|
if you have enough data, you can massage statistics to say almost anything you want the trick is to have a specific hypothesis and a corresponding null hypothesis, and a specific test for whether or not it's acceptable to discard the null hypothesis, backed by actual math and not intuition you cannot just toss out a number, say "this looks sus", and have it mean anything in a situation like this
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 01:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 04:51 |
|
|
Salt Fish posted:Hikaru played my clip on his stream today so I'm basically famous now sorry everyone. was it the artosis clip? i wish i didn't need to subscribe to watch the Hikaru vods
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 01:21
|
|
|
salt fish is yosha iglesias irl
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 02:24
|
|
|
You caught me. It's true, I'm a FIDE International Master.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 03:12
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:You caught me. It's true, I'm a FIDE International Master. What’s your preferred brand of remote butt plug?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 03:27
|
|
|
Starting to feel like this is criminal court vs. civil court. Is there enough evidence to send Niemann to the metaphorical slammer? Maybe not. But enough to find him guilty in civil court and pay a big penalty (i.e. chess career is over)? Yeah, I think so.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 04:53
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:if you have enough data, you can massage statistics to say almost anything you want chess brain is when you're good at chess and think you're good at statistics but are actually very bad at it
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 05:17
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:Hikaru played my clip on his stream today so I'm basically famous now sorry everyone. I would think the relative strength of their opponents would have an effect on their accuracy over that time period. Magnus is a strong GM, and plays tournaments against other strong GMs. If Neimann is truly the strong GM that his rating suggests, then he's a strong GM who has spent most of the past few years playing tournaments against IMs and weak GMs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 05:18
|
|
|
This statement is just "Please give me permission to assassinate your character. If you refuse people will assume you are guilty thus assassinating your character". The entire basis for the accusation of otb cheating is that Niemann "didn't look tense", because I guess there is only one Magnus Carlsen approved way to look tense? Like I get that Carlsen is the biggest name in the game and Niemann has history of cheating and generally gives off shady vibes but I would have hoped more people would point this out for the evidence free smear attempt that it is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 05:55
|
|
|
People really bending over backwards to defend an ADMITTED CHEATER against the world champion because somehow the world champion has a grudge against an ADMITTED CHEATER or is salty he lost or something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 05:57
|
|
|
Baronash posted:I would think the relative strength of their opponents would have an effect on their accuracy over that time period. Magnus is a strong GM, and plays tournaments against other strong GMs. If Neimann is truly the strong GM that his rating suggests, then he's a strong GM who has spent most of the past few years playing tournaments against IMs and weak GMs. I agree with you to an extent, although some of these games are 40+ moves where he plays "perfectly".. It seems unlikely that anyone could do that against IM's and GM's rated in the 2,200 to 2,500 range, even if they were rated significantly higher. That's why people want a comparative analysis done of a similar stretch of time with some of the other young and upcoming GM's in the world.. people who play in the same tournaments or at the very least are in the same sort of situation where they are rapidly improving as players and their FIDE rating is lagging behind their true talent levels.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 06:07
|
|
|
it's worth noting that while I think the statistics we've seen so far are extremely shoddy, that doesn't necessarily mean that the conclusions drawn are wrong. You can come to the correct conclusion shoddily. You should just be wary. I give more weight to non-quantifiable things like "it's very unusual for a GM to not be able to explain their moves" than poorly-quantified things like the tweet up above--though I'd give even more weight to a properly done statistical analysis
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 06:11
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:it's worth noting that while I think the statistics we've seen so far are extremely shoddy, that doesn't necessarily mean that the conclusions drawn are wrong. You can come to the correct conclusion shoddily. You should just be wary. I give more weight to non-quantifiable things like "it's very unusual for a GM to not be able to explain their moves" than poorly-quantified things like the tweet up above--though I'd give even more weight to a properly done statistical analysis why dont you do it? this is your chance for 15 minutes of fame
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 06:13
|
|
|
totalnewbie posted:People really bending over backwards to defend an ADMITTED CHEATER against the world champion because somehow the world champion has a grudge against an ADMITTED CHEATER or is salty he lost or something. Ah yes World Champions are famously perfect beings who never make mistakes or bad decisions and their word should never be questioned. That is definitely supported by history. And people who have cheated in the past are cheating 100% of the time no evidence required. If the argument is that Niemann should be banned from tournaments because of his proven, admitted cheating in the past then people should make that argument. Its not bending over backwards to ask for evidence before condemning someone and Magnus has very conspicuously avoided saying he has any evidence. Him having a hunch about cheating isn't proof, no matter how much you like the guy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 06:34
|
|
|
I’ve been following the buttplug saga and welp. What’s the 2022 equivalent of Chessmaster 9000? I haven’t played seriously in ages and was never very good when I did try, but now I have the power of an Adderall prescription and a pandemic to make me never go outside.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 06:48
|
|
|
Luigi Thirty posted:I’ve been following the buttplug saga and welp. What’s the 2022 equivalent of Chessmaster 9000? I haven’t played seriously in ages and was never very good when I did try, but now I have the power of an Adderall prescription and a pandemic to make me never go outside. Chess.com if you support Magnus, lichess.org if you support Hans.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 06:51
|
|
|
lichess is dope and completely free, chess.com is run by crypto-shills
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 07:08
|
|
|
i think it seems really likely magnus lost to hans at the sinquefield purely because he was already mad at having to play a cheater, he got even madder when hans had prepared for his opening, and that all made him play badly the rest of the game
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 07:22
|
|
|
totalnewbie posted:People really bending over backwards to defend an ADMITTED CHEATER against the world champion because somehow the world champion has a grudge against an ADMITTED CHEATER or is salty he lost or something. Magnus has cheated on stream and hasn't even admitted it so I guess he's donezo too. cheetah7071 posted:it's worth noting that while I think the statistics we've seen so far are extremely shoddy, that doesn't necessarily mean that the conclusions drawn are wrong. You can come to the correct conclusion shoddily. You should just be wary. I give more weight to non-quantifiable things like "it's very unusual for a GM to not be able to explain their moves" than poorly-quantified things like the tweet up above--though I'd give even more weight to a properly done statistical analysis That's not how evidence works. The non quantifiable evidence that you describe and that Magnus provides is worthless in terms of drawing a conclusion. Even statements around how unusual Hans's behavior is to relative to other GMs needs to be quantified by actually comparing to other GMs, something no one's actually done properly. archduke.iago fucked around with this message at 12:02 on Sep 28, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 11:57
|
|
|
archduke.iago posted:Magnus has cheated on stream and hasn't even admitted it so I guess he's donezo too. finally we all agree
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 11:58
|
|
|
play on chess.com when you’re sober, lichess when you’re hosed up
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 12:06
|
|
|
Chess.com is capitalism lichess is for the people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 12:16
|
|
|
Lichess Anonymous: The Chess Glory Hole 
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 12:20
|
|
|
archduke.iago posted:That's not how evidence works. The non quantifiable evidence that you describe and that Magnus provides is worthless in terms of drawing a conclusion. Even statements around how unusual Hans's behavior is to relative to other GMs needs to be quantified by actually comparing to other GMs, something no one's actually done properly. I’m sure not what you’re intending by evidence here but this is not even remotely accurate if you’re attempting to describe what is and isn’t legal evidence (in US judicial system).
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 13:02
|
|
|
Baronash posted:I would think the relative strength of their opponents would have an effect on their accuracy over that time period. Magnus is a strong GM, and plays tournaments against other strong GMs. If Neimann is truly the strong GM that his rating suggests, then he's a strong GM who has spent most of the past few years playing tournaments against IMs and weak GMs. I’m not sure that this is something we should expect to be true. While we might expect a worse player to have a worse match% for a number of reasons (they understand the position worse so they make fewer correct moves), I’m not sure why we would expect someone’s match% to go up because they are playing against worse opponents. It’s not like this is a literal contest of strength, where Carlsen forcibly makes moves for his opponents. The position is what it is, and best play is just as hard to find.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 13:15
|
|
|
I find more persuasive these histograms of Hans' Let's Check values. https://twitter.com/AaaHarkonen/status/1575050292659294210 https://twitter.com/eric_is_weird/status/1575024100438790144 Specifically this shows that Hans is *extremely inconsistent*. Sometimes he hits 100%, sometimes he plays bizarrely badly. This counters the claims that the measure somehow inflates Hans's score, or that his high matches are due to playing weaker opponents more often. If the weaker players are giving him a high match %, who the heck is he playing to get <25% matches? I think this also shows up an issue with Regan's analysis - that's based on averages (due to use of the z-score). But Hans's high spread means that such averages can hardly be teased out. All Hans needs to do to trick Regan's method is to play some matches deliberately badly, which will make cheating when it matters more or less invisible. The large peak at 100 seems weird too, but I'm less sure about that. cheetah7071 posted:if you have enough data, you can massage statistics to say almost anything you want The difference between the distributions for Magnus and Hans above is easily statistically significant. The question is whether you can come up with a plausible alternative explanation. Fangz fucked around with this message at 13:59 on Sep 28, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 13:52
|
|
|
former glory posted:Lichess Anonymous: The Chess Glory Hole lol
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 14:37
|
|
|
mikeraskol posted:I’m sure not what you’re intending by evidence here but this is not even remotely accurate if you’re attempting to describe what is and isn’t legal evidence (in US judicial system). From an epistemological view, worthless statistical evidence means that you shouldn't actually adjust your assessment as to whether Hans is cheating. From a legal perspective, non-quantitative "vibes" fall into the bucket of non-expert opinion evidence which is similarly worth jack. Magnus, and other chess GM's aren't experts in statistical analysis or human behavior, and no one's done a trial on the association between cheating and providing an analysis that feels "sus."
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 15:00
|
|
|
It’d be really fun to see a JCS analysis ( like they did with prince Andrew and Casey Anthony) of some post-allegation Neumann interviews
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 15:06
|
|
|
Fangz posted:The difference between the distributions for Magnus and Hans above is easily statistically significant. The question is whether you can come up with a plausible alternative explanation. A more fruitful line of inquiry would be testing the hypothesis that Neiman's proportion of 100% games is out of line with his rating compared to other IMs and GMs, but even that wouldn't necessarily prove anything.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 15:07
|
|
|
archduke.iago posted:From a legal perspective, non-quantitative "vibes" fall into the bucket of non-expert opinion evidence which is similarly worth jack. Magnus, and other chess GM's aren't experts in statistical analysis or human behavior, and no one's done a trial on the association between cheating and providing an analysis that feels "sus." This is not accurate at all. These are “facts.” How did he act during the match? What did you observe? How do your opponents normally act? Did you just play him on a beach before that and whip his rear end? And so on. I wouldn’t want to hang my entire case on it but it is clearly evidence. You can weigh it however you want to. mikeraskol fucked around with this message at 15:12 on Sep 28, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 15:08
|
|
|
Charles Ingalls posted:It’d be really fun to see a JCS analysis ( like they did with prince Andrew and Casey Anthony) of some post-allegation Neumann interviews What’s this
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 15:09
|
|
|
Captain Foo posted:What’s this A YouTube channel focusing on criminal psychology, the prince Andrew one appears to have been scrubbed from the internet(it was a hilarious breakdown of the infamous bbc interview) , but you can still view the Casey Anthony one and others https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eJt_afGN3IQ
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 15:14
|
|
|
I feel all this focus on cheating has distracted the chess community from the real enemies in their midst: people who play 1. d4.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 15:14
|
|
|
mikeraskol posted:This is not accurate at all. These are “facts.” How did he act during the match? What did you observe? How do your opponents normally act? Did you just play him on a beach before that and whip his rear end? And so on. "I thought he wasn't concentrating" and "I had the impression he wasn't tense" are different from "He wasn't concentrating" or "He wasn't tense," Magnus's entire statement was very carefully worded to avoid making statements of fact.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 15:16
|
|
|
nrook posted:I feel all this focus on cheating has distracted the chess community from the real enemies in their midst: people who play 1. d4.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 15:19
|
|
|
archduke.iago posted:"I thought he wasn't concentrating" and "I had the impression he wasn't tense" are different from "He wasn't concentrating" or "He wasn't tense," Magnus's entire statement was very carefully worded to avoid making statements of fact. There's obviously a whole bunch of murkiness here, but I think that "my opponent wasn't acting in any way that is normal for a player in this situation" is something meaningful. These players have been playing chess for a long time, they pay attention to how their opponents act, so they do have a meaningful (even if intuitive) sense of normal behaviour. Now, sure, there are other explanations for why someone is acting abnormally, especially a goony goon like Niemann. But Carlsen (and Nepomniachtchi and Caruana and so forth) does have some level of expertise in the matter, and his intuitive sense of things is worth paying attention to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 15:21
|
|
|
archduke.iago posted:"I thought he wasn't concentrating" and "I had the impression he wasn't tense" are different from "He wasn't concentrating" or "He wasn't tense," Magnus's entire statement was very carefully worded to avoid making statements of fact. This is a silly detail but what you’re describing is a “fact” that he would be able to testify about at a hypothetical trial. Saying “I thought he wasn’t concentrating” is a statement of fact. As in, at that moment, this is what I saw and believed. I think what you’re saying is that you wouldn’t weigh that fact very strongly, which is completely fair. Magnus of course can’t speak to Hans’ internal mental state, nor would he be allowed to. But he can speak to what he saw, and what his impression of it was. I think the disconnect is on what a “fact” or “evidence” is. mikeraskol fucked around with this message at 15:25 on Sep 28, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 15:22
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCy1w-P0_d8
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 15:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 04:51 |
|
|
Hand Knit posted:There's obviously a whole bunch of murkiness here, but I think that "my opponent wasn't acting in any way that is normal for a player in this situation" is something meaningful. These players have been playing chess for a long time, they pay attention to how their opponents act, so they do have a meaningful (even if intuitive) sense of normal behaviour. Now, sure, there are other explanations for why someone is acting abnormally, especially a goony goon like Niemann. But Carlsen (and Nepomniachtchi and Caruana and so forth) does have some level of expertise in the matter, and his intuitive sense of things is worth paying attention to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 15:53
|
|