Occam's Razor Supports that Hans Niemann did not cheat against Magnus, or in OTB in general.

The definition according to wikipedia is "a scientific and philosophical rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities."

Hans has been playing well, beating players like Magnus and Aronian in important tournaments, but also losing to players like Fabiano. Just recently he lost against Fabiano with the white pieces.

This dude is not cheating OTB.

The witch hunt only exists because Magnus lost a game vs. Hans with the white pieces and now he's going out way to ruin his chess career because of a bruised ego.

That's the simplest and most logical explanation. Don't overcomplicate things.

And I say this as a master degree chemist and physician, often times the most simplest explanation is the most realistic.

"when you hear hooves, think horses, not zebras".

If you'd have applied Occam's Razor to your post you would've simply said that you don't think he's cheating anymore.

Great post. I enjoy reading considered balanced comments. It shows lots of class. It’s very simple to jump on the Band Wagon of Public opinion. Quite the opposite to carefully weigh the arguments before jumping to conclusions. Just a guess, pretty certain they’ll be no apology forthcoming from the current Chess World Champion to Hans for his Childish outburst. Time will tell…?!

I've seen this guy's comments before, he's signalled his intent way in advance. He has an axe to grind with Carlsen which is pretty clear from his language.

It's quite possible that Niemann didn't cheat but Magnus genuinely (rather than affectedly) believes he did. Of course that's not polemical enough for the low IQ OP.

"when you hear Moke, think mOKe, not sMoke".

The problem is that he's cheated in the past and then lied about the extent of it, and his otb performance is a bit suspicious. I don't understand the "magnus is trying to ruin his career because of a bruised ego" argument either. Magnus has lost to many players before, and never accused them. There was obviously something not quite right, and as the best player in the world, wouldn't he be the most likely to notice that Han's style was off? 

Wouldn't the people who think Hans is cheating also be using the simplest and most logical explanation? 

If recent games are "otherworldly" and his rating increase is unprecedented, and he has a history of serial cheating isn't it simpler and more logical to just assume he's cheating, rather than the much more complicated explanation that his good fortune is, and I quote, " a ridiculous miracle"?

The OP won't accept that line of reasoning, he's too invested in the narrative that this is something sinister from Carlsen.

I don't know why you're so personally offended. I imagine most people who went to med school aren't low IQ.

I just think Hans didn't cheat OTB and Magnus is being childish by not playing him. It's not that radical of a stance. 

I would say the simplest explanations are:

1. Hans cheated on this website, as he admitted.

2. The website has said he hasn't cheated since 2020, so he probably hasn't cheated on this website in any major way for years.

3. Hans doesn't cheat OTB. There is no evidence he has cheated OTB, nor are there any serious red flags concerning his OTB performance based on known viable anti-cheating methods such as those used by Regan.

There just isn't any reasons to believe Hans, someone rated around 2700, cheated against Magnus when security measures were exercised, cameras were pointed on him, a fairly isolated room, etc., etc.

Many super GMs have said they found nothing suspicious in his gameplay against Magnus. 

I also disagree his OTB performance is suspicious. 

Actual reputable sources have disputed that claim, such as those used by Regan.

The bachelor degree computer scientists on YouTube are 100 times less knowledgeable on the statistics Regan uses.

It's like a medical student thinking he knows more than 30 year practicing surgeon.

Occam's razor is used as a heuristic, or "rule of thumb" to guide scientists in developing theoretical models. The term "razor" refers to the "shaving away" of unnecessary assumptions when distinguishing between two theories...

The origin and popular use of Occam's razor..

https://www.aaas.org/origin-and-popular-use-occams-razor#:~:text=Occam%27s%20razor%20is%20used%20as,when%20distinguishing%20between%20two%20theories.

You might also imagine that a "masters degree chemist and physician" would never say "most simplest explanation"...but here we are .

You should, because grammar is not something chemists nor physicians are known for. Even more so, they don't really care. 

Usually getting the point across is just fine for us.

The only time it really matters to have exceptional grammar and spelling is when we write our scientific publications. 

Is this leading to a Grammarly ad?

It's more than just sour grapes but I personally find it hard to believe he cheated OTB myself. I can't blame players for NOT wanting to play someone who's suspected of cheating in prize tournaments and KNOWN to have cheated multiple times before, even if it's online, though.

This is, in my opinion 100% correct. The possibility of cheating always exists, with any player. But we are assessing probabilities. And the most logical assessment based on the evidence we have, is that he's not cheating. 

Are you the same guy who tried to make this same argument on the Chessable forums?  If so, you misapplied the razor there the same way you are doing it here.  If you are someone else entirely, you run into problems:

1) You have someone with an admitted history of cheating and deception.

2) The same someone had been stagnant for several years, while playing over 250 rated games.

3) The same person suddenly starts improving quickly after getting banned for cheating online, again.

4) The same person has found a way to crush (not just beat) some of the strongest players in history after the aforementioned online cheating ban.

The simple reason for this is not that he is somehow different from every human in history, but that he is actually very similar to them, and all the statistical outliers centered around him are due to something else going on (i.e. cheating in some fashion).

To draw a comparison: suppose you had a decent baseball player who was caught using PEDs in high school.  He claims he stopped.  He makes it to the pros and has a decent, but not stellar, career for several years.  Suddenly, he packs on 40lbs of muscle and hits 100 home runs in a single season.  Is the most likely cause that he just worked really hard in the off season, or that he went back to the juice?  As history has shown us over the last 26 years, when you see that, it is usually the latter, not the former.

This is a terrible example. We know doping exists in professional sports. But cheating at this level of Chess is practically unprecedented. For Hans to be cheating we have to intellectually invent several things: A device that can avoid detection, an accomplice, a way to communicate the current board position, a way to cheat that can outsmart algorithms reviewing his OTB games for engine moves. I think The OP's point is that by the time you construct that scenario you've added illogical complexity to solve the problem. And the simplest answer becomes Hans just practiced and got good at Chess. (He lost to Fabi btw)

First off, many people denied there was a steroid problem in the MLB until it blew up in the 1990s (people also called it "unprecedented").  The same thing happened in professional cycling and swimming, and more recently in professional fishing.  Everyone wants to give someone the benefit of the doubt when they see extraordinary performances, but just like when you go to a show in Vegas, often it is just an illusion.

The technology to identify better moves than humans can find already exists.  The ability to communicate with someone remotely with extremely small devices exists.  The technology with the ability to avoid many non-invasive scanners exists.  You do not have to invent these things.  They are already here, and have been for several years.  Dubov and a couple other GMs made a video on YT showing one, 7 years ago (just think how much better it would be 7 years later).

To get to his rapid rise after not one, but 2 long stagnant periods, you have to create some ability to improve drastically that we have never seen in another human previously.  That is a massive assumption, and why Occam's Razor does not support such a claim.

Note that the razor is not an absolute, but a generalization.  There are many anti-razors to it, and some contradictory razors.  So stating that Occam's Razor does not support this claim is not saying he is definitely cheating, but rather that you cannot make that argument using the razor.