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

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.  

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.

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.

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.

Technically he is right in that in both examples the only burden of proof that matters is not met.  I don't feel like he tried to compare anyone. To me he is not trying to say anything other than "anything less than scientific proof is practically irrelevant and to draw a conclusion from such things is worth as much as a random accusation against anyone"  

Magnus seems convinced that Hans has received OTB assistance.

My prediction: the FPL is unlikely to agree (there would have to be a bombshell revelation for them to conclude such a thing).

But Magnus will likely maintain his position, and will refuse to play Niemann in any future event. And he'll probably offer subtle verbal jabs toward FIDE, in subsequent interviews, over any sanctions they may impose on him.

He'll imply that he found FIDE's conclusion disappointing, but not surprising (and the tone of his remarks will suggest that his disappointment, and lack of surprise, is in response to FIDE's lackluster cheat-detection abilities.)

So the drama will fizzle out but still quietly limp on, never really getting resolved in any satisfying way ...

(Or, I could be completely wrong on all counts ... )

I get that.  My rebuttal was simply that to make the claim that it is no more rational than saying another player has been cheating, when one player has a very odd pattern and the other has a pattern consistent with what we have seen repeatedly is not logical.

Frankly, the only "scientific" proof we could have in such cases is to catch the person in the act, have them admit to it, or catch an accomplice.  Feller was caught because of his accomplices.  Rausis was caught because he pulled out his iPhone in the bathroom.  Ivanov was never actually caught - he simply refused to take off his shoes and was disqualified only to not play again.

An interesting side story to this whole thing is the whole idea of people buying their titles has made its way into the headlines the last few days.

An interesting point I learned recently:  The Scottish Court system has another verdict:  "Not proven".  In short, the jury is fairly sure the accused committed the crime, but the prosecution did not meet the burden of proof.

Or drop a diss-track on Twitter or IG.

I do miss the good ole days ...

These days, the boys get too much attention playing in the offended olympics to learn to settle problems directly.

The other day, I was teaching a class of 10 kids.  2 kids in the back sat on their chromebooks the whole time and did not participate in the class at all.  2 of the kids in the front (who would answer every question I ask if I allowed them to do so) asked if I should force them to participate.  I simply replied "I'm not going to force a kid to learn - if they want to get better at chess, they will pay attention.  Otherwise, they will wonder why you guys are all improving and they are not."  The parental volunteer applauded, the rest of the kids laughed.  The 2 kids in the back were oblivious.  People, even kids, have to want to learn in order to learn anything.  If you spend all your time trying to teach kids that do not want to learn, the whole class will suffer.

/rant

No no no, you have to inspire me to want to learn.

And good luck with that.

Now this is the conspiracy theorist I know.   I hate those examples given.

The Scientific mind: We will start from the null hypotheses, that the thing either is or is not occurring, and we will weigh evidence for and against it until we can conclude the result one way or another.

The Conspiracy theorist: We know this thing is happening, so we will dismiss any evidence against it and only look for evidence for it.  Any hard evidence that disproves our point is only further evidence that the conspiracy against us proving our point.  

Good luck indeed!  I've taught Computer Science at the university level to kids who picked CS as their major because they "loved playing video games and thought it would be fun to make them".  Once they realize what goes into making them, they quickly change majors.

You can only bring out something the kid already has - you cannot create desire out of nothing.

Occam's Razor suggests that this attempt to use Occam's Razor is indicative of Dunning-Kreuger Syndrome

That would perfectly describe me.

As long as it was a close shave