Occam's Razor Supports that Hans Niemann did not cheat against Magnus, or in OTB in general.
Sort:
His wife was having an affair with a hammer? Good Grief...>>
Haha I wondered who would fall into the trap I cunningly laid. The carefully placed commas should have been enough to tell you that it was not a hammer she was having an affair with! You are a conspiracy theorist of the most appalling variety!
Seriously, this is the first time I ever read up on a murder done 31 years ago in a house within easy sight of where we were living at the time. I had no idea it had been written up in a magazine and was down as one of the most cold-blooded murders ever. I posted the link to the description. When I was interviewed just because I happened to be passing (although I was passing because I wanted to be interviewed), it was clear they had reopened the investigation and must suspect Green. I was quite simply sure he'd done it. Never ever even spoke to him. Always fancied his wife and I was a bit of a naughty boy but again, an instinct kept me away from her and I never ever spoke to her, either.
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.
A syndrome is an inter-related set of symptoms. I suppose they could have an effect of some sort.
Oct 12, 2022
0
#228
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
#229
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)
What I meant was that "Dunning-Kruger effect" sounds like the effect that Messrs Dunning & co. have on unsuspecting adults. Whereas it could be a syndrome .... a complex of lack of knowledge, probably lack of intelligence so they can't work out they're doing it and an over-arching need to impress others or at least sound plausible but which is achieved, if that's the right word, basically by making things up. A bit like .... erm ....
Occam’s Razor is an assumption
please be relevant & kind
Oct 12, 2022
0
#233
#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
#234
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
#236
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.
MorningGlory84 wrote:
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.
It isn't easy to determine at whom that was aimed and there's more than a hint of paranoia in your comment. But never mind that. I'm definitely given to what you may well call superstitious thinking, so do you have an opinion on that, or a comment? Is it a good thing to be given to superstitious thinking, for instance? Would you say it necessarily indicates something about a person??
Hey look at this, just played. I had 1.9 seconds left for the last three moves and the opponent tried to confuse me by pausing before he moved but it gave me time to see what my moves should be. Also if he had played Qf1+ he'd have won. I couldn't have got 4 moves in in that time.
I don't even know how to do premove and I wish someone would tell me how.
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
#240
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.
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.
Maybe but what you describe is such an extreme example that maybe "conspiracy theorist" doesn't adequately depict them. Yes there are people who think like that but in many circumstances I suppose it's evidence of some kind of very unhealthy mental syndrome. Mind you, there are circumstances wher the only logical procedure is to look for evidence for and not against. Maybe if you're a policeman, sure that someone has stolen the diamonds.
Last house we lived at in this town there was a really bad murder committed within sight of our house. An evil guy killed his beautiful wife, who was having an affair, with a hammer. I was walking past the crime scene and I was interviewed. All I could do was tell the truth. I'd never spoken to the guy before and I wanted to speak to him about a car he owned. He was coming towards me on the pavement, I had my mouth open to speak to him and I was within a yard of him. I just kept on walking. I had a sensation of indescribable evil. I told the police that. It turned out that the case rested on a set of keys. The police guy I'd spoken to was so sure he'd done the crime that he scoured the underground sewage pipe out for a distance of at least 5 yards and found the keys, so the guy was found guilty. Asked why, the police guy just felt completely sure. Just instinct. The keys had to be somewhere.