In fact, you cannot prove one single thing using Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor is for reminding people that make up a bunch of reasons why XYZ is (or is not) that the simpler answer is more likely to be true than the complicated answer.
Occam's Razor Supports that Hans Niemann did not cheat against Magnus, or in OTB in general.
Sort:
If we follow your statement:
>Magnus accuses Hans of cheating
>Magnus is the champion
>Hans must be cheating
CrusaderKing1 wrote:
This guy gets it.
Thanks for letting people know who to group you with. You, RookNoob, that GTBGTA-whatever guy...
I will call this group Crow Eaters in Waiting.
Oct 9, 2022
0
#25
btickler wrote:
In fact, you cannot prove one single thing using Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor is for reminding people that make up a bunch of reasons why XYZ is (or is not) that the simpler answer is more likely to be true than the complicated answer.
The entire point of Occam's Razor in this discussion is that the most likely scenario is often the simplest and most logical one proposed.
It's so farfetched to say Hans cheated OTB against Magnus without a single lick of evidence, therefore the enormous leaps to start suggesting he used advanced technology with acquaintances, and so on, is simply not the most reasonable conclusion. In fact, it's not even close to being a justified stance. The best it can be is a very half-baked speculation.
CrusaderKing1 wrote:
The entire point of Occam's Razor in this discussion is that the most likely scenario is often the simplest and most logical one proposed.
It's so farfetched to say Hans cheated OTB against Magnus without a single lick of evidence, therefore the enormous leaps to start suggesting he used advanced technology with acquaintances, and so on, is simply not the most reasonable conclusion. In fact, it's not even close to being a justified stance. The best it can be is a very half-baked speculation.
I think you have a Gillette razor there. Occam's would tell you that the same past behavior already admitted to just continued on into a new form. You would like to pretend that the complications here are in the accusations, but the complications here are the ratings rise and the anomalies in how that rise occurred compared to a litany of other players.
Oct 9, 2022
0
#27
btickler wrote:
CrusaderKing1 wrote:
btickler wrote:
In fact, you cannot prove one single thing using Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor is for reminding people that make up a bunch of reasons why XYZ is (or is not) that the simpler answer is more likely to be true than the complicated answer.
The entire point of Occam's Razor in this discussion is that the most likely scenario is often the simplest and most logical one proposed.
It's so farfetched to say Hans cheated OTB against Magnus without a single lick of evidence, therefore the enormous leaps to start suggesting he used advanced technology with acquaintances, and so on, is simply not the most reasonable conclusion. In fact, it's not even close to being a justified stance. The best it can be is a very half-baked speculation.
I think you have a Gillette razor there. Occam's would tell you that the same past behavior already admitted to just continued on into a new form.
The repeated behavior would be cheating online, not OTB.
They are vastly different environments, with vastly different circumstances, with vastly different methodologies to be able to cheat.
A lot of GM players have cheated online, but there is no evidence those same players have been cheating OTB. Speculation would seem that an extremely small percent of those cheating online have been cheating OTB, as Regan's data supports.
Oct 9, 2022
0
#28
btickler wrote:
CrusaderKing1 wrote:
The entire point of Occam's Razor in this discussion is that the most likely scenario is often the simplest and most logical one proposed.
It's so farfetched to say Hans cheated OTB against Magnus without a single lick of evidence, therefore the enormous leaps to start suggesting he used advanced technology with acquaintances, and so on, is simply not the most reasonable conclusion. In fact, it's not even close to being a justified stance. The best it can be is a very half-baked speculation.
I think you have a Gillette razor there. Occam's would tell you that the same past behavior already admitted to just continued on into a new form. You would like to pretend that the complications here are in the accusations, but the complications here are the ratings rise and the anomalies in how that rise occurred compared to a litany of other players.
Yeah, funnily the OP gets it backwards. Simplest explanation is Hans is a cheater.
Oct 9, 2022
0
#29
CrusaderKing1 wrote:
he lost against Fabiano with the white pieces.
This dude is not cheating OTB.
You would be so easy to fool 
CrusaderKing1 wrote:
The repeated behavior would be cheating online, not OTB.
They are vastly different environments, with vastly different circumstances, with vastly different methodologies to be able to cheat.
A lot of GM players have cheated online, but there is no evidence those same players have been cheating OTB. Speculation would seem that an extremely small percent of those cheating online have been cheating OTB, as Regan's data supports.
A small percentage like what, 1 in the top 100 perhaps...?
Time will tell. Good luck, "Crusader".
Oct 9, 2022
0
#31
You've heard of Occam's Razor, but have you heard of Newton's flaming laser sword?
“much sharper and more dangerous than Occam's Razor . . . that which cannot be settled by experiment is not worth debating"
Simplest explanation for someone who has form for cheating, hit a plateau for years before the quickest rise in chess history is that he’s still cheating.
Oct 10, 2022
0
#34
llama36 wrote:
btickler wrote:
CrusaderKing1 wrote:
The entire point of Occam's Razor in this discussion is that the most likely scenario is often the simplest and most logical one proposed.
It's so farfetched to say Hans cheated OTB against Magnus without a single lick of evidence, therefore the enormous leaps to start suggesting he used advanced technology with acquaintances, and so on, is simply not the most reasonable conclusion. In fact, it's not even close to being a justified stance. The best it can be is a very half-baked speculation.
I think you have a Gillette razor there. Occam's would tell you that the same past behavior already admitted to just continued on into a new form. You would like to pretend that the complications here are in the accusations, but the complications here are the ratings rise and the anomalies in how that rise occurred compared to a litany of other players.
Yeah, funnily the OP gets it backwards. Simplest explanation is Hans is a cheater.
What evidence corroborates that Hans cheating OTB is the simplest explanation, and specifically against Magnus?
If there is no evidence, why would it be the simplest explanation?
rookNoob1982 wrote:
the simplest answer becomes Hans just practiced and got good at Chess ...
I'd argue that "got good" is an inaccurate way of describing Hans' OTB progress.
He literally improved at a faster rate than any human chess player in existence. This, a scant few months after he admitting to cheating online to "gain rating".
If we want to argue that "practice" is what accounts for Hans' unprecedented Elo rise, then we'd have to say something like this: "Hans admitted to cheating, then practiced and became phenomenal - incomparable, in his rate of progress, to any other player on earth."
CrusaderKing1 wrote:
The definition according to wikipedia is "a scientific and philosophical rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities."
Hans has been playing well, beating players like Magnus and Aronian in important tournaments, but also losing to players like Fabiano. Just recently he lost against Fabiano with the white pieces.
This dude is not cheating OTB.
The witch hunt only exists because Magnus lost a game vs. Hans with the white pieces and now he's going out way to ruin his chess career because of a bruised ego.
That's the simplest and most logical explanation. Don't overcomplicate things.
And I say this as a master degree chemist and physician, often times the most simplest explanation is the most realistic.
"when you hear hooves, think horses, not zebras".
This has nothing whatsoever to do with parsimony of hypotheses, which is Occam's Razor.
Me have philosophy degree and you're talking philosophy of science here.
Oct 10, 2022
0
#37
btickler wrote:
You might also imagine that a "masters degree chemist and physician" would never say "most simplest explanation"...but here we are .
The simplest explanation of a phrase that makes no sense is that the author does not know what he is writing about. Few physicians earn master’s degrees. Rather, they go directly from their bachelor’s to medical school where the only degree granted is a doctorate.
Nurses and physician’s assistants are another matter.
An MS in chemistry is not uncommon for low-level research or secondary school teaching.
IronSteam1 wrote:
rookNoob1982 wrote:
the simplest answer becomes Hans just practiced and got good at Chess ...
I'd argue that "got good" is an inaccurate way of describing Hans' OTB progress.
He literally improved at a faster rate than any human chess player in existence. This, a scant few months after he admitting to cheating online to "gain rating".
If we want to argue that "practice" is what accounts for Hans' unprecedented Elo rise, then we'd have to say something like this: "Hans admitted to cheating, then practiced and became phenomenal - incomparable, in his rate of progress, to any other player on earth."
Its easy to exaggerate. At 13 years of age Bobby Fischer played with 97% accuracy against Donald Byrne. Here is Stockfish analysis:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rTo-UMXdfI
I would say Bobby Fischer's rise was much more impressive.
At 19 years of age Fischer did not have the strength to defeat the Soviet players at that time but by the age of 29 he was the strongest player in the world and farther ahead of any of his peers than Magnus Carlsen ever was. On his march to the world championship in 1972 he went through a winning streak (no draws) against twenty world class players. Whether Hans could be another Fischer is another question. Magnus was wrong in trying to ban Nieman from any future competition by threatening to refuse any tournaments he plays in.
I have yet to hear of any in depth investigations of all the other grandmasters still playing in tournaments who cheated online. Stop the double standard.
Oct 10, 2022
0
#39
Fischer’s 20 game winning streak was not against 20 players. What else do you have wrong?
Oct 10, 2022
0
#40
Ziryab wrote:
btickler wrote:
You might also imagine that a "masters degree chemist and physician" would never say "most simplest explanation"...but here we are .
The simplest explanation of a phrase that makes no sense is that the author does not know what he is writing about. Few physicians earn master’s degrees. Rather, they go directly from their bachelor’s to medical school where the only degree granted is a doctorate.
Nurses and physician’s assistants are another matter.
An MS in chemistry is not uncommon for low-level research or secondary school teaching.
I'm not sure what your point is.
However, many colleagues of mine did have masters or PhD's in various sciences before becoming a physician. I would agree that the most usual path is directly from a bachelors, but it is certainly not uncommon for higher educated individuals to pursue medicine.
Also, a master's degree is not low level research. It is often the same level of research as a PhD or the advisor. The difference is that it usually takes 2 years instead of 4+.
The difference is length, not the type of research. If I wanted to pursue the PhD, then the research would not change at all, it would have simply been a longer variation. I wrote publications and have a thesis. PhD students write dissertations, which are usually twice as long as a thesis. There is variety between programs.
I used to teach nurses in chemistry graduate school for their chemistry courses, but I also work with them now. Physician Assistants (PAs), basically have a very difficult 2-2.5 years after they earn their bachelors for their PA masters equivalent. It's not a bad idea if you want 6 figures without the arduous and lengthy time one would spend in 4 years of medical school with the addition of several years of residency before even beginning to practice.
If you have any questions on the process, do let me know.
Are you the same guy who tried to make this same argument on the Chessable forums? If so, you misapplied the razor there the same way you are doing it here. If you are someone else entirely, you run into problems:
1) You have someone with an admitted history of cheating and deception.
2) The same someone had been stagnant for several years, while playing over 250 rated games.
3) The same person suddenly starts improving quickly after getting banned for cheating online, again.
4) The same person has found a way to crush (not just beat) some of the strongest players in history after the aforementioned online cheating ban.
The simple reason for this is not that he is somehow different from every human in history, but that he is actually very similar to them, and all the statistical outliers centered around him are due to something else going on (i.e. cheating in some fashion).
To draw a comparison: suppose you had a decent baseball player who was caught using PEDs in high school. He claims he stopped. He makes it to the pros and has a decent, but not stellar, career for several years. Suddenly, he packs on 40lbs of muscle and hits 100 home runs in a single season. Is the most likely cause that he just worked really hard in the off season, or that he went back to the juice? As history has shown us over the last 26 years, when you see that, it is usually the latter, not the former.
This is a terrible example. We know doping exists in professional sports. But cheating at this level of Chess is practically unprecedented. For Hans to be cheating we have to intellectually invent several things: A device that can avoid detection, an accomplice, a way to communicate the current board position, a way to cheat that can outsmart algorithms reviewing his OTB games for engine moves. I think The OP's point is that by the time you construct that scenario you've added illogical complexity to solve the problem. And the simplest answer becomes Hans just practiced and got good at Chess. (He lost to Fabi btw)
This guy gets it.