67
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Dec 2023
67 points (93.5% liked)
Chess
1924 readers
1 users here now
Play chess on-line
FIDE Rankings
# | Player | Country | Elo |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Magnus Carlsen | ๐ณ๐ด | 2839 |
2 | Fabiano Caruana | ๐บ๐ธ | 2786 |
3 | Hikaru Nakamura | ๐บ๐ธ | 2780 |
4 | Ding Liren ๐ | ๐จ๐ณ | 2780 |
5 | Alireza Firouzja | ๐ซ๐ท | 2777 |
6 | Ian Nepomniachtchi | ๐ท๐บ | 2771 |
7 | Anish Giri | ๐ณ๐ฑ | 2760 |
8 | Gukesh D | ๐ฎ๐ณ | 2758 |
9 | Viswanathan Anand | ๐ฎ๐ณ | 2754 |
10 | Wesley So | ๐บ๐ธ | 2753 |
Tournaments
September 4 - September 22
Check also
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Statistics only really work, if you have a reasonable amount of data at hand. Obviously it was easy for the Chess.com games to find the problematic games. But Niemann only played in 13 over-the-board tournaments.
Carlsen and another (anonymous) GM said some games were suspicious. For me, this is still more accurate than the statistics they used.
When looking at it after the fact you're actively looking to find the problems and using analytical tools to help you figure it out. While the match is happening few people will be looking to find evidence of cheating based on analysis. Sure, you can have tools actively looking at all times, but that takes extra work, which means extra money.
It's like when you're looking at a bush; only when you're actively trying to count the branches will you actually find how many there are. Only the blatant weird configurations like there being only 1 to 10 branches or so will be that obvious.