Chess.com on Niemann ban

Interesting that some top GMs are shifting towards Magnus' side. First Aronjan, and now Fabi...

There's a difference between playing many strong moves and playing like an engine.
There's a difference between playing many engine moves and playing like a cheater.

Inexperienced players aren't just ignorant of these differences, they're completely unaware such differences exist, leading to poor arguments, like yours.

Ok but... age 12 and age 19 are completely different people. No reasonable person will judge an adult's character based on transgressions they made at 12.

Age 16 (and possibly 17 or 18) are different of course, but my point is I think some are beating this drum too loudly.

nobody knows anything, but everybody talks a lot and likes to hear themselve....

Talking a lot is fine as long as you're also listening.

In fact this (dialogue) is one of humanity's greatest strengths. It's essentially distributed computing. Each of us knows a little, and works on stuff, and presents ideas to the group, that then gives feedback.

Wow, that sounds for me like the justification of the theology: They also talk about things they have absolutely no idea off and build great Buildings of Thoughts out of absolutely NOTHING.

A dialogue of two people about something they both haven´t any clue about is not worth listening. Exept for a concept of "real life comedy" or, mostly, "real life tragedy".

Sure, some things are said for the sake of entertainment and not for knowledge. This is a site for hobbyists after all, and some people are just socializing... I don't know why you're characterizing it so negatively.

No, no, and again... no.

You are wrong on so many levels it's hard to know where to start, but let's give it a go.

Firstly, you seem to have confused "playing the game" with "cheating at the game". They are not the same thing. It is possible to play the game well without resorting to cheating, and in fact most people who play the game do so without cheating.

Secondly, you seem to think that because Niemann has been caught cheating on multiple occasions, this somehow makes him a better player than someone who has never been caught cheating. This is absurd. Cheating is not a measure of skill, it is a measure of dishonesty.

Thirdly, you seem to think that because Niemann has admitted to cheating, this somehow makes him more trustworthy than someone who has never been caught cheating. Again, this is absurd. Admitting to cheating does not make someone trustworthy, it just makes them honest (albeit still dishonest).

Fourthly, you seem to think that because Niemann was coached by a multiple time cheat, this somehow makes him more likely to be a cheat himself. This is once again absurd. Coaching by a cheat does not make someone more likely to be a cheat, it just makes them more likely to be coached by a cheat.

Finally, you seem to think that because Niemann is currently under suspicion for cheating, this somehow makes him more likely to be a cheat than someone who is not currently under suspicion. This is, once again, absurd. Being under suspicion for cheating does not make someone more likely to be a cheat, it just makes them more likely to be under suspicion for cheating.

In conclusion, your entire argument is based on false premises and is therefore invalid. Niemann is not a better player than anyone else simply because he has been caught cheating on multiple occasions, and the fact that he is currently under suspicion for cheating does not make him more likely to be a cheat than anyone else.

Socializing? Maybe that would be positiv. But too many claim to have an absolute opinion while there is not base for opinions. That is just the same automatism who lead in the most bad times to things like "burning of wiches" and "vigilantism". I know, too strong examples for this minor case, but the mechanisms are the same.

"Inexperienced players aren't just ignorant of these differences, they're completely unaware such differences exist, leading to poor arguments, like yours."

I am well aware of the differences you point out.  My point is that MC plays damn near like a robot.  So I can assume that he is cheating and that is why he is so much better than the best players in the world.

I don't say this to suggest that he is cheating.  I am simply pointing out that it is only assumptions that lead people to think that Hans is cheating.  No evidence to show that he cheated against MC.

You can point to cheating in the past.  I can point to MC playing like a computer.  We need real evidence.  Until then treat like innocent until proven guilty.

Do I think MC cheats.  NO.  Do I think Hans cheated against MC?  Maybe.  I just want some solid evidence and so far nothing of substance has been presented.

Sure, non-trivial cases (chess or otherwise) involve nuance and require expertise. Otherwise things will seem to be absurd.

Yeah, anyone claiming they know for sure is a bit silly. Almost all of us are waiting for more facts before we make our final judgement.

There is no evidence that Niemann cheated. Carlson ruined Niemanns moment of victory and possibly one of the biggest moments of Niemanns career with his behavior

That's false.

There is no proof he cheated OTB, but there is evidence to suggest he cheated OTB.

Maybe the reason Carlsen plays like a computer more than anyone else is because he's better than anyone else. I agree there isn't that much evidence that Hans cheated in this one particular instance. But the whole issue doesn't have to be about that one instance either. Maybe Carlsen quit the tournament a couple weeks ago for the same reason he resigned against Hans the other day. He's protesting Hans (and/or) current cheat detection methods. 

I realize you are not saying Carlsen cheats, nobody is. Because there is no evidence and no precedent. Carlsen plays fast chess, where there is barely enough time to even move the pieces, better than almost anyone on the planet. Where cheating is impossible. So there is EVERY reason to believe he is really that good. Whereas Hans (and Hans alone) has brought scrutiny and suspicion on himself. Since he has cheated in the past (more than once) he is subject to an ENTIRELY different standard than Carlsen. 

Which one? I don´t know any "evidences to suggest he cheated OTB"

at the risk of repeating myself: https://en.chessbase.com/post/is-hans-niemann-cheating-world-renowned-expert-ken-regan-analyzes

Carlson mad cause bad

I think his point is that evidence and proof are two very different things. There is evidence the world is flat, but there is proof it isn't. 

Carlsen quitting the tournament and tweeting what he did is evidence that suggests cheating.
Niemann's quick rating rise and his performance rating positively correlating with whether the games were broadcast is evidence that suggests cheating.

Again, it's not proof, it's evidence...

I found Regan's interview really interesting... but as a scientist, Regan would be the first to tell you that this doesn't prove Niemann is innocent. It is merely proof that Niemann is not using the type of cheating Regan's test is designed to catch.

That is way to thin for me: "Carlsen quitting the tournament....." that is no evidence (maybe only of Carlsens ability to behave bad...) Carlsen is a player, not an Analyst....

And Niemanns quick rating rise:

https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/x9bgtx/how_quickly_did_niemanns_rating_rise_the_data/

it´s good, but not out of the ordenary.....

so what remains from your "evidences". Not much, I think.