Chess is the only game I know that if a player gets really good the jealous chess community says he is cheating. Nothing but gatekeepers you all are. More power to you Hans. Not only do you play chess brilliantly, you have to deal with cowards who attack you for playing brilliantly. The online chess community is pretty disgusting. Especially Hikaru. Hikaru being replaced as the best American chess player by Hans has Hikaru acting as a petulant child.
I wish people would have taken ME this seriously when I accused the Russians of cheating and even wrote and article about it. But nooooo. Fischer is wrong.
Just want to say, I find your videos really informative and detailed, but equally engaging for someone who is relatively amateur. I enjoy your breakdowns and explanations a lot. I found your channel after the Magnus drama and have since subbed. Appreciate your work
You're definitely right there the data on engine correlation (in particular, the "Let's Check" analyses on ChessBase) need to be collected, compared and analysed for different players much more throughly than is the case so far. Jan Gustaffson et al also made this point on their Chicken Chess Club podcast, and it's a good one. But, *if correct* , the statistical facts that have already come to light vis-a-vis the Hans Niemann saga are quite startling and hard to ignore. For example, it appears that since January 2020 Magnus Carlsen has payed just one classical game with 100% engine correlation and one other with accuracy between 90% and 100% (as per "Let's Check" on ChessBase). Now, for comparison, apparently, in this same period Hans Niemann has played ten (!) games at 100% and twenty-three others at above 90%. (Again, for comparison, Erigaisi has just one 100% and one 93%.) To be clear, the reason why the analyses we have so far, as inadequate as they are, are so suggestive is *not* because they show this or that *particular* game by Niemann to be unusually brilliant. This can always happen with any strong GM, of course. Rather, it's the fact that over a reasonably large sample size of games (say, all his classical games over the past two years), the number of Niemann's games with very high accuracy compared (with equal parameters) with those of other top GMs (e.g. Carlsen, Erigaisi, Nakamura) seems quite astonishing and simply incredible. Having said that - and to repeat - it's still much too early to reach a final conclusion, as the analyses we have so far are incomplete and even somewhat slapdash. I completely agree that more work needs to be done in the way of careful comparison and analysis of the relevant data (this is not, on the face of it, particularly difficult work, by the way; and Gustafsson suggested he might take up the task himself). The main point, anyhow, is that all this is highly relevant data if people are really serious about getting to the bottom of whether or not Niemann did actually cheat much more than he's let on in the past few years (as Carlsen and chess com have suggested). It's probably the only way the matter can be settled, short of a confession by Niemann. One more point: arguments based on statistical/probabilistic evidence are not necessarily merely "circumstantial evidence"; and, in fact, such evidence is routinely used in courts of law to determine guilt or innocence, e.g. DNA evidence, which too is inherently probabilistic (so too, of course, are cheat-detection algorithms used by online chess platforms). Depending on how skewed the data is, how remarkable the relevant probabilities, such arguments can be good enough in practice to guarantee virtual certainty.
Thanks a lot for sharing and yeah I agree, maybe circumstantial was the wrong word for this true, but something more comprehensive and thorough I'd like to see, yeah, like you say
You have to understand the difference between what Hans was doing from 2020 onwards compared to Carlsen. Carlsen has been playing against super gms in super gm tournaments and if he for some reason did play against a lower rated player, e.g. in olympia, then he played very weird and very tactical lines because he wanted to force the opponent out of their preparation even if the engine wouldn't like the moves that much. Niemann on the other hand played more positional chess against people rated way lower than his skill level. If chesscom rating is worth anything, Hans has been playing in the top 50, sometimes even in the top 10 in bullet for years. We can discuss all day long if he cheated online or otb in certain games, but I think we can agree that noone would be able to play 2500 bullet games (1 min or 1+1) on chesscom, somehow cheating in those bullet games and then somehow not being detected even with that huge sample size. So he already had an extremely high level at least online on chesscom when his fide rating was still way way lower, thus he was basically smurfing in every single tournament he was playing. I think if Nakamura, Carlsen and other super GMs would have been playing 2400-2500 rated players without the need to somehow force a win given a draw against a 2400-2500 player like it is the case today I think they would have quiet a lot more 90%+ and even 100% games. People just take these games and don't consider how different the opponents were. That's why you wont see any game against highly rated players where Hans has an extremely high accuracy, if you check the enemies I think the best of them was/is an IM, no gms and obviously no super gms in there.
What you're saying has already been debunked by experts like, for instance a computer scientist/statistician and many others. Let's face it, a young, determined, creative, brilliant GM has defeated a great chess player who uses innuendo to not face up to his loss. I hope Hans is not damaged by this and that he attains the world chess championship.
@@joeremus9039 would be all good if he wasn't a known cheater maybe. But there is so much sus instances like, statistics, his history, his character, his game analysis, rumors in the top tier chess circles. Although it is not a definitive proof, it seems him being a cheater is more likely than not. Now if increased security in tournaments over the board leads to his performance drop, that could be proof of cheating perhaps. Cheating and fraud exists everywhere where there is money involved so it is actually surprising how little cheating there is known at the top tier.
There is a video proving Hans is innocent and that players seem to play far below there average vs Hans and Hans rarely plays above his own level. Ill link it.
If a GM had my low rated player skills of always finding the absolutely absurd best moves without understanding them at first, he would be unstoppable 4:51
I got different numbers from Chessbase's 'Let's Check' analysis to Yosha. Mishra-Niemann, CCCSA Fall GM 2020, Engine/Game Correlation: White = 51%, Black = 66% (NOT 72%) which, according to Chessbase, is perfectly normal. Yosha's data is not her own, she does not fully understand it and it is unreliable
Loved your analysis btw, hopefully this whole situation becomes more clear in the future. Wasn't even aware of Mishra, looking forward to see if he becomes the next world champion.
When your dream is to beat the world champion for the last 10 years and you finally do it, the reaction "the chess speaks for itself" in a rude tone and walking away is not how any normal person would react. His behavior, his contradictions, the analysis, his coach all looks pretty bad for him. This isn't a criminal case where you're looking at life in prison, we don't need definitive proof. The guy has no character, he's bad for the game, no one likes him. That's enough to not play with him. The NBA has done it. Top tier talent with no character who are just bad for the game get ostracized.
Lots of people like him though. You don't like him. Chess speaks for itself is funny af. There is no proof he cheated otb so he is skillful objectively. Not the same as cheating on a test where you copy someone else's results. He memorized engine sequences. Not cheating
Actually, Hikaru's point is that Han's correlation in key games (90-100%) with top engine moves is historically unprecedented and statistically unlikely to an extreme degree. And statistics, after all, are now our primary means for detecting cheating. Combined with Han's record of past cheating, this is a strong (circumstantial) case.
Hans is far from a clean player and hasn't been honest about his years of cheating. The question is, how dirty is he? And will he grant Magnus legal permission to say more?
I've been following the Mr Niemann saga. I don't yet have an opinion. Your video is interesting and easy to follow. Not always true of Chess analysis. Thumbs up.
Thanks nadji glad you enjoyed! Cheers for watching
2 года назад
Congratulations for your analysis. This game is a nice game, but has nothing supernatural. Niemann played well, but he made some inaccuracies and even a mistake (33. b5?!), which loses 200 centipawns (-3 to -1 for white). There is still not a single proof that Niemann has cheated over-the-board. The FIDE should act swiftly to stop the spread of slanders against Niemann.
I don't understand how he had computer help sitting in a room with hundreds of people and security checks are you guys implying he sat there memorizing every possible move what makes a computer move different from a human one are we sure he didn't take this Hans guy seriously and just made a mistake some of this sounds like hubris
2 года назад
You are right! But so many people don't use logic.
all you have to do is to choose 10 gms at similar level to hans. do the analysis on a few hundred previous games and if 9 100% games and 20+ 90%+ is a clear anomally then you don't need to be a statistician to know that something is fishy.
Actually, you don't need to do that or adhere to those exact percentages to know something's definitely up with this Niemann, not to mention his coach, Maxim Dlugy.
It makes sick to my stomach, the thought that he might have actually cheated against a young like player in this way. Hope we get some clarity on these accusations, so that we can go back to loving this beautiful game and nobody's hardwork and dedication are being cheated out of their efforts by people who cheat.
Where have you been these last few weeks?? Almost all GMs have suspected he cheated even before hans niemann's win against magnus. Just watch Derek Van Shaik's analysis on Hans body language and Yosha - echecs analysis on all Hans Niemann's chess games.
2 года назад
@@fxorigins6624 Nobody has suspected that Niemann cheated over-the-board. And there is not a single proof of that.
@@epicchess2021 I honestly don't know what to think. So I had to bring a little humor to it. Haha. I just hope it all gets resolved. I don't know if it's true or not but I've heard that all publicity, negative or positive both work the same garnering more viewers and bringing in more money ultimately to whatever game or sport it is. Hans has definitely brought a lot of attention to chess. People that have never played, the general public, and weekend players. So maybe it is good in one way I guess. If there is proof I think we would all like to see it and then appropriate measures taken. Thank you for the videos. I am fairly new to the chess world. As you can see I'm also a call of duty player. I don't play a lot of competitive matches but I will get in about one tournament per month. In the tournaments I haven't run into a cheater but in public matches I run into maybe one per night. Which is pretty frustrating. Call of duty is and has been working on solutions but with the game being online it is so hard to make anti cheats. I think that may be the same for chess also unfortunately. People can make undetectable cheats very easily which is sad. But hopefully chess comes up with a solution. Thank you.
My problem is that I don’t know what the numbers mean. 100% accuracy compared to what? Which engine? Aren’t there many? Don’t they give different best moves? Total noob question I realize, but… 🤷🏻♂️ help?
No, total right question and the crux of the issue. Those games are 100% versus no engine, the fact the people believe that is because they don't ask your "noob question"... also... if it was true (which it isn't) is there a universe in which Hans isn't already banned? Do you really believe that a player can copy an engine move by move 10 times in 3 years an not be banned... Imagine you have a database of pretty much every game played and you want to provide an stat across your whole site for accuracy. You'd have to run the whole database through whatever engine you choose to compare to... which is pretty much imposible... and worse... even if you did that, just as a 1 time thing to start your site up... in 20 years, that engine is outdated, and if you want to update your accuracy stat, if you want to stay consistent, you either scrap the one you are already using (which you had to run analysis over so many years to have) and re do the whole database again... Or you compromise. The "Let's Check" metric from chessbase, is that compromise... you take whatever analysis is available for a given match... check move by move if it matches the 1st recommendation of any engine (even old outdates ones)... and if even 1 agrees with you and the other say it's a mistake... you deem that move good... If that happens for every move in a match, you get 100%... The data provided isn't just using way more engines than is normal for a random match in chessbase, it's using weaker ones... and non descript ones... (you can go to the original video that started this whole 100% BS thing... and see the engines it matches some of the moves... it literally says "New Engine" nothing more...) It's highly likely that the random unknown guy who produced this data... doctored it by doing this just to troll. It really shouldn't have gotten this much traction... is easy to see it can't posibly be true... dig a little bit and find exactly were it's missleading... The problem probably comes from big streamers like Hikaru just running with it (I really doubt Hikaru doesn't understand that Hans having 10 100% games vs let's say SF 15 is obviously not true, but he chooses to de what he does anyway...)
My understanding is that they compared it to the top 3 moves that any of FIVE different engines at a depth of 5. So not only would a deeper analysis change what was really best, but by having it from any of up to 15 possible moves (more often less but still more than 3) they make the "analysis" total garbage. You are correct to sk this question, more people should have,
@@OtherDAS thank you for the gracious response. Have u heard anything about annotations in Chessbase? Is it possible that the 100%’s are annotations rather than computed values? I read about it in different places, so I don’t have the source of this idea… 🤷🏻♂️🙏
@@mcronrn Hadn't heard about the annotations versus computed values... which adds in another whole layer of problems. I don't have the source either, just what was heard on Agadmator and Gotham Chess web sites.
Difference being, neither MAGNUS, Kasparov or Fischer ever being caught cheating. Also, there rise to the top was well observed. Also, they can/could coherently explain what they were thinking in after the match analysis. Hans does not compare and I am 99% certain we will find out he cheated over the board as well.
I just analyzed this game at like depth 40... hans makes 3 inaccuracies and 1 mistake and his opponent does 2 inaccuracies 1 mistake and 1 blunder.. how is this 100% engine assisted game is beyond me... yall gunna make him commit suicide off some stupid French lady's rumor...
They not only picked from the top 3 recommended moves, AND did 5 engines (meaning a lot more to choose from) BUT they also did it to a much shallower depth. I think just 5.
There should really be a "variations button" or something, where when you depart from the actual game and go off analyzing tangents, the board turns a different color, like a blue or gray.. sort of like how you know it's a flashback in movies.
I would have considered retreating the rook.. (and I'm not supper strong just play a lot of fast chess where, keeping that unpredictable king compared to that unhappy white rook on the f file makes logical sense. ) Ok it is circumstantial but watching this game it doesn't feel 'computerish' from either side. b.t.w the animated stockfish did the Magnus, Hans game as 'Magnus' v 'alphazero'. The bishop takes pawn move, is probably a better candidate compared to the rook retreat. Even there though he might have just seen it, but it is spectacular.
It's completely baffling to see so many people twist themselves into pretzels to defend someone who has been caught cheating multiple times and admitted cheating multiple times. The statistical analysis is EXTREMELY damning. You clearly didn't even watch the Yosha video since you disregard it as "just one lady pulling together some stuff." Had you watched it you would have known that she was not working alone and it's not just "some stuff." As someone who has played poker for decades, let me save you some time, where there is smoke there is usually fire and when there is smoke surrounding a known cheater it's a raging forest fire.
Yeah fair point of view and I do try and keep an open mind about this stuff. I did watch it, all I was saying, and it's the same as Fabiano Caruana said in the C-Squared Podcast, is it was difficult to process all of that as standalone data, like for example I'd like to see how Hans' data stacks up against all the other top players these days coming through
Her video was not damning from what I've seen precisely because it isn't a rigorous statistical analysis. Even the method she was using, Chessbase's Let's Check feature, is inadequate and Chessbase themselves say that it should not be used to detect cheating because it can't accurately detect cheating. So she was using a bad tool to analyze with with bad methodology. You can take large data sets and make them say anything you want, regardless of what is actually true, which is why statistical analysis is properly left to people who are trained to do it and know how to be rigorous and accurate when they are working with data and avoid both false positives and false negatives.
And she's using 25 engines like 20 sub par engines that arnt very good to detect top 5 moves... like if u just use top 3 engines u find hans is like 65-70% engine accuracy.... talk about methodology fuck up.
You can't actually watch that video and not realize it's wrong on both of her arguments. If 100% doesn't mean playing exactly like an engine (which I guess you don't think it means that, because then Hans would've been banned ages ago by FIDE and we wouldn't be having this argument), then I hope you wonder what is this metric ? The answers is, just an accuracy metric suitable for a database that wants to provide one for every single game, regardless of what analysis has been run on a particular game. It's not intended to detect cheating... It's not rigurous at all... and it doesn't even claim to be... It's not comparable across games, since different games have been run through diferent engines. This needs to happen, because else, if you choose an specific engine to base your accuracy stat off... It will eventually be outdated, and when you want to update which engine you use you'll have to run analysis with the new chosen engine across your WHOLE DATABASE... which is not feasable... The secons part of her video, the part about multiplying odds and getting a 1 / 70000 figure... is math so bad a highschooler could instantly find the error. I won't even explain... She did the whole community a diservice... Nothing she showed in that video has any value other than to stir the pot and cause more unfounded allegations... and it's so bad its hard to imagine it isn't in bad faith... The statistical analysis, actual statistical analysis... done by people who actually have a clue of what they are doing and can't be debunked by highschoolers... the one that FIDE and online chess sites actually use, the kind that actually caught Hans himself in his previous cheating online... is quite the opposite of extremely damning... It shows an extremely average performance accuracy wise... NOT EVEN A HINT of cheating... So... How is it that this kind of analysis is good to convict Hans, but when it exonerates him... then it's bad? You people can't even be internaly consistent...
2 года назад
Yosha's video is filled with mistakes, and she has already acknowledged on her own Twitter account that her method is flawed: 1) Chessbase themselves say that the "Chessbase's Let's Check" feature should not be used to detect cheating, because it can't accurately detect cheating, for a variety of reasons: the analysis isn't deep enough, it samples too many engines, and it is dependent on the hardware. 2) Chessbase's correlation stats do not 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.
Knight to G4 is a total chess engine move. So to be a Grandmaster you have to play like a chess engine... or use a chess engine while playing. So many people cheat online now that I don't know why I even bother playing chess online.
An excellent vid as usual. The first point I'd make is that I'm far from sure that some figures being banded about are actually accurate (eg Niemann has played X number of games with 100% accuracy). I've seen a lot of Ken Regan's data on Niemann and certainly don't recall such figures. I could be wrong though. Second, yosha was inaccurate for certain in some of the 'facts' she stated. Her probability results were definitely wrong and, to her credit, she has acknowledged this. Third, to just state that a player had a certain percentage of move correlation with an engine is simplistic, does not take into account many important factors, and, if taken alone, is highly likely to be extremely misleading....and see the next point. Fourth, it is very worrying to see some so called experts fail to account for 'forced moves', positional analysis compared with move selection (wide and narrow game pathways), expectancy of same move selection according to grade, time allowable for move selection and 'move presentation' when gifted by opponent error. I'm sorry to go on but this is a highly complex issue!
Thanks Andy and cheers for your thoughts, yeah there’s a lot which needs to be dug into more thoroughly really
2 года назад
You are right, Yosha's video is filled with mistakes: 1) Chessbase's correlation stats do not 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.
@ Thanks very much for that info re the multi engine use in Chessbase. It definitely provides an answer to the 100% correlation conundrum. Given the present standard of the 'evidence' being provided by most of the online community; I wouldn't have been surprised if it had just been made up! I may use your info in some of the ''disagreements' I'm having on other sites. Thanks again.
@ the point is how comperable it is to other players. and no its not easy to hit 100%. but we still need to analyze more player. 50 different engines are too much(my opinion). maximum 25. but i dont know how many chessbase uses. also engines are all very strong. 3100 to 3800 elo.
@@andy4099ful you know it doesnt matter how many engines are used in this argument, because yosha made a comparison to other super gms? the engines are very high elo. yosha did compare hans games with other players. hikaru compared his games too. super gms greatest games only hit 80%. very short games hit 100%. hitting 100% once or twice is fine. but hans hit it 10 times. but the one think which changes the percentage is if you lower the number of engines. but i dont know. is it possible to do this in lets check. i think hikaru used the standard settings. so the biggest problem is if someone intentionally doesnt use the default settings.
Yes, and it has been confirmed that, for example, when NIemann visited Paris recently, for the first time of his life, he stayed all days long in his hotel room, studying chess for more than 12 hours each day, and didn't visit a single monument! And in the evening, he played a blitz match against MVL (current world blitz champion) in a chess cafe and "it was very close, MVL won in the Armaggedon", according to GM Fressinet (former second of Carlsen): ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-fmldeic5NF8.html
Most of the moves are brilliant but also intuitive once you put yourself in the mind of a talented young player, and they definitely are associated with a clear plan. Ironically the move that seems the strangest, b5, is not an engine move
At this level, how many engine moves does one need to edge out an opponent by one passed, and very demoralizing, pawn? Deus ex machina? Only Niemann and the Olympians know...and maybe a supplied fish.
Again, and this needs to be impressed on the "but, but, it's not even an engine move" crowd...when you cheat, you don't always select the engine move. You do so at key moments. Strategically...you know...so you don't look like you are blatantly cheating. Come on man.
No shot putting the knight on h2, betting that it would stay there safe until the endgame with so many pieces still on the board was intuitive lol you would have to calculate all of it or you're just down bad if the supporting pawns ever get undermined. I'm not even saying Hans couldn't possibly calculate it, but there's no way it's just intuitive.
Definitely odd he he stated Yosha as just some lady, just one lady, circumstantial, etc. sounds like in the past couple videos he is on Hans side, and hasn't provided any supportive facts past, just showing discredit. "the most beautiful of the games" making sure he puts Hans in a good light from the start.
Yeah no doubt I think hans has been treated unfairly. If he’s cheated OTB recently i defo want it to come out but I’ve not seen anyone show proper evidence of that yet imo
@@epicchess2021 Its definitely, as been stated previously, up to Hans to provide the allowance of open dialogue of this situation, to show he has not cheated, else lawyers will be involved. I wouldn't be surprised of Hans seeks defamation charges, if he didn't cheat.
This game reeks of computer assistance. And I don't believe that even Kasparov would have come close to replicating this effort.
2 года назад
It's very clear that there was no computer assistance. Niemann played well, but he made some inaccuracies and even a mistake (33. b5?!), which loses 200 centipawns (-3 to -1 for white). So stop your slanders. And Kasparov has played many games that were far more complicated and more beautiful than this one.
You trust Hans Niemann over Magnus Carlsen? His shocking number of 100% games is the smoking gun. The only thing that can play as accurate as an engine is an engine. Not Magnus, not peak Garry, and definitely not Hans Niemann who couldn't even win one match in Miami. Don't be fools, y'all.
@@user-jv9qz2bu1r questioned by hans niemann advocates no doubt. and even if I concede the metric is flawed, this does not take away from the fact that this game is highly suspicious. to my eyes, it looks like an engine game 100%. in st louis, hans analyzed like a 2550 ten minutes after playing like stockfish. it does not add up.
@@mavenofmacau6391 I can only offer this. I am a beginner chess player but I am a lawyer familiar with arguments and offers of proof. It is interesting when you say the game looks like an engine game. Here is my reaction: 95% of the chess games I play are against an engine and after having played hundreds of games I begin to see how an engine organizes a game and executes moves. I imagine that Hans has played thousands of games against engines and that he has absorbed the strategies implemented by engines. Thus, if his game resembles an engine game it would be perfectly natural. Even a first year law student learns that there are two sides of every story. There is evidence of a suspicious number of "engine" games some with 100% correlation. Now Hans and his supporters need to examine the methodology used in those examinations and they need to be given the chance to rebut. This is a free for all because up until now there has been no sanctioned response to cheating allegations. Imagine if. baseball pitcher could say I am not pitching to this hitter I suspect him of juicing or having access to "signs" for my pitch. of course that does not happen - MLB would step in, investigate, and take action. Yet here we have Magnus usurping powers the FIDE holds. The focus should be on FIDE to clean up this mess and take charge. As a non-chess player I shake my head at the chaos in the world of chess.
@@user-jv9qz2bu1r any human that models his game after stockfish is gonna get crushed unless he actually knows exactly why he's doing every move and the concrete plans behind them. you cannot just "absorb engine moves" and play like Stockfish. you have to be as precise as an engine to play like an engine. your claim is quite ridiculous and shows in fact that you are a beginning chess player. as one, it might be wise to defer to Magnus Carlsen, Nepo, and Hikaru Nakamura and what GMs of their calibre think when confronted with games such as these. Epic Chess here - who I like - can give his opinions of course but I only care about what super GMs think and what feels natural and unnatural to them. Ken Regen is also just some IM who is not a strong enough chess player to make comments on specific chess moves or long term plans and whether they are suspicious. like you and I and Epic chess too, he simply does not understand chess deeply enough to do so.
@@mavenofmacau6391 There is one problem with deferring to Magnus and Hik and others. It would be naive to fail to see the motivations of those players - we must always consider human emotions. Obviously Magnus is ashamed at his loss and he is not taking it well. His severe reaction is motivated by pride or the desire to keep chess clean. HIK is impeached because he is close to MC and protecting his friend. In no way is HIK impartial in his review and analysis. Yes I am a beginner chess player but expert in other areas of life and also worldly. I am skeptical and try to look beneath the surface of things. I have been around the block. I read Magnus' complaint with a critical eye - it is a weak complaint. The charge of 100% engine correlation will now undergo more rigorous review and second opinions will appear. The world awaits more evidence and more thoughtful analysis. And lest we forget - now that Hans' entire career is being put under the microscope, what about the match in St. Louis? Magnus and others want to judge Hans for suspected past cheating and the game in St Louis is largely forgotten. The waters have been muddied - would be easier to just examine the SL match but now 100's of games that Hans has played are being scrutinized.
Nf4 was easy, and I have a puny 2000 Lichess puzzle rating (1600 blitz). But I do watch a lot of EpicChess and Agadmator 🤷🏻♂️🤣 easy stuff for Hans… 🤷🏻♂️👍🏽
It's annoying that you mention Fabiano giving analysis, but don't link to it in your description. Seems like bad content creator etiquette to me. It also hurts you, because I stopped the video to go search for that analysis, and now I'm questioning whether I even want to continue after becoming frustrated by my lack of success finding the resource _you mentioned_ and failed to provide a link to :(.
Oh sorry about that one, podcast is here and split into chapters: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-f3yrPzEv1e4.html I'll add to the description now
Nice Fantastic second Hans Game I’ve watched Today I’m Glad he Won Hans has many detractors which is why I Root for him As I’ve said before people can talk smack against Hans and he’ll continue to let his Chess Game Speak for itself
I analyzed these games... I am 1800 on lichess... Also 100% is only when you take in top 5 engine moves... I think what is happening to Hans is very unfair...
A way to finish with all about the cheating scandal is to invite Hans to a tournament against top level players, or even with Carlsen, in a cheating proof place: an airport's duty free area, after all the scanning process and devices available in that kind of place. Moreover, make a delay on the diffusion. Let's then see how is his game and correlation factor evolve in this environment
then he would lose and tell everyone he was too nervous because of all the allegations. he can win or lose or draw it doesn't change anything. Fide messed up and now if he cheated he can dance on their noses. if he didn't cheat then he doesn't have to allow carlsen to speak up. just because a fuckin billionaire was too lazy to enforce strict anti cheating measures when he was asked to by the players before the tournament even started.
@@carokann1802 ultimately it is not an issue about "did he cheat or not". If it is a great genius, then it would be regrettable that we do not see it. Let's give this guy the most opportunities to show his level and play. During this, we have more and more occasions to know if he is a genius or something else. And playing in a proof place is a way. Finally, if he just loses like a "mere" 2500 in such conditions, he can argue whatever he wants I will not care as he says "chess talks for itself"
@@Obiamajoyisrmd Ultimately it is not an issue about "did he cheat or not". If it is a great genius, then it would be regrettable that we do not see it. Let's give this guy the most opportunities to show his level and play. During this, we have more and more occasions to know if he is a genius or something else. And playing in a proof place is a way. Finally, if he just loses like a "mere" 2500 in such conditions, he can argue whatever he wants I will not care. As he says "chess talks for itself"
Hes not a cheater (Nieman) he uses a formula like problem solving in math, the numbers in the chessboard were the pieces were positionally placed. I think he discovered something unusual strategy. IMO hes not using any device to dictate him. His mind is like a programmer of a computer engine.
He is absolutely a cheater and this poor kid put amazing resistance considering he was probably playing against an NNUE engine. MIshra could well become a world champion one day ... and Hans ... well he will be just another Ivanov.
@@username_PK until now they cannot prove how he cheat :) just imagine how can you use cheat if all of you are going in the scanner before the game ? do you mean the scanners are useless ? he cheated in the past maybe out of curiosity or he cheated but not on the board.
FYI the move b5 is NOT an engine recommendes move. This game is primarily an example of Hans just being a young, eccentric, brilliant, aggressive and controversial player. I hope we get to see much more out of him!
I do not understand what a big buzz about Hans is. In fact, if a player got caught cheating at least once, regardless where it happened, he should be prohibited from playing in any competition, no matter how insignificant it is.. It is that simple. No further invastigation is needed. I trust Magnus, bc he defended his title 5 times.
With GMs regularly practicing against various ai programs their moves and games will inevitably evolve into unconventional styles. It is not unexpected that this will result in anomalous and uncommon play styles that will seem strange.
What you say is wrong. A chess player looks for a few logical moves that he calculates to find which of the few logical moves is the best to play. Humans will never be able to play like chess engines because they calculate all combinations and will then find combinations that a chess player would never think of as the move does not seem logical. We will also never be able to play as an AI like AlphaZero that sacrifices pieces in a way humans will never be able to. We humans are simply far too slow to calculate billions of positions.
@@abstuli1490 true but I think the point being made here is that stylistically, the players coming through these days will no doubt play some very revolutionary and almost 'engine looking' kinds of moves and ideas because they have literally grown up just learning with engines alongside humans and so it shapes their play more so than the generation before
There are even different colours. What he said was that you cannot pre-draw and save them so that they reappear when you reach the same position later.
I think its the inconsistency in Hans Niemans plays. One day he loses against a really bad opening and gets devastated just to be the new chess prodigy and sweep away other GMs? I just cant believe that. Once you are that goood you dont make such bad games. I mean look at Magnus. Yeah he also lost after he got famous but not such utter defeats liek Hans had only a year ago.
I see you are very impressed with this game. I can show you hundreds of games even more impressive! Just go to CCRL or any of the other engine vs. engine websites that play the latest NNUE engines against each other. The fact that you think that Hans buried his Knight on h2 for about 17 moves in a very complicated position with all heavy pieces still on the board ... only to win by one tempo in a queening pawn push after all pieces are exchanged ... yeah right ... as Caruana would say ... maybe an "alien" played here. This game was played by a cheater against the youngest prodigy to ever gain a GM norm in history. Poor kid had no idea what he was dealing with!
@@OtherDAS The "kid" never got caught cheating online and did not have 23 % engine correlation above 90% and 17 at 100% in his tournaments. I think he had only one game in the 90% in the same 2 years as Hans. You figure it out!
@@epicchess2021 lol. I asked you how did he cheat on another video of yours, and you referred me to a video. I was shocked to find out how he might have cheated.
David Renwick: How does he cheat with a computer in OTB games at top level events? It's one thing for a noob to sneak off and look up an opening or get a tip from a paid GM at a critical moment, but to have a computer analyzing the whole game OTB -- I'm not buying it without EVIDENCE.
i just watch the chess drama stuff i dont really play much. But as i understood it, he had like 20 games with 100% accuracy but couldnt see a losing position post interview at the tournament with the engine off? seems odd you an play perfect so many times but not know if you were losing or not in a game you "dominated". correct me if i'm wrong
The fact is... he doesn't have 100% games... Or if you wan't to say he has, then it doesn't mean what it seems it means. If he had those many games at 100% (even 1 would be suspicious, but he has none)... meaning, playing exactly like an engine... would there even be a debate ? Even if FIDE somehow initially missed it (which can't happen)... after Magnus threw his tantrum, wouldn't he have been banned already? You can take any of those games yourself, run it through an engine of your choosing and you wont get 100% accuracy... simply because those games aren't by any engine 100% accuracy... you won't find a single analysis video of any of those games say he did no inaccuracy over the lenght of the game... is just not true. They used a flawed metric probably on purpose just to stir the pot... exactly how it is flawed has been explained in many places... But even if you don't know how, you should realize, just by the conclusion alone, that it can't be true...
@@azlastor whatever the flawed metric is even compared to the best chess players ever he has way better games in numbers than all of them combined. hence why a lot of different ppl might think hes cheating as well. I seen the engine results covered by multiple ppl
@@milkweed07 'flawed meterics' mean they always give flawed results. Say I put you in the foreground of a photo near the camera and put the Empire State building in the far background so it was roughly the same height...then I presented the photo as 'proof' that shows 'with 100% accuracy' how you must be as tall as that building!?!
@@mr.safensound4238 im not saying its saying its 100% accurate moves. im saying the metric its giving compared to other world class players is WAY higher in ratio for hans.
@@jojoaja6106 completely impossible imagine how much time it'd take to even glance at those moves... well trillions of seconds at least by seeing a move per second
Yeah, it is not proof that in all of Hans’ live tournaments in the US season before coming to Europe he performed 2500+ whereas all his non-live tournaments he performed under 2500. Not a single exception. The chances that this happens by chance is close to one in a million. It is still statistics of course but….
