Thatās probably even harder than just all the timestamps - because I still need to possibly rewatch it all and judge whether it might support the argument or not
Iāve put asterisks beside the longer segments - thereās breaks in the commentary for like 8 minutes where they just show the players Hans + Magnus game, maybe theyāre good ones? Thereās a long segment at the end of the game as well.
Personally I am in support of this expedition / experiment and donāt think it is a part of militarization / weaponization of space
Sure it involves an explosion but the idea behind is not creating space weaponry but rather getting confirmed experimental data about what happens to an asteroidās orbit and trajectory when it is impacted in this manner.
In the event that we discover another asteroid headed for Earth like the one that took out the dinosaurs or even another Tunguska itās better to have more information about what we could do to avoid impact.
The DART mission even has international cooperation - the follow-up mission to Didymos is being handled by the ESA.
It really wasnāt. I found this video which is a review of the game:
I am unranked in Chess and this made a lot more sense than some reviews of Go pro games (a game in which I am much better), so I really do not see what moves they found to be soooooooooo inconcievable that there had to be cheating involved. It is 2 hours on the clock, those people are the best in the world, it is very much reasonable that they actually thought the things the reviewer mentions.
That could be a testament to the person reviewing the video though, rather than the simplicity of the highest level of Chess
Edit: The other thing you can do is watch Hansā interview after the game, and thereās a bunch of things that still seemed a bit complicated, ways for White to hold in certain positions that presumably neither Niemann or Carlsen could see in the game even with 2 hours.
FWIW (not much), I donāt not believe that Guy 2 cheated.
I tend to respect instinct, and believe itās more often than not an expression of very fine-tuned experience.
kinda OT, expanding on instinct
I think weāve mentioned this here before, about the ābutterflies in the stomachā some people experience when they meet a person that ultimately harms them, usually abuses or even kills them. The more scientific explanation is that those ābutterfliesā are actually their fight or flight response, reacting to signs that that person is dangerous. But they are conditioned to explain it as āomg romance!!!ā and basically donāt listen to their instinct, with tragic results.
Guy 1ās instinct probably pings because his experience caught something in the air. If he removed his ego from the situation and stopped expecting everyone to just believe him because itās the World Champion speaking, maybe he could be able to find a few coherent arguments and put them in a convincing line about why his opponent cheated.
If he canāt calmly, rationally find such arguments, maybe he should just accept defeat (and defeat) and drop it.
The possibility that heās just annoyed he lost is very much still on the table.
The moves look rather normal. Although the endgame seems extraordinary, it doesnāt seem unreasonable for high-end play.
I have come to this controversy late, as I havenāt followed chess since Kasparov retired. I read the allegation that Niemann had cheated before, previous to the Carlsen controversy. Is that true? If so, why is he allowed to continue to play in FIDE events? Have his recent games been checked with AI? Has his ascent in the ranks been consistent?
The rage video that @Allerleirauh posted above suggests to me a person of the sort that I would most expect to cheat. Of course, it is also true that high-level chess has had a number of strange personalities in its history.
I havenāt followed it either, twitter suggested me Magnusā letter. But itās definitely not just one game people randomly got upset about, thereās history. It seems he rose rapidly, he admitted to cheating in casual online games at some point some time ago, plus people analyzed his games with engine and some percent numbers they find suspicious (you could find spreadsheets).
Thanks. I donāt speak French, but this video apparently has the kind of analysis I was wondering about, judging from the translated comments indicating substantial grounds for suspicion.
There was some really fun interviews that came out of the Sinquefield Cup, not just Hansā ones, but something like Alireza Firouzjaās (world #4) one after managing a draw with Hans in round 4.
The end of the interview they want to ask him about a line they looked at, and he said he didnāt even see the idea to start with, only Hans told him after the game
I donāt think 2 hours for the first 40 moves is enough time to see everything
Oh, quite so! The review was very well made and I didnāt say that they were simple moves, but that I found them very reasonable for the highest level of players.
For example, do you remember that Lee Sedol move against AlphaGo where everyone, even the pros, went āwooooow, how did Lee Sedol think of that, this is awesome!ā ā¦ this game didnāt really have something that would make you say āgood GOD, is this even possible during a live game?ā
Super high level of play, yes. Not simple at all, true, but not on the āso baffling that there had to be cheating involvedā level.
Of what Iāve heard he has only cheated online. Even if that is true, even in every other sport, even with heavy cheating and doping involved, it is very rare to get banned for life. Usually you get a year or two out. Wasnāt there a similar issue recently with a young pro in Go? I think the punishment was finite and not āfor lifeā.
Only e-sports have perma-bans as far as I know.
You made me remember of Tyler1 who would make Niemann look like a sleepy hedgehog busking in the sun, but having rage issues or being very passionate about something or being addicted to an activity/hobby, doesnāt make you a more likely cheater. I does look bad though on your resume, not going to argue there
The UK is the epitome of cringe right now . . . A lot of brits have been getting more and more embarrassed by the country, and I guess you could add Unionists in Ireland due to the brexit sea border. The thing is, I literally said in my head, essentially, āWHY on earth would you cut taxes when unemployment is so low?ā So I just assumed that maybe Elizabeth Truss Knows something I donāt. But look, exactly as expected, it made things worse. Especially considering it was tax cuts for the rich. Why do we pay people to make worse decisions than we could? When we give free money to rich billionaires we call it subsidies. When we give money to poor people we call it benefits.
