Certain British GMs are opinionated

It's the same on Chess.com - in unrated games, you can get help, use an engine, whatever. If cap used the engine against the person in a rated game, I can see the automated systems detecting that and auto-banning him. If it had been on Chess.com, if cap's opponent submitted an appeal on cap's behalf to Chess.com support explaining what happened, I would think that Chess.com would unban him, but I have no idea what the Lichess processes or practices would respond.  

https://en.chessbase.com/post/is-hans-niemann-cheating-world-renowned-expert-ken-regan-analyzes

In the interview I queried specific points being brought up online and elsewhere such as a possible difference between games that were broadcast and games that were not.

"What I'm saying, as justifying my not needing to take the time to individually look into tournaments to see which were broadcast and which were not, is that if there is any bias in my data, then it's towards broadcast games (i.e more of it is analyzed due to availability) and yet I show something entirely normal."

I'd be interested in what Regan's algorithm would say if limited to those games that were broadcast: I expect that's the sort of thing that Chess.com did after Carlsen's resignation: that they had already flagged potential cheating but not to the level of certainty required to ban a titled player, but on running some more targeted reports found strong enough evidence of "the amount and seriousness" of Niemann's cheating on Chess.com (more than Niemann has publicly admitted to) and therefore banned him.

As an example - and note I am just pulling numbers out of thin air, because I don't know what the threshholds are - if someone's engine match rate over all of their games was 85%, but it rises to 95% for those broadcast over live relay and drops to 80% for those not broadcast, that's pretty significant.

I wonder if his algorithms can detect hijacked threads

Personally, I recognise that it is significant if someone plays 300 points stronger in a large sample of live relayed games against delayed ones. (And then, applying the scientific principle of testing, we then find he plays over 300 points stronger in the portion of Sinquefield 2022 that was live relayed).

There is no doubt that a professional chess player who has cheated for financial and personal benefit and has been caught twice is likely to try to disguise his cheating, but in order for it to be worth cheating, he can't fully disguise the boost to his results.

Unless the rules surrounding this have changed in the past ~12 months, I'm pretty sure this isn't correct.

I was under the impression that cheating in unrated games was still against TOS, unless the opponent was aware assistance was being used and agreed before the game, in which case it is fine.

Yes, according to the TOS, it has to be known that one (or both) are getting assistance.  On LiChess, casual games means anything goes (they do not even check them).

If it looks like a cheat and acts like a cheat, it's either a duck or Hans Niemann.

his dumbazz posed to bust a right his dumbazz bust a left

cope!

Cymru am byth

cope

oh look, it's you again

ok

You're quackers.

For so long, whenever I saw his name, I read it as "girl".

amish girl