Please keep this up guys.
It is really a fun read
Occam's Razor Supports that Hans Niemann did not cheat against Magnus, or in OTB in general.
Sort:
I don't speak English. google translation In my last game, my opponent made a long enrosque, my arfil pointed in the middle of the two pieces. is that possible? or is it player cheating, or game error, what do you think?
CraigIreland wrote:
The best, and worst, thing about Dunning-Kruger Syndrome is that it allows that two people can both be convinced that they have a better understanding of a subject matter and the other is suffering from it. Before accusing someone, how can we know we're not the one suffering from it?
Also, it's the Dunning-Kruger effect, its not a medical diagnosis.
Oct 12, 2022
0
#205
ChickensSlayer wrote:
I don't speak English. google translation In my last game, my opponent made a long enrosque, my arfil pointed in the middle of the two pieces. is that possible? or is it player cheating, or game error, what do you think?
In your last game, you resigned from a better position after thinking for over 6 minutes on 1 move in a 10 minute game.
Oct 12, 2022
0
#206
NervesofButter wrote:
PawnTsunami wrote:
NervesofButter wrote:
"Beyond a reasonable doubt"
"Guilty"
"Not Guilty"
This is why the word "Innocent" is not included.
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.
Not sure but that may our equivalent of what goes on in a civil court. The burden of proof only needs to be 50.00001%
A preponderance of evidence is how I’ve been directed by the judge. (Civil court)
Occam’s Razor is an assumption
Oct 12, 2022
0
#208
#261: Thanks for the correction. I should've known better than to copy terminology from the post I was referring to.
Oct 13, 2022
0
#209
Optimissed wrote:
And not believing that sinister cabals exist is just as stupid.
No, maybe it's more stupid.
When I wrote "[t]hey have a worldview which sees sinister cabals everywhere" that did not imply none exists. But you knew that and wilfully misinterpreted for the sake of polemic. I also note you make reference to convenient personal anecdotes which are (weak) appeals to authority so I don't think you have much credibility and are probably given to superstitious thinking.
NervesofButter wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
NervesofButter wrote:
MorningGlory84 wrote:
CraigIreland wrote:
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.
I would label those things circumstantial evidence. None of it is proof of cheating OTB. But we do have pieces of information of possible cheating OTB.
I agree. Even the people who disagree on whether or not Hans has cheated otb will probably agree there is evidence of it, but no proof.
My guess is he'll probably never admit it. His unusual rating rise will now mellow out. His rating will return to reflect his actual ability. And people will eventually say "remember that cheating fiasco involving Hans Neimann, we never did get an answer on that"
Oct 13, 2022
0
#211
lfPatriotGames wrote:
My guess is he'll probably never admit it. His unusual rating rise will now mellow out. His rating will return to reflect his actual ability. And people will eventually say "remember that cheating fiasco involving Hans Neimann, we never did get an answer on that"
If his rating drops back to the ~2500-level over the next year or two, and stays there, I would say we did get an answer.
NervesofButter wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
NervesofButter wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
NervesofButter wrote:
MorningGlory84 wrote:
CraigIreland wrote:
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.
I would label those things circumstantial evidence. None of it is proof of cheating OTB. But we do have pieces of information of possible cheating OTB.
I agree. Even the people who disagree on whether or not Hans has cheated otb will probably agree there is evidence of it, but no proof.
My guess is he'll probably never admit it. His unusual rating rise will now mellow out. His rating will return to reflect his actual ability. And people will eventually say "remember that cheating fiasco involving Hans Neimann, we never did get an answer on that"
Just my opinion on this. But I do agree that we will never get a real answer on all of this. And rank does have its privileges. What I mean by that is IF it is proven than Niemann did in fact cheat he will suffer the appropriate consequences. And IF it is proven that he did not cheat,, but Carlsen continues to avoid playing him? Carlsens punishment will be far less severe for his accusations.
Probably. Magnus is basically the Tiger Woods of chess. His opinion carries much more weight than anyone elses. I think if Magnus is treated differently than Hans its for one unavoidable reason. He's earned it.
Oct 13, 2022
0
#213
lfPatriotGames wrote:
NervesofButter wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
NervesofButter wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
NervesofButter wrote:
MorningGlory84 wrote:
CraigIreland wrote:
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.
I would label those things circumstantial evidence. None of it is proof of cheating OTB. But we do have pieces of information of possible cheating OTB.
I agree. Even the people who disagree on whether or not Hans has cheated otb will probably agree there is evidence of it, but no proof.
My guess is he'll probably never admit it. His unusual rating rise will now mellow out. His rating will return to reflect his actual ability. And people will eventually say "remember that cheating fiasco involving Hans Neimann, we never did get an answer on that"
Just my opinion on this. But I do agree that we will never get a real answer on all of this. And rank does have its privileges. What I mean by that is IF it is proven than Niemann did in fact cheat he will suffer the appropriate consequences. And IF it is proven that he did not cheat,, but Carlsen continues to avoid playing him? Carlsens punishment will be far less severe for his accusations.
Probably. Magnus is basically the Tiger Woods of chess. His opinion carries much more weight than anyone elses. I think if Magnus is treated differently than Hans its for one unavoidable reason. He's earned it.
There's a limit to "how much you earn" though. If Im a physician and a 4th year medical school student externship under me, then I've earned the ability to tell that student what tasks need done in the office.
However, I would never earn the ability to claim students are cheating without any proof and try to ruin their entire lives in medical school.
Magnus has not earned the ability to infer Hans was cheating against him without a single iota of proof, with the evidence being extremely poor otherwise.
That's why it's likely Hans may consider a lawsuit against Magnus, and Dugly seems like he will.
This is the type of slander that court systems should and is be used for. No proof OTB cheating but being defamed, in a way that could effect his career.
Also, why Magnus decided to call out Dugly is beyond me.
I feel like Magnus is thinking we are all stupid enough to think "guilt by vague association" is damning evidence, when in reality its absolutely nothing.
The more Magnus has said on the topic, the less I think his character is respectable. He is trying to ruin someones career for having the audacity to beat him with the black pieces.
Oct 13, 2022
0
#214
It could be that Nieman became a better player. If you get a lot better than you were, then your ratings go up. Everyone gets good ratings every now and again. Although, if you're playing on the internet, I would say that it wouldn't be too hard to cheat. In person tournaments, I think the player gets checked with a metal detector, up and down.
Oct 13, 2022
0
#215
NervesofButter wrote:
I would imagine his performance rating so far in the US Championship would be somewhere in the 2500's.
Before round 7, I believe it was ~2588. But I meant his overall rating coming down from 2710 back to ~2500. If that happens and it remains in the 2500 range for a couple years after that, I would say we have the answer as to whether he was cheating in games from April 2021 through September 2022.
Oct 13, 2022
0
#216
CrusaderKing1 wrote:
That's why it's likely Hans may consider a lawsuit against Magnus, and Dugly seems like he will.
This is the type of slander that court systems should and is be used for. No proof OTB cheating but being defamed, in a way that could effect his career.
Hans will not sue anyone. Nor will Dlugy. They will make the threat, but never actually follow through because even they know that during discovery, more stuff about them will come out. For example, it is very easy to refute Dlugy's claim that he was crowdsourcing moves from his students during Title Tuesday events by issuing a subpoena for the list of students in the class at the time and asking them to tell their version. Additionally, Magnus has not said anything directly that would carry any weight in a defamation lawsuit. He has offered his opinion, but you cannot win a defamation lawsuit over someone's opinion.
CrusaderKing1 wrote:
The more Magnus has said on the topic, the less I think his character is respectable. He is trying to ruin someones career for having the audacity to beat him with the black pieces.
If you actually think that is Magnus' motivation, you haven't been following chess but for the last 10 minutes. I'd almost be willing to wager that you had never heard of Magnus Carlsen prior to the Queen's Gambit airing on Netflix.
wakuvvaku wrote:
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.
Doesn't look like it will take much time after all.
Кто русский
Я
вова
The best, and worst, thing about Dunning-Kruger Syndrome is that it allows that two people can both be convinced that they have a better understanding of a subject matter and the other is suffering from it. Before accusing someone, how can we know we're not the one suffering from it?