I do not find anything conclusive or particularly compelling in this video. A few carefully selected examples of Niemann having "perfect" games (i.e. peaks) are shown, and these are compared to averages (not peaks) for other grandmasters. If it were shown that Niemann had a dozen "perfect" games and that nobody else has any, that would be food for thought, but no such thing is shown. The run of tournaments where Niemann allegedly performed suspiciously well was also looked at in a way that was so far from rigorous that it was frankly an abuse of statistics.
I'm not saying that the video was made in bad faith, or that the technique used has no possible merit, but it needs to be done far more carefully than this before it can be used as proof of anything.
Seems a bigger deal than you are making out. If Niemann wants to clear his name, isn’t the onus now on him to give Carlsen (or chess.com) permission to speak freely? Perhaps there was an issue at chess.com that resulted in Niemann not contesting something and taking a ban in exchange for confidentiality. If Niemann refuses to discuss it, it’s not looking good for him and his chess future.
It's a very big deal, it's just not news. Carlsen offered no evidence, and pretty much everything he said is what we all already knew he believed; the difference is that it's now on the record.
As for Niemann clearing his name, whatever he did on Chess.com is a problem for him and his credibility, but it still isn't evidence that he cheated OTB. If his Sinquefield Cup game against Carlsen were made into a criminal trial, the prosecution ("He cheated!") would be laughed out of court. On the other hand, if Niemann lied about the extent of his online cheating, it will be difficult at best for him to clear his name and get invited to absolute top events, and probably impossible to play in events in which Carlsen is participating.
The moral of the story, which I'm emphatically conveying to my students these days, it simple: don't cheat, even in online games. One shouldn't cheat for many reasons, but even from the most self-centered perspective it's (for starters) foolish due to the extremely difficulty of rebuilding one's reputation.
I second what you write in the last paragraph, and at the end of the blog post. But even here, there may be the other side of the medal: lots of power to chess sites banning players based on undisclosed evidence and secret algorithms.
Speaking from my experience as youth coordinator of my former club, quoting from an email to Ken Regan at the time (I had contacted him for a different reason, see below):
"An 11-year old kid (Bavarian top in his age category) had his Lichess account closed. Not that I unconditionally trust him (it's easy and thus tempting to cheat on the Internet, so I only trust myself), but his games don't look suspicious at all to me - just lots of blundering, mainly from his opponents. The tournament director of the last two events he played (in the second one he had to quit with 4/4 because the account was closed during the event) fully agrees with me - he is from another club in Munich, professional "chess in schools" coach and [edited to kinda keep his anonymity] known beyond Munich.
The player already appealed to Lichess, getting what looks like an Auto-reply within an hour "we re-investigated, and our verdict stands". I see no chance to re-open his Lichess account, but this could have further consequences regarding eligibility for support from the Bavarian Chess Federation. I haven't yet created a pdf collection, some games won't fit your method because he had a decisive advantage after less than 8 moves - obviously not due to his own brilliant play .... [Regan generally omits the first 9 moves and any moves in completely winning - or losing - positions].
To me, it looks like too many consecutive wins plus someone reporting him was enough for Lichess? Another FM friend of mine who also played our event had the same problem: new Lichess account [you start with 1500 and initially get opponents with similar ratings], about 17/17 = cheater?!"
The reason I had contacted Ken was a blatant cheating case in a Lichess event where I was tournament director: player with national Elo 1700 beating IMs and FMs, chance probability for no engine assistance according to the Regan method 1 in 130 million. This player was reported by two of his opponents, but only banned by Lichess when I sent them the results of Regan's preliminary analysis (screening test). He didn't get his "nominal" prize money (40 Euros).
As chess.com doesn't share their actual new evidence against Niemann, I wouldn't rule out "false positive" - at least unusual that they suddenly found additional evidence within days of Carlsen quitting Sinquefield Cup.
For those of us that aspire to being good Bayesians, it's all news (the analogy isn't perfect, but consider what is learned in the puzzle of the white hats). In particular, learning that Carlsen is now on the record (for a potentially libellous claim?) increases my subjective probabilities that he is privy to strong evidence that Niemann's cheating goes well beyond his public admissions. I agree that this is more difficult to interpret, but I also take Carlsen's claims about Niemann's over the board manner to be evidence.
When you say that what Carlsen says isn't evidence, I agree when `evidence' is taken to mean `legal evidence'. But in many other relevant, and perhaps more important, senses it is. Is it reasonable for tournament organizers to feel uncomfortable inviting him in light of Carlsen's recent claims? Is it reasonable for top players to feel unhappy at the prospect of having to play him, online or OTB? If the answer to either of those questions is yes, what are they doing other than responding reasonably to the totality of evidence?
But let's hope that all the data becomes public, and that your students follow your good advice.
Agreed on the implicit choice for organizers now and the potential pros/cons of Magnus's approach.
I thought Rowson's thread here was an amusing, but accurate, distillation: https://twitter.com/Jonathan_Rowson/status/1574515170818277376
Have a look at this video. I tried to keep an open mind about the whole mess but this seems to clinch it for me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfPzUgzrOcQ&t=827s
I do not find anything conclusive or particularly compelling in this video. A few carefully selected examples of Niemann having "perfect" games (i.e. peaks) are shown, and these are compared to averages (not peaks) for other grandmasters. If it were shown that Niemann had a dozen "perfect" games and that nobody else has any, that would be food for thought, but no such thing is shown. The run of tournaments where Niemann allegedly performed suspiciously well was also looked at in a way that was so far from rigorous that it was frankly an abuse of statistics.
I'm not saying that the video was made in bad faith, or that the technique used has no possible merit, but it needs to be done far more carefully than this before it can be used as proof of anything.
Seems a bigger deal than you are making out. If Niemann wants to clear his name, isn’t the onus now on him to give Carlsen (or chess.com) permission to speak freely? Perhaps there was an issue at chess.com that resulted in Niemann not contesting something and taking a ban in exchange for confidentiality. If Niemann refuses to discuss it, it’s not looking good for him and his chess future.
It's a very big deal, it's just not news. Carlsen offered no evidence, and pretty much everything he said is what we all already knew he believed; the difference is that it's now on the record.
As for Niemann clearing his name, whatever he did on Chess.com is a problem for him and his credibility, but it still isn't evidence that he cheated OTB. If his Sinquefield Cup game against Carlsen were made into a criminal trial, the prosecution ("He cheated!") would be laughed out of court. On the other hand, if Niemann lied about the extent of his online cheating, it will be difficult at best for him to clear his name and get invited to absolute top events, and probably impossible to play in events in which Carlsen is participating.
The moral of the story, which I'm emphatically conveying to my students these days, it simple: don't cheat, even in online games. One shouldn't cheat for many reasons, but even from the most self-centered perspective it's (for starters) foolish due to the extremely difficulty of rebuilding one's reputation.
I second what you write in the last paragraph, and at the end of the blog post. But even here, there may be the other side of the medal: lots of power to chess sites banning players based on undisclosed evidence and secret algorithms.
Speaking from my experience as youth coordinator of my former club, quoting from an email to Ken Regan at the time (I had contacted him for a different reason, see below):
"An 11-year old kid (Bavarian top in his age category) had his Lichess account closed. Not that I unconditionally trust him (it's easy and thus tempting to cheat on the Internet, so I only trust myself), but his games don't look suspicious at all to me - just lots of blundering, mainly from his opponents. The tournament director of the last two events he played (in the second one he had to quit with 4/4 because the account was closed during the event) fully agrees with me - he is from another club in Munich, professional "chess in schools" coach and [edited to kinda keep his anonymity] known beyond Munich.
The player already appealed to Lichess, getting what looks like an Auto-reply within an hour "we re-investigated, and our verdict stands". I see no chance to re-open his Lichess account, but this could have further consequences regarding eligibility for support from the Bavarian Chess Federation. I haven't yet created a pdf collection, some games won't fit your method because he had a decisive advantage after less than 8 moves - obviously not due to his own brilliant play .... [Regan generally omits the first 9 moves and any moves in completely winning - or losing - positions].
To me, it looks like too many consecutive wins plus someone reporting him was enough for Lichess? Another FM friend of mine who also played our event had the same problem: new Lichess account [you start with 1500 and initially get opponents with similar ratings], about 17/17 = cheater?!"
The reason I had contacted Ken was a blatant cheating case in a Lichess event where I was tournament director: player with national Elo 1700 beating IMs and FMs, chance probability for no engine assistance according to the Regan method 1 in 130 million. This player was reported by two of his opponents, but only banned by Lichess when I sent them the results of Regan's preliminary analysis (screening test). He didn't get his "nominal" prize money (40 Euros).
As chess.com doesn't share their actual new evidence against Niemann, I wouldn't rule out "false positive" - at least unusual that they suddenly found additional evidence within days of Carlsen quitting Sinquefield Cup.
For those of us that aspire to being good Bayesians, it's all news (the analogy isn't perfect, but consider what is learned in the puzzle of the white hats). In particular, learning that Carlsen is now on the record (for a potentially libellous claim?) increases my subjective probabilities that he is privy to strong evidence that Niemann's cheating goes well beyond his public admissions. I agree that this is more difficult to interpret, but I also take Carlsen's claims about Niemann's over the board manner to be evidence.
When you say that what Carlsen says isn't evidence, I agree when `evidence' is taken to mean `legal evidence'. But in many other relevant, and perhaps more important, senses it is. Is it reasonable for tournament organizers to feel uncomfortable inviting him in light of Carlsen's recent claims? Is it reasonable for top players to feel unhappy at the prospect of having to play him, online or OTB? If the answer to either of those questions is yes, what are they doing other than responding reasonably to the totality of evidence?
But let's hope that all the data becomes public, and that your students follow your good advice.