Hacker News Reader

Comment by gronky_ | Hacker News Reader

I want to see a serious statistician look at the Hans Niemann chess cheating case.

There could very well be similar bias and shoddy statistics at play there

Here ya go, analysis by Ken Regan ( also a statistician obsessed with quantum mechanics, like the researcher in the article )…. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DDRLZTkd30c

It's possible, but most of the evidence in that case comes from circumstantial evidence, specifically the fact that he can't really explain the game he just played.

Which case? The multiple instances of cheating he has confessed to? Or the one that he denies?

He confessed to cheating online, not over the board. People have used shoddy statistics to allege that he cheated over the board, but none of them have held up under scrutiny.

I'm not saying the guy is a saint, but low-effort cheating in low-stakes online games by looking at an engine in the background seems substantially different than what would be required to cheat completely undetectably in major tournaments with many people watching.

That seems like a "lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas" situation. If someone doesn't want to be accused of cheating in a high-stakes game then they shouldn't cheat in a low-stakes game.

> That seems like a "lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas" situation. If someone doesn't want to be accused of cheating in a high-stakes game then they shouldn't cheat in a low-stakes game.

On the one hand, I'm inclined to agree with the assertion that dishonesty damages one's credibility.

On the other hand, there's degrees of dishonesty - should someone who (intentionally lied, and) denied going over the speed limit be automatically considered lying when he also denies premeditated murder?

It feels like a leap to compare the claim "This guy cheated in some low stakes chess games and shouldn't really be trusted in high stakes chess games" to the claim "This person committed a minor misdemeanour so they shouldn't be trusted when they claim they didn't kill someone"

How about:

This person cheated in an exam in middle school so shouldn't be trusted with exams in med school.

Because, yeah, when he cheated he was a kid. Kids frequently do stupid things.

but in the same sense those two things seem substantially different, the trajectory of his late blooming career success is also substantially different from that of just about everybody else playing and also calls out for explanation.

This idea has spread far, but isn’t true. Even the chess.com report shows that his trajectory was not much different than other juniors.

Anecdotally, in the past year I happened to be in the vicinity of Hans and noticed some behaviors. The guy is absolutely obsessed about chess, and is good at it. The simple fact that he can hang with the best in OTB bullet ( and shorter time controls ) proved to me he was legit, no question, he just really freaking loves chess!

Does he love it so much that he's willing to risk cheating to win?

Didnt chess.com publish a report that found no evidence of wrong doing in that specific tournament?

They absolutely did, 72 pages.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com