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

There was no exaggeration in my statement.

Niemann's rise (from 2500 to 2700) is the fastest in human chess history.

Fischer has already been brought up before. Let's compare Niemann's OTB progress to Fischer's:

2300-2500

Fischer: 1 year (USCF)

Niemann: 5 years (FIDE)

2500-2700

Fischer: 6 years (USCF)

Niemann: 1.5 years (FIDE)

At the 2500-2700 level, Niemann improved 400% faster than Fischer.

We can name other players, and do similar comparisons ...

Compare Fischer's rise from scratch when he started going to a chess club.

Yes, I agree that Fischer's early ascent was incredible.

But the controversy directly relates to Niemann's rise after hitting 2500. His progress until then was relatively unremarkable. His progress after that point was ... unprecedented.

It's an unfortunate coincidence (for Niemann) that his sudden acceleration began almost immediately after he was caught cheating online ...

PhD research is much more difficult than for a Masters, or should be. This from someone who has neither but who has a wife who told me after she completed her MSc that if she ever decided to do a PhD I had to stop her, using whatever persuasion or force that's necessary.

It's 'arder. The length of time it takes reflects that.

When I was 20 I was nearly as bad as that.

A PhD shouldn't have different research than a masters. I'm telling you this as someone who has 15+ years in academia, including research, graduate school, medical school, etc.

The research done is always based on the advisor's research. You can't magically change his research based on whether or not you are doing a masters or PhD. It will be the same type of research.

That being said, the difficult part of a PhD compared to a masters is the amount of research needed, not the level of arduous research.

A PhD requires more publications, more data collected, and more time.

This is all in hard sciences. 

I do not know about other majors like english, history, or subjects like that. 

a few points that instantly came into my head when reading this:

1: Magnus has lost to lot's of young and up and coming players before, like Prag, Parham, etc. he had also Lost to Hans Niemann multiple times before his loss in the Sinqfield cup. This isn't about a bruised Ego, it makes no sense to claim it to be that. Someone who claims to be as intelligent as you should instantly negate that as a possibility. 

2: You say Hans Niemann. has lost to people like Caruana. I dont even understand this point. Are you saying a cheater would just win against everyone? thats not smart cheating. A cheater, especially at the high GM level needs to be cautious and very gentle with the cheating otherwise its blatantly obvious. 

Using Occams Razor here makes no sense because you can say the argument that he is cheating is much more simple than the one claiming he isn't cheating. 

I'm can't tell you why Magnus with the white pieces losing to Hans made him so angry, but it did. It clearly struck a chord with him. He didn't go after Hans until "after" he lost to him. That's a major sign of a bruised ego.

Sure, cheaters can cheat smart. If this was an online match, I'd say the chances of him cheating are very plausible, as Hans has cheated online before.

But this wasn't online. It was a secure area with many security checks in place. I don't know why people think he magically cheated OTB. That's not a realistic stance without any evidence. It's not even close to the most simple explanation.

The most simple explanation is Magnus lost fair and square.

It's that simple and reasonable.

It's like college students taking an exam online vs. in person.

Many college students are going to find a way to cheat on online exams, but the likelihood they are going to try that when proctors are watching in a classroom are extremely slim. It becomes drastically more difficult and unrealistic to do so. Only a small fraction of those who cheated online would attempt to cheat in person, probably less than 1%. 

I just don't see any reason to believe Hans cheated OTB.

The game against Magnus itself isn't even remotely suspicious. Hans is roughly 2700, so him beating a 2800 isn't as crazy as people make it seem. 

The only problem is that you incorrectly gave Occam's Razor as evidence or a rationale that he wasn't cheating.

A slightly more proper use of Occam's Razor might be something like:

This person has a badly wrinkled face.
It could be that she smokes a lot.
Or that she's very aged.
Or maybe she has a hormonal problem or a genetic abnormality that caused it.
Or that she has taken too much extract of elephant, because since elephants have wrinkly skin, which might cause it. Or maybe she's a Martian and Martians might be very wrinkly.

A more correct use of Occam's Razor is regarding the Big Bang hypothesis. Professor Reginald E Kapp, in about 1959, used Occam's Razor ro demonstrate that the Big Bang hypothesis is incorrect from the point of view of hypothesis formation, regarding which he was one of the World's leading experts. That was because the universe is almost certainly steady state and therefore introducing a non-steady state hypothesis is highly likely to be incorrect. A more obvious use, though, is to discredit ideas concerning the multiverse, for which there clearly cannot possibly be any evidence at all. Go for a simpler explanation to account for the maths not quite lining up .... for instance that the Big Bang is incorrect!

More evidence that you do not have the experience you claim.

(This criticism is from someone who has a PhD, publications, and more than 30 years of university teaching.)

Nothing you say will change the fact those are my credentials.

I could sit here and spell every word wrong, say the sky is yellow, have a 100 chess rating, and those credentials would still be true.

My experience with people who question credentials is because they often disagree with you in some discussion and their thought process is "how can this person disagree with me and have credentials showing he is somewhat intelligent, this cant be!".

Notice how I don't question your credentials? It's partly because I don't care, but I also couldn't prove any different anyway even if I thought otherwise. 

A master's in medicine? Or a PhD?

I can add to what I wrote, though. It's only anecdotal but I believe it's correct. When my son was doing his PhD in Condensed Matter Physics, he struggled quite a lot. It took him six months, he told me, just to write down the initial equation which had to be solved. This even though he had the reputation of being one of the two best mathematicians ar St Andrews University and despite his Masters being in maths and not physics.

He told me that in practice, even the PhD students were streamed or segregated and the less able ones would get a less problematic piece of research; the aim being to test students to near their limits. His project was to represent magnetism in terms of fermionic spins. He says that he discovered a new state of matter through the equations he devised but it was extremely difficult. He says that the equation could also be written back to front ... that is, constants as variables and vice versa, but that the maths necessary to solve it that way round hasn't been devised yet. The proof isn't complete without that being done and then his equations used to predict metallic alloys for practical testing.

It certainly seems to me that that isn't Masters level. I did some original research as my own dissertation for my BA in philosophy and that was to a slightly less rigorous standard than Masters would require. No less accurate but the writing up didn't need to be so exact.

For a PhD in any field, the general expectation is that you have become a producer of knowledge. This can occur at the master's level, but generally the focus is on mastery of the skills that are the foundation for the production of knowledge. 

There are exceptions even at the PhD level. In some cases, the PhD will be granted to someone who shows only mastery of basic research and data analysis skills. This example of a cookie-cutter application of a theory to a problem it clearly will not fit is a case in point: https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/arv_dissertations/523/

Masters in chemistry. Doctorate in medicine if that's what you consider physicians. Although Physicians often don't say they have a doctorate, they usually say MD or DO.

That is absolutely master level physics. I had advanced quantum chemistry colleagues and they had similar struggles to what you're describing. 

Good use of Wikipedia.

Nothing is going to change the fact that master and PhD students continue the same research of their advisor, where the main difference is the length of the program and the fact you need more results for a PhD. 

Literally if I wanted a PhD, I would have used the exact same data from my Masters, but would just spend a couple more years doing it. 

Good use of 15+ years of academia. 

Good, you can use the extra years you didn't spend working on a PhD to learn some basic logical skills so you will no longer misapply Occam's Razor