Unfortunately, you are using a public forum where conversations aren't exclusive to a binary party, odd how that works huh?
Not typically how forums work, but ok.
Well, it just did did it not?
Chess.com is and has been biased to the point of being dead wrong when top players complain aka magnus and hikaru.
This has been known since time imemmorandum
I think we are getting into a bit of a chicken and egg argument here.
Technically speaking, Magnus has not accused Hans of cheating, so chess.com took action before a top player complained about an opponent cheating. However, I believe Hans may have been banned before Magnus even made the tweet, which leads me to believe that someone may have tipped Magnus off that Hans' play didn't pass the algorithm sniff test which lead to Magnus' withdrawal from the tournament.
Fair play explained by Danny Rensch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knvySXCNfd8
Chess.com is and has been biased to the point of being dead wrong when top players complain aka magnus and hikaru.
This has been known since time imemmorandum
I think we are getting into a bit of a chicken and egg argument here.
Technically speaking, Magnus has not accused Hans of cheating, so chess.com took action before a top player complained about an opponent cheating. However, I believe Hans may have been banned before Magnus even made the tweet, which leads me to believe that someone may have tipped Magnus off that Hans' play didn't pass the algorithm sniff test which lead to Magnus' withdrawal from the tournament.
Again, the only thing chess.com can do is analyse the OTB games with an engine, and that's not enough proof in a OTB game between super gms because it's unsurprising super gms will play engine-like variations, which they very likely even prepare with ENGINES.
How on earth can chess.com use anything else to detect cheating in the OTB tournament? How can they measure other stuff such as mouse moves, clicks, focus events, etc, in an OTB tournament? Do you click on something when you move a piece in a real board? Do you move an imaginary mouse and the piece moves by itself? Do you alt-tab in real life? Why is it so hard to understand?
Once again - engine analysis is not enough to detect cheating at that level in an OTB tournament. If you told me it was a long time control match between XQC and Ludwig and they played a 60 move game and one of the scored almost 100% engine move matches, then I would be inclined to say it's OTB cheating SOMEHOW, but at the super gm level? Nope.
This has already happened in the match between Kramnik and Topalov and engine analysis alone was not enough. Chess.com does not have anything ELSE to analyse from the SL OTB tournament.
A false positive rate of what? 0.03% or something like that, out of hundreds of thousands of bans given.
the problem is that the higher the level a game is ?...the harder it is to detect pumpkinheads...cuz play is just...well, just way-way better.
Once again - engine analysis is not enough to detect cheating at that level in an OTB tournament.
Citation needed, because the experts disagree with you.
Yeah go and check the Kramnik vs Topalov World Championship match and the toilet gate
I’ll be cancelling my Diamond shortly if chess.com does not explain their actions adequately.
Huh. Tried to quote you and agree with you but the comment was not allowed. Maybe because I mentioned the "other" chess site? I'm with you, they need to put up or shut up.
Proof is for scientists. When someone accuses an ugly woman of being a witch, I'm the guy lighting hay underneath a stake. Ain't waiting to get hexed first.
Thankfully, we are civilized society, in order to avoid this approach.
- When Nakamura cried on his stream a guy had cheated playing him, chess.com immediately banned him, and then had to go and unban him and issue a public apology because they checked him and he was innocent. They just banned him because HIKARU SAID SO, not because he was found cheating.
No, the account wasn't closed but the individual game was aborted and Naka was awarded a win. That wasn't "chess.com" doing that either, that was one of Nakamura's corrupt moderators who he now no longer works with. Immediately after that event moderators were stripped of their ability to do this anyway.
I have full faith in chess.com's cheat detection, it is the best in the world by far. If Hans is telling the truth that his account is shadowbanned then I have absolutely do doubt he cheated somewhere (whether that is in online games or OTB is a matter between Hans and the site)
Definitely not the best in the world "by far." I have reported obvious cheaters multiple times and yet they still run rampant on the site - only because they use lower-depth Engines differing from the usual Stockfish or Komodo. The inhuman consistency with moves and time taken should be enough for Chess.com's automated cheat detection to pick up on, but for whatever unknown reason, even after being tipped off by a report no action has been taken. I even requested for human assistance from Chess.com's specialized cheating investigation team (keep in mind each account has over 1000 games played) and yet there is only radio silence on these clearly illegitimate accounts. I suspect that Chess.com's anti-cheating measures are not as comprehensive as they advertise to be and more of an intimidation effect to discourage cheating. I don't necessarily disagree with Chess.com doing this, but it is misleading towards the players who expect action from "the world's best moderation team".
why dont we take it a step further and attack chess.com headquarters? anyone with me?
You are calling for violence!
Ain't waiting to get hexed first.
too late snooky. ur gonna be itching in places u didnt know u had places. in abt...ohhh, a hour.
L♥
Once again - engine analysis is not enough to detect cheating at that level in an OTB tournament.
Citation needed, because the experts disagree with you.
Engine analysis is not enough for a conviction. It is a well known fact that students often take on the style of their coaches - if you are a Junior and grow up on Stockfish analysis, who's to say you won't take on a style resembling Stockfish?
In the end, it doesn't matter what your style is - you just can't determine if someone is cheating from a single game.
Chess.com has repeatedly stated that their fair play program uses algorithms that they would be willing to defend in court. That for them to ban someone for cheating, that the statistical likelihood that they were in fact cheating would stand up to mathematical scrutiny in a courtroom.
Do I believe Hans cheated? Yes.
The bigger question here is did Magnus think that Hans cheated all on his own, or did he get a ring from someone at chess.com?
Was Hans shadowbanned before or after the magnus tweet?
If he cheated as you state, then why has he consistently passed the daily cheat detection scans? And they became even stricter after Carlsen left. And im sure they have people watching the audience. Im not saying your wrong, as we all have an opinion on this.
That's a good question. Is it possible bending the rules could involve something nobody has checked?
As technology improves im sure anything is possible. Someone on another site even suggested a brain implant. I guess we need to exhaust all possibilities.
There's no interface yet 
. But yeah, that will be the end of tournament chess with any significant monetary prizes, in another decade or two.
Once again - engine analysis is not enough to detect cheating at that level in an OTB tournament.
Citation needed, because the experts disagree with you.
Engine analysis is not enough for a conviction. It is a well known fact that students often take on the style of their coaches - if you are a Junior and grow up on Stockfish analysis, who's to say you won't take on a style resembling Stockfish? You can't determine if someone is cheating from a single game.
That's a load of crap. It is all but impossible for a human being to play out a full chess game playing all Stockfish's top moves (and it has never happened). You need to read up on statistical chess analysis applied to cheat detection. It is foolproof, given a large enough sample size. One game is not enough, true enough, but the assertion that "coaching' yourself with Stockfish could allow you to play engine moves consistently is ludicrous. You cannot "take on a style" and play like Stockfish.
Do you think a 100% accuracy score means you played exactly like Stockfish would have? It means nothing of the kind. Super GMs are capable of about 80% engine top moves, and only in very clear situations.
Once again - engine analysis is not enough to detect cheating at that level in an OTB tournament.
Citation needed, because the experts disagree with you.
Engine analysis is not enough for a conviction. It is a well known fact that students often take on the style of their coaches - if you are a Junior and grow up on Stockfish analysis, who's to say you won't take on a style resembling Stockfish? You can't determine if someone is cheating from a single game.
That's a load of crap. It is all but impossible for a human being to play out a full chess game playing all Stockfish's top moves (and it has never happened). You need to read up on statistical chess analysis applied to cheat detection. It is foolproof, given a large enough sample size. One game is not enough, true enough, but the assertion that "coaching' yourself with Stockfish could allow you to play engine moves consistently is ludicrous. You cannot "take on a style" and play like Stockfish.
Do you think a 100% accuracy score means you played exactly like Stockfish would have? It means nothing of the kind. Super GMs are capable of about 80% engine top moves, and only in very clear situations.
"given enough sample size" Did I not say one game?
Once again - engine analysis is not enough to detect cheating at that level in an OTB tournament.
Citation needed, because the experts disagree with you.
Engine analysis is not enough for a conviction. It is a well known fact that students often take on the style of their coaches - if you are a Junior and grow up on Stockfish analysis, who's to say you won't take on a style resembling Stockfish? You can't determine if someone is cheating from a single game.
That's a load of crap. It is all but impossible for a human being to play out a full chess game playing all Stockfish's top moves (and it has never happened). You need to read up on statistical chess analysis applied to cheat detection. It is foolproof, given a large enough sample size. One game is not enough, true enough, but the assertion that "coaching' yourself with Stockfish could allow you to play engine moves consistently is ludicrous. You cannot "take on a style" and play like Stockfish.
Do you think a 100% accuracy score means you played exactly like Stockfish would have? It means nothing of the kind. Super GMs are capable of about 80% engine top moves, and only in very clear situations.
Ok but how does that apply here? As you've said they wont play 100% engine moves. What will happen is they will play at a slightly lower level so any engine analysis is inconclusive at Super GM level. Was this move in this variation played OTB because he was cheating or because he actually saw it, or prepared for it beforehand (with the help of an engine)? You can't tell.
So engine analysis will be inconclusive of cheating unless the supergm is a moron at chess and, like you say, plays 100% engine moves. And they may be really stupid at everythign else, but super gms are not stupid at chess so they will never such thing.
I seriously doubt Hans played at 100% accuracy the entire game against Magnus. So it's inconclusive. Which is what happened in the match between Kramnik and Topalov when they tried to use statistics to prove "cheating" even when they had not been able to catch Kramnik cheating at all.
Chess.com is and has been biased to the point of being dead wrong when top players complain aka magnus and hikaru.
This has been known since time imemmorandum
I think we are getting into a bit of a chicken and egg argument here.
Technically speaking, Magnus has not accused Hans of cheating, so chess.com took action before a top player complained about an opponent cheating. However, I believe Hans may have been banned before Magnus even made the tweet, which leads me to believe that someone may have tipped Magnus off that Hans' play didn't pass the algorithm sniff test which lead to Magnus' withdrawal from the tournament.
Again, the only thing chess.com can do is analyse the OTB games with an engine, and that's not enough proof in a OTB game between super gms because it's unsurprising super gms will play engine-like variations, which they very likely even prepare with ENGINES.
How on earth can chess.com use anything else to detect cheating in the OTB tournament? How can they measure other stuff such as mouse moves, clicks, focus events, etc, in an OTB tournament? Do you click on something when you move a piece in a real board? Do you move an imaginary mouse and the piece moves by itself? Do you alt-tab in real life? Why is it so hard to understand?
Once again - engine analysis is not enough to detect cheating at that level in an OTB tournament. If you told me it was a long time control match between XQC and Ludwig and they played a 60 move game and one of the scored almost 100% engine move matches, then I would be inclined to say it's OTB cheating SOMEHOW, but at the super gm level? Nope.
This has already happened in the match between Kramnik and Topalov and engine analysis alone was not enough. Chess.com does not have anything ELSE to analyse from the SL OTB tournament.
Ive posted this video about 3 times already so here's a fourth.
Fair play explained by Danny Rensch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knvySXCNfd8
Try watching the video. Chess.com doesn't just "look at an engine" to determine fair play violations. There is an algorithmic and statistical model involved that puts them at mathematical certainty a violation has occurred BEFORE taking any action. It's been outside audited and determined that it will stand up in court.
What a silly take. If all chess.com did was "look at an engine" and ban anyone who plays top moves, almost every player would be banned instantaneously. It might be a bit more complicated than that. 
Watch the video and get an idea of how the process actually works before saying that they just "look at an engine."
For those who have forgotten, Topalov lost a game after he blundered in a won position and then his team created a scandal by falsely accusing Kramnik of cheating. Topalov’s play had a higher match up rate to engines than Kramnik’s. Topalov’s team was trying to win by any means.
When Topalov later played Anand for the world title, just about every player in the top 20, including Kasparov and Kramnik, offered to help Anand.
Chess.com is and has been biased to the point of being dead wrong when top players complain aka magnus and hikaru.
This has been known since time imemmorandum
I think we are getting into a bit of a chicken and egg argument here.
Technically speaking, Magnus has not accused Hans of cheating, so chess.com took action before a top player complained about an opponent cheating. However, I believe Hans may have been banned before Magnus even made the tweet, which leads me to believe that someone may have tipped Magnus off that Hans' play didn't pass the algorithm sniff test which lead to Magnus' withdrawal from the tournament.
Again, the only thing chess.com can do is analyse the OTB games with an engine, and that's not enough proof in a OTB game between super gms because it's unsurprising super gms will play engine-like variations, which they very likely even prepare with ENGINES.
How on earth can chess.com use anything else to detect cheating in the OTB tournament? How can they measure other stuff such as mouse moves, clicks, focus events, etc, in an OTB tournament? Do you click on something when you move a piece in a real board? Do you move an imaginary mouse and the piece moves by itself? Do you alt-tab in real life? Why is it so hard to understand?
Once again - engine analysis is not enough to detect cheating at that level in an OTB tournament. If you told me it was a long time control match between XQC and Ludwig and they played a 60 move game and one of the scored almost 100% engine move matches, then I would be inclined to say it's OTB cheating SOMEHOW, but at the super gm level? Nope.
This has already happened in the match between Kramnik and Topalov and engine analysis alone was not enough. Chess.com does not have anything ELSE to analyse from the SL OTB tournament.
Ive posted this video about 3 times already so here's a fourth.
Fair play explained by Danny Rensch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knvySXCNfd8
Try watching the video. Chess.com doesn't just "look at an engine" to determine fair play violations. There is an algorithmic and statistical model involved that puts them at mathematical certainty a violation has occurred BEFORE taking any action. It's been outside audited and determined that it will stand up in court.
What a silly take. If all chess.com did was "look at an engine" and ban anyone who plays top moves, almost every player would be banned instantaneously. It might be a bit more complicated than that.
Watch the video and get an idea of how the process actually works before saying that they just "look at an engine."
Again with that crap? Statistical analysis of one single match such as the Hans vs Magnus match? Impossible. It's just one match.
And as I said, people have tried to use statistical models to prove Kramnik cheated and it was obviously not enough because there was no evidence of cheating. So even if an statistical model shows something, they could not act on it.
Brain implants are possible, but they've never been tested on humans and they're not advanced enough to run chess engines. Some time this century, we will need to tackle these issues if we're not too busy with other matters.
Running an engine is not needed. Just a receiver to get signals.
Chess.com is and has been biased to the point of being dead wrong when top players complain aka magnus and hikaru.
This has been known since time imemmorandum