I mean if you're a prodigy at anything then you probably have to ignore a lot of regular schoolwork to focus on going to tournaments, study chess, etc.
That was the LITERAL opposite of the politician answering technique. Politicians spin a question into a completely different talking point. The coach answered the questions as honestly as he possibly could. Or maybe I'm only thinking of American politicians, since they are all I know.
I think diplomacy is more accurate. I know what you mean though, it’s riff in the chess world especially the answers from players to the reporters. Edit: I think rife was what I meant
He talk a lot to get over quickly with the interview but without really telling us anything. It’s basic politician tactics when they are asked about embarrassing stuff.
I don't understand, he said in the last tournament, Magnus was angry after Hans' interview where he insulted him, so he responded with a passive-aggressive "force" that would derail Hans' chances at winning the tournament, and he succeeded brilliantly... art of war, sacrificing oneself to destroy one's enemies, aka a kamakazi psychological attack. And now this time with the quick resign he has a similar plan, but it's too early to reveal the overall strategy publicly
Mad respect to Magnus’ coach, there is a lot of pressure to give even the tiniest hint, but instead of trying to word things in a clever way he took the direct route and was not afraid to stand on his morals.
@boss sauce He was 19, not 17. And he admitted to being caught cheating multiple times online when he was 16, and in an online tournament when he was 12. How about you stick to the facts.
@@omargodinez7256 He's correct about the education being one-sided in a chess grandmaster, but a specialization in one specific skill (chess) does not necessarily mean that they are completely uneducated and somewhat understates the fact that many chess super GMs are just, simply put, geniuses. If anything, it should be taken as the joke it is. It's a subversion of the expectation of the so-called omniscient genius. It's comedy first and controversy second, and I don't think most people would take it any other way.
@@elijahmitchell-hopmeier182 I am inclined to believe he means it seriously in some level though, because it is very true. I am not saying chess geniuses are idiots at anything else, but it takes more than genius to be competent at things as technical as cheat detection. I also think the dismisal of the cheat detection expert's view because he's "just an IM" is very ignorant, arrogant and short-sighted. I think I just find the idea that a chess genius is somehow the pinacle of human intellect is a bit pathetic, to be honest.
@@omargodinez7256 *It is utter stupidity on Nakamura's and Nielsen's side. They admit they don't understand basic statistics because they never even got a basic education and that they should be humble. But just after saying that, they claim that Ken Regan's method somehow must be flawed, even though they didn't spend any time understanding it, and though they admit they probably can't understand it if they tried, because Regan is only an IM.* *It basically means that only Magnus and Hikaru get to decide who cheats and who doesn't. And we don't even get to question them.*
Peter proved to be a very smart an intellectually honest person. The fact that he acknowledges that he doesn't have technical acumen to discuss certain topics is actually admirable and is something EVERYONE should do. People that use internet to cast their opinions on topics they know nothing about should take a page out of his book.
I wish people would stop acting like it's not possible that Hans cheated. Like I genuinely don't think that he did, but it wouldn't help my point to say that he couldn't have, because then I'd just be wrong.
I love this guy, he doesn't evade qu3stions he just says he wouldn't tell you. I would love for him to be a politician. They won't be honest that they can't tell you. This dude is cool.
@@forcommentingpurposesonly2918 If someone were to have a problem with Magnus, it would be because he has started with the insinuation of allegations without backing it up, providing evidence, or even personal context on the matter. Instead dragging it this out, wrongly or rightly discrediting an individual’s victory over him, and causing some likely mental turmoil. But yeah, I don’t see how what Magnus could be doing wrong.
False. How many grandmasters actually end up being able to support themselves from just chess alone? Most of them need another job, which will require them to have an education
@@drugaddict931 Oh? That is actually shocking to hear. My country doesn't have that requirement. Here in the USA, businesses get to choose who they hire on their own terms - they are not required to hire an educated workforce. As an uneducated individual, you can walk into an unemployment office, and get a job the same week without requiring any education. Whereabouts in the world do you live? I'm interested in your culture.
@@batteo3318 no you don’t lmao. There is nowhere in the world where you can’t get at least a job as a labourer without an education. Too much of every country’s workforce has no education for them to be able to afford denying them a job
Needs a control group tournament. Have tournament where a known group cheats but the organizers don't know who or how many. Then see how effective they are at catching them.
@@joshh9542 I think you don't get what he's saying. Instead of going for a fair tournament, go for an unfair tournament and see how good the organizers are at catching cheaters. It's a great idea tbh.
You'd have to silo the anti cheating team otherwise the various methods would be leaked. And players would have tells. It'd have to be based on the moves alone. And the tournament would have to be large enough, and maybe with the cheaters changing every round, with slightly different cheating tactics. You'd also have to silo the team coordinating the cheating. Some parties have more to lose based on the results. So you could get some leaking and spying.
@@joshh9542 Sure, but it'd still be interesting to know if they'd accuse the right people, if they'd catch everyone, if they'd accuse some non-cheaters, etc.
You think Ken Regan hasn't already thought of that? He did create some some simulated tournaments using simulated chess players who play simulated moves, and found out that his simulations were accurate to real life
I'm surprised how you're always able to squeeze needless, non-constructive criticism out of absolutely everything that happens on this channel just for the fucking sake of it. If you didn't find it funny, don't laugh. Don't tell other people not to laugh. "I don't like chocolate, so you'd better never chocolate ever again, asshole". "I've decided that I'm against breathing, so you all better stop fucking breathing".
@@forcommentingpurposesonly2918 ...Was OP's comment even negative? I'm also surprised how easily Hikaru laughs, but I enjoy it and it makes me laugh too.
You'll realize within 6 months that your statement is wrong. Lots of people are going to leave chess because of this, especially those who have started within the last year.
Chess is not going to make the news because of good chess games. Cheating might sound bad, but there’s much worse ways chess could get attention, e.g. super GM commits violent crime against opponent, Norway declares war on USA etc.
@@cous You don't need to believe me, just wait. The game is going to get hit with a big loss of viewership and players The influx of attention is just that, only attention. As far as people wanting to play, learn, and watch will drop significantly. Disgusting how all of your representatives have allowed one player disrespect the entire sport and let him get away with all these childish actions. If one loves the game and all those who play it, you approach it in a correct manner, not in this way of throwing all caution to the wind plus knowing that there is no one who will criticize or condemn you. I can't imagine the biggest sports figures doing this in any of their respective sports because of course there would be consequences. This child is a god to your small game of chess. again, don't believe me. just watch.
from this short interview I would guess that Peter Nielsen is an extremely likeable, intelligent and sensitive person. Obviously he cannot comment on what everyone wants him to, but his general comments about the state of chess are correct and heartfelt. Bridge players are also going through this as several at the world championship level have been caught cheating in the past few years - badly tainting the professional game in the same manner.
Bc all he's doing is dodging questions. Basically wasting everybody's time. Dude should run for office he can talk for 15minutes and answer nothing. Listen to how he answers his 1st question. - neutral response. - magnus employs me. Basically dude is just a weak PR mouth piece.
It would be epic if magnus was able to beat the computer( if he cheated that is) so he just walks away winning against someone who cheated but still lost lol
Maybe Fischer Random is the only future of the chess, the only way to see who is the strongest... Opening, computers... Fischer was right this destroy chess.
So Magnus the Child can't even publicly speak about this, he has to have his "parents" talking for him. All respect is lost now for Magnus who is a falling star and struggle mentally to handle it. Which is not sportsmanship or mature behavior.
I agree. One model of statistics doesn't cover all aspects of chess. We also don't know the accuracy of the model in term of how it predict cheating. At the highest level, the super-GM level need one move/idea from the engine to give significant result for the game. People at lower level need assisted from computer in every move to win the game, but the super grandmaster only needs one move/idea (at the critical situation) from the engine to give a significant result. I also believe that the model cant gives great accuracy in the highest critical situation. Let's say, Ding, uses two or three engine moves/ideas against Ian, for the shake of testing how accurate the model produces. I am pretty sure that the model will say Ding is not cheating.
Well, I think in that case you simply can not detect cheaters (this kind of cheaters I mean). It is just impossible, I think for obvious reasons. What can be done is the most strict checking for any devices before games plus 15 min delay in translations. And of course let the statisctics do it's work as long as it can. Also, the last but not the least, more serious punishment for cheaters, maybe even no second chance in case of OTB cheating (ban for life in all official tournaments). IMO it is the best way to deal with this problem
Actually, before you assume things, you should watch the interview with Dr. Regan on the tournament broadcast with Kaja yesterday. He has implemented exactly what you "believe the model can't" (your second paragraph).
Alireza: "QG3 is insane" Hans: "It's obviously winning I don't have to show variations" The problem imo for Ken Reagan is that he doesn't understand odd moves because he's not a strong chess player, he can only see stats and not see odd moves.
No further statement required...Magnus' chess speaks for itself. In all seriousness, when someone like MC commits his life's focus for so long and at such a high level it becomes second nature being able to identify and anticipate descision patterns and reactionary behaviors. for what it's worth: IMO if he sensed patterns and reactions that led him to believe something was fishy, then I would trust his expertise (even over any computer analysis). MC's 'hunch', however, isn't 'proof' so what can he really do other than refuse to ever play that opponent again...certainly not via computer, and probably not OTB (even with stringent security measures in place). way ahead: I would leave everyone involved in this alone, and go back to business as usual. Let EVERYONE'S chess speak for itself. If those two never play eachother again, then so be it. The chess must go on.
@@iD-du1iu that's exactly what's so cringe about this whole "debate". He doesn't "speak", he is not responsible to prove anything even though everyone thinks that... leave the guy alone and don't transform your emotional reaction into a responsibility of someone else
is 'leaving him alone' really a good option? i mean look at the tournaments... is it fair that hans gets a 'free' win? no, it is not. magnus is brings chaos... and how do you think future tournaments will be? if magnus keeps up his resignations you can simple not invite him to tournaments anymore when hans is in the tournament as well... and that is just sad and stupid... the way magnus is handling this is completely against fair sportsmanship... and yes, i get his point. and he is making a strong point, but 'back to business as usual' is just not possible...
@@dimitralex1892 I think you have it backwards. Hans is the one that should be left off the invitation list. He is an admitted cheater by his own words. Magnus gets the benefit of the doubt with me on this one.
I hope they would be more strict in their anti cheating measures, knowing that some players have cheated before and cheating has become very easy online.
- "Are you suspecting Hans Niemann of cheating?" - "...it doesn't look like fella was cheating at the chess Olympiad which he obviously was and was caught..." he doesn't even need to answer properly because the *facts speak for themselfs*
I work with statistics daily. I haven't read the entire methodology on how Regan actually tested that. However, Regan´s chess level is not a factor because the moves are compared regarding the "best" engine move and not his personal evaluation. What I think is missing in Regan's analyses, or more than missing, something to take into account, is that, on average, the errors of Hans are not significantly less or more than his competition. In addition, his performance is within the expected, taking into account variability. However, from what I saw, if, for example, Hans cheats in 2 moves within 2 games in a tournament with 12 games, then those "super" moves will be hidden within the "averages" (not even taking into account that maybe were not moves, but tactical considerations). To put it simply, if you average the entire height of university students in the USA, you might say they have similar size, but you are missing the 3 almost 8-foot people that study only in one. That's the problem of averages and the problem of Regan analyses in considering 2 years. As we know, you would not have to cheat in every move, just in the 3 most important of the tournament. Just an idea that someone can overlook can be enough, and it will not be caught by averages, or most likely not... at least to my knowledge of what Regan has shown. Maybe if he did an actual scientific article on the method, it would be easier to check.
Hikaru, when Peter says GMs don't understand the master-level statistics of Ken Regan because they had no education because they had to worry only about chess, I think he's really saying just the opposite about Regan: he has no knowledge of chess because he has had to worry about statistics.
I mean, Ken Regan was a junior level IM. He was extremely talented at chess. He's not some random math-statistics dude who wandered into an unknown domain. He's probably one of the best suited people on the planet to apply statistics to chess in the interest of spotting cheating / anomalous behavior.
@@tootoomcgoo9674 True, but the difference in skill between him and a 2700 is about the same as the difference in skill between him and the average tournament player.
Chess and Go are very different games. But after AlphaGo, young Go players immersed themselves in engine play. Watching some of the games, commentators were amazed at how often they played the best moves. Seemingly more than the older players. AFAIK Go theory has been revolutionized in a way chess has not. I'm a mediocre Go player, but my sense is that many engine moves in Go are way more incomprehensible than engine moves in chess. In effect the engines are wiring the brains differently.
They are just going to have to get airport security screening equipment for over the board play. Maybe just play in a large Faraday cage, with the camera/mic being the only electronic lines going in.
Is it just me, or does Margnus' coach look and feel like the older lumberjack version of Magnus? Imagine him in a flannel shirt... They even have the same inflection in their voice
Hans intentionally chose moves that weren't the ideal on every turn, however he also only chose moves that all led to positive outcomes and were efficient for like 25 moves deep. Hans couldn't explain his thought process and claimed that he prepared for a situation with early queen action earlier in the day, which is absurd as it is not common at this level of play. Hans has been caught cheating multiple times. The longer you cheat, the better you get at concealing it.
@@YaBoiBrendo I think he is more likely to have cheated than not based on the stockfish evaluations of his moves. A cheater doesn't need to choose the absolutely best moves, merely not select moves that would negatively affect the game beyond recovery. I am not familiar with the security at the event and cannot speak to methods as a result.
@@AroundTheBest You "think" but also admit your own ignorance on security methods. Just stop. You don't have a point nor expertise in the subject. Just one more terminally online take.
I don't get people who use the, "how did he cheat? There is no evidence." but you gotta remember, there were murderers who got away with murder and through time, you can only imagine it was them. Devils knot for example. You can be incredibly suspicious of someone, especially if they have a shady history. Sometimes the simplest explanation is the reason. Maybe Hans did cheat. It's not wrong to suspect him. You may not know how, or if he cheated. But you can suspect him. Because he is a known cheater, and nothing is impossible. A cheater can and will find a way to do it. So you can't disregard it. You can continue to assume he didn't. But I'm going to give magnus the benefit of the doubt. He's a super genius, played chess his whole life. Never had an issue with other people's play when he lost. Then comes along Hans, a cheater who admitted himself he cheated before. Comes to the tournament, unable to explain his moves properly. It's just... You just don't know. But it certainly feels suspicious. And that's okay.
@@simongail8428 There were also innocent people convicted of murder. The simplest explanation is that he didn't cheat. There were no extraordinarily hard to justify moves. If the easiest explanation was that he did cheat, you'd first have to find a method for his cheating over the board that requires less assumptions than the alternative (or that has more evidence). You're doung Occam's Razor wrong.
If people didn't think he was cheating before, they DEFINITELY should consider it now after decimating Levon in 21 moves, cos that just doesn't really happen.
Levon has been dropping some horrenduous game frequently in pretty much every tournament for the last couple years, obviously the situation is weird around Hans and his sudden rise but there's no proof at all. And watching the game back, Levon blundered massively, not exactly some tactics that a GM shouldn't see. Hell even up to 11th move it's pretty much a sicilian theory that i even knew, and i can tell you that i'm shit lol, i expect a GM to have a deeper theroy knoweldge and preparation than me for 5 more moves, where Levon completely shit the bed though.
I feel like there is a misunderstanding in this video, I think Peter is saying that as an uneducated chess player he doesn't understand everything Ken Regan is saying about the stats and methods etc, and not that Ken Regan does not understand super GM level chess. Is he therefore implying that Ken Regan is suggesting something regarding cheating that is technically going over his head.
The only disappointment with unsportsmanlike behavior at this point is MAGNUS CARLSEN himself. He shouldn’t get a free pass for his recent behavior. ( The World Cup, the Sinquefield Cup and now the Julius Baer Generation Cup). Quitters are losers!
I've made a response filled with numbers I had calculated by myself, but it doesn't appear to me anymore. To summarize and focus more specifically on your question: it seems if you sum up the number of all IMs and GMs, the GMs will be around the 70th percentile - i.e., will correspond to 30% of these. Not too big a difference.
The other numbers I had came with: 19,518 titled players, 4,013 IMs (20.5% of those titled players, [edit: 70.5th percentile, I suppose]), 1,773 GMs (91st percentile), and 41 Super GMs (99.98th percentile). Those are a bit old, but they are the data I have to work with. Obviously, not all chess players are titled, only some of the strongest - but not also all the strongest, because not every good chess player take part on official tournaments.
I think it was a language barrier thing for when he said chess players aren’t “educated” I think he was just saying educated (not an expert) as in not educated in the computer science side of seeing if someone cheated or not
What he said about education isn't wrong. Max Euwe and Paul Morphy two incredibly well educated individuals both expressed the difficulty of balancing the study of higher education and chess. He's of course not referring to intelligence. Also a grandmasters idea of education is likely a lot higher than other peoples idea of what makes someone educated
@@humanbean3 Are you talking about Dubov? If you're, he's currently the 40th most rated player in the world, and was 25 years old during the last World Championship.
If Magnus says someone’s cheated before, that someone’s gotta have to pick up their slack. Magnus resigning that fast shows that he really really hates engine cheaters. Especially if they went on stage. When accusations abound, I would appreciate it if people understand privacy.
0:58 A more polite and classy response: "as professional and coach i must respect trust my client (or athlete) has on me so i can't share the details in much depth." Maybe even add a "I'm sorry" at the end.
It seems to me that a machine like the airport one where they check all the way to the core of your being should fix these type of allegations rather quick and I'm surprised they only use a wand to check the players in this day and age.
Hikaru, you should get David Smerdon to chime in on this cheating statistics+chess issue. David is a GM and he has a PhD in Economics. Empirical economics uses very sophisticated statistical methods.
I think they are underestimating Regan. He’s at over 2300. Sure, that’s not close to super GM level but he definitly understands chess. He doesn’t need to understand it on a super GM level. He is looking for individual and general patterns, and he compares them against tons of different metrics. He is a ”GM statistican” with an IM in chess. Find me a Super GM in chess that atleast understands the basics of his work. And he will maybe be able to beat/cheat some of the system setup. There is another flaw in the argument from Magnus coach. If Hans is cheating. There is no reason to believe he is a Super GM and if he’s not a super GM, well.. then he most likely is closer to the level of strength that Regan isand that type of player Regan should be able to understand, right?
Yes,Peter's argument is flawed ,Regan is an IM and strong enough to integrate the logic of chess master with his algorithms . You dont need to be a SuperGM to give your computer variables and let that computer output statistical DATA . Peter was right when he said chess masters are uneducated and this could be the reason of Carlsen' emotional response
Move by move statistical analysis might catch a rube using an engine. As Hikaru (and others) correctly point out, it is sufficient to know when to calculate deeply or what the evaluation is to give the cheater an overwhelming advantage.
Hans is obviously a strong GM. If he cheated, it was just to get some extra help, so for example he might be a 2600 but reached 2700 because of the cheating. Also as a million people already pointed out, this statistican methods would only catch someone who is cheating the whole game. If Hans is getting 1 or 2 moves in critical positions, he would never catch it with his method.
No, he was talking about understanding the motive or intention to playing certain moves. When you are analyzing positions at a 2700+ level, being 2300 is not strong enough to fully understand the position or what players are thinking when they play those positions at that level. Sure, you can understand the moves that are played, but its not just the moves that are played that is important. Its a lot of other factors. What other moves were they considering? what lines were they thinking about? Did they see a better move but didnt feel as confident in playing that position? etc. If you could understand those positions in the same way a 2700+ could, then you would be 2700+ yourself. or at least close to it. Thats the issue. a 2300 isnt even close to 2700. There is no way he can properly understand what a 2700+ is thinking of when they play these positions. He can understand the position and with an engine's help understand why certain moves were played, but he may not understand the full human element of what was going on to determine why a 2700 played that move instead of another one. Also, yea, there isnt a super GM who is as good at statistics as that guy is. But why is that relevant? thats kinda the whole point being made by the guy in teh interview. Its a complicated issue and there is nobody qualified enough on everything to properly GIVE a well educated answer. The statistics dont show any weird anomalies but that doesnt mean cheating didnt occur. All it means is that the cheating was done in a way where statistics could not really pick it up IF it occurred. And there are plenty of ways to cheat in a way where its virtually impossible to detect it using statistics alone. its not that hard to make a game where you cheat look like a normal legit game.
@@danielnery4054 Thats the issue. people think that you either have to cheat EVERY move or never cheat. They dont understand how powerful cheating only like 3-5 moves per game actually is. Its virtually undetectable while also giving a massive advantage to the person doing it. It wont make you unbeatable or undrawable, but it will boost your average consistency by quite a bit which is an effective rating boost of like 100-200 elo most likely. The strategy only works if you're ALREADY a good player, but it makes you perform even higher than your normal abilities. Its like pro athletes taking drugs to make them like 5% faster/stronger. 5% isnt a lot, but when you're already at the very top level of performance, it makes a big difference. Its enough to turn a standard pro into a top level pro.
I get that that you're just joking but Olympic coaches are in the same spot right? They can even be out of shape. Nielsen's job isn't to teach Magnus chess it is to help him organise and motivate his training, prep and studying
Hans seems like rocky balboa of chess and people hate him for it lol they seem intimidated that a 19 year old who refers to himself as a “idiot” is overcoming the odds lol
To clarify: Ken Regan reached IM level as a junior. So Hikaru calling him an amateur chess player is either a sign he's not aware of this, or he just casually roasted 99% of people who play chess.
the dude is rated 400 Elo under Super GMs. He understands chess pretty well, but its no where near to the level a Super GM understands chess. If he could analyze 2700+ play like a super GM, he would probably BE a super GM, or at least a normal GM. He's only 2300 rated because he CANT do that. He obviously knows chess far better than the vast majority of people, but its a lot harder to understand whats going on in the mind of a Super GM without being one yourself. And just to show how big of a gap 400 rating points really is, he is only expected to earn 1 point out of every 10 games. This means he is likely going to only draw 2 out of 10 games and lose the other 8 vs a Super GM. Thats how big the rating disparity is here. someone 400 elo lower isnt able to compete at all.
There’s a difference between smart and being educated. You can be a GM and not know anything about computer science, advanced math, astronomy and so on.
Ah I see, so instead of asking him about the thing he's studied and worked on improving his entire life, you think it would be funny to ask him about something completely random. What do you have a degree in then, if any, because whatever that is, how about instead of that, I ask you about something entirely unrelated and then laugh at you when you can't tell me the answer.
@@forcommentingpurposesonly2918 Top level chess takes a degree of dedication that's hardly comparable to any career. That's both speaking nicely of how dedicated chess masters are at their craft while reminding that they sacrificed a lot for it. Being ignorant isn't always a scathing remark. Sometimes it's just a limitation that should be taken seriously.
@@ekki1993 "Being ignorant isn't always a scathing remark." Make this sentence make sense please. Being ignorant is a property, not a remark, so I would like you to clarify what the fuck it is that this is meant to mean.
@@forcommentingpurposesonly2918 Works for being called ignorant if you feel it's more consistent that way. Does it really make the rest of the point not clear or are you being dense for the sake of it?
@@ekki1993 Thank you for clarifying, however I do feel as though this statement contradicts your op, unless said op was not written with negative intent, in which case I must apologize for my overreaction, I'm used to dealing with assholes in these comment sections.
I checked and counted through the game. To my count: Magnus plays 32 moves the same as Stockfish, Niemann played 45. If a Super GM has a chance of 1/2 of moving the same as Stockfish. Then the probability to hit 32 moves the same is 6% or 1 in 20. To hit 45 is a 1 in 200.000 chance. Everything between 21 and 36 moves the same as Stockfish would roughly have a probability of above 1%, what could be considered normal/ ok to happen. 37 - 40 would be 1%-0.1% definitely possible... and it rapidly goes downhill from there... 1/200.000 is a probability when you multiply with 1500 GM * 75 Games, that would happen once every 3 years. But it is vs the world champion ... if you only count his games then it becomes improbable to the probability that someone should play that many Stockfish moves in a game should only happen once every 2500 years. if you say that Magnus plays chess for 25 years to make this simpler, then from the statistics you can only be roughly 99% sure that Niemann cheated. But that part is now a back of the envelope calculation. So just with maths you can only be rather sure he was cheating, but not to a level of safety that you could be sure enough to lifetime ban Niemann man from tournament chess.
This guy is awesome at saying nothing, but implying everything.
Like politicians , no clear cut answer just some random bs to confuse people even more. 🤣
That's why he's magnus's coach
@@Robcoz you Said the exact oposite of what the comment said
ONG 💀
Absolutely
“Most chess grandmasters barely have education because we actually have to care about chess” is one of the funny things I’ve heard a GM say
MVL has a bachelor's in applied mathematics
Unintentional roast of the century
Lol, Hikaru of course misunderstood this, he obviously meant education *on cheating in chess* specifically
He's not wrong.
I mean if you're a prodigy at anything then you probably have to ignore a lot of regular schoolwork to focus on going to tournaments, study chess, etc.
Clicked this vid quicker than Magnus resigned
🤣
lmaoo good one
Lol new chess meme nice
💀💀💀
is that possible?
The coach has mastered the politician answering technique
That was the LITERAL opposite of the politician answering technique. Politicians spin a question into a completely different talking point. The coach answered the questions as honestly as he possibly could. Or maybe I'm only thinking of American politicians, since they are all I know.
I think diplomacy is more accurate. I know what you mean though, it’s riff in the chess world especially the answers from players to the reporters.
Edit: I think rife was what I meant
Well, he's married to one, after all 😄
He talk a lot to get over quickly with the interview but without really telling us anything.
It’s basic politician tactics when they are asked about embarrassing stuff.
I don't understand, he said in the last tournament, Magnus was angry after Hans' interview where he insulted him, so he responded with a passive-aggressive "force" that would derail Hans' chances at winning the tournament, and he succeeded brilliantly... art of war, sacrificing oneself to destroy one's enemies, aka a kamakazi psychological attack. And now this time with the quick resign he has a similar plan, but it's too early to reveal the overall strategy publicly
Interviewer : **asks anything**
Carlsen's coach : If I speak I am in big trouble.
@@DarkCryptBlacksword Danish, living in Lithuania.
@@c99kfm Don't worry about him, he's racist.
I am jose mourinho
@@DarkCryptBlacksword 😂 You made me wonder if I'm an idiot for listening to this video.
in big, big trouble. And I don't want to be in big trouble
Mad respect to Magnus’ coach, there is a lot of pressure to give even the tiniest hint, but instead of trying to word things in a clever way he took the direct route and was not afraid to stand on his morals.
Saying Magnus wasn’t surprised while not saying why is not taking any direct route lol
@@mohitoness I think by "direct route" they mean how he was like "I'm not gonna tell you anything of worth" instead of pretending to give an answer
I mean, he still worded things in a clever way. He just clarified he wouldn't give information beforehand.
Lol why even do the interview then?
Uhh hes not not standing on his morals, hes standing on his job security
Speaks up on cheating drama: "I'm not really going to tell you anything there."
she should have replied "then what are you doing here??" lmao
@boss sauce The fact that you couldn't even spell his name right shows how much you know about the situation.
@boss sauce It's just you that's pretending to laugh.
@boss sauce What saddens me is that you're a troll but you're not even good at it.
@boss sauce He was 19, not 17. And he admitted to being caught cheating multiple times online when he was 16, and in an online tournament when he was 12. How about you stick to the facts.
i can see how magnus’ defence is so strong, this guy blocked all these attacks lol
RIGHT??
Magnus' coach basically said something without saying anything
or just the opposite
You basically reiterated every other comment without copying verbatim every other comment
I really don't think that he did. And if he did, what exactly did he say?
@@alekhinesgun9997 but its true though so you have no point
..no not at all, it’s just that the majority are spewing their illogic everywhere whereas this guy is intelligent and therefore restrained
Carlsen's coach: *Says literally anything*
Hikaru: *Starts laughing hysterically*
FUCK I GOT A HEART FROM HIKARU BUT EDITING REMOVED THE HEART
To be fair its quite funny
its his editor that hearts
@@noThankyou-g5c Still was a cool
Gg no re
Edit also remove pins btw.
"Most chess grandmasters don't have an education because we actually have to care about chess." ~Peter Nielsen
Inb4 people say "cope"
Why is this controversial to say? It is true. Do people seriously believe being good at chess replaces professional expertise on other things?
@@omargodinez7256 He's correct about the education being one-sided in a chess grandmaster, but a specialization in one specific skill (chess) does not necessarily mean that they are completely uneducated and somewhat understates the fact that many chess super GMs are just, simply put, geniuses.
If anything, it should be taken as the joke it is. It's a subversion of the expectation of the so-called omniscient genius. It's comedy first and controversy second, and I don't think most people would take it any other way.
@@elijahmitchell-hopmeier182 I am inclined to believe he means it seriously in some level though, because it is very true. I am not saying chess geniuses are idiots at anything else, but it takes more than genius to be competent at things as technical as cheat detection. I also think the dismisal of the cheat detection expert's view because he's "just an IM" is very ignorant, arrogant and short-sighted. I think I just find the idea that a chess genius is somehow the pinacle of human intellect is a bit pathetic, to be honest.
@@omargodinez7256 *It is utter stupidity on Nakamura's and Nielsen's side. They admit they don't understand basic statistics because they never even got a basic education and that they should be humble. But just after saying that, they claim that Ken Regan's method somehow must be flawed, even though they didn't spend any time understanding it, and though they admit they probably can't understand it if they tried, because Regan is only an IM.*
*It basically means that only Magnus and Hikaru get to decide who cheats and who doesn't. And we don't even get to question them.*
Peter proved to be a very smart an intellectually honest person. The fact that he acknowledges that he doesn't have technical acumen to discuss certain topics is actually admirable and is something EVERYONE should do. People that use internet to cast their opinions on topics they know nothing about should take a page out of his book.
if you listen to every 7th word he says, theres a coded message for Hans about what openings magnus will play in the next tournament.
Looks like we found the mole
You’re looking to far into it… the real message is on his shirt he’s leaking the opening lol
I wish people would stop acting like it's not possible that Hans cheated. Like I genuinely don't think that he did, but it wouldn't help my point to say that he couldn't have, because then I'd just be wrong.
Hikaru is the gateway drug to Chess for us noobs.
I love this guy, he doesn't evade qu3stions he just says he wouldn't tell you. I would love for him to be a politician. They won't be honest that they can't tell you. This dude is cool.
If you love this guy for not answering questions then wtf is your problem with Magnus?
@@forcommentingpurposesonly2918 When did I say I have a problem with magnus?
His wife is a politician :-)
@@forcommentingpurposesonly2918 If someone were to have a problem with Magnus, it would be because he has started with the insinuation of allegations without backing it up, providing evidence, or even personal context on the matter. Instead dragging it this out, wrongly or rightly discrediting an individual’s victory over him, and causing some likely mental turmoil.
But yeah, I don’t see how what Magnus could be doing wrong.
"most chess grandmasters barely have education because we actually have to care about chess" is the most true statement I think I've ever heard.
False. How many grandmasters actually end up being able to support themselves from just chess alone? Most of them need another job, which will require them to have an education
@@drugaddict931 Oh? That is actually shocking to hear. My country doesn't have that requirement. Here in the USA, businesses get to choose who they hire on their own terms - they are not required to hire an educated workforce. As an uneducated individual, you can walk into an unemployment office, and get a job the same week without requiring any education. Whereabouts in the world do you live? I'm interested in your culture.
@@drugaddict931 you don't need an education to get a job
@@tomatoisnotafruit5670 it depends of where you live. Here in Italy you absolutly do.
@@batteo3318 no you don’t lmao. There is nowhere in the world where you can’t get at least a job as a labourer without an education. Too much of every country’s workforce has no education for them to be able to afford denying them a job
Needs a control group tournament. Have tournament where a known group cheats but the organizers don't know who or how many. Then see how effective they are at catching them.
The organizers will take more strict anti-cheating measures in a tournament where they absolutely know players are cheating than a regular tournament
@@joshh9542 I think you don't get what he's saying. Instead of going for a fair tournament, go for an unfair tournament and see how good the organizers are at catching cheaters. It's a great idea tbh.
You'd have to silo the anti cheating team otherwise the various methods would be leaked. And players would have tells. It'd have to be based on the moves alone. And the tournament would have to be large enough, and maybe with the cheaters changing every round, with slightly different cheating tactics. You'd also have to silo the team coordinating the cheating. Some parties have more to lose based on the results. So you could get some leaking and spying.
@@joshh9542 Sure, but it'd still be interesting to know if they'd accuse the right people, if they'd catch everyone, if they'd accuse some non-cheaters, etc.
You think Ken Regan hasn't already thought of that? He did create some some simulated tournaments using simulated chess players who play simulated moves, and found out that his simulations were accurate to real life
magnus' staff speaks for itself
By "staff" do you mean the people who work for him? 😉
Yea MC made false accusations and his lap dog has a hard time justifying MC actions.
The main thing about Regan is he uses a statistical approach that can't detect infrequent cheating.
I'm surprised how Hikaru is always able to squeeze a big laugh out of absolutely nothing
I'm surprised how you're always able to squeeze needless, non-constructive criticism out of absolutely everything that happens on this channel just for the fucking sake of it. If you didn't find it funny, don't laugh. Don't tell other people not to laugh. "I don't like chocolate, so you'd better never chocolate ever again, asshole". "I've decided that I'm against breathing, so you all better stop fucking breathing".
@@forcommentingpurposesonly2918 ...Was OP's comment even negative? I'm also surprised how easily Hikaru laughs, but I enjoy it and it makes me laugh too.
@@forcommentingpurposesonly2918 ur parents didn’t hug you enough
@@captain_britain maybe. if so, my b.
@@forcommentingpurposesonly2918 lol
“Chess requires entire brain, no room left other things. Maybe alcohol.” Peter Nielsen, 2022
This quote belongs in a agadmator video
At what point ?
Maybe a bong ripe, everyone has their own sauce I suppose.
I’ve never watched chess in my life but I’m invested. This is better than rings of power. Yes the bar is that low for entertainment these days
no it's not. go outside, touch grass
Haha that's where I'm at.
Rings of Power is just a generic fantasy show, I don't even consider it LoTR. 1 bn well spent LMAO
@@Fred-tz7hs I'm a landscaper/gardener and I can confirm that rings of power is a mediocre show and that the bar is that low indeed!
@@Fred-tz7hs Are you mansplaining?
This drama is actually great for chess and it’s popularity. Gets people talking and interested
Sadly, for the wrong reasons tho
keeps it up he's gonna piss more people off.
You'll realize within 6 months that your statement is wrong. Lots of people are going to leave chess because of this, especially those who have started within the last year.
Chess is not going to make the news because of good chess games. Cheating might sound bad, but there’s much worse ways chess could get attention, e.g. super GM commits violent crime against opponent, Norway declares war on USA etc.
@@cous You don't need to believe me, just wait. The game is going to get hit with a big loss of viewership and players
The influx of attention is just that, only attention. As far as people wanting to play, learn, and watch will drop significantly.
Disgusting how all of your representatives have allowed one player disrespect the entire sport and let him get away with all these childish actions. If one loves the game and all those who play it, you approach it in a correct manner, not in this way of throwing all caution to the wind plus knowing that there is no one who will criticize or condemn you. I can't imagine the biggest sports figures doing this in any of their respective sports because of course there would be consequences. This child is a god to your small game of chess.
again, don't believe me. just watch.
He was as open and truthful as he could. Misa liked him.
from this short interview I would guess that Peter Nielsen is an extremely likeable, intelligent and sensitive person. Obviously he cannot comment on what everyone wants him to, but his general comments about the state of chess are correct and heartfelt. Bridge players are also going through this as several at the world championship level have been caught cheating in the past few years - badly tainting the professional game in the same manner.
"several at the world championship level have been caught cheating"
Who got caught cheating in chess?
@@LegendLength re-read and correct accordingly, please.
@@ugaugalandia Ugh
@@LegendLength I meant bridge players that have been caught cheating.
Magnus’ coach should take up stand up comedy the way Hikaru is laughing his ass off every couple minutes.
😂
Bc all he's doing is dodging questions. Basically wasting everybody's time.
Dude should run for office he can talk for 15minutes and answer nothing. Listen to how he answers his 1st question.
- neutral response.
- magnus employs me.
Basically dude is just a weak PR mouth piece.
@@charlespanache7047 he's doing his job then...
He isn't going to throw his employer/friend under the bus is he?
It was a "I can neither confirm nor deny details of any operation without the secretary's approval" moment LOL
What I got from this:
"I have my takes, but Magnus should speak for himself."
As a film writer, I can see this story becoming a movie one day.
I usually imagine that too.Can't wait for it.Lolz
It would be epic if magnus was able to beat the computer( if he cheated that is) so he just walks away winning against someone who cheated but still lost lol
I can’t get over the frequency of commercials nowadays. Really spoils things.
I really really like this guy. Not surprised at all that magnus and him have worked together for so long
Maybe Fischer Random is the only future of the chess, the only way to see who is the strongest... Opening, computers... Fischer was right this destroy chess.
What did you guys expect him to say? this guy at least respects privacy
To be fair, being smart and being educated are two different things. Man's got a point
So Magnus the Child can't even publicly speak about this, he has to have his "parents" talking for him. All respect is lost now for Magnus who is a falling star and struggle mentally to handle it. Which is not sportsmanship or mature behavior.
Magnus must be crying himself to sleep 😭
The fans are enabling his mental breakdown ironically, they aren't giving him the chance to admit he fucked up
As an American, it’s important for me to say that we neither claim Hans nor like him.
The coach speaks for himself
I agree. One model of statistics doesn't cover all aspects of chess. We also don't know the accuracy of the model in term of how it predict cheating. At the highest level, the super-GM level need one move/idea from the engine to give significant result for the game. People at lower level need assisted from computer in every move to win the game, but the super grandmaster only needs one move/idea (at the critical situation) from the engine to give a significant result.
I also believe that the model cant gives great accuracy in the highest critical situation. Let's say, Ding, uses two or three engine moves/ideas against Ian, for the shake of testing how accurate the model produces. I am pretty sure that the model will say Ding is not cheating.
can you speak english?
@@Fred-tz7hs thanks for reminding. The sentences are now corrected.
Well, I think in that case you simply can not detect cheaters (this kind of cheaters I mean). It is just impossible, I think for obvious reasons. What can be done is the most strict checking for any devices before games plus 15 min delay in translations. And of course let the statisctics do it's work as long as it can. Also, the last but not the least, more serious punishment for cheaters, maybe even no second chance in case of OTB cheating (ban for life in all official tournaments). IMO it is the best way to deal with this problem
Actually, before you assume things, you should watch the interview with Dr. Regan on the tournament broadcast with Kaja yesterday. He has implemented exactly what you "believe the model can't" (your second paragraph).
@@vanillaghetto Well. Who were the 2800 rated players that are to be the test train of the model? No one, right?
Danya in the top 1% most educated chess players with his Stanford degree.
Great video, anyone know how to mute the annoying guy at the bottom right that keeps pausing?
I prepared for 15 different openings against Vassily Ivanchuk. Vassily played the 16th......
Thats why Ivanchuk is a legend.
Alireza: "QG3 is insane"
Hans: "It's obviously winning I don't have to show variations"
The problem imo for Ken Reagan is that he doesn't understand odd moves because he's not a strong chess player, he can only see stats and not see odd moves.
Yeah, he's just an IM, wtf does he know about chess
Magnus has the same cadence as his coach.
This is because he is Danish, and the English cadence of Scandinavians is very similar, due to the difference in speech stress patterns.
This means that Magnus cheats, apparently
No further statement required...Magnus' chess speaks for itself.
In all seriousness, when someone like MC commits his life's focus for so long and at such a high level it becomes second nature being able to identify and anticipate descision patterns and reactionary behaviors.
for what it's worth:
IMO if he sensed patterns and reactions that led him to believe something was fishy, then I would trust his expertise (even over any computer analysis). MC's 'hunch', however, isn't 'proof' so what can he really do other than refuse to ever play that opponent again...certainly not via computer, and probably not OTB (even with stringent security measures in place).
way ahead:
I would leave everyone involved in this alone, and go back to business as usual. Let EVERYONE'S chess speak for itself. If those two never play eachother again, then so be it. The chess must go on.
You truly have spoken for yourself.
If you have the guts to speak about someone at least prove your words. That’s the problem that I see here
@@iD-du1iu that's exactly what's so cringe about this whole "debate". He doesn't "speak", he is not responsible to prove anything even though everyone thinks that... leave the guy alone and don't transform your emotional reaction into a responsibility of someone else
is 'leaving him alone' really a good option? i mean look at the tournaments... is it fair that hans gets a 'free' win? no, it is not. magnus is brings chaos... and how do you think future tournaments will be? if magnus keeps up his resignations you can simple not invite him to tournaments anymore when hans is in the tournament as well... and that is just sad and stupid... the way magnus is handling this is completely against fair sportsmanship... and yes, i get his point. and he is making a strong point, but 'back to business as usual' is just not possible...
@@dimitralex1892 I think you have it backwards. Hans is the one that should be left off the invitation list. He is an admitted cheater by his own words. Magnus gets the benefit of the doubt with me on this one.
I hope they would be more strict in their anti cheating measures, knowing that some players have cheated before and cheating has become very easy online.
Was here when it was Magnum carlos
You know Hikaru means business when he is wearing the pineapple shirt
This guy should be a lawyer, he implies but doesn’t get caught up in blunt answers
speech 100
He confirmed that Magnus is gonna speak on the situation
- "Are you suspecting Hans Niemann of cheating?"
- "...it doesn't look like fella was cheating at the chess Olympiad which he obviously was and was caught..."
he doesn't even need to answer properly because the *facts speak for themselfs*
Trying to get information out of Magnus's coach is like trying to squeeze orange juice out of a banana.
I need this guy as my lawyer
I work with statistics daily. I haven't read the entire methodology on how Regan actually tested that. However, Regan´s chess level is not a factor because the moves are compared regarding the "best" engine move and not his personal evaluation. What I think is missing in Regan's analyses, or more than missing, something to take into account, is that, on average, the errors of Hans are not significantly less or more than his competition. In addition, his performance is within the expected, taking into account variability. However, from what I saw, if, for example, Hans cheats in 2 moves within 2 games in a tournament with 12 games, then those "super" moves will be hidden within the "averages" (not even taking into account that maybe were not moves, but tactical considerations). To put it simply, if you average the entire height of university students in the USA, you might say they have similar size, but you are missing the 3 almost 8-foot people that study only in one. That's the problem of averages and the problem of Regan analyses in considering 2 years. As we know, you would not have to cheat in every move, just in the 3 most important of the tournament. Just an idea that someone can overlook can be enough, and it will not be caught by averages, or most likely not... at least to my knowledge of what Regan has shown. Maybe if he did an actual scientific article on the method, it would be easier to check.
He can analyze it all day but until there's actual evidence rather than conjecture ...
Hikaru, when Peter says GMs don't understand the master-level statistics of Ken Regan because they had no education because they had to worry only about chess, I think he's really saying just the opposite about Regan: he has no knowledge of chess because he has had to worry about statistics.
That's exactly what Hikaru said smh
I mean, Ken Regan was a junior level IM. He was extremely talented at chess. He's not some random math-statistics dude who wandered into an unknown domain. He's probably one of the best suited people on the planet to apply statistics to chess in the interest of spotting cheating / anomalous behavior.
@@tootoomcgoo9674 True, but the difference in skill between him and a 2700 is about the same as the difference in skill between him and the average tournament player.
Danya had a good explanation on the blind spot of that statistician
1 or 2 "cheat" moves in a critical moment on a board could win a match in gm level... how can you proove that?
Correction In Video Tittle: Magnus Carlsen's Coach DID NOT Speak Up on Cheating Drama
This is loyalty. My man. GG.
Chess and Go are very different games. But after AlphaGo, young Go players immersed themselves in engine play. Watching some of the games, commentators were amazed at how often they played the best moves. Seemingly more than the older players. AFAIK Go theory has been revolutionized in a way chess has not. I'm a mediocre Go player, but my sense is that many engine moves in Go are way more incomprehensible than engine moves in chess. In effect the engines are wiring the brains differently.
One word - butt plug go computers
@@NJ-wb1cz noooooo not this again
"I'm not really going to tell you anything there." (1:01) Beautiful.
They are just going to have to get airport security screening equipment for over the board play. Maybe just play in a large Faraday cage, with the camera/mic being the only electronic lines going in.
That doesn't stop another person from having a device and just communicating the moves to the cheater
With your comment at around 8:50 explaining what the coach said in plain English now I'm glad I am subscribed to this channel.
Is it just me, or does Margnus' coach look and feel like the older lumberjack version of Magnus?
Imagine him in a flannel shirt...
They even have the same inflection in their voice
These chess gms not saying anything outright but being down to infer whatever they want is so disrespectful. Makes the game look very bad.
Hans intentionally chose moves that weren't the ideal on every turn, however he also only chose moves that all led to positive outcomes and were efficient for like 25 moves deep. Hans couldn't explain his thought process and claimed that he prepared for a situation with early queen action earlier in the day, which is absurd as it is not common at this level of play.
Hans has been caught cheating multiple times. The longer you cheat, the better you get at concealing it.
@@YaBoiBrendo I think he is more likely to have cheated than not based on the stockfish evaluations of his moves. A cheater doesn't need to choose the absolutely best moves, merely not select moves that would negatively affect the game beyond recovery.
I am not familiar with the security at the event and cannot speak to methods as a result.
@@AroundTheBest You "think" but also admit your own ignorance on security methods. Just stop. You don't have a point nor expertise in the subject. Just one more terminally online take.
@@YaBoiBrendo You don't need solid visible proof they are guilty of a crime before arresting them. That's not how things work at all.
I don't get people who use the, "how did he cheat? There is no evidence." but you gotta remember, there were murderers who got away with murder and through time, you can only imagine it was them. Devils knot for example. You can be incredibly suspicious of someone, especially if they have a shady history. Sometimes the simplest explanation is the reason. Maybe Hans did cheat. It's not wrong to suspect him. You may not know how, or if he cheated. But you can suspect him. Because he is a known cheater, and nothing is impossible. A cheater can and will find a way to do it. So you can't disregard it. You can continue to assume he didn't. But I'm going to give magnus the benefit of the doubt. He's a super genius, played chess his whole life. Never had an issue with other people's play when he lost. Then comes along Hans, a cheater who admitted himself he cheated before. Comes to the tournament, unable to explain his moves properly. It's just... You just don't know. But it certainly feels suspicious. And that's okay.
@@simongail8428 There were also innocent people convicted of murder. The simplest explanation is that he didn't cheat. There were no extraordinarily hard to justify moves. If the easiest explanation was that he did cheat, you'd first have to find a method for his cheating over the board that requires less assumptions than the alternative (or that has more evidence). You're doung Occam's Razor wrong.
@3:50 I think this is what Levy Rozman calls "danger levels"
If people didn't think he was cheating before, they DEFINITELY should consider it now after decimating Levon in 21 moves, cos that just doesn't really happen.
Yeah even if he played naked you would say that
It was an online rapid game yes these things happen
@@ni9274 he should have never played in any chess tournament . Cheaters should be banned in any sport .
Levon has been dropping some horrenduous game frequently in pretty much every tournament for the last couple years, obviously the situation is weird around Hans and his sudden rise but there's no proof at all. And watching the game back, Levon blundered massively, not exactly some tactics that a GM shouldn't see. Hell even up to 11th move it's pretty much a sicilian theory that i even knew, and i can tell you that i'm shit lol, i expect a GM to have a deeper theroy knoweldge and preparation than me for 5 more moves, where Levon completely shit the bed though.
@@N9ndo LEVON + HANS = Americans.
I feel like there is a misunderstanding in this video, I think Peter is saying that as an uneducated chess player he doesn't understand everything Ken Regan is saying about the stats and methods etc, and not that Ken Regan does not understand super GM level chess. Is he therefore implying that Ken Regan is suggesting something regarding cheating that is technically going over his head.
Magnus resigned because he forgot how the knight moves
The only disappointment with unsportsmanlike behavior at this point is MAGNUS CARLSEN himself. He shouldn’t get a free pass for his recent behavior. ( The World Cup, the Sinquefield Cup and now the Julius Baer Generation Cup). Quitters are losers!
Is an IM like a basic professional athlete, a GM like an All-Star athlete, and a Super GM like a Hall of Fame level athlete?
IM = minor league player, GM= pro player, Super GM= allstar Candidates = hall of fame level
@@thelonewolfie34 That's what I was wondering, if the gap between IM and GM was that great. Thanks!
I've made a response filled with numbers I had calculated by myself, but it doesn't appear to me anymore. To summarize and focus more specifically on your question: it seems if you sum up the number of all IMs and GMs, the GMs will be around the 70th percentile - i.e., will correspond to 30% of these. Not too big a difference.
The other numbers I had came with: 19,518 titled players, 4,013 IMs (20.5% of those titled players, [edit: 70.5th percentile, I suppose]), 1,773 GMs (91st percentile), and 41 Super GMs (99.98th percentile). Those are a bit old, but they are the data I have to work with. Obviously, not all chess players are titled, only some of the strongest - but not also all the strongest, because not every good chess player take part on official tournaments.
Has my original response been erased because of a typo related to the initials of Fide Master? I don't know.
I think it was a language barrier thing for when he said chess players aren’t “educated” I think he was just saying educated (not an expert) as in not educated in the computer science side of seeing if someone cheated or not
I’ve never seen someone say so much yet so little all at the same time! Brilliant 👏🏻👏🏻
What he said about education isn't wrong. Max Euwe and Paul Morphy two incredibly well educated individuals both expressed the difficulty of balancing the study of higher education and chess. He's of course not referring to intelligence. Also a grandmasters idea of education is likely a lot higher than other peoples idea of what makes someone educated
He was Viswanathand Anand's coach?? That guy looks 20 years younger than Anand 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
And it's true dude
@@kieran1990able yeah i think i saw a video of carlen's "camp" or something, and there was a young dude still in his teens in appearance helping out.
@@humanbean3 Are you talking about Dubov? If you're, he's currently the 40th most rated player in the world, and was 25 years old during the last World Championship.
According to Wikipedia, Nielsen is 3 years younger than Anand.
What are you on about? that was no way near to what he was trying to say at all. You just came to that conclusion yourself. Listen again carefully.
Got to love the guy’s honesty 😇👏🏻😎
If Magnus says someone’s cheated before, that someone’s gotta have to pick up their slack.
Magnus resigning that fast shows that he really really hates engine cheaters. Especially if they went on stage.
When accusations abound, I would appreciate it if people understand privacy.
"how does magnus feel abou..."
"im sorry but as magnus coach, i must pretend, who is magnus?"
0:58 A more polite and classy response: "as professional and coach i must respect trust my client (or athlete) has on me so i can't share the details in much depth." Maybe even add a "I'm sorry" at the end.
It seems to me that a machine like the airport one where they check all the way to the core of your being should fix these type of allegations rather quick and I'm surprised they only use a wand to check the players in this day and age.
Hikaru, you should get David Smerdon to chime in on this cheating statistics+chess issue. David is a GM and he has a PhD in Economics. Empirical economics uses very sophisticated statistical methods.
I think they are underestimating Regan. He’s at over 2300. Sure, that’s not close to super GM level but he definitly understands chess. He doesn’t need to understand it on a super GM level. He is looking for individual and general patterns, and he compares them against tons of different metrics. He is a ”GM statistican” with an IM in chess. Find me a Super GM in chess that atleast understands the basics of his work. And he will maybe be able to beat/cheat some of the system setup.
There is another flaw in the argument from Magnus coach. If Hans is cheating. There is no reason to believe he is a Super GM and if he’s not a super GM, well.. then he most likely is closer to the level of strength that Regan isand that type of player Regan should be able to understand, right?
Yes,Peter's argument is flawed ,Regan is an IM and strong enough to integrate the logic of chess master with his algorithms . You dont need to be a SuperGM to give your computer variables and let that computer output statistical DATA . Peter was right when he said chess masters are uneducated and this could be the reason of Carlsen' emotional response
Move by move statistical analysis might catch a rube using an engine. As Hikaru (and others) correctly point out, it is sufficient to know when to calculate deeply or what the evaluation is to give the cheater an overwhelming advantage.
Hans is obviously a strong GM. If he cheated, it was just to get some extra help, so for example he might be a 2600 but reached 2700 because of the cheating. Also as a million people already pointed out, this statistican methods would only catch someone who is cheating the whole game. If Hans is getting 1 or 2 moves in critical positions, he would never catch it with his method.
No, he was talking about understanding the motive or intention to playing certain moves.
When you are analyzing positions at a 2700+ level, being 2300 is not strong enough to fully understand the position or what players are thinking when they play those positions at that level. Sure, you can understand the moves that are played, but its not just the moves that are played that is important. Its a lot of other factors. What other moves were they considering? what lines were they thinking about? Did they see a better move but didnt feel as confident in playing that position? etc.
If you could understand those positions in the same way a 2700+ could, then you would be 2700+ yourself. or at least close to it. Thats the issue. a 2300 isnt even close to 2700. There is no way he can properly understand what a 2700+ is thinking of when they play these positions. He can understand the position and with an engine's help understand why certain moves were played, but he may not understand the full human element of what was going on to determine why a 2700 played that move instead of another one.
Also, yea, there isnt a super GM who is as good at statistics as that guy is. But why is that relevant? thats kinda the whole point being made by the guy in teh interview. Its a complicated issue and there is nobody qualified enough on everything to properly GIVE a well educated answer. The statistics dont show any weird anomalies but that doesnt mean cheating didnt occur. All it means is that the cheating was done in a way where statistics could not really pick it up IF it occurred.
And there are plenty of ways to cheat in a way where its virtually impossible to detect it using statistics alone. its not that hard to make a game where you cheat look like a normal legit game.
@@danielnery4054 Thats the issue. people think that you either have to cheat EVERY move or never cheat.
They dont understand how powerful cheating only like 3-5 moves per game actually is. Its virtually undetectable while also giving a massive advantage to the person doing it. It wont make you unbeatable or undrawable, but it will boost your average consistency by quite a bit which is an effective rating boost of like 100-200 elo most likely.
The strategy only works if you're ALREADY a good player, but it makes you perform even higher than your normal abilities. Its like pro athletes taking drugs to make them like 5% faster/stronger. 5% isnt a lot, but when you're already at the very top level of performance, it makes a big difference. Its enough to turn a standard pro into a top level pro.
The only type of people who would understand magnus are those immature egomaniacs like him.
He can’t accept it.💯👎👎👎
Very good discussion and analysis
Ken Regan is an IM, do GMs really think that differently from GMs? It's not like he's a complete amateur.
Imagine being Magnus coach. It's like being a lifeguard at the Olympics.
I get that that you're just joking but Olympic coaches are in the same spot right? They can even be out of shape. Nielsen's job isn't to teach Magnus chess it is to help him organise and motivate his training, prep and studying
So absolutely no new information. This was a waste. Why even accept an interview when you are not going to give ANY information?
Magnus's coach looks like an older version of Magnus
Education and intelligence are not related. There are ppl with titles that are dumb
Hans seems like rocky balboa of chess and people hate him for it lol they seem intimidated that a 19 year old who refers to himself as a “idiot” is overcoming the odds lol
Is nobody gonna talk about why the world champion has a coach?
To clarify: Ken Regan reached IM level as a junior. So Hikaru calling him an amateur chess player is either a sign he's not aware of this, or he just casually roasted 99% of people who play chess.
I think it only means he’s not a professional and has his career outside of competitive chess.
He said at the end Regan is an IM but that's obviously different to a SuperGM...
Hikaru is also 'barely' educated and lacks social skills
the dude is rated 400 Elo under Super GMs.
He understands chess pretty well, but its no where near to the level a Super GM understands chess.
If he could analyze 2700+ play like a super GM, he would probably BE a super GM, or at least a normal GM. He's only 2300 rated because he CANT do that. He obviously knows chess far better than the vast majority of people, but its a lot harder to understand whats going on in the mind of a Super GM without being one yourself.
And just to show how big of a gap 400 rating points really is, he is only expected to earn 1 point out of every 10 games. This means he is likely going to only draw 2 out of 10 games and lose the other 8 vs a Super GM. Thats how big the rating disparity is here. someone 400 elo lower isnt able to compete at all.
There’s a difference between smart and being educated. You can be a GM and not know anything about computer science, advanced math, astronomy and so on.
Thats so true about education and chess masters. Id like to see what Hikaru knows about anything outside of Chess. It would be interesting.
Ah I see, so instead of asking him about the thing he's studied and worked on improving his entire life, you think it would be funny to ask him about something completely random. What do you have a degree in then, if any, because whatever that is, how about instead of that, I ask you about something entirely unrelated and then laugh at you when you can't tell me the answer.
@@forcommentingpurposesonly2918 Top level chess takes a degree of dedication that's hardly comparable to any career. That's both speaking nicely of how dedicated chess masters are at their craft while reminding that they sacrificed a lot for it. Being ignorant isn't always a scathing remark. Sometimes it's just a limitation that should be taken seriously.
@@ekki1993 "Being ignorant isn't always a scathing remark." Make this sentence make sense please. Being ignorant is a property, not a remark, so I would like you to clarify what the fuck it is that this is meant to mean.
@@forcommentingpurposesonly2918 Works for being called ignorant if you feel it's more consistent that way. Does it really make the rest of the point not clear or are you being dense for the sake of it?
@@ekki1993 Thank you for clarifying, however I do feel as though this statement contradicts your op, unless said op was not written with negative intent, in which case I must apologize for my overreaction, I'm used to dealing with assholes in these comment sections.
Translation didn't help him
I think he intended to say grandmasters don't have certificates not education
That was one of the best interviews I've ever seen 😂
I really tried to watch it seriously but that "barely have education" stuff got me
Daymm he's such a stand up guy
I checked and counted through the game. To my count: Magnus plays 32 moves the same as Stockfish, Niemann played 45.
If a Super GM has a chance of 1/2 of moving the same as Stockfish. Then the probability to hit 32 moves the same is 6% or 1 in 20. To hit 45 is a 1 in 200.000 chance.
Everything between 21 and 36 moves the same as Stockfish would roughly have a probability of above 1%, what could be considered normal/ ok to happen.
37 - 40 would be 1%-0.1% definitely possible...
and it rapidly goes downhill from there... 1/200.000 is a probability when you multiply with 1500 GM * 75 Games, that would happen once every 3 years. But it is vs the world champion ... if you only count his games then it becomes improbable to the probability that someone should play that many Stockfish moves in a game should only happen once every 2500 years.
if you say that Magnus plays chess for 25 years to make this simpler, then from the statistics you can only be roughly 99% sure that Niemann cheated. But that part is now a back of the envelope calculation. So just with maths you can only be rather sure he was cheating, but not to a level of safety that you could be sure enough to lifetime ban Niemann man from tournament chess.