Magnus, Hans, and Dlugy Chess Drama
Vložit
- čas přidán 29. 09. 2022
- Check out Ben's Chessable courses here! www.chessable.com/author/BenF... [09-28-2022] Full Drama Update Stream with GM Ben Finegold
If you're interested in sponsoring a lecture of your choice, email Karen at karen@atlchessclub.com
Signup or gift a chess.com Premium membership to get access to their lessons, remove ads, improve your chess, AND help Ben at the same time!! Upgrade your chess.com membership or join! - go.chess.com/finegold.
Buy Merch today! ccscatlmerch.com/
Watch live at / gmbenjaminfinegold
Follow me on Twitter: / ben_finegold
#benfinegold #chess #magnuscarlsen #hansniemann #maximdlugy - Hry
the worst thing about people not knowing anything about statistics is believing people who show them statistics.
A whole hour of chess drama? Yes, please
Go do puzzles young man!
Fine benorama
Fr fr
Ben is right. If they wanted to at least be somewhat useful, they could sample random games while being blinded to who played them. If you sample 100 games played by players who are 2600-2700 and then mark 8 games you find suspicious WITHOUT KNOWING WHO PLAYED THEM, then look afterwards and all 8 games were played by Hans (or 7 or 6,) that would at least be somewhat meaninful. Not proof, but at least it would be something. If they are cherry-picking Hans games instead of doing it blinded then Ben is 100,000% correct that it has absolutely no meaning or value. There is a reason why every scientific study of any merit is double-blinded.
That would be a decent way yes. I don't know the actual numbers though as I havn't been doing the research myself. But from my understanding Hans have in the last three years like 4 times more games with 90%+ chess engine correlation than Carlsen have had in his entire career and more or less every other super GM too. If accurate, which I don't know since I havn't done the reseach myself, is enough to at least spark suspicion. Which any statistical outlier should. With that said again, Its all from third party information so it could be utter BS.
Actually you can run analysis on results of a player. 1 players games should have a bell curve performance rating with their true rating being the average of the curve and that should match their fide rating.
A player who cheats in some games but not others with likely not have a normal distribution of performance ratings, but a bimodal curve. I.e. 1 average when not cheating, and another when cheating. This would be consistent with the analysis that was done earlier that showed his performance was much better when the event is live streamed.
@@Tehkenny1 ChessBase analysis is (as it claims itself) used to determine whether some is NOT cheating. What it does is it crowd-sources every engine available to check if each move correlates to a best move in some engine. They clearly state that, low correlation score means very unlikely cheating, and high correlation doesn't mean anything.
It's basic mathematical boolean logic: if low score then no cheat [low score -> no cheat]. You can invert the logic to [cheat -> high score], but [high score -> cheat] is false. [A -> B] equals [not B -> not A] but it doesnt mean [not A -> not B]
@@gatewayman118 this is all true. This method would be a step one in the analysis, like we check engine correlating moves. If he has high correlation, it doesn't prove anything, but it's grounds for a step of the investigation. That's how I would look at it.
If they do a step two where the correlation of moves to engines moves is much higher in lived streamed events or something along those lines, then we're getting somewhere. Or if his performance rating is significantly different between streamed and non streamed events.
The analyzes that have been carried out in ChessBase use many different old and new chess engines. '
In order for you to get a score of 100%, all your moves in a mach must agree with at least one of the chess engines' first choices.
I cannot understand that it cannot be used as evidence if the results of other top players agree roughly with each other and Hans Niemann's results deviate from everyone else's.
What I have heard is that Hans has 23 matches over 90% in the last three years.
Magnus Carlsen has four matches over 90%. Think it was for the whole career but may have been the last three years.
Hikaru Nakamura has two matches over 90%. Think it was for the whole career but may have been the last three years.
Whether the results are right or wrong I do not know so this should not be taken as fact.
Hans Niemann blew up Nord Stream 1
False flag.
Lmao the thumbnail guy deserves a raise
Gal!
@@GMBenjaminFinegold If she is Karen, then you probably give her a raise every night.
I think it’s Karen lol
It's why I clicked
It was probably created by some artificial intelligence (maybe some relative of Stockfish.. )
33:35 yeah as a math PhD I totally see how most accusers consistently make too many trivial logical or statistics errors (who are better than mindless magnus diksukers btw). However these massive paranoia, magnus-dik-sukings, and logical/statistics errors by top GMs are something I didn't expect.
It shows that elite chess players are like any other tight knit group when it comes to protecting their turf and their own (which in this case is Magnus vis-a-vis Hans the disliked outsider). Tribal instincts override logic and objectivity, which leads to confirmation bias in the analysis.
We are observing that neither the set of elite chess players nor chess fans corresponds exactly with the set of good statisticians. Many people look highly educated, knows all the buzzwords, thinks they know how to do statistics, but in fact sucks badly at it because they learned by reading wikipedia and random websites and watching youtube. It's not that they don't know how to calculate standard errors. It's that because they are self taught, choosing topics semi-randomly, there are lots of glaring gaps in what they learned, so they are unable to avoid making trivial mistakes and step into obvious pitfalls 15 times before they get to their conclusion.
Go ahead. Ask me how I know this. 😁 I am one of them. But I have been cracking my head these past two months, trying to process a couple of sets of giant data dumps. And the more I read, the more I realize how pitifully shallow my understanding is. I wish there is a magical door, where I can step through to really study statistics for 10 years, and then come back into this universe at the same time I left, so that I would at least be kinda competent to do what I have to do now.
If Hans had had 10 90% accuracy games and a couple 100% games, and stocktish then did the same analysis of thousands of other similar or better players entire OTB career and found none of them had anywhere near the same numbers over much longer careers… is that not enough? And why hasn’t this analysis not been done? Wouldn’t it be easy to get this data? Has it not been done yet? Seems pretty darn close to proof to me if it exists, and if it doesn’t.. why?
My high-school chess teacher from Franklin, Paul mills said he played you back in the day Ben in like the 2000s at Michigan Open. Was super hyped to have been able to play you and had nothing but great things to say about you. Love your content and yes the thumbnail is soon good lol
No matter if Hans cheated or not, Magnus seems to be really going out on a limb with his reputation with how he’s making the accusation.
Not really.. Magnus seems perfectly content with his decision. Hans has already lied about how often he cheated online. Magnus is the most popular player by far. We like watching him play and explain chess. Refusing to play against a confessed cheater won’t affect his reputation.
@@liamweinberg4902 It's legal considerations that have to be taken into account - reputation is not crucial.
@@dannygjk that’s true but he has been cautious enough when doing public interviews and his official statement was lawyer proofed. The evidence is definitely enough for reasonable doubt. . And he did tweet that he can’t talk about it. He didn’t say straight up without legal advice that he thought Hans cheated. That tweet was definitely lawyer proofed as well. Even The Jose gif.
After watching couple of hikaru videos regarding the cheating scandal, I realized that people who are good at chess are not the expert in law, critical reading, statistics, and all.
I was laughing when twitch chat was completely getting the defamation law incorrect while posing himself as a lawyer, misunderstanding the vice article, and generally had incorrect notion of statistics. But then again, I realize that they spent all of their life playing and studying chess while I studied economics, math, and law. So they will laugh at my 800 elo plays.
Especially not experts in forensics.
I had the same realization lol. I have a professional career in data science/statistics - chess players are just professionals at memorizing book moves.
GM Nigel is exactly right, chess players are not educated in stats because they have to care about chess lol
@@nononoleavemebe I mean I'm not gonna go that far, I bet they are smart but there is limitation.
@@nononoleavemebe Tell me you know nothing about chess without telling me you know nothing about chess
This is why I appreciate agadmator he is getting a lot of suggestions from random person’s analysis of Hans games lmao
I think the main thing we can take away from the drama is that all of the games (pgn files) should be annotated with how much time was spent on each move.
The circumstantial evidence all points to cheating.
Russ is just trolling and putting his bias out there. His whole rant about Dilugy having a lawsuit is pure crap and he knows it.
But he wants to put that out into the public debate to stir the pot as he himself admitted.
so about the online cheating thing: Jan Gustaffson says if everyone got banned from over the board games for cheating online there would be a whole lot less GMS at big tournaments, including lots of big names too
It would be unfair too. Imagine how many people are working in jobs right now, where they wouldn't be hired if they had a criminal record. And if they had said they had no criminal record in their application, and we find out now that they did, they will be autonatically fired. No exceptions.
Now, we redefine everything and say that _criminal record_ includes and traffic or parking tickets.
It would be chaos. And we would be throwing out lots of otherwise good people.
Ben said it before. Online chess and OTB tournaments aren't even the same game.
Anybody remember correspondence chess, or am I an old fossil?
I think a mistake many are making here is thinking that a GM, with all their skill, would need to cheat like a normal/poor player, using top computer suggested moves. Even if they just had a hint/signal that their overall current position was engine evaluated as winning or losing, even just at some key moments during games, that would let them know their own ideas are correct or incorrect, and would most likely assure more victories than losses--and be almost impossible to detect because the moves wouldn't be computer generated. I'm surprised this isn't being talked about more.
Yes, a good assessment. During the last tournament Chess24 interviewed some guy (I think a FIDE official) can't remember his name who said pretty much the same thing.
Magnus is also taking a PR hit because of his actions, IMO, but clearly believes his position requires him to take a public stand if he thinks the safeguards against cheating in the game are inadequate. Finegold thinks he should have done it "behind closed doors" but nothing would probably happen if he did. Like genuine whistle blowers in large corporations, they often go public when they find the official channels don't work.
I would still like to see trials of competitions where the players are actually allowed some limited, but equal, use of an engine. I watched a Kasparov video where he said human+engine is still better than engine alone. Maybe some rule where the player is required to use a certain number of moves which are not the engine top choice. Sure, it would change the game, perhaps making it more strategic, but they have to innovate. The game can't survive in its current form when it is so easy to gain a large advantage by engine cheating.
@Diomedes Neither I nor brianthedogg2004 made any specific comments at all about Niemann or any specific game/competition. I addressed my comments to the fact it may be effectively impossible to definitively prove a competent cheat is doing so. You seem to be wedded to the idea that it can be detected quite easily.
@@michaelhart7569 the most sus thing I see is that Magnus started doing this immediately after he lost on white.
Just let people do whatever they want. No limit on computer vs human selected move. One person with no help. One person following the computer 100%. A whole team of humans and however many computer they want to use. Random people in the audience shouting suggestions. A truly open open.
Then we see if Kasparov is right. Or humans in the decision chain is more a hindrance.
Great summary of some of these videos going around looking at random games or butchering statistics they don't even understand. Go Ben
Interesting how your reasons for not cheating exclude because you have integrity and respect the game. Seems to not even cross your mind.
It's hard to really evaluate that correctly. I never cheated. But I was never tempted. I play so badly that it is always just for my own entertainment. I stand to gain nothing by cheating.
If I was ever put in a position where I might be tempted, would I be strong enough to resist the temptation because I have integrity and respect the game and other people participating? I don't know. I would like to think so. But words are cheap. Only when we are truly tested, would we know. I suspect there is no correlation between how strong a person will jump up-and-down acting affronted at being accused, and actual guilt.
I have lived too long and am too jaded to think anybody can judge guilt by simple observation like in some TV show.
PS: Because of my background, I can probably build the devices everybody is talking about. But I am not convinced they would work. As in anybody who tried it will not be caught.
Imagine you're talking with a friend, and he tells you about this idea for a device that allows you to empty out a bank vault at night. He explains exactly how it works, and you conclude that you can build it. You also conclude that your friend underestimates bank security systems and you are convinced that anybody who attempted to use that device, would be caught immediately and end up in jail. Do you still build the device and try to use it? Or build it and give it to your friend? I may suck at chess but I know computers and electronics.
Lol all the people in chat talking about Hans' 10 100% games haven't the slightest clue how the let's check analysis works
It seems to me like it is 100% accurate scientific computations of the highest credibility,!
The Naka video with the French math chick, (Yocha, I think she is called) leaves you with that ‘you know, these two might be up to something, those graphs look quite legit…’
Alejandro outplayed Hans when reviewing positions Hans generically evaluated. I dunno, we’ll see…but damn if suspicion doesn’t seem super warranted.
5:50 I almost died laughing 😂
Ben is hilarious
Hans didn't say he cheated only once when he was 16. People, including you Ben, keep saying that, but it's not what he said. He said he cheated in multiple games to drive up his online rating.
You should watch Hans play Bullet against Naroditsky; the guy is legit, cheating at this pace seems unrealistic, he got him a few times!
Indeed
I am a statistician and you are correct.
I am a lawyer and appeals to authority are not persuasive
@@rahawala what about appeal to expertise? Are you seriously saying you can't call an expert on something to testify in court? Isn't that what criminalists are for?
Yeah, you sound like a public defender.
@@Bradley_UA I interpreted it as a joke but on second thought the lack of a /s makes it very ambiguous
@@suezuccati304 I mean, if it's a joke, it's the most unfunny joke I've ever heard, I can't even speculate what can possibly be humorous in it. And I watch ben finegold, so that's saying a lot!
@@Bradley_UA the irony comes from "according to my authority authority isn't a good argument"
Great video. Didn’t change my believe, but did change my perspective!
Ben, super fun idea for content: invite some GMs to investigate "suspicious" games.
But! To prevent bias, don't tell them whose games they are reviewing. Sprinkle in some games where there was no cheating as litmus test. Maybe even sneakily add a game here and there where someone played against an engine. Then ask the GMs to identify suspicious moves etc and see how well they do without already knowing where to see "evidence of cheating".
One thing I'm not sure about here is when you say that making very unusual engine moves is not how they detect cheating. To me, that seems like one way to figure out someone is cheating is if he makes very unusual moves that end up being the best according to top engines. Of course, you need a larger sample size, but that got to be sort of the basis of what is suspicious. Otherwise, what would it be?
I'm not sure if Ben knows this, but those 90%-100% correlation only exist because someone used doctored and weak engines to make sure Hans got 90-100% then uploaded them to ChessBase. If you removed said lines from suspicious engines, it lowered to just 70-85%. Someone checked the engines used in those Hans game and found out around 150 engines with suspicious engines were used. It's quite funny that so many people overlook this fact rather than double check because they want to focus on their bias.
Please post link.
haters
Hikaru's actions were completely irresponsible. He used this 'analysis' to again call Hans a cheater, and his brain-dead fans ran with it and are now parroting it all over the internet.
@mister kluge The chessbase thing uses crowdsourced engines that get uploaded to the cloud so basically comparisons don't work because it's dependent on whichever random person did the analysis.
@Jak Ryans The fanatics will never admit that Hans didn't cheat in the Sinquefield cup because there is no way to prove that he didn't.
30:00 yeah I always got confused how everyone was happy to play Hans in Miami (albeit shorter time control and on a PC) but not 2 weeks later in St Louis
we can easily catch who is cheating let's use Faraday cage
Great commentary - 100% agree.
It's scary that this whole drama just shows that the average person has no idea what is and isn't relevant evidence and how to think critically. And these are the same people being chosen in jury pools!
Being on a jury is scary. The realisation of how I’ll equipped that average person is to be on a jury.
I had to explain the forensic evidence to the jury I was on. And they still let a rapist go free.
I think in the 10 days between Miami and St. Louis, somebody whispered in Magnus' ear. Just my guess.
Everyone conveniently ignores this very obvious possibility tbh
Might be the very …?
That one 40'ish move game i decided to check too. Turns out that the entire game was pretty much top 3 engine moves from both sides except 2 moves by Hans and 3 by the dude. So they both brought their cheating buttplugs?
Does no one think it’s sus that Hans scored 2.5/3 in the sinquefield cup before the additional anti-cheating measures were implemented and 2/6 after?
Yeah def sus I usually play much better whenever Elon Musk tweets that I do butt stuff.
Nah. He had solid positions in a bunch of those matches and couldn't convert, and he lost his momentum when ish hit the fan. It happens in every sport. None of his 2.5/3 games were suspicious - he just played well.
@@Leipaa yeah, it’s definitely possible that the accusations were having an effect on his play. But he had a massive drop off in playing level (going from a performance rating >3050 to
When people perform spectacularly they usually drop back to their usual level. That's what you should expect in any case because it's their usual level.
People are saying that his analysis is not 2700 level but even after 15min delay he has managed to draw games against Nepo, MVL, Firouzja and Dominguez Perez (all of them being 2745+ rated) and he lost to Caruana and So (both 2760+). This results are exactly what someone with 2670 rating should get against such strong players.
Well said!
I absolutely love this long ass rants about Hans
LOVE your perspective
The thumbnails are absolutely ridiculous and I love them.
24:52 😂 check out that short segment typical GM Ben Fine gold, (yes the space between "Fine" and "gold" is deliberate).
spoken like a fine gold once again
The answer is always fries
Magnus is just being a sore loser. His streak got broken and he was pissed about it. Had he won that game, none of this would've happened. If he felt so strongly about Hans, he should've said something sooner. All these guys are playing terrible moves against Hans. He is taking advantage of it. He lives rent-free in their heads. They have themselves to blame.
Look at how he reacted when Duda ended his record streak. Totally not a sore loser. Magnus was upset that Hans was even invited. This is about Hans's lack of ethics.
Wrong he is a proven cheating scum and so is his coach and couldn’t explain his moves after his cheat win vs Magnus hmmm I wonder why
that levy guy that invented the anti cheat software hasnt found a single suspicious game based on the parameters used by anti cheating software in over 2 yrs both online and otb
@@johnrichardson7629 duda is a different opponent. Magnus has no suspicion over him so it wont sting as bad. And Hans is a lot less rating points so it hurts more. Clearly he took it personal more than anything before or as of now after.
@@johnrichardson7629 there were no lack of ethics. Hans isnt wrong in this one. Magnus reaction to it is the focal point that you're ignoring.
Hans injected Leela into his brain and that's why he's confusing everyone.
Into his anal beads*
Pretty simple. Magnus has wanted to put a spotlight on cheating in general and Hans and Dulugy were the perfect, once in a thousand opportunity to spotlight cheating
I wonder if Ben's take in this video about Magnus not being disengenuous about thinking Hans cheated against him in their Sinquefield cup game shows a change of heart from his previous take about Magnus being a baby about losing and acting based on that
Both can be true.
@@ThisSentenceIsFalse That's my opinion, both are true, not to compare too hard but in other games we can see people making all kinds of complaints after they lose that they are genuine about but largely exaggerated to themselves as a result of losing.
That thumbnail. Would have clicked even if i wasn't interested in Chess.
it's either ben or hikaru...
i just cant get enough of this drama
thank you Unlce Ben ahha
Hy nico ano ginagawa mo dito?
ulul mo boy Axie, mag axie ka na lang at mang scam
I got your arbiter right here.
Fantastic commentary, fully agree :-)
Great players of the present Hans Niemann
Someone who uses the phrase, “based on my understanding” gives me the impression that they think for themselves and are open to new info. Almost like being an adult!
Or they don't really understand the subject and try to avoid humiliation in case they're wrong
It is in fact a common approach for cheaters to only risk getting caught in certain competitions. Lance Armstrong for instance tended to stay clean for every race but the tour de france. Keep risk to a minimum, win the important stuff.
And if you own the companies that run the tournaments, who is going to control you? Is good to be the King!
Source?
@@tenslein8977 Are you asking for a source on the Lance Armstrong scandal, one of the biggest cheating scandals in history??? By the way--look up all the videos of Lance denying he cheated. Then watch Hans' denial.
@@tenslein8977 i don’t remember specifically I lived through it.
Everyone cheated at the tour de France. It's just that Lance was such as an ass that he got targeted.
To the self-righteous big brains in comments who think they grasp the analysis against Hans, cc: Yasha Echecs vid
*Accuracy* is only one metric in recognizing cheating, it's less reliable at GM level & *never* in a small sample size. If you have less than 400-500 games of someone's, there is no algorithm that can be used reliably. Despite having a database w/ every Niemann game ever, Ken's list of 50+ tournaments Niemann played in the last 36 mo was pulled up, & Yasha chose games from a mere 5 - tournament stretch, laughable to a statistician.
She explained that the short list of best-accuracy players ever (Fischer, Kasparov, Carlsen etc) was taken from less than a few dozen of their games--she says this as if it's strengthening her (or gambitman's) argument. Small sample size invalidates analysis, & the fact that she chose his *best* tournaments from ~2019 is nail in the coffin to credibility of everything said from then on. Chessbase itself lays this out in the intro file to Let's Check, which she had open & read from several times.
She said herself she's had chessbase for ages & didn't know it existed until the day before posting her vid. Not a red flag at all.
It should go without saying, >the more engines used in analysis, the more likely ANY move will be top-3 suggested< esp when we're considering top level players. Also, the longer ago the analysis was done, e.g. 11 mo ago, the more likely the results will be skewed (some older engines use known top level lines to compile play, not only their internal logic, leading to more false positives) That's why Dr. Ken Regan and other professionals run the analysis so many times, they're restricting it to one engine at a time to not conflate results!
Yasha admits that Neimann's career-long ROI is perfectly normal & has consistently correlated his ELO. ROI, btw--which Yasha referenced often but didn't define--refers to Raw Outlier Index. ROI is computed over hundreds of games *by definition* It *must be* You cannot say "i have 38 games from JoeBlow here, let's compute their ROI" It simply does not work that way. Step 1 failed, data that results is useless.
P.S. I'm sure you newly-minted stat nerds are aware she posted on twitter the next day that her analysis may not've been comprehensive and sorta apologized. Her vid has 330k+ views, the twitter post has 31 and 41 likes respectively (it's a multi-tweet thread. First she tried to exonerate her analysis; by the end she's just highlighting her disclaimer from the vid that she's not a mathematician, etc.)
P.P.S. The figures she had on screen in her copy of @gambitman14 google doc has computations not included in his doc. idk if she just forgot that she copy/pasted in her own %s, but we have no way of knowing where those numbers came from, how she computed them, etc. She did list Regan's files on the matter, which i highly recommend checking out, esp the READ ME where he explains some statistics basics, which if gambitman or yasha had taken the time to contemplate, woulda saved me from writing a novel in Ben Finegold's comments section
And I love how most of the games she showcased were over in
this was a gd novel to read lol but yeah, not a shocker that a few twitter users who'd just learned about Let's Check committed some statistical fallacies
@@Fddlstxx Very interesting blog. Much better than the actual video. The one thing I would say tho is that your analysis that most GMs would be at that level on just short games is wrong. Even the Super GMs with short dominating matches haven't had recorded analysis with similar results more than a couple of times if that. Also, quite a few of the games presented in Yosha's vid are 30 moves or more. Which is definitely long enough outside of prep to look at.
Is it definite proof he's cheated? Of course not you are actually right there and I fully agree with you. Is it suspicious that such an outlier exists? Well yes, it is. But the other side of the coin you could also view a metric that you didn't and most of the GMs didn't touch on is the quality of his opponents. So a better comparative analysis might be the current super GMs playing similar level players at a similar level. Still not conclusive of course but would be interesting.
You have a rating level on the endgames lectures Karen and Spencer taught. I'm unrated?
okay so fischer never had stockfish like all the players have now even us .... so if fischer got to play stockfish could you imagine
This is all about Han's comment that his chess speaks for itself. Magnus is desperate to punish that arrogance.
Appreciate Ben being more fair today towards Magnus today. I will say I do appreciate Ben's POV now.
He knows his record is now being called into question for defending an obvious cheater so aggressively. Ben knows that once his Anal Beads are removed, his GM status will be as well
Eh, I preferred the last one.
As always Ben, your takes on this whole thing are on point. Suprising because of how bad you are at chess.
That thumbnail is hilarious 😄
the logic to the miami chess games can go both ways though. What changed in 10 days where a dude who got thrashed in every match suddenly became a threat?
Ben, you should totally make a video called "irrefutable evidence that magnus cheated" and just use it as an excuse to do a lecture on his games. Or some other player who's gotten near 100% move accuracy in the past
The issue is that only Hans has these 100% games (in any significant quantity, a couple Super GMs have one or two).
@@rahawala the analysis you are referring is from Yosha, and it is quickly discredited by Dr. Ken Regan, the leading anti-cheating expert in chess and consulted by FIDE. One thing to note is that, according to Yosha, Niemann has several 100% games with engine correlation. But one of more of these games, Niemann LOST. How can you lose playing 100% engine top moves? Meaning her statistics is just plain wrong.
@@malibunights7108 her statistics is not accurate because she picks specific games where Hans played 100% engine moves instead of analyzing all of Hans games to reach an unbiased conclusion. And even tho she does analyse all of Hans game, I'm still not gonna believe her cause she's not a statistician.
@@roycemorales3924 it’s 100% clear that Hans has not cheated in 100% of his games but also 100% weird that he has like 10x the 100% games than Carlsen, Fischer, Kasparov, etc. Not 100% proof, but 100% grounds for digging further into this 100% fishy situation (as FIDE is now doing).
It takes years to get a PhD... Indeed. And the kind of data mining that is done, there are so many pitfalls. And the first thing to do for that kind of analysis: HIDE THE NAMES OF THE PLAYERS!
we're stupid. check. 1 person gone in the first 5 secs. youre so smart.
We know you're not an idiot, Ben.
What is that cave like...and why a cave? Is it a Plato reference or a Batman one?
do you think is possible for Naroditsky to become SuperGM by continuosly playing alireza?
lulz
In bullet? Absolutely not. In any other time format? Still absolutely not.
Ben "I play terrable"
Also ben: goes 9.5/10 the moment he actually tries at blitz.
Terrible* homie lol
@@ds8249 i believe he was doing the finegold pronunciation spelling.
@@andrewelledge2814 oh god you’re right lol now I got egg on my face. Dang lolol
@@ds8249 you're good mane!
Why is the permission more important than the content of the emails ??? What a strange view
Would this scandal have had the same impact if Magnus had completed the Sinquefield Cup or played Hans instead of resigning on Move 2? No. What does it say about the future of chess when thousands of titled players have already been caught cheating beyond any doubt? I don't know. But I'm glad this scandal is shining a light on this situation.
That cast of three blondes was missing a fourth protagonist - Finegold as a dirty old man ...
I hope Hans gets a bunch of good lawyers and sues, Hikaru and co into oblivion
@mister kluge if there are secrets tell us what they are
What makes you think Hans has cheated otb in the last 3 years?
Did Ben just say that Danya and naro were mating last night? yes, you heard it first here.
Maybe that is just how Mega GMs bond?
Among the rank and file chess people, like myself, (and even some strong players), are some people who need to learn the difference between observation and interpretation.
Why is Ben referring to this Mrs. Jarov as 'mama'?
Ben can you give Siri a standing order that if you won't like an answer to a question she is to lie to you? Example when you asked her how the Braves were doing then she would give an innocuous answer like, "The Braves could be doing worse.".
Not very much in this world can bring me the same type of joy as reading the remarkably butthurt anti-Hans people in the chat. They're SO goddamn mad at Ben and I cannot get enough of it.
so yes there are many players out there that are better than magnus and dont care if we win or loss just try to break chess and help others i think chess is a code of honour against yourself too
Is Benjamino just one person? It seems he says Dlugy's emails can't be leaked unless others have explicit permission from him, but he can't understand why Magnus and Chesscom can't divulge more about Hans Niemann without his permission at this time? Is it a split personality or just bias?
I get stockfish does not equal anticheat. However, the actual math genius admitted he only gets 6 or 7 of 9 games per tournament to analyze for suspicious activity. Seems like they should be reviewing all the data before making their conclusions as well.
That picture 😆👌
7:45 Very true
20:20 Interesting
34:30 Other great points
Warning: reckless speculation ahead
The most rational video I’ve seen on this. Totally agree on Magnus not handling it the right way, also there is no evidence that has been presented about Hans. Even if it is the truth, judgement should be reserved until the evidence tells us that. Otherwise, it just looks like Magnus is a sore loser. Magnus has more lass than that. Let’s hope these allegations can be backed up by credible evidence.
15:09 💯 my thoughts exactly
How many players got banned by FIDE or arbiters for cheating?
"ROAARRRRR!!!!"
It’s not appeal to authority. It’s believing an organization that has been detecting cheating for 15 years and has a team dedicated to detecting cheating that developed and maintains software to detect cheating over a random FM who bought a game analysis tool. Chessbase is not a cheat detection tool
As a person that recently earned their PhD in physics, yes, Ben. 100% to what you're saying. These kids running around with a chess engine acting like they know math are amazing entertainment but also a disappointing reminder that Sagan was right. Cheers!
But neither of you have a PhD in mathematics. The correlation with contemporary engines and his peers is obviously important. You can't be a man of science, if you don't see that.
@@tecTitus "a man of science" lolol wtf is this, the venture brothers? Lololol
what I know is that other people know more than me about stats. Those people probably also know more about stats than hikaru, caruana, and any random chess kid with an engine. I think I'll listen to the people with the understanding of stats regarding the likelihood of something happening.
Would you say the chimp that types out a Shakespearen play was cheating or got lucky? Statistically, it must happen, so how do you draw the line? Statisticians have a reasonable set of answers to this question. How long have you pondered it? Lolollol
Btw, do you think physics doesn't require any understanding of statistics? We call it statistical mechanics for a reason, bub. Lolollolol
@@daspooperidunncurr8379 if you're a PhD, then I'm Queen Elizabeth
@@tecTitus his name is daspooper, I’d be surprised if he’s an actual adult. Much less a college educated one.
@@dreamshakejake3736 don't judge a book by it's cover. I've been using this pseudonym since 2004.
Idk ben I'd say you're more like 2750 at farming chess drama, if they had a chess drama candidates tournament I think you'd be invited to it.
He would and he might even play in the championship but Hikaru would crush him for sure.
@@thatrespectablehuman1884 I'm starting to think that Hikaru is cheating at chess drama. Some of his chess drama streams have been suspicious
@@corasolagalar I suspect that he has Keemstar feeding him moves.
He's just responding to what everybody is already talking about
The Dlugy chick in the thumbnail traumatized me...
lol the electronic communications privacy act is not something to fuck around with, the emails story is very weird.
the ChessCom subscriber agreement is long; and incorporates several other agreements...
Loved you on Midnight Blue..
hes right i have above 90 percent lichess very often and im iust a 1680 fide playerhans is 2700 im sure he would do better.
Magnus saw Hans's Neuralink on the beach, and he can't say anything because Hans has an NDA with Neuralink for human trials. kek
Finally someone is talking about how dum it is to judge Hans based on a simplistic engine comparison for random games. As you said, the real cheat detection algorithms that Chess com and LiChess use are way more complex and require a PhD in Computer Science or math just to understand and probably use complicated stuff like machine learning in their models. Its honestly laughable that people think they can reach a better conclusion then these cheat detection models by just comparing each move by hand. Its like thinking u can do long division faster than a calculator or carry more cement than a truck. If only cheat detection was that simple
The Miami Beach tournament was barefoot.
Ben farming content is hilarious
Him cheating is hilarious
@@rjackstheartofwealth6152 yup magnus should give up his crown now for creating this drama
If chess had this much drama all the time it would be bigger than pro basketball.
Not really. It's slower than baseball, and baseball is dying. The soap opera for men only gets you so far.
Benjmino here has 0 games in the last 10 years with 100% correlation with engines using the chessbase tool, so no you won't find anything similar to Hans Niemann for him no matter which games you select or how much you try to cherry pick (and in Niemann's case the games were not even selected, they just took all the games OTB he played in a span of 3 years).
Where is Karen ? I wanna know what she thinks
CHESS DONE SPOKE FOR ITSELF HAHAHAHAH