Any Chess fans? ***Controversy at Sinquefeld Cup Sep 1-13*** (1 Viewer)

[Psychopav]

Chess.com releases 72 page report accusing Niemann of cheating "over 100 times".

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Seems like Magnus probably had some idea that this was the case ahead of time. Just based on his comments about "not being able to say everything right now" or whatever.

 

[Kuz]

Seems like Magnus probably had some idea that this was the case ahead of time. Just based on his comments about "not being able to say everything right now" or whatever.

I haven't played much chess so this may be a dumb question but... how do you cheat in chess?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

how do you cheat in chess?

Make the moves a powerful chess engine tells you to make, basically. Humans can't compete with computers anymore. Online it's easy. In person it's harder (but people have gone to amazing lengths to do it there too).

 

[Zow]

Chess.com releases 72 page report accusing Niemann of cheating "over 100 times".

Interesting.

My novice take is that there's a lot of smoke here, but no evidence of actual fire for OTB cheating. Really hard to trust the guy, though. His email exchanges with Chess.com back in 2020 are super sketchy, too (though he was only like 17 at the time).

Frustrating situation. Wish it was as obvious as that recent fish angling cheating scandal where they had obvious proof of cheating (lead weights in the fish).

 

[E Street Brat]

Seems like Magnus probably had some idea that this was the case ahead of time. Just based on his comments about "not being able to say everything right now" or whatever.

I haven't played much chess so this may be a dumb question but... how do you cheat in chess?

Apparently it's close to the same way cheating in a fishing tournament works. Except.....

Instead of lead weights, you use anal beads, and instead of the fishes ***. you stick them in your own ***.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Except.....

I felt like "amazing lengths" was descriptive enough.

 

[Zow]

Seems like Magnus probably had some idea that this was the case ahead of time. Just based on his comments about "not being able to say everything right now" or whatever.

I haven't played much chess so this may be a dumb question but... how do you cheat in chess?

Online it's pretty simple: use something called an "engine" where a really smart computer program tells you the best plays.

Live/in-person/"over the board (OTB) it's much more difficult. People have been caught using a spotter (a person appearing to be randomly in the crowd) with an access to an engine who then signals the moves. Others have had things like wired buzzers in their shoes or some such that another person accesses and can send pre-determined "signals" after reviewing an engine.

It's a tough analysis though at higher levels because these players are really, really good and sometimes can match an engine for skill quality in a particular. So, absent a wire actually being found on the player or some such, it's a big challenge to detect live. What's happening here is that post-game analytics suggest that this player's particular strength makes it seemingly improbable that the player would play this well in a particular stretch of games.

Think of it like golf. A 10 handicap player may just catch lightning in a bottle for one round and shoot par. However, a 10 handicap player shooting in the mid-70s four days in a row at a money tournament is statistically improbable and suggests cheating of some sort.

 

[Moe.]

I’ve seen that speculation on Reddit but just figured it was tongue in cheek. Is that really what people think happened?

 

[Zow]

I’ve seen that speculation on Reddit but just figured it was tongue in cheek. Is that really what people think happened?

I don't think people have any good idea of what happened, but assume something did that would have avoided the security measures (which I think included a scanning wand).

But here's the smoke that really suggests there's fire:
1. The suspected player is an admitted online cheater and the online website has a program that strongly suggests the cheater cheated in big money games.
2. The suspected player has had a statistically improbable rise to his high level. Think like Tom Brady-type rise from his youth play to being a top player in the world. Statistically speaking, this rise is very unusual.
3. The best player in the world (Magnus Carlsen) has strongly implied that he believes suspected player cheated.
4. When discussing the game where the suspected player beat Carlsen, the suspected player made some bizarre comments that suggests that the suspected player didn't even understand the complex chess position.
5. Further, the suspected player appears to not exhibit common signs of stress/intense thinking, and made really, really sharp moves (i.e. computer/non-human moves) quickly and with seemingly not much thought during said game.

The challenge though is that the suspected player's play in the live tournaments, while exhibits stretches of seemingly improbable good play, is not crazily outside the norm for a player of the suspected player's skill level. Nonetheless, to beat Magnus the way he did, the common thought is that he somehow had help in crucial spots (which for a top-level player, can make all the difference). Accordingly, and since there are some security measures put in place for big in-person tournaments, theories such as some sort of device inserted into his anus to signal him at crucial moments seem not too far-fetched.

 

[Dezbelief]

I’ve seen that speculation on Reddit but just figured it was tongue in cheek. Is that really what people think happened?

Rimshot

 

[fruity pebbles]

Full prison body cavity search before chess tournaments?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Full prison body cavity search before chess tournaments?

They sometimes wand them for any electronics. And I bet they get even more serious soon. It's a big issue and IMO MC was right to highlight it.

Also, the statistical stuff from Chess.com is really solid. Every player makes less than perfect moves, so it's pretty easy to measure how far off perfect someone was. If they're too close to the chess engine, it's a safe bet they're cheating. At least if it's across multiple games.

 

[Zow]

Full prison body cavity search before chess tournaments?

They sometimes wand them for any electronics. And I bet they get even more serious soon. It's a big issue and IMO MC was right to highlight it.

Also, the statistical stuff from Chess.com is really solid. Every player makes less than perfect moves, so it's pretty easy to measure how far off perfect someone was. If they're too close to the chess engine, it's a safe bet they're cheating. At least if it's across multiple games.

Security was immediately heightened at the Sinquefield (sp?) Cup after Carlsen's withdrawal.

 

[Psychopav]

Chess.com releases 72 page report accusing Niemann of cheating "over 100 times".

Interesting.

My novice take is that there's a lot of smoke here, but no evidence of actual fire for OTB cheating. Really hard to trust the guy, though. His email exchanges with Chess.com back in 2020 are super sketchy, too (though he was only like 17 at the time).

Frustrating situation. Wish it was as obvious as that recent fish angling cheating scandal where they had obvious proof of cheating (lead weights in the fish).

Have you seen the centipawn loss and ELO rating stuff? It's pretty compelling.

 

[Psychopav]

I’ve seen that speculation on Reddit but just figured it was tongue in cheek. Is that really what people think happened?

Not really, but something like it seems possible (transmitter in area attached to computer, receiver on person which vibrates to indicate piece).

 

[Psychopav]

Full prison body cavity search before chess tournaments?

They sometimes wand them for any electronics. And I bet they get even more serious soon. It's a big issue and IMO MC was right to highlight it.

Also, the statistical stuff from Chess.com is really solid. Every player makes less than perfect moves, so it's pretty easy to measure how far off perfect someone was. If they're too close to the chess engine, it's a safe bet they're cheating. At least if it's across multiple games.

Security was immediately heightened at the Sinquefield (sp?) Cup after Carlsen's withdrawal.

How did Hans do after that?

 

[Zow]

Chess.com releases 72 page report accusing Niemann of cheating "over 100 times".

Interesting.

My novice take is that there's a lot of smoke here, but no evidence of actual fire for OTB cheating. Really hard to trust the guy, though. His email exchanges with Chess.com back in 2020 are super sketchy, too (though he was only like 17 at the time).

Frustrating situation. Wish it was as obvious as that recent fish angling cheating scandal where they had obvious proof of cheating (lead weights in the fish).

Have you seen the centipawn loss and ELO rating stuff? It's pretty compelling.

Yes. Agreed it's compelling. It proves that he cheated a lot online to about as near of a certainty as is probably possible.

It's also compelling as to his OTB stuff in the aggregate (especially with how quickly he shot up the ranks), However, my understanding is that it's not as compelling in a game by game analysis (specifically including his win over Carlsen). So, it seems like cheating was possible, but will probably never be "proven" unless Hans just confesses to it.

 

[Zow]

Full prison body cavity search before chess tournaments?

They sometimes wand them for any electronics. And I bet they get even more serious soon. It's a big issue and IMO MC was right to highlight it.

Also, the statistical stuff from Chess.com is really solid. Every player makes less than perfect moves, so it's pretty easy to measure how far off perfect someone was. If they're too close to the chess engine, it's a safe bet they're cheating. At least if it's across multiple games.

Security was immediately heightened at the Sinquefield (sp?) Cup after Carlsen's withdrawal.

How did Hans do after that?

Worse, of course - but that could plausibly be chalked up to the immense scrutiny and media pressure he was under.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

I’ve seen that speculation on Reddit but just figured it was tongue in cheek. Is that really what people think happened?

I don't think people have any good idea of what happened, but assume something did that would have avoided the security measures (which I think included a scanning wand).

But here's the smoke that really suggests there's fire:
1. The suspected player is an admitted online cheater and the online website has a program that strongly suggests the cheater cheated in big money games.
2. The suspected player has had a statistically improbable rise to his high level. Think like Tom Brady-type rise from his youth play to being a top player in the world. Statistically speaking, this rise is very unusual.
3. The best player in the world (Magnus Carlsen) has strongly implied that he believes suspected player cheated.
4. When discussing the game where the suspected player beat Carlsen, the suspected player made some bizarre comments that suggests that the suspected player didn't even understand the complex chess position.
5. Further, the suspected player appears to not exhibit common signs of stress/intense thinking, and made really, really sharp moves (i.e. computer/non-human moves) quickly and with seemingly not much thought during said game.

The challenge though is that the suspected player's play in the live tournaments, while exhibits stretches of seemingly improbable good play, is not crazily outside the norm for a player of the suspected player's skill level. Nonetheless, to beat Magnus the way he did, the common thought is that he somehow had help in crucial spots (which for a top-level player, can make all the difference). Accordingly, and since there are some security measures put in place for big in-person tournaments, theories such as some sort of device inserted into his anus to signal him at crucial moments seem not too far-fetched.

Its strangely very similar to the Robbi Jade Lew-Garrett Adelstein scandal that crashed the poker world last week. No direct evidence, but extremely compelling circumstances suggest cheating.

 

[Zow]

I’ve seen that speculation on Reddit but just figured it was tongue in cheek. Is that really what people think happened?

I don't think people have any good idea of what happened, but assume something did that would have avoided the security measures (which I think included a scanning wand).

But here's the smoke that really suggests there's fire:
1. The suspected player is an admitted online cheater and the online website has a program that strongly suggests the cheater cheated in big money games.
2. The suspected player has had a statistically improbable rise to his high level. Think like Tom Brady-type rise from his youth play to being a top player in the world. Statistically speaking, this rise is very unusual.
3. The best player in the world (Magnus Carlsen) has strongly implied that he believes suspected player cheated.
4. When discussing the game where the suspected player beat Carlsen, the suspected player made some bizarre comments that suggests that the suspected player didn't even understand the complex chess position.
5. Further, the suspected player appears to not exhibit common signs of stress/intense thinking, and made really, really sharp moves (i.e. computer/non-human moves) quickly and with seemingly not much thought during said game.

The challenge though is that the suspected player's play in the live tournaments, while exhibits stretches of seemingly improbable good play, is not crazily outside the norm for a player of the suspected player's skill level. Nonetheless, to beat Magnus the way he did, the common thought is that he somehow had help in crucial spots (which for a top-level player, can make all the difference). Accordingly, and since there are some security measures put in place for big in-person tournaments, theories such as some sort of device inserted into his anus to signal him at crucial moments seem not too far-fetched.

Its strangely very similar to the Robbi Jade Lew-Garrett Adelstein scandal that crashed the poker world last week. No direct evidence, but extremely compelling circumstances suggest cheating.

Agreed. Saw that incident too.

Oddly, the suspected player in the poker scandal has a plausible defense, too (she panicked and made a bad call then played off the bad play).

ETA: She also gave the money back, which confused me as well. That was a definitively a seemingly bizarre situation. Again, I wish it were as clear as the recent cheating scandal in the fishing world.

 

[fruity pebbles]

In pretty much everything, the cheaters are one step ahead of those trying to catch them. What’s the solution? No live feeds of what’s happening in the match. Maybe a delay?

 

[Zow]

In pretty much everything, the cheaters are one step ahead of those trying to catch them. What’s the solution? No live feeds of what’s happening in the match. Maybe a delay?

A delay for sure. Security wands. No line of sight with spectators. Regular post-game analysis to look for statistical anomalies.

 

[Bogart]

Seems like Magnus probably had some idea that this was the case ahead of time. Just based on his comments about "not being able to say everything right now" or whatever.

Yep, exactly. With chess.com just spending $82 million to purchase the Play Magnus Group, I can only imagine the discussions that were had behind closed doors before the merger.

 

[Kuz]

Seems like Magnus probably had some idea that this was the case ahead of time. Just based on his comments about "not being able to say everything right now" or whatever.

I haven't played much chess so this may be a dumb question but... how do you cheat in chess?

Online it's pretty simple: use something called an "engine" where a really smart computer program tells you the best plays.

Live/in-person/"over the board (OTB) it's much more difficult. People have been caught using a spotter (a person appearing to be randomly in the crowd) with an access to an engine who then signals the moves. Others have had things like wired buzzers in their shoes or some such that another person accesses and can send pre-determined "signals" after reviewing an engine.

It's a tough analysis though at higher levels because these players are really, really good and sometimes can match an engine for skill quality in a particular. So, absent a wire actually being found on the player or some such, it's a big challenge to detect live. What's happening here is that post-game analytics suggest that this player's particular strength makes it seemingly improbable that the player would play this well in a particular stretch of games.

Think of it like golf. A 10 handicap player may just catch lightning in a bottle for one round and shoot par. However, a 10 handicap player shooting in the mid-70s four days in a row at a money tournament is statistically improbable and suggests cheating of some sort.

gotcha.. Thanks!

 

[Navin Johnson]

In pretty much everything, the cheaters are one step ahead of those trying to catch them. What’s the solution? No live feeds of what’s happening in the match. Maybe a delay?

A delay for sure. Security wands. No line of sight with spectators. Regular post-game analysis to look for statistical anomalies.

I've read that the wands need to come within a couple inches of those transmittors to detectthem.

 

[Navin Johnson]

In pretty much everything, the cheaters are one step ahead of those trying to catch them. What’s the solution? No live feeds of what’s happening in the match. Maybe a delay?

A delay for sure. Security wands. No line of sight with spectators. Regular post-game analysis to look for statistical anomalies.

Even with a delay, if someone can hack the server, they can access the game info before it is broadcast (see Mike Postle poker cheating scandal.)

 

[Navin Johnson]

I’ve seen that speculation on Reddit but just figured it was tongue in cheek. Is that really what people think happened?

I don't think people have any good idea of what happened, but assume something did that would have avoided the security measures (which I think included a scanning wand).

But here's the smoke that really suggests there's fire:
1. The suspected player is an admitted online cheater and the online website has a program that strongly suggests the cheater cheated in big money games.
2. The suspected player has had a statistically improbable rise to his high level. Think like Tom Brady-type rise from his youth play to being a top player in the world. Statistically speaking, this rise is very unusual.
3. The best player in the world (Magnus Carlsen) has strongly implied that he believes suspected player cheated.
4. When discussing the game where the suspected player beat Carlsen, the suspected player made some bizarre comments that suggests that the suspected player didn't even understand the complex chess position.
5. Further, the suspected player appears to not exhibit common signs of stress/intense thinking, and made really, really sharp moves (i.e. computer/non-human moves) quickly and with seemingly not much thought during said game.

The challenge though is that the suspected player's play in the live tournaments, while exhibits stretches of seemingly improbable good play, is not crazily outside the norm for a player of the suspected player's skill level. Nonetheless, to beat Magnus the way he did, the common thought is that he somehow had help in crucial spots (which for a top-level player, can make all the difference). Accordingly, and since there are some security measures put in place for big in-person tournaments, theories such as some sort of device inserted into his anus to signal him at crucial moments seem not too far-fetched.

Its strangely very similar to the Robbi Jade Lew-Garrett Adelstein scandal that crashed the poker world last week. No direct evidence, but extremely compelling circumstances suggest cheating.

Agreed. Saw that incident too.

Oddly, the suspected player in the poker scandal has a plausible defense, too (she panicked and made a bad call then played off the bad play).

ETA: She also gave the money back, which confused me as well. That was a definitively a seemingly bizarre situation. Again, I wish it were as clear as the recent cheating scandal in the fishing world.

I think she 100% cheated. Her story evolves/changes every step of the way.

 

[Zow]

I’ve seen that speculation on Reddit but just figured it was tongue in cheek. Is that really what people think happened?

I don't think people have any good idea of what happened, but assume something did that would have avoided the security measures (which I think included a scanning wand).

But here's the smoke that really suggests there's fire:
1. The suspected player is an admitted online cheater and the online website has a program that strongly suggests the cheater cheated in big money games.
2. The suspected player has had a statistically improbable rise to his high level. Think like Tom Brady-type rise from his youth play to being a top player in the world. Statistically speaking, this rise is very unusual.
3. The best player in the world (Magnus Carlsen) has strongly implied that he believes suspected player cheated.
4. When discussing the game where the suspected player beat Carlsen, the suspected player made some bizarre comments that suggests that the suspected player didn't even understand the complex chess position.
5. Further, the suspected player appears to not exhibit common signs of stress/intense thinking, and made really, really sharp moves (i.e. computer/non-human moves) quickly and with seemingly not much thought during said game.

The challenge though is that the suspected player's play in the live tournaments, while exhibits stretches of seemingly improbable good play, is not crazily outside the norm for a player of the suspected player's skill level. Nonetheless, to beat Magnus the way he did, the common thought is that he somehow had help in crucial spots (which for a top-level player, can make all the difference). Accordingly, and since there are some security measures put in place for big in-person tournaments, theories such as some sort of device inserted into his anus to signal him at crucial moments seem not too far-fetched.

Its strangely very similar to the Robbi Jade Lew-Garrett Adelstein scandal that crashed the poker world last week. No direct evidence, but extremely compelling circumstances suggest cheating.

Agreed. Saw that incident too.

Oddly, the suspected player in the poker scandal has a plausible defense, too (she panicked and made a bad call then played off the bad play).

ETA: She also gave the money back, which confused me as well. That was a definitively a seemingly bizarre situation. Again, I wish it were as clear as the recent cheating scandal in the fishing world.

I think she 100% cheated. Her story evolves/changes every step of the way.

Interesting. I haven't followed it closely. Any indication on how she cheated?

 

[Zow]

In pretty much everything, the cheaters are one step ahead of those trying to catch them. What’s the solution? No live feeds of what’s happening in the match. Maybe a delay?

A delay for sure. Security wands. No line of sight with spectators. Regular post-game analysis to look for statistical anomalies.

I've read that the wands need to come within a couple inches of those transmittors to detectthem.

Correct. Hence the semi-serious anal insertion theory.

 

[Zow]

In pretty much everything, the cheaters are one step ahead of those trying to catch them. What’s the solution? No live feeds of what’s happening in the match. Maybe a delay?

A delay for sure. Security wands. No line of sight with spectators. Regular post-game analysis to look for statistical anomalies.

Even with a delay, if someone can hack the server, they can access the game info before it is broadcast (see Mike Postle poker cheating scandal.)

Sure. But let's be real, it's pretty much impossible to 100% prevent cheating in about any sport/game.

 

[eoMMan]

Magnus & the Botez sisters were on recent episodes of the Lex Fridman podcast. The sisters weren’t annoying at all imo, in fact they come off reasonably intelligent. I enjoyed it a lot.

I bet you enjoyed it.

 

[Galileo]

Interesting. I haven't followed it closely. Any indication on how she cheated?

Doug Polk breaks it down here...

 

[Zow]

Interesting. I haven't followed it closely. Any indication on how she cheated?

Doug Polk breaks it down here...

Yeah, he's got a good point about that weird tank thing she does when she tosses in the time chip. Good video.

 

[Caveman33]

The summary of the chess.com report appears to match Han's story. The report said the last time they detected possible cheating was in 2020 and Hans was suspended for 6 months. So even under intense scrutiny, his games after the 6 month suspension appeared clean. After 2020 is also when his FIDE rating rapidly rose to Grandmaster. Maybe his cheating improved and he is now doing it both in person and online without being detected.

However, this looks like a case of double jeopardy. If chess.com had permanently banned Hans in 2020, I would think that is fine. But they allowed him to return and they have no evidence of him cheating since then. They only decided to ban him permanently because Magnus threw a fit after his loss. In a game where Magnus made 1 blunder and a bunch of mistakes and inaccuracies. Magnus played really bad and he is a poor loser.

Hans cheated multiple times in the past and I wouldn't trust his integrity, but even people with poor ethics can play chess well. There isn't really anyone to rout for in this situation but I view chess.com and Magnus as the bigger losers.

 

[Caveman33]

I’ve seen that speculation on Reddit but just figured it was tongue in cheek. Is that really what people think happened?

I don't think people have any good idea of what happened, but assume something did that would have avoided the security measures (which I think included a scanning wand).

But here's the smoke that really suggests there's fire:
1. The suspected player is an admitted online cheater and the online website has a program that strongly suggests the cheater cheated in big money games.
2. The suspected player has had a statistically improbable rise to his high level. Think like Tom Brady-type rise from his youth play to being a top player in the world. Statistically speaking, this rise is very unusual.
3. The best player in the world (Magnus Carlsen) has strongly implied that he believes suspected player cheated.
4. When discussing the game where the suspected player beat Carlsen, the suspected player made some bizarre comments that suggests that the suspected player didn't even understand the complex chess position.
5. Further, the suspected player appears to not exhibit common signs of stress/intense thinking, and made really, really sharp moves (i.e. computer/non-human moves) quickly and with seemingly not much thought during said game.

The challenge though is that the suspected player's play in the live tournaments, while exhibits stretches of seemingly improbable good play, is not crazily outside the norm for a player of the suspected player's skill level. Nonetheless, to beat Magnus the way he did, the common thought is that he somehow had help in crucial spots (which for a top-level player, can make all the difference). Accordingly, and since there are some security measures put in place for big in-person tournaments, theories such as some sort of device inserted into his anus to signal him at crucial moments seem not too far-fetched.

Its strangely very similar to the Robbi Jade Lew-Garrett Adelstein scandal that crashed the poker world last week. No direct evidence, but extremely compelling circumstances suggest cheating.

Agreed. Saw that incident too.

Oddly, the suspected player in the poker scandal has a plausible defense, too (she panicked and made a bad call then played off the bad play).

ETA: She also gave the money back, which confused me as well. That was a definitively a seemingly bizarre situation. Again, I wish it were as clear as the recent cheating scandal in the fishing world.

I think she 100% cheated. Her story evolves/changes every step of the way.

There were a lot of red flags with her behavior and inconsistencies in her story. It seemed especially revealing when she got defensive and said, "You let me do this to you several times. I thought you had Ace high." "You didn't have ****, you let me do this to you post stream too, last time we played." She seems to be saying it's Garrett's fault for bluffing multiple times. Nothing personal, she's just following the signals that are being transmitted. And if she is able to do it off stream as well, it would indicate that her system is not reliant upon the stream.

Garrett claims she offered to give the money back but the other witnesses, who are his friends, have apparently quoted her as saying, "How can we make this right?" And Garrett replied, "You can start by giving me my money back." Public sentiment seems to be turning against him. It does seem like a crazy spot to cheat while on stream. I believe her hand was only slightly better. According to the stream graphics, her hand was actually worse but I think they factor in discarded cards. If I had to bet, I would probably still go with she was cheating.

 

[Navin Johnson]

I’ve seen that speculation on Reddit but just figured it was tongue in cheek. Is that really what people think happened?

I don't think people have any good idea of what happened, but assume something did that would have avoided the security measures (which I think included a scanning wand).

But here's the smoke that really suggests there's fire:
1. The suspected player is an admitted online cheater and the online website has a program that strongly suggests the cheater cheated in big money games.
2. The suspected player has had a statistically improbable rise to his high level. Think like Tom Brady-type rise from his youth play to being a top player in the world. Statistically speaking, this rise is very unusual.
3. The best player in the world (Magnus Carlsen) has strongly implied that he believes suspected player cheated.
4. When discussing the game where the suspected player beat Carlsen, the suspected player made some bizarre comments that suggests that the suspected player didn't even understand the complex chess position.
5. Further, the suspected player appears to not exhibit common signs of stress/intense thinking, and made really, really sharp moves (i.e. computer/non-human moves) quickly and with seemingly not much thought during said game.

The challenge though is that the suspected player's play in the live tournaments, while exhibits stretches of seemingly improbable good play, is not crazily outside the norm for a player of the suspected player's skill level. Nonetheless, to beat Magnus the way he did, the common thought is that he somehow had help in crucial spots (which for a top-level player, can make all the difference). Accordingly, and since there are some security measures put in place for big in-person tournaments, theories such as some sort of device inserted into his anus to signal him at crucial moments seem not too far-fetched.

Its strangely very similar to the Robbi Jade Lew-Garrett Adelstein scandal that crashed the poker world last week. No direct evidence, but extremely compelling circumstances suggest cheating.

Agreed. Saw that incident too.

Oddly, the suspected player in the poker scandal has a plausible defense, too (she panicked and made a bad call then played off the bad play).

ETA: She also gave the money back, which confused me as well. That was a definitively a seemingly bizarre situation. Again, I wish it were as clear as the recent cheating scandal in the fishing world.

I think she 100% cheated. Her story evolves/changes every step of the way.

There were a lot of red flags with her behavior and inconsistencies in her story. It seemed especially revealing when she got defensive and said, "You let me do this to you several times. I thought you had Ace high." "You didn't have ****, you let me do this to you post stream too, last time we played." She seems to be saying it's Garrett's fault for bluffing multiple times. Nothing personal, she's just following the signals that are being transmitted. And if she is able to do it off stream as well, it would indicate that her system is not reliant upon the stream.

Garrett claims she offered to give the money back but the other witnesses, who are his friends, have apparently quoted her as saying, "How can we make this right?" And Garrett replied, "You can start by giving me my money back." Public sentiment seems to be turning against him. It does seem like a crazy spot to cheat while on stream. I believe her hand was only slightly better. According to the stream graphics, her hand was actually worse but I think they factor in discarded cards. If I had to bet, I would probably still go with she was cheating.

She was a 53:47 dog on the graphic but she was getting 5:2 pot odds so it's an easy call...if you know what he has. And he is holding the absolute bottom of his range for her to be a coin flip. I'd say 90% of the time she is a 6:1, if not 12:1, dog - when she's not drawing dead.

eta---and she has since tweeted that she gave the money back because he threatened her.

 

[Caveman33]

I’ve seen that speculation on Reddit but just figured it was tongue in cheek. Is that really what people think happened?

I don't think people have any good idea of what happened, but assume something did that would have avoided the security measures (which I think included a scanning wand).

But here's the smoke that really suggests there's fire:
1. The suspected player is an admitted online cheater and the online website has a program that strongly suggests the cheater cheated in big money games.
2. The suspected player has had a statistically improbable rise to his high level. Think like Tom Brady-type rise from his youth play to being a top player in the world. Statistically speaking, this rise is very unusual.
3. The best player in the world (Magnus Carlsen) has strongly implied that he believes suspected player cheated.
4. When discussing the game where the suspected player beat Carlsen, the suspected player made some bizarre comments that suggests that the suspected player didn't even understand the complex chess position.
5. Further, the suspected player appears to not exhibit common signs of stress/intense thinking, and made really, really sharp moves (i.e. computer/non-human moves) quickly and with seemingly not much thought during said game.

The challenge though is that the suspected player's play in the live tournaments, while exhibits stretches of seemingly improbable good play, is not crazily outside the norm for a player of the suspected player's skill level. Nonetheless, to beat Magnus the way he did, the common thought is that he somehow had help in crucial spots (which for a top-level player, can make all the difference). Accordingly, and since there are some security measures put in place for big in-person tournaments, theories such as some sort of device inserted into his anus to signal him at crucial moments seem not too far-fetched.

Its strangely very similar to the Robbi Jade Lew-Garrett Adelstein scandal that crashed the poker world last week. No direct evidence, but extremely compelling circumstances suggest cheating.

Agreed. Saw that incident too.

Oddly, the suspected player in the poker scandal has a plausible defense, too (she panicked and made a bad call then played off the bad play).

ETA: She also gave the money back, which confused me as well. That was a definitively a seemingly bizarre situation. Again, I wish it were as clear as the recent cheating scandal in the fishing world.

I think she 100% cheated. Her story evolves/changes every step of the way.

There were a lot of red flags with her behavior and inconsistencies in her story. It seemed especially revealing when she got defensive and said, "You let me do this to you several times. I thought you had Ace high." "You didn't have ****, you let me do this to you post stream too, last time we played." She seems to be saying it's Garrett's fault for bluffing multiple times. Nothing personal, she's just following the signals that are being transmitted. And if she is able to do it off stream as well, it would indicate that her system is not reliant upon the stream.

Garrett claims she offered to give the money back but the other witnesses, who are his friends, have apparently quoted her as saying, "How can we make this right?" And Garrett replied, "You can start by giving me my money back." Public sentiment seems to be turning against him. It does seem like a crazy spot to cheat while on stream. I believe her hand was only slightly better. According to the stream graphics, her hand was actually worse but I think they factor in discarded cards. If I had to bet, I would probably still go with she was cheating.

She was a 53:47 dog on the graphic but she was getting 5:2 pot odds so it's an easy call...if you know what he has. And he is holding the absolute bottom of his range for her to be a coin flip. I'd say 90% of the time she is a 6:1, if not 12:1, dog - when she's not drawing dead.

eta---and she has since tweeted that she gave the money back because he threatened her.

You're right, I did not consider the pot odds. Even knowing the hole cards on the flop, his straight flush draw vs her nothing doesn't seem to me like a +EV opportunity for her to call a small bet in hopes of winning a larger pot later. Unless her handler/signaler understands Garrett's play much better than me. If she was cheating, I doubt we will ever know. She probably won't be playing there anymore, regardless. I'm curious to see how this is resolved.

 

[Softballguy]

Hate to hijack the thread, but the newest developments in this Robbi-Garrett story sure seem to add to the cheating theory. An employee from The Hustler Casino, who has access to the hole cards, was busted for taking 15k off of Robbi's stack. She didn't press charges. It happened at the end of the night. What are the odds?

The only options here are that she misread her hand (which seems unlikely since she didn't react when she flipped her cards without a 3 and pretty much said she didn't have a 3 after the money was in), she's really terrible at poker (she's definitely bad, but who could be bad enough to make that call?), or she cheated. The only hand in Garrett's range was the exact two cards he had; every other possible hand beats her. Her nonsense stammering after the hand is also extremely suspicious.

I think the chess scandal is easier to prove than Robbi's situation. Nobody plays that close to perfect in chess. Poker is a different story. At least with Postle you had thousands of hands to see he is an obvious cheater, but with only one hand in question, hard to prove Robbi cheated. For now, anyway.

Edited to add - it turns out the guy who coincidentally stole money from Robbi also asked how you cheat in chess on twitter a week ago...

 

[Caveman33]

Hate to hijack the thread, but the newest developments in this Robbi-Garrett story sure seem to add to the cheating theory. An employee from The Hustler Casino, who has access to the hole cards, was busted for taking 15k off of Robbi's stack. She didn't press charges. It happened at the end of the night. What are the odds?

The only options here are that she misread her hand (which seems unlikely since she didn't react when she flipped her cards without a 3 and pretty much said she didn't have a 3 after the money was in), she's really terrible at poker (she's definitely bad, but who could be bad enough to make that call?), or she cheated. The only hand in Garrett's range was the exact two cards he had; every other possible hand beats her. Her nonsense stammering after the hand is also extremely suspicious.

I think the chess scandal is easier to prove than Robbi's situation. Nobody plays that close to perfect in chess. Poker is a different story. At least with Postle you had thousands of hands to see he is an obvious cheater, but with only one hand in question, hard to prove Robbi cheated. For now, anyway.

Edited to add - it turns out the guy who coincidentally stole money from Robbi also asked how you cheat in chess on twitter a week ago...

It's strange that a conspirator would take money off her stack rather than receive it privately. Why are people leaving their stacks unattended after the broadcast? And why would Robbi decline to press charges?

How is the chess scandal easier to prove? Do you think FIDE will find evidence of Hans cheating OTB? I've seen people mention Hans playing perfectly but haven't seen any links to the games or explanations.

 

[Zow]

Hate to hijack the thread, but the newest developments in this Robbi-Garrett story sure seem to add to the cheating theory. An employee from The Hustler Casino, who has access to the hole cards, was busted for taking 15k off of Robbi's stack. She didn't press charges. It happened at the end of the night. What are the odds?

The only options here are that she misread her hand (which seems unlikely since she didn't react when she flipped her cards without a 3 and pretty much said she didn't have a 3 after the money was in), she's really terrible at poker (she's definitely bad, but who could be bad enough to make that call?), or she cheated. The only hand in Garrett's range was the exact two cards he had; every other possible hand beats her. Her nonsense stammering after the hand is also extremely suspicious.

I think the chess scandal is easier to prove than Robbi's situation. Nobody plays that close to perfect in chess. Poker is a different story. At least with Postle you had thousands of hands to see he is an obvious cheater, but with only one hand in question, hard to prove Robbi cheated. For now, anyway.

Edited to add - it turns out the guy who coincidentally stole money from Robbi also asked how you cheat in chess on twitter a week ago...

It's strange that a conspirator would take money off her stack rather than receive it privately. Why are people leaving their stacks unattended after the broadcast? And why would Robbi decline to press charges?

How is the chess scandal easier to prove? Do you think FIDE will find evidence of Hans cheating OTB? I've seen people mention Hans playing perfectly but haven't seen any links to the games or explanations.

Yeah I'm also not following why the chess cheating is easier to prove. My understanding of the analysis of Hans' OTB games (and especially the game with Magnus) suggest he played well, but not so well it seemed statistically improbable for a player of significant skill (which Hans still nonetheless is, even if he is a cheater). Further, unlike Robbi (bizarre but consistent tanking pattern and use of the time chips in unusual/nonsensical spots) and Postle (always looking at the phone in his lap in big spots), Hans hasn't been shown to have bizarre ticks. The only thing unusual about him are, frankly, some of the quickness to his moves, his lack of interest (really that's subjective, though), and his nonsensical post-match comments (which I do concede are comparable to Robbi).

Regarding the overall analysis, Hans' FIDE rise certainly is historical and therefore skeptical, but it's not near the complete joke of improbability that Postle's record in big pots and player over his tournaments (in a game where luck is a far bigger factor and therefore more variance is expected in a small to medium sample size of play).

 

[Punxsutawney Phil]

This is why chess is a garbage game that has been ruined by computers & who can memorize chess theory better. Fisher random is a much better game.

 

[Captain Cranks]

The only thing unusual about him are, frankly, some of the quickness to his moves, his lack of interest (really that's subjective, though), and his nonsensical post-match comments (which I do concede are comparable to Robbi)

Based on analysis I've seen of the specific match, Magnus didn't play that well and Hans didn't do anything out of the ordinary. Imo, there's a greater chance Magnus is just being a sore loser than Hans cheated. Magnus is using Hans' cheating history to justify it.

 

[shadrap]

very interesting thread. I play poker & chess. not in any way more than slightly better than average, but love reading about it & the supposed cheating.
thanx.

 

[Zow]

very interesting thread. I play poker & chess. not in any way more than slightly better than average, but love reading about it & the supposed cheating.
thanx.

It really is interesting when you have cheating at the level of the game.

Both the suspects are very, very good at their respective crafts (Hans, especially, is clearly a chess prodigy type). Cheating in both games is also really, really challenging to detect barring some smoking gun (e.g. lead weights in fish). But, both situations have some serious red flags. With Hans, he's an admitted cheater in games as recently as 2020 which understandably is going to taint anything he does for a long time and his post-game analysis of his Magnus game was just nonsensical. With Robbi, her turn call - even if she thought he was bluffing - really, really doesn't make any sense. Her claim of a "bluff catcher" is barely correct because a lot of bluffs still actually beat her. Her play only made sense (because of pot odds) if she knew he had the hand he had (or a slight few other hands that were worse than hers).

 

[Zow]

The only thing unusual about him are, frankly, some of the quickness to his moves, his lack of interest (really that's subjective, though), and his nonsensical post-match comments (which I do concede are comparable to Robbi)

Based on analysis I've seen of the specific match, Magnus didn't play that well and Hans didn't do anything out of the ordinary. Imo, there's a greater chance Magnus is just being a sore loser than Hans cheated. Magnus is using Hans' cheating history to justify it.

Eh, my take is that Magnus went into the game firmly believing Hans was a cheater (there's a claim Magnus has inside info at chess.com), Magnus chose to play an opening he doesn't usually play, and then didn't respond well when Hans defended it correctly initially.

I don't think Magnus handled it well at all, but I'm not sure it makes him a sore loser. I think if Magnus firmly suspected Hans as being a cheater, the better "civil disobedience" play would be to concede on move one then publicly say why.

I still do find it lame that Magnus quit the tournament.

 

[Captain Cranks]

I don't think Magnus handled it well at all, but I'm not sure it makes him a sore loser. I think if Magnus firmly suspected Hans as being a cheater, the better "civil disobedience" play would be to concede on move one then publicly say why.

I still do find it lame that Magnus quit the tournament.

Not sure what else you need to see to label him a sore loser.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

The odds of a 2400 player beating Carlsen are like 1%.

So a confessed cheater with recorded games that suggest more than another 100 instances of cheating pulls off a 1/100 shot? Odds are overwhelming that he cheated. Not court of law stuff, but I wouldn't play him either.

 

[Captain Cranks]

The odds of a 2400 player beating Carlsen are like 1%.

So a confessed cheater with recorded games that suggest more than another 100 instances of cheating pulls off a 1/100 shot? Odds are overwhelming that he cheated. Not court of law stuff, but I wouldn't play him either.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but all of those incidents of cheating were online and not OTB. As I see it regarding the specific match in question, we've got uninspiring play by Magnus, normal play from Hans, and zero evidence of cheating other than a carryforward of the guy's reputation.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I think we just put different weights on "the guy's reputation" here.

Pulling off a 100/1 when you're a known, confessed cheater doesn't really deserve any benefit of the doubt IMO. Outside of a courtroom anyhow.