 100% accuracy just means that you pick one of the top moves, not necessarily the best move.
As a graduate mathematics student and someone whose job is literally sports analytics, it's not really that conclusive. If you really like numbers at the expense of all else and really want Hans to be a cheater, maybe it is, but that's just confirmation bias. The problem with using analytics as a metric for "shoulds" with respect to humans is that people are capable of analytically playing above their level at any given time and analytics are never an all-encompassing metric of someone's play style. It's like taking Patrice Bergeron's Fenwick For % at EV versus Nathan MacKinnon's and saying "well MacKinnon is one of the three or four best players in the past 30 years, yet Bergeron (an aging veteran who is mostly known for defensive play) vastly outperforms him in this popular analytic value, something is fishy" - it's not a 1-to-1 comparison that you can reasonably make, there are tons of intangibles and situations that even very advanced analytics aren't able to account for. Hell, Bergeron's FF%@EV outranks MacKinnon, McDavid, Ovechkin, and Crosby's by an order of magnitude, and those are the best players in the league by a long shot: is that grounds for saying "either Patrice Bergeron is the best player of the 21st century or he's cheating"? Of course not, and Fenwick% is a far more advanced depth analytic than "X player makes Y% of moves same as engine". It's why analytics darlings aren't by default all-star selections, it's only a tool in how play is analyzed, not judge, jury, and executioner.
Maybe an even more relevant correlation would be the Shooting Talent Adjusted Expected Goals metric: where you're answering "what is the probability that a player is actually a certain shooting talent level given their performance in the NHL so far", then taking someone like Ilya Mikheyev who scored 21 goals last season but whose Bayesian probability with respect to the previous question is only 11.7%. Is Ilya using some illegal curve or something to score more goals? Is he paying off goaltenders to let his shots in? No, he just had a good season versus what his career statistics would have predicted. And again, that's a phenomenal metric that uses tens of millions of simulations on massive datasets (literally thousands of shots, each with tons of precise variables, not just a couple dozen tournaments) using conditional probability (Bayes theorem) to map those probabilities, and it's still not something you can use to call someone a cheater.
The metric used here is just one-dimensional and awful, at best it says "this data set we chose shows that Hans plays very well theoretically according to this engine", but the result of using the metric on Arjun shows that engine line correlation has very little to do with human success in the first place. Their own metric contradicts their original statement.
To be fair 11% is a huge probability.
I agree that you can play way above your level, but it's a matter of how exceptional your play is. Your first paragraph is far more convincing than your second, but I'm still convinced hans is cheating, since we're not just basing it off a single metric.
So did he just spend the whole pandemic studying computer moves? 😂
all he had to do was spend time with his beads.
This video and the one you showed in the stream were the two most valuable videos I’ve watched in this saga. Thanks for the content and discussing all of it.
now we have to wait szn 3
+1. Hikaru's initial explanation of the situation and this video have been key.
Maybe you should not base your opinion on a video which is being destroyed by various commentators on how bad the statistics are
About Sebastien Feller. It was never discovered directly that he cheated. It was discovered because the "engine" man forgot his phone on a french federation executive's desk and the phone got a sms with "keep giving moves to seb", which started all the investigation in France, and then after the tournament it was made public when they had proofs.
Goes to show how difficult it is to prove over the board cheating.
how was he receiving the intel? How can somebody cheat over the board? Deep ear piece? mouth piece?
@@lolmouf modern ones use bunch of complicated ways. These guys after all even if cheaters are genuises. Like last time they caught somebody who was receiving moves using aa morse code device in his shoe.
Basically all they need is one device anywhere on their body capable of receiving signals and vibrating corresponding to move recieved. Hence the anal beads idea.
@@lolmouf Morse code and a vibrating butt blug
@@Franchifis 😂😂😂
One thing that regularly stands out in chess videos is that non-human type optimal moves stick out like a sore thumb. It might go something like “the computer is saying move xyz, but that feels like a very non-human move”. It’d be interesting if it’s possible to train an ai to identify non-human moves. Should be possible.. the engine/ai itself can obviously identify optimal moves (a subset of which would be considered non-human). They should be able to data mine common human reactions in those positions/similar positions to determine the likelihood of a human making that move. You could even literally survey a large sample of GMs to analyse ai/engine games and get them to identify non-human moves. Or ask them to give their variations and compare them to the actual sequence for each move in the game
The problem is that GMs are studying engine play and learning the ideas behind a lot of those previously non-human seeming moves. It is especially the case with super-GMs.
This is such a great idea! Much better than the z-score commonly used
@@inthefadeI disagree. The comment was not about excellent moves suggested by computers, but “non-human” moves. A chess game can really be seen as a dialogue, you can read the intent behind moves, you can tell the personality of the player through them. A non-human move is purely based on deep calculation and ignore this organic aspect of a game. All GM can tell a weird move when it doesn’t reflect this, so an anomaly detection algorithm trained on human games vs computer games could identify such moves.
I still think that it could be acceptable that someone comes out of nowhere and plays so perfectly with very high engine accuracy, beats super gms and world champion like it's nothing to him. Maybe he is a genius. However, someone at that level could easily analyze his own games , his own positions on the board after the game. His analysis after the sinquefield cup matches showed that he cannot do a healthy analysis. His analysis were way off compared to his plays. Which means he is cheating.
Oh and don't forget... never cheat... I'm not talking about what Carlsen said, I'm talking about how Hans literally admitted to getting caught cheating online, then banned again from the site for underplaying how many times he actually got caught cheating.
Also, what are the odds of such a genius having been a self confessed two-time cheater who also happens to have a coach with a history of cheating.
The chess is truly starting to speak for itself now, and its telling us something quite clear about Mr Niemann
And what is it??
@@ivanalkemist that he’s undoubtedly a cheater
@@blizyon30fps86 good play isn’t proof
@@ivanalkemist that with 99.99999% certainty he is cheating
@@__Jesus_is_God__ This isn’t good play. It’s otherworldly play
I actually think Niemann's attitude during interviews is disguising the fact that he actually doesn't have an intimate knowledge of his own games. If you just say "your opening was bad," then you're excusing yourself from having to provide analysis. I'm willing to bet if an interviewer pushed Hans, he wouldn't be able to justify his own play with his own reasoning.
Yep. Interviews are soooo suspicious.
The interview after he beat Magnus was even more suspicious and dubious. His explanation consists of miracles and feelings. No actual explanation or intention of his moves. In fact, at one point he "forgot" one of the moves he made.
@@susbedo9258 People like Hikaru are able to recall the exact moves that were played in OTHER people's games as well as their own. Yet Hans can't even recall a recent game in which he managed to win against the World Champion and one of the best-- if not the best -- chess players of all time?
That does not mean anything (fixed grammar, thank you for pointing out) actually. Several great brains are well known not to be able to speak properly on the problems they have worked with. The mathematician Grigori Perelman who solved the Poincare conjecture is told to going to the whiteboard and rambling incoherently on something tangentially related raising eyebrows with "is this really the guy who did it?". From my behalf I would like to see more conclusive evidence of him cheating in Sinquefield than how he talked in the interview or Magnus' impressions
Thats exactly what happened when he said "I dont have to show variations" after sacking a piece xD.
Hans watching this video. Hikaru "ok 80%. I did play well." Hans "Those are rookie numbers"
He defintely should have run some of Hans' games on his own just to confirm that he's comparing apples to apples.
The question isn’t anymore if Hans is a cheater but how he pulls it off.
Yeah how does he pull off those beads is a mystery
Bcz if you cannot prove that then he ain't a cheater
@@aniketprasad3128 No. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This is already BEYOND a reasonable doubt. The "HOW" isn't needed to establish that ..
@@FoieGras it's all circumstantial right now that to statistical. Statistical analysis can support or reject a hypothesis at best. Cannot establish shit.
But yeah good for validation.
@@aniketprasad3128 "if you cannot prove that then he ain't a cheater" is one of the dumbest takes I have seen.
This is by far the best evidence I've seen that something isn't right, numbers don't lie
It’s still not all that incriminating. Yosha definitely was not doing a fair analysis by comparing only a handful of Hans’ games to the general average of other GMs. Its easy to exaggerate with statistics.
@@hurricaneheidi2879 He had multiple games at 100%. Dude definitely has those beads up his bum.
@@hurricaneheidi2879 The problem with your argument is that Yosha didn't cherry pick. The engine correlation of all of Hans's games were shown. Yosha just specifically emphasized how many games Hans had with 100% accuracy. Considering how young he is (therefore how few tournaments he's played relative to players like Hikaru and Magnus), he shouldn't even have 1 game at 100% engine correlation that isn't just theory, or just a few moves out of theory. Even if Hans was truly brilliant and played better than Stockfish or any other engine the engine correlation would be below 100. The only way to get perfect correlation is to play only what an engine suggests. I'm specifically stating engine correlation rather than accuracy because most super gms play at 80-100% accuracy, most 90% in classical. However even with that high of accuracy they'd still probably only have about 70% engine correlation. That's why the fact that Hans has so many 100% engine correlation games is so damning. His true rating would have to be 3500-3800 to achieve that, which is extremely unlikely because he would have won every single game he's played recently
@@hurricaneheidi2879 Wait until you find out how fraud is detected through statistics. Benford's law and Zipf's law have been incriminating enough when looking to see if firms have fudged up their numbers. And he's not just evaluating a "handful", it's literally all games from 2019 until now.
@@joes9131 yeah man, like you say statistics are not a "vibe" They are math.
Math doesn't lie
All of us impressed by the guy who held for 45 moves against Stockfish… perhaps he just turned on his engine later than Hans’s 😮😮
If anyone would know Hans used certain toys to cheat, this would be the expert.
The best way to present this info is to look at a bar graph (1 graph per GM) showing their distribution of games for each group of accuracy %. I.e. here is 1000 Hans games, the number of 0-5% accuracy games, 5-10%, 10-15% etc.
If Hans is cheating you would expect to see 1 Bell curve peak for normal GMs (around 65%), and you'd see 2 for Hans (at around 65%, with a second around 100%).
This! ⬆️⬆️⬆️
You can also just do a histogram for Nieman's data and see if it's normally distributed or not.
Edit: I checked. It's not normally distributed.
You could be cheating and have a normal distribution
@@aqdjbcr you would need a computer to tell you when to make bad moves. Not likely but in theory in 2022 it’s possible.
@@idahogunslinger263 Super gms can definitely tell on their own when to cheat or not
You could do 100% for your prep. But once you are beyond prep, it just isn't going to happen. I would love to see the correlation tracked by move number, or by early, mid, end game.
He had 100% on a 45 move game
This engine excludes theory from the analysis
Hans played better than freaking Bobby fisher on his streak
@@vincentjiang6358 Not only this, but he also played better in a much more competitive era. It's easy to have 100% accuracy against total monkeys like me, it's insanely hard against those GM monsters.
Yes, I was thinking along the same lines. It would be interesting to analyse the top 100 chess players’ games and determine how many moves into the game they sustained their 100% accuracy. The ones who went deepest probably have the highest ELO ratings, thus proving Fischer’s premise that success is book-memory dependent.
great analysis!
Great video!
Wow, this is a burn! (29:30) "Congratulations, maybe, to his opponent, I guess, to have resisted for that many moves." Yep, 45 moves is quite a performance.
Watching this live just hits different, especially since he experiences technical difficulties every 5 minutes 🗿
Facts
If you were going to say something this unoriginal you could've just called him a boomer and left it at that.
when the chess spoke for itself, i was so moved i immediately castled
its great that guy hikaru watches puts so much work into analysing this
Can't wait for Hans' Dream-style manifesto from an astrophysicist proving he didn't cheat.
I was kinda waiting for someone to bring this up (not sure how much these two communities overlap but honestly it’s probably a fair amount). Both being “caught” with mathematics and probabilities and it makes for such interesting analyses. Dream’s case had pure luck but Hans’ case has pure skill involved and that makes it a lot less simple to analyze and put one simple probability on (like dream’s 1/20 sextillion odds)
then "noooo that wasn't really me who cheated my coach slipped anal beads into my ass while I was sleeping I was completely unaware of it !!!"
@@zeusthedrumlord547 dream was caught by much more solid evidence. There are issues with the maths in this
@@zeusthedrumlord547 Dream literally admitted to cheating lmfao
"Oh, I forgot to remove my anal vibration system that I have installed" same as Dream " accidently" forgetting to remove some folders.
I don't know if he actually cheated and this anal bead theory is very wild guess 🗿
These new figures definitely sway me. I thought Hans was not cheating OTB, but after seeing all the 100% and all the above 90%…we’ll, the dude is a cheater without a doubt. The question is, HOW is he doing it!?
So simple are you joking?
@@johnnybambam141 He's not joking. I also don't know.
Some have speculated he used a device in his sock called "sockfish" which is a cheating device where they get moves from "Stockfish" in their socks via morse code vibrations. And can communicate by tapping a button in Morse code back to the device to tell the device the moves made on the board.
You can see when they were waving the wand on Hans, he got nervous and started fidgeting when they were waving the wand by his feet.
@@johnnybambam141 It's so simple, no one can catch it or prove it. Memes aside.
The discussion of top GMs having a "engine correlation" rate of 70%ish reminds me of opening leads in bridge. On average even the top experts (theoretically) blow a trick on the lead 20% of the time. The interesting part is that for amateurs, the 1000 ELOs of the bridge world, the stat only increases to 22%.
In England there are nowhere near 100 players who are top class at Opening Leads. Many Top players neglect the subject
To me, the question is not how likely it is for a player to correlate 100% with an engine for one entire game; it’s how likely the player is to only do that occasionally. If most of your games are at (let’s say) 60% and, at unpredictable times, you shoot up to 100% for long stretches, how do you explain that? It seems like a normal human performance curve would be smoother than that.
No, it’s the opposite. You would expect few games to “fit” an engines behavior. Unless of course they were cheating, or otherwise behaving exactly like an engine, then they’d be approaching the similarity of an engine more often.
You would expect to see a threshold, which is what we do see around 60-70%, or similarity to an engine … it’d be similar to saying how close are your essays to ChatGPT, you’d never expect to see anything frequently over 80%, tho perhaps occasionally a few that randomly are over that.
Magnus found the beads
If hanz continues to defend himself against acusations of cheating, then he will either have to stop playing or continue cheating because the chess speaks for itself. He cant hide the statistics
Stockfish iş ,Haced, ,
Hikaru: I have a feeling I'm going to come to the conclusion that I'm a bad chess player.
Me: Aren't we all?
I wonder if the matches with weirdly high percentages were also the ones awarding most elo rating to him in the tournament. Considering he wasnt winning every event, there might be a pattern for opponents being chosen
Beth Harmon: "I will popularize chess more then anyone!"
Hans:"Hold my an@l beads!"
good one
Hahaha
😂😂😂
I'd rather not.
*plug my an@l beads! Lol
28:48 Hikaru starts freaking out about Hans' superhuman accuracy on a long game
45 moves 100% accurate is the nail in the coffin on this discussion. Don't know if he cheated vs Magnus, but Hans has lost all credibility.
29:19 Hikaru after he finds me over a body in amongus
@@deez5396 if this was not a reply comment I guess it would've got like 1k+ likes😂
@@lokeshkumar-ff8kx lol even 5 is generous imo
@@deez5396 and for me the 1 like that you gave is enough
The problem with statistics as proof is that I'm too stupid to understand it.
We have a saying "Nakal ke lie Akal chahie" which roughly translates to "You need brains to copy". He did not use any of his brain while cheating, that's what caught him
In Magnus statement he said that Hans wasn’t nervous and acted like he wasn’t even paying attention to the board and still easily outplaying Magnus. This is extremely bizarre. You have to work extremely hard and pay attention or your chess will be a disaster. Magnus has played 1000’s of games and the other chess players act a certain way. Hans behavior makes no sense at all.
What doesn't make sense to me is that if Hans looked unperturbed during the game, then how did he get so good at resisting the vibrations?
@@Zeromus725 He was busy focusing on not getting an orgasm from the vibrations explains his distracted behavior.
@@Zeromus725 Ikr! All those girls who go in public with a certain something inserted make it look so hard to resist the vibrations
Even after memorizing 20 moves, none of them are reaching 100% correlation. Whereas Hans has already 10 100% games. Hans is a living legend.
And 23 games at 90%
I'm waiting for a ban for life.
@@hansdietrich1496 Well, you can go shit yourself until there's evidence.
You can find tons of games at 100% It all depends on your settings. If you spend 10 minutes going through any top 20 player’s games you’ll find some. The person that made the video genuinely does not know what she’s talking about. Theres a reason chess base gives a big disclaimer that says engine correlation can not be used to analyze wether somebody cheated. It doesn’t have a clause that says that you can make an exception if the correlation is above 85% and you beat Magnus Carlsen
@@MrJoosebawkz cool, let's see how many 100% games Magnus,caruana, hikaru,anand, bobby and Kasparov have combined in their career.
Hikaru: "Ooooh this game is putrid, I played like a 26** player"...all the 26** players out there start re-considering their career's choice 🤣
The distribution is slightly trimodal.
Mode 1 : 14 games at 54% engine correlation. This is lower than the typical "normal" GM. This _could_ be his typical score without cheating.
Mode 2 (main) : 19 games at 69% engine correlation. This like Garry Kasparov at his best or just above the typical "super" GM. This _could_ be typical of the games where he is cheating strategically to not be detected (i.e. only cheat 1/3 moves).
Mode 3 : 10 games at 100% engine correlation (statistically impossible to have that many in a dataset of 402 games). This is way higher than any other player! This _could_ be his score when he needs a win, so he just plays every moves the computer suggests.
Even if you treat it as a monomodal distribution, a mode of 69% is very high!
(P.S. I used "could" because this is not a definitive proof that he cheated, but it's pretty damn close to it...)
very nice theorie! xD ... stochastics dont lie.. i would bet my life he is cheating to a probality of 99,99999%(oh that was 8 months ago x)
@@danifurrer4195 Well, the modes are not very distinct, but there's still something weird. I have done the same analysis on other GMs and didn't find a similar pattern. Of course, I would have to analyze hundreds of GMs to see if this pattern is truly unique, but I don't have time for that! I did look at some GMs and IMs that were banned from FIDE for cheating and most of them have bimodal distributions (to varying degrees), not trimodal.
I've done video game cheating analysis in the past. A strong bimodal distribution indicates a clear basic cheating scheme. A strong trimodal distribution, however, indicates a more elaborate "toggling" cheating scheme, where the cheater toggles his unfair advantage on and off to avoid detection. The hope is that they will blend in as a normal strong player. However, they often follow patterns of toggling (consciously or not) so they create a third mode in the distribution.
The problem with chess, especially over the board chess, compared to video games, is that we have much less data to work with, sot it's way harder to use it as a definite proof, unless it's very obvious (like a player with an average computer evaluation of 99% over thousands of games).
Also, there could be some explanations for this, like errors in the database, that when combined with simple luck creates a pattern. Also, correlation isn't causation, so there could be other factors other than cheating that could influence this pattern in the data (for example, he could be bipolar and play differently whether if he's in a manic or depressive mood. That could maybe also explain his weird behavior).
thats so interesting, as a Mathematician your Job Possibilites are endless right?
I just know it a little from poker games analizing with sample sizes and variances.. One could write a code to simplify those problems.. a little c++ and stochastics combined . Et voila -(i go look for someone ;)