[somenameforme]

Cheat detection isn't done by only by move analysis, but by an extensive profiling of a person and games based on many factors beyond even just the moves. For instance one of the easiest ways to catch a weak player cheating is move times. Such a player will have no idea whether a move is trivial or works only due to an exceptionally precise and lengthy series of counter-intuitive calculations that no human could do without a significant think. And so they'll tend to rely both in approximately the same amount of time.

Even during the Carlsen-Niemann game it was meta-factors that initially clued Carlsen in. Niemann was playing without any significant effort or tension, in spite of playing in a game where he was outplaying the world champion. And after the game he was unable to explain his own ideas, proposed ideas that were simply losing, referenced games that did not exist, and was generally (relative to the class of player here) clueless. None of that final section is definitive proof of cheating to say the least, but it helps create a probabilistic profile of a player (and a game).

The point of this is that even a computer that played human-like (which I would argue will not happen for the distantly foreseeable future), would be just one factor among many in busting cheaters. I expect this is why Magnus was also initially reluctant to directly accuse him of cheating. He felt he was cheating based on the meta-factors and probably got folks more capable than himself to evaluate the technical factors, and when that also came up as a redflag - yeah, the dude's a cheater.

[bambax]

> For instance one of the easiest ways to catch a weak player cheating is move times. Such a player will have no idea whether a move is trivial or works only due to an exceptionally precise and lengthy series of counter-intuitive calculations that no human could do without a significant think

Ok, but what prevents the helper to communicate the difficulty or the number of minutes to think-pretend as well as the move itself?

Everything that can be measured can and will be gamed. That's why anti-fraud units are so secretive.

[Taek]

There are always extra factors that can be discovered.

There was a video game speedrun cheating incident where the cheater was caught splicing. But their splices were perfect. No audio artifacts, no video artifacts, for a long time no evidence at all because the cheater perfectly conformed to all known cheat detection.

Then one day it was discovered that the loading animation was dependent on a frame counter that persisted across all game states. If the run wasn't spliced, the loading animation's current sprite should have matched a perfectly predictable pattern.

It didn't. But this counter/consistency wasn't discovered until much after the run was achieved, so the cheater had no way of avoiding detection.

This is basically what happened with Hans. Hans knew all the traditional methods for detecting chess cheating successfully evaded them.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-30/chess-cheating-expert...

but new techniques for cheat detection were developed in direct response to accusations against Hans, and Hans had not perfectly emulated a prodigy human with his cheating. He did things that only an assisted player would be capable of.

[KennyBlanken]

This is exactly how I get clued in on how someone is cheating in a shooting game I play.

You can tell how experienced someone is based off the gun they use (some are stronger than others), whether they use cover or just run out into open spaces and shoot, how they move, whether they use 'gadgets' like grenades, and so on. A lot of novice players don't even use the sprint function to run.

When someone who literally just walks around the map but can laser everyone with headshots (which have a significant damage multiplier)? They're cheating.

[pyuser583]

What happens when it’s a strong chess player who is cheating?

Even a strong player can benefit from consulting a computer. Chess games can win fail based on a few moves.

A strong player would only need to consult the computer on a few moves to get a considerable advantage.

[colechristensen]

The strongest players would be the "best" cheaters but also the least likely to cheat. Top n players for small n would only need one "this move is important" hint per game to significantly improve their rating. Very hard to detect of course. But when you hear the actual top players talk about chess they genuinely seem interested in playing the game and not so much driven by chasing some accomplishment of winning. It's quite hard to get to that level without having the genuine interest.

But also their games are subject to the most scrutiny and study and they themselves will spend a lot of time publicly talking about and analyzing their own games, those "cheat" moves would stand out as ones which were hard to see and had bad explanations after a while.

[z9znz]

> What happens when it’s a strong chess player

A strong chess player would have to weigh the risk of losing all their progress and reputation if caught cheating.

After this current situation, I expect the penalties for being caught cheating will be severe. Whether the cheater is banned from all future events or not, nobody will want to support them, nobody will want to associate with them, and they will essentially be cast out of the entire chess world.

[avar]

> And after the game he was unable to explain his own ideas, proposed ideas that were simply losing, referenced games that did not exist, and was generally (relative to the class of player here) clueless

Aside from Niemann's case, how is it strategically beneficial to a chess player to provide the "inside scoop" on his plays?

You're presupposing incompetence, but another explanation would be a deliberate strategy to throw off future opponents.

[Andrew_nenakhov]

> Niemann was playing without any significant effort or tension, in spite of playing in a game where he was outplaying the world champion.

Carlsen was making mistakes. That wasn't his best game at all. Are we sure we aren't talking of this because someone's ego was hurt?

> And after the game he was unable to explain his own ideas, proposed ideas that were simply losing,

That doesn't mean anything at all

> referenced games that did not exist,

That did exist close enough to the period he mentioned. Remembering the position and analysis is necessary, remembering when exactly this position happened and even between whom exactly is utterly useless.

> and was generally (relative to the class of player here) clueless.

He didn't make a clueless impression to me. But I'm not Carlsen's fanboy whos accusations can cloud my own reasoning. If I was, I'd probably believe that Niemann is a proven cheater and would look for facts to confirm that bias.

[sgjohnson]

> If I was, I'd probably believe that Niemann is a proven cheater and would look for facts to confirm that bias.

But Niemann is a proven cheater. He admitted to it himself.

The only thing up for debate is how much he’s cheated.

[Andrew_nenakhov]

Whatever happened when he was a kid and played online is absolutely irrelevant in otb tournament that had anticheating measures which organisers considered to be sufficient to stop cheating.

[jamespo]

Hand waving "that's irrelevant" is not the get out you think it is

[klwww]

This is exactly right and confirmed by at least 20 GMs as well as Regan.

But once something is leaked to the WSJ, people believe it and downvote based on "authority". Which is why the leak occurred just before the US championships for maximum impact.