[FreakLegion]

There's an objective reality here. You can watch the interviews and evaluate the positions yourself to verify it. I checked, since the interview today left the engine off and I was curious if Hikaru's ad hoc analysis was right. It was[1].

Anyway, one small but important logical issue. When you say "the guy is just a few points below 2700", that's begging the question. Other people are arguing, in effect, that "Niemann's play can't be that good, his analysis is too bad", and your counter is "Niemann's analysis can't be that bad, his play is too good".

1. Example I gave elsewhere, now timestamped: https://youtu.be/ETzdxK7QUmg?t=145. Black is better than +3 here and Hans is saying it's completely lost.

[Andrew_nenakhov]

I did miss the exact context of this video, what is the position being discussed? It's that from a game Hans played with somebody which he then drew?

[joshuamorton]

It's from a line that ultimately wasn't entered into in the game, but Hans mentioned to Alireza in the postgame. So it's a position that Hans should have considered during the game. He claims it's obviuosly winning for white. It isn't, and Hikaru is ~immediately able to see that the position is (significantly) losing for white.

[Andrew_nenakhov]

> Hikaru is ~immediately able to see that the position is (significantly) losing for white.

Hikaru could have followed the game with an automatic engine evaluation, that would make it 'slightly' easier for him to '~immediately' evaluate the position with better precision.

You are comparing a tired guy answering the questions on the spot to a person who could have had all the computer help in the world (and they do when they are following live matches).

[joshuamorton]

Yes hikaru could have, but he didn't, if you watch the stream. He doesn't have engine analysis on while hes looking at lines. It's off the cuff analysis without engine help.

Like compare hans to alireza in their interviews. Hans clearly just has a worse understanding of the position he chose to go into.

I mean to me it feels less like cheating and more like just absolutely wild prep, hans played like a 3200 up to the midgame and then couldn't convert a winning position, but it's suspicious to have such completely insane prep, especially without clear compensation

[FreakLegion]

Starting from this position in the game against Alireza today, which was even: https://lichess.org/editor/r2q1rk1/1pbn1pp1/2p1b2p/p2pP3/P1N...

The interviewer (Alejandro Ramirez, also a GM) asks Hans what happens if black takes the knight on c4, which didn't happen in the game but is the engine's best move. Hans says Bh6, starts down one line with g6, Bg5 (good moves) but backtracks the latter and blunders with f4, and says "At this point my pieces are literally perfect, his pieces are terrible" (Hans is -2). The position in the video is two moves later. By then white is completely lost, but Hans says black has no chance.

[Andrew_nenakhov]

So how did he make it to +3 position against #4 player in the world if he is so terrible? If he cheated and used a computer, what is your suggestion, that his cheating method had failed mid-game?

As for his 'blundering' in a live Q&A talk, that's not indicative at all, I have posted my reasoning in a sibling comment.

[FreakLegion]

> So how did he make it to +3 position against #4 player in the world if he is so terrible?

There are two answers to this question. One is obvious and is the subject of the article we're all responding to: Cheating. Some people think he's cheating.

The other is that nobody actually thinks Hans is terrible. Even if he cheated he's still at least a 2500-level player and perfectly capable of taking the odd game off of super GMs. Being very good and cheating aren't mutually exclusive possibilities.

> that's not indicative at all

The word you want is conclusive. The interviews are certainly indicative, but they're very far from conclusive.

[Andrew_nenakhov]

> The word you want is conclusive.

No. The word I want is indicative, as in "Serving to indicate; Pointing out; bringing to notice; giving intimation or knowledge of something not visible or obvious".

Giving "imprecise" analysis at the Q&A session does not mean anything at all, and of course it can't be used as an evidence of any kind that a cheating took place.

[FreakLegion]

If that's really the word you want then you're simply wrong. It can be and is being used as evidence that Hans may have cheated, just like his history of online cheating is being used, but nobody serious who's commented (Hikaru, Eric Hansen etc.) thinks the evidence is conclusive. It's evidence, but it's not proof.

[xeromal]

>As for his 'blundering' in a live Q&A talk, that's not indicative at all, I have posted my reasoning in a sibling comment.

Specifically on this, I agree with you. Who knows if he's just nervous at giving interviews.