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.
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.
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.
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
Ой
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.
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.
What is his motivation? To stop cheating OTB in chess, but ONLY after he loses against someone, and not calling them out BEFORE?
It makes no sense.
Magnus might not even be privy to understand his own actions, but it's clear that his ego was bruised after losing to Hans, and apparently that's grounds for trying to ruin his chess career.
Not saying anything before he was losing to Hans, only after, of course.
What is his motivation? To stop cheating OTB in chess, but ONLY after he loses against someone, and not calling them out BEFORE?
It makes no sense.
Magnus might not even be privy to understand his own actions, but it's clear that his ego was bruised after losing to Hans, and apparently that's grounds for trying to ruin his chess career.
Not saying anything before he was losing to Hans, only after, of course.
You are either intentionally leaving out details, or are unaware of details.
Magnus did say something before - to the organizers. FIDE has very harsh rules for publicly accusing someone of cheating, so saying something publicly would not have gone well for Magnus. Instead, Magnus (and Nepo, and possibly a couple others from what Fabi has said) went to the Sinquefield organizers and asked for more enhanced anti-cheating measures before the tournament started. Because they were laughed at, Magnus considered withdrawing from the event before it even started.
So, you have a guy that suspects another player of cheating, conveys his concern to the organizers, is laughed out, considers withdrawing, and then watches said player crush 2 of his contemporaries and himself in a row. That is not an ego bruising issue - that is Magnus saying "I've had enough of this clown show".
To give a completely different sport as an example: Last year, Leah Thomas was crushing women in NCAA swimming without really even trying. There was talk about women lining up on the blocks and simply not moving when the races started to show their protests of the rather obvious unfairness of the situation. They were told by their universities that if they did that, they would lose their scholarships. Instead, they had to race, lose, and complain about it. Was their complaint due to their bruised egos or the fact that they were forced to participate in a circus?
What is his motivation? To stop cheating OTB in chess, but ONLY after he loses against someone, and not calling them out BEFORE?
It makes no sense.
Magnus might not even be privy to understand his own actions, but it's clear that his ego was bruised after losing to Hans, and apparently that's grounds for trying to ruin his chess career.
Not saying anything before he was losing to Hans, only after, of course.
You are either intentionally leaving out details, or are unaware of details.
Magnus did say something before - to the organizers. FIDE has very harsh rules for publicly accusing someone of cheating, so saying something publicly would not have gone well for Magnus. Instead, Magnus (and Nepo, and possibly a couple others from what Fabi has said) went to the Sinquefield organizers and asked for more enhanced anti-cheating measures before the tournament started. Because they were laughed at, Magnus considered withdrawing from the event before it even started.
So, you have a guy that suspects another player of cheating, conveys his concern to the organizers, is laughed out, considers withdrawing, and then watches said player crush 2 of his contemporaries and himself in a row. That is not an ego bruising issue - that is Magnus saying "I've had enough of this clown show".
To give a completely different sport as an example: Last year, Leah Thomas was crushing women in NCAA swimming without really even trying. There was talk about women lining up on the blocks and simply not moving when the races started to show their protests of the rather obvious unfairness of the situation. They were told by their universities that if they did that, they would lose their scholarships. Instead, they had to race, lose, and complain about it. Was their complaint due to their bruised egos or the fact that they were forced to participate in a circus?
Why wouldn't Magnus quit the tournament before he lost to Hans?
Why wouldn't Magnus resign the games against Hans before he lost to Hans?
The only difference in Magnus's actions before and after he decided to call out Hans was a fair and square loss when he had the white pieces.
The only variable between Magnus deciding to call out Hans or not was him losing. That's it.
Ask yourself if Magnus would have thrown a hissy fit against Hans if he would have beat him. If the answer is 'no', then that tells you everything you need to know.
I once tried to make a formal complaint against a player who went on to become a GM, regarding gamesmanship. Deliberately distracting behaviour. I was told to get lost in a nice way, by an arbiter I liked. But he was still wrong.
What is his motivation? To stop cheating OTB in chess, but ONLY after he loses against someone, and not calling them out BEFORE?
It makes no sense.
Magnus might not even be privy to understand his own actions, but it's clear that his ego was bruised after losing to Hans, and apparently that's grounds for trying to ruin his chess career.
Not saying anything before he was losing to Hans, only after, of course.
You are either intentionally leaving out details, or are unaware of details.
Magnus did say something before - to the organizers. FIDE has very harsh rules for publicly accusing someone of cheating, so saying something publicly would not have gone well for Magnus. Instead, Magnus (and Nepo, and possibly a couple others from what Fabi has said) went to the Sinquefield organizers and asked for more enhanced anti-cheating measures before the tournament started. Because they were laughed at, Magnus considered withdrawing from the event before it even started.
So, you have a guy that suspects another player of cheating, conveys his concern to the organizers, is laughed out, considers withdrawing, and then watches said player crush 2 of his contemporaries and himself in a row. That is not an ego bruising issue - that is Magnus saying "I've had enough of this clown show".
To give a completely different sport as an example: Last year, Leah Thomas was crushing women in NCAA swimming without really even trying. There was talk about women lining up on the blocks and simply not moving when the races started to show their protests of the rather obvious unfairness of the situation. They were told by their universities that if they did that, they would lose their scholarships. Instead, they had to race, lose, and complain about it. Was their complaint due to their bruised egos or the fact that they were forced to participate in a circus?
You're attempting to reason with an ideologue who's given to magical thinking. He likes arguing in circles to keep his simple brain entertained. Just ignore it.
This thread is highly entertaining. Hilarious, even.
I once tried to make a formal complaint against a player who went on to become a GM, regarding gamesmanship. Deliberately distracting behaviour. I was told to get lost in a nice way, by an arbiter I liked. But he was still wrong.
There was this older gentlemen that i believe was at his rating floor of 1900. I swear the guy had every word in the USCF rule book memorized. He was notorious and not very well liked for his stopping the clock, getting a TD, etc over every perceived rule in fraction that he thought was being committed. They just kind of put up with him for some reason.
The first time i played him he beat me. But now that i knew what he was like? I simply got under his skin the next 2 times i played him. He spent more time complaining about me "breaking the rules" than he did on the game. I would see that i was paired again him, so i would show up late. That bothered him.
I would leave my cell phone on the table. He would get the TD and complain.
I would go into my backpack to get a snack, and he would complain about that. My banana was to loud. Or i drank water to loudly and should only drink or eat on my time.
I havent seen him in years and i hope he is ok.
That sounds extreme. Probably the worst I did was to put a pack of cigars on the playing table at the beginning of a tournament game, just after the blanket ban on smoking in the playing area came into force.
I need to talk to some people here. After all, I'm given to magical thinking and this is the second time I've seen it mentioned, recently, as if it's something to be laughed at. OK, so I accept it's something to be laughed at but the only objection anyone should have against magical thinking would be because they assume it doesn't work and that therefore the magical thinker is retarded.
But what if it works?
I need to talk to some people here. After all, I'm given to magical thinking and this is the second time I've seen it mentioned, recently, as if it's something to be laughed at. OK, so I accept it's something to be laughed at but the only objection anyone should have against magical thinking would be because they assume it doesn't work and that therefore the magical thinker is retarded.
But what if it works?
I'm not laughing, there's just an irreconcilable difference between the scientific brain and the magical/superstitious thinker. For an excruciating illustration of this I recommend the video below. It does "work" evolutionarily. I think it's possible a majority of people are given to committed superstition which suggests it was selected for evolutionarily, probably because it has a survival advantage.
Whether Hans cheated vs Magnus or not one thing that is clear is that he had cheated in the past online which he admitted and to be serious even I would doubt this guy if I was playing against him in real life or online
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..
Just being pedantic .... nearly right. What's shaved away isn't unnecessary assumptions but necessary ones. That is, if hypothesis 1 only works with the addition of three improperly supported hypotheses but hypothesis 2 only requires one, then all other things being equal, go for 2 and junk 1. Quite often, online sources get this kind of thing wrong because the semantic logic escapes them.
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.