Regan is widely criticised as being more or less an academic or intellectual fraud, so that's another avenue of consideration. We have some academic frauds in these forums, similarly.
My instinct and also my acceptance of an enormous amount of evidence is to take accusations of academic and intellectual pretence seriously and I really would tend to believe that, sooner than I would beilieve an accusation that a specific person is cheating at chess. But when someone like Regan claims that Niemann is completely exonerated, I would tend to think that he is trying to act in the best interests of chess and in doing so, he may well be acting in its worst interests. I don't believe there's any reason to believe a word that Regan claims and therefore by implication, (implication in more senses than one!) Niemann too.
Occam's Razor Supports that Hans Niemann did not cheat against Magnus, or in OTB in general.
Regan is widely criticised as being more or less an academic or intellectual fraud, so that's another avenue of consideration. We have some academic frauds in these forums, similarly.
My instinct and also my acceptance of an enormous amount of evidence is to take accusations of academic and intellectual pretence seriously and I really would tend to believe that, sooner than I would beilieve an accusation that a specific person is cheating at chess. But when someone like Regan claims that Niemann is completely exonerated, I would tend to think that he is trying to act in the best interests of chess and in doing so, he may well be acting in its worst interests. I don't believe there's any reason to believe a word that Regan claims and therefore by implication, (implication in more senses than one!) Niemann too.
Those criticizing him in that manner do not know what they are talking about.
He did not exonerate Niemann. That nonsense is coming from people who either do not listen to/read what he has said, or those who completely fail to comprehend his statements.
I think the main problem with these discussions is that there's a lot of evidence out there and different people have seen different things. I've considered creating a thread collating the evidence so everyone has the opportunity to have the same basis for debate but I'm concerned that it'd be a thankless task.
I don't think there is that much evidence, there's a collection of factoids. That's something different. As Noam Chomsky has said of conspiracy theorists: "If you don't understand what an explanation is, a collection of factoids is an explanation."
Don't waste your time trying to reason with the unreasonable or reach the unreachable.
Regan is widely criticised as being more or less an academic or intellectual fraud, so that's another avenue of consideration. We have some academic frauds in these forums, similarly.
My instinct and also my acceptance of an enormous amount of evidence is to take accusations of academic and intellectual pretence seriously and I really would tend to believe that, sooner than I would beilieve an accusation that a specific person is cheating at chess. But when someone like Regan claims that Niemann is completely exonerated, I would tend to think that he is trying to act in the best interests of chess and in doing so, he may well be acting in its worst interests. I don't believe there's any reason to believe a word that Regan claims and therefore by implication, (implication in more senses than one!) Niemann too.
I have not seen any indication, nor heard any rumblings, of Regan being an academic fraud (and he is in my field). I'm curious where you are hearing this? The only criticisms I've seen are specifically with regards to his work in chess - that he simply is not a strong enough player to detect cheating at the top levels (note that criticism is not coming from me as he is a stronger player than I am, but from people who are in, have been in, or who have worked closely with people in the top 20 in the world).
The key evidence which I'm aware of is: Carlsen's statement. Niemann's statement. Chess.com's report. Dlugy's statement. Regan's analysis. Yoshu's analysis. Niemann's post match interviews. I'm sure there's more but that's quite a lot already. I doubt many of those passing judgement on this forum have taken it all into consideration.
I think the main problem with these discussions is that there's a lot of evidence out there and different people have seen different things. I've considered creating a thread collating the evidence so everyone has the opportunity to have the same basis for debate but I'm concerned that it'd be a thankless task.
I don't think there is that much evidence, there's a collection of factoids. That's something different. As Noam Chomsky has said of conspiracy theorists: "If you don't understand what an explanation is, a collection of factoids is an explanation."
Don't waste your time trying to reason with the unreasonable or reach the unreachable.
Exactly. What "evidence" has been presented? I do agree there is a butt-load of conjecture, opinion, and beliefs. But evidence?
It doesn't help that separate strands are being (in some cases disingenuously) conflated. There are three main strands to contend with.
- Hans' online cheating: he admits to some of it, Chess.com contends it's more serious and has presented their evidence in support of that view.
- Hans' alleged cheating in the specific OTB game at Sinquefield: Looks like he probably didn't cheat, Carlsen sincerely believes he did and handled it badly.
- Hans' alleged OTB cheating more generally. Evidence: his unusual ratings rise.
Note that, short of a confession, these will never be fully resolved. Niemann is clearly a talented player regardless who probably has some moderate to serious personality disorders (narcissism/sociopathy). The extent of his talent will only be known with the fullness of time and I personally think he should be permitted to play on.
Carlsen has built himself up into a bit of a tower around this now and it will be difficult for him to climb down, especially given he probably feels he doesn't "need" to given his position in the game.
As for elaborate conspiracy theories (including those implying a Carlsen/Chess.com/Nakamura Axis of Evil) they can be disregarded.
The key evidence which I'm aware of is: Niemann's statement. Chess.com's statement. Dlugy's statement. Regan's analysis. Yoshu's analysis. Niemann's post match interviews. I'm sure there's more but that's quite a lot already. I doubt many of those passing judgement on this forum have taken it all into consideration.
Depends what you mean by "taken it all into consideration". They may be aware of it, but they probably don't know how to fit it all together cogently, if that's even possible. Even if one could, it's still a matter of judgement, albeit informed judgement, and will not resolve the specific Sinquefield Cup game allegation.
3. Hans' alleged OTB cheating more generally. Evidence: his unusual ratings rise.
I would add that to this a bit: it isn't just the unusual rise in the ratings, but several specific games against extremely strong players that are rather unusual.
Its called Humor. But that is my fault. I have to understand that not everyone will get it.
I wrote this in reply to your post after seeing RookNoob "did not get it". He assumed the side you were on. People will tend to do that.
Gotcha...I treat these things like politicians treat bills they vote on. I don't really read them.
That’s the proper approach to most forums. If you ever read one of those bills, you’ll understand why members of Congress don’t read them.
If I remember correctly there was one member of congress who did often read entire bills. Ron Paul. I think that might be why he almost always voted no.
#206: I think we're all waiting for proof but we may never get it. It might be that statistical analysis of existing data can provide proof. FIDE's findings will go some way to settling the issue but we may need security which people believe in and data from future matches before we'll be confident that we know what has happened in Niemann's recent matches.
I think the main problem with these discussions is that there's a lot of evidence out there and different people have seen different things. I've considered creating a thread collating the evidence so everyone has the opportunity to have the same basis for debate but I'm concerned that it'd be a thankless task.
I don't think there is that much evidence, there's a collection of factoids. That's something different. As Noam Chomsky has said of conspiracy theorists: "If you don't understand what an explanation is, a collection of factoids is an explanation."
Don't waste your time trying to reason with the unreasonable or reach the unreachable.
Exactly. What "evidence" has been presented? I do agree there is a butt-load of conjecture, opinion, and beliefs. But evidence?
I always thought opinion was evidence. In a trial an expert will give their opinion. That's evidence. Even a minor traffic ticket the officer's opinion is usually the "preponderance of evidence". Which is good enough to convict in probably over 90% of cases.
Plus the past admissions, plus the unusual rating increases. Plus the weird excuses and explanations. That's all evidence. It's not proof, but it's evidence.
Its called Humor. But that is my fault. I have to understand that not everyone will get it.
I wrote this in reply to your post after seeing RookNoob "did not get it". He assumed the side you were on. People will tend to do that.
Gotcha...I treat these things like politicians treat bills they vote on. I don't really read them.
That’s the proper approach to most forums. If you ever read one of those bills, you’ll understand why members of Congress don’t read them.
If I remember correctly there was one member of congress who did often read entire bills. Ron Paul. I think that might be why he almost always voted no.
Ron Paul was an interesting character.
#206: I think we're all waiting for proof but we may never get it. It might be that statistical analysis of existing data can provide proof. FIDE's findings will go some way to settling the issue but we may need security which people believe in and data from future matches before we'll be confident that we know what has happened in Niemann's recent matches.
Unless FIDE gets Hans to confess, catches him in the act, or gets an accomplice to confess, I do not expect much from that panel. From a statistical point of view, they rely solely on Regan's analysis, and he has already stated his conclusion.
That said, one thing that may come from the panel is increased security measures being required at FIDE-rated events.
Yea I cant see the required burden of proof of cheating OTB being proven or Hans being actioned against in fact all the publicity might have even helped him. About the only one who took a hit was magnus and that's only because he was already super popular and considering it will lead to more security I don't think he really cares. Probably how it should be tbh when you really think about it since Hans from a scientific and official standpoint didn't really do anything out of the ordinary at all recently. Magnus pretty much created the drama out of thin air all on his own and considering he got what he wanted more security maybe everyone won 8 million iq withdraw.
I think the main problem with these discussions is that there's a lot of evidence out there and different people have seen different things. I've considered creating a thread collating the evidence so everyone has the opportunity to have the same basis for debate but I'm concerned that it'd be a thankless task.
I don't think there is that much evidence, there's a collection of factoids. That's something different. As Noam Chomsky has said of conspiracy theorists: "If you don't understand what an explanation is, a collection of factoids is an explanation."
Don't waste your time trying to reason with the unreasonable or reach the unreachable.
Exactly. What "evidence" has been presented? I do agree there is a butt-load of conjecture, opinion, and beliefs. But evidence?
I always thought opinion was evidence. In a trial an expert will give their opinion. That's evidence. Even a minor traffic ticket the officer's opinion is usually the "preponderance of evidence". Which is good enough to convict in probably over 90% of cases.
Plus the past admissions, plus the unusual rating increases. Plus the weird excuses and explanations. That's all evidence. It's not proof, but it's evidence.
Conspiracy theorists are actually all the ones laughing at or otherwise trying to discredit those who see something fishy going on. If a person doesn't think anything fishy ever goes on, they're incredibly naive. If they think there are never conspiracies, their opinions are not worth a thing. There are conspiracies everywhere and the ones who profit from other people's naiveness (because spell-checker isn't on) and simple-minded belief that these things don't happen all the time are those who conspire.
I think the main problem with these discussions is that there's a lot of evidence out there and different people have seen different things. I've considered creating a thread collating the evidence so everyone has the opportunity to have the same basis for debate but I'm concerned that it'd be a thankless task.
I don't think there is that much evidence, there's a collection of factoids. That's something different. As Noam Chomsky has said of conspiracy theorists: "If you don't understand what an explanation is, a collection of factoids is an explanation."
Don't waste your time trying to reason with the unreasonable or reach the unreachable.
Exactly. What "evidence" has been presented? I do agree there is a butt-load of conjecture, opinion, and beliefs. But evidence?
I always thought opinion was evidence. In a trial an expert will give their opinion. That's evidence. Even a minor traffic ticket the officer's opinion is usually the "preponderance of evidence". Which is good enough to convict in probably over 90% of cases.
Plus the past admissions, plus the unusual rating increases. Plus the weird excuses and explanations. That's all evidence. It's not proof, but it's evidence.
Conspiracy theorists are actually all the ones laughing at or otherwise trying to discredit those who see something fishy going on. If a person doesn't think anything fishy ever goes on, they're incredibly naive. If they think there are never conspiracies, their opinions are not worth a thing. There are conspiracies everywhere and the ones who profit from other people's naiveness (because spell-checker isn't on) and simple-minded belief that these things don't happen all the time are those who conspire.
There's a difference between being a rational sceptic and a conspiracy theorist. Let's use a non-chess example: climate change.
- A rational sceptic might ask "how can we be sure past climate models are accurate when they have been constructed from proxies such as tree rings and ice core samples?"
- A conspiracy theorist will assert "Alex Jones told me climate change is a liberal hoax designed to enforce a tyrannical one world government."
To your point, I think it's okay to entertain specific and limited conspiracies, but that's not what a conspiracy theorist does. They have a worldview which sees sinister cabals everywhere and they reflexively attribute any wrongdoing to them. That's not critical thinking, it's an ideology.
I think the main problem with these discussions is that there's a lot of evidence out there and different people have seen different things. I've considered creating a thread collating the evidence so everyone has the opportunity to have the same basis for debate but I'm concerned that it'd be a thankless task.
I don't think there is that much evidence, there's a collection of factoids. That's something different. As Noam Chomsky has said of conspiracy theorists: "If you don't understand what an explanation is, a collection of factoids is an explanation."
Don't waste your time trying to reason with the unreasonable or reach the unreachable.
Exactly. What "evidence" has been presented? I do agree there is a butt-load of conjecture, opinion, and beliefs. But evidence?
I always thought opinion was evidence. In a trial an expert will give their opinion. That's evidence. Even a minor traffic ticket the officer's opinion is usually the "preponderance of evidence". Which is good enough to convict in probably over 90% of cases.
Plus the past admissions, plus the unusual rating increases. Plus the weird excuses and explanations. That's all evidence. It's not proof, but it's evidence.
When I was a younger, I remember distinguishing evidence and proof the same way which you described, which is technically correct.
Evidence and proof are different, and evidence can be seen as evidence or non-evidence on a person to person basis.
However, when people are describing evidence, they are often meaning "empirical and unequivocal" evidence whereas what they are bringing forth can't be heavily disputed. So basically, everyone using the term "evidence" is strongly tying it synonymously with "proof".
If Hans cheated in the OTB game against Magnus, it would be almost impossible to prove it unless he admitted it. That's just how it is.
But that's also how it should be. We shouldn't presume guilt over innocence without any proof whatsoever.
Claiming Hans cheated OTB with the presented proof is no more rational than saying Fabiano cheated.
Based on personality, I'd would make assumptions, but there is no proof.
If Hans sustains or increases his current rating for 2-3 years, then he probably did not cheat, or at least did not have to. If he drops 100-150 rating in a more anti-cheating environment, and the inflection point lines up perfectly with Sinquefield Cup, then to me that's enough evidence he definitively cheated. You don't have a GOAT stretch of performance then falls off quickly. So time will tell.
Claiming Hans cheated OTB with the presented proof is no more rational than saying Fabiano cheated.
You went wrong here. Fabi's progression matches closely with every other prodigy we have seen in the last 100 years. Hans' progression stands out, and most closely matches that of Igors Rausis. Hence, trying to compare Hans to other top players as a justification for arguing that he hasn't cheated OTB does not work.
I think the main problem with these discussions is that there's a lot of evidence out there and different people have seen different things. I've considered creating a thread collating the evidence so everyone has the opportunity to have the same basis for debate but I'm concerned that it'd be a thankless task.