News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Is Hans Niemann cheating? – Expert analyzes. Parent comment

Re:Is Hans Niemann cheating? – Expert analyzes by bombcar on Friday September 23, 2022 @08:40AM (#32951091)
Proving a positive result is much easier than a negative. A positive “this move right here is not reasonable without a chess computer suggestion ♟” vs “we didn’t find anything suspicious”.

And if you’re cheating, adding another layer of “try to find moves that aren’t suspicious” would be theoretically possible.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Is Hans Niemann cheating? – Expert analyzes by roenxi on Friday September 23, 2022 @08:53AM (#32951234)
That isn't really proving a positive though - maybe the player just got lucky. There aren't that many moves in any given turn, sometimes even a novice will make an inspired move.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Is Hans Niemann cheating? – Expert analyzes by bombcar on Friday September 23, 2022 @09:21AM (#32951564)
True - but identifying a particular move gives a discussion point at least.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Is Hans Niemann cheating? – Expert analyzes by debacle on Friday September 23, 2022 @09:29AM (#32951677)
The other factor is that Regan's process is designed to not produce false positives - if it says you are cheating, you are almost guaranteed to be cheating.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Is Hans Niemann cheating? – Expert analyzes by bombcar on Friday September 23, 2022 @10:28AM (#32952406)
Exactly - the lack of evidence isn't evidence of lack; a common mistake.

All we know now is that an "obvious" method of cheating wasn't used. That may be because there was no cheating at all, or a new method of cheating has been developed.

[ Parent | on HN ]