Chess.com banned Hans after beating Magnus. Why?

AGAIN, chess.com is not the "police" in the world of chess, it's just a website. Such as Lichess, Playchess from Chessbase, etc. 

This is an OTB tournament and it's not a chess.com sanctioned tournament. They have the same access to the facilities as I do from my house watching the tournament via Twitch. 

The only way they could detect cheating is via engine analysis. All other variables they probably use, such as mouse moves, clicks, etc., are not there for them to use.

Neither do they have bouncers with a chess.com badge inspecting the facilities and following Hans around during the tournament to tell about suspicious behaviour. 

It's simply not possible to determine a SuperGM cheated at a long time control in OTB by analysing the game. That's why all the security etc. Even during the Topalov Kramnik match it was not possible to prove any accusations, and computers could not help. 

If you told me it's Xqc playing Ludwing in OTB and Xqc players 60 moves matching the engine , or other far lower rated players doing the same, then I would agree ... but in case of SuperGMs they won't be able to tell whether they cheated or not except by catching them DOING IT. 

 When Carlsen or Caruana play like an engine and all their moves match the engine, does it mean they cheat? 

 The only reason they are taking action is because Magnus cried foul. If they were so adamant to go against cheaters they would have never allowed Hans back on site, nor allowed other players to come back days after getting banned (some even bragging on the forums they are back and still get to keep their accounts).

Lol? Were you there? Were you part of the security team at the place? Did you check him yourself? Did you keep an eye out on him when he took toilet breaks? 

How can you claim 95% certainty? Did you find some suspicious device on him? 

Or are you just some random guy sitting at a computer far away and claiming to know what happened at the building? 

You sound like those conspiracy nuts who claim to know exactly that the CIA, MI5 and KGB top spheres are all about, typing from their couch while they watch Netflix. 

Or are you a Magnus fans and everything Magnus says or hints is RIGHT, because MAGNUS.

Ah yes Magnus would never lie or throw a tantrum like a little child, of course.

You have *FULL* faith in them....that's why you're 95% certain, and only 50/50 on the game that Magnus actually threw a hissy fit over.

I got full marks on my maths test today, so I am obviously very disappointed that I got so many questions wrong....mostly about probabilities and percentages.....

I’ll be cancelling my Diamond shortly if chess.com does not explain their actions adequately.

They probably will if hans decides to sue

In the immortal words of Yoda:  "So certain are you!"  Geez, it's been less than a day, and everyone here acts like they know everything.

they do have enough evidence that would stand up in court

Except they can claim they did not ban him for cheating, but rather because having him on site would get in the way of their business buying out that Magnus website Danny Rensch mentioned the other day.

Oh why didn't you say that your divination was based on such precise and well thought out reasoning....are you sure you meant 5%? The way you describe it sounds a bit more like 3.67%.

Magnus wet his knickers because he had his heart set on 2900 after ditching the world title, and more or less p***ed it away because he thought he could have a little fun playing jazz against the lowest ranked player in the tournament; and then perhaps he had an off hand conversation with someone at this site who blew sunshine up his backside (stitched him right up) by telling him the anti-cheat detected something.

The anti-cheat on this site is base on a comparison between engine moves AND events such as blurring and mouseouts that the page detects while you are playing - you can open up the javascript file in the webtools in your browser and see it for yourself. These events are fed to the browser by your operating system - actually you can pre script events to send to your web browser (or indeed any windows process), and there is NO way programmatically you could tell the difference.

No doubt they think that they can model 'human' behaviour as opposed to engine behaviour, but statistically it would always be a erroneous, especially at the top level - there are some openings that are 15+ moves all of theory - and indeed the top GMs would be learning the lines given to them by their engine; so then you'd model against what you consider to be a 'novelty' met with 'perfect' play, who's making that decision? Computers brute force, they cannot see what they see and compare it to what a human would see. Magnus himself has said that in most games all he would need would be 1 indicator that there was a tactic or a critical position, and he would be unbeatable - how would that be detected? It is like chess puzzles most people can solve way above their rating because the fact it is implicit that there is something to be found is the biggest clue you need.

First, the anti-cheat is not what you think it is. MILLIONS OF DOLLARS went into that anti-cheat and they want it to be the best it can be, which includes hiding how it really works to stop cheaters from gaining the upper hand.

They would also only ban someone if they were 200% sure they were cheating-this includes ABSOLUTE, UNDENIABLE PROOF THAT WOULD MAKE A CASE IN COURT.

"MILLIONS OF DOLLARS went into that anti-cheat and they want it to be the best it can be, which includes hiding how it really works to stop cheaters from gaining the upper hand."

Lol those are just empty words from a sales pitch. It's like when sportsmen say "yeah Im going to give a 110%"....

Or when you go to an interview and they ask your about your weakness and you say 

IM A PERFECTIONIST

It's almost like opinions exist and that "95%" percentage was his opinion on the matter, and nowhere did he claim it to be fact.

...nah. Can't be. People online can't have opinions! Everything they say, they believe to be cold, hard, fact.

its unfortunate

Wow....that's some maths above my head, what on earth would I know about percentages or computers, I'm just a humble software engineer (whose also heard several times about super sophisticated AI systems, that turn out to be a bloke called Bob sat in the corner of the office watch YouTube videos about Hadoop, who then asks if anyone has a map they need reducing because he knows all about that now.)

If you want to give an opinion, give your opinion. 

Dont start giving out numbers because then you are entering the territory of facts, and if you make up the numbers you will look silly. 

96.57397% of chess.com users agree with me, but only 74.2293% of lichess users do, for some odd reason.

They don't need 100% undeniable beyond-a-reasonable-doubt proof.  Defamation wouldn't be a criminal case, it would be a civil case.  That only requires a preponderance of evidence, not absolute proof.

Those wanting answers right now, keep in mind that your need to know might not be their top priority right at this moment.

You're right. Soon the evidence will come up and we will have the proof!

That makes no sense. He used numbers, because they are a convenient and easy way to gauge things. In his mind, there is about a 95% chance that he cheated. An easy way to measure how likely you think it is that he cheated. Hence why he said "I think"