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

Sort:
CrusaderKing1
Ziryab wrote:
CrusaderKing1 wrote:
Ziryab wrote:

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/

 

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. 

 

Tell us more about this MA work.

 

MS, not MA. 

MS means thesis was also done.

Spent time optimizing synthetic organic chemistry reactions. Methods such as the reaction, work-up, purification, and using HMR to evaluate the compounds. It's protecting group chemistry. The term "optimization" in chemistry is synonymous with the laymen's terms for "inventing". 

My advisor optimized a reaction under mild conditions in which he was able to transfer a certain chemical groups to alcohols, carboxylic acids, etc.

This transferred was optimized to show yield of 99% for the starting product, and then 90-99% for most products tested, showing that millions of compounds could have their group transferred. 

Since the original protecting groups was successfully transferred in publishable yields (i.e you really need 85%+ for publications), my area of chemistry was to optimization other groups he wanted to transfer another structure that was similar.

Organic chemistry has many variables. This includes the time of reaction, catalyst of reaction, solvent of reaction, work-up techniques, purification methods, and analysis via HMNR, CMNR, IR spec, mass spec. etc. 

As I said before, your research is generally based on the your advisor's research except your reaction goals are different and now you are taking it to the next step to optimize a reaction.

 

 

CrusaderKing1
Optimissed wrote:

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

My son only published about 1 or 2 things all told, in his PhD work, not including the thesis itself. Maybe you're trying to describe post-doctoral stuff? I'm glad I didn't attempt to get anything beyond the basic BA in philosophy and it's probably talent that leads to greater things, rather than mastery of what has gone before. After all, in hard sciences, the emphasis is on building on what went before. In phisosophy, if I wished to make a name for myself it would involve replacing what went before.

You're not from the USA, so there could be some differences.

I'm not sure on the total expectations of a physics PhD, but I did know some PhD chemists there when I was in chemistry graduate school. It seemed fairly similar. 

Although organic chemistry specifically took a massive amount of time in lab and took all of our free time while it did appear more quantum based chemists and physicists got to do a lot of work in more leisure areas. 

Ziryab

Sounds legit. You still need to work on your understanding of Occam’s Razor. Maybe rely on something a little better than Wikipedia.

CrusaderKing1
Ziryab wrote:

Sounds legit. You still need to work on your understanding of Occam’s Razor. Maybe rely on something a little better than Wikipedia.

The entire point of bringing up Occam's Razor is the fact that it is often "the simplest explanation is often the most likely to be true".

What do you think is the most erroneous part of applying Occam's Razor to saying its unlikely Han's cheated OTB when there is no evidence to support the claim, nor statistical alarm bells according to Regan?

 

Asmin12
CrusaderKing1 написал:
Ziryab wrote:
CrusaderKing1 wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
CrusaderKing1 wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
CrusaderKing1 wrote:
Optimissed wrote:

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.

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. 

 

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.

 

 

 

A master's in medicine? Or a PhD?

Masters in chemistry. Doctorate in medicine if that's what you consider physicians. Although Physicians often don't sayо

 

they have a doctorate, they usually say MD or DO.

 

 

 

Good use of Wikipedia.

Good use of 15+ years of academia. 

 

CrusaderKing1
Optimissed wrote:
CrusaderKing1 wrote:
Optimissed wrote:

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

My son only published about 1 or 2 things all told, in his PhD work, not including the thesis itself. Maybe you're trying to describe post-doctoral stuff? I'm glad I didn't attempt to get anything beyond the basic BA in philosophy and it's probably talent that leads to greater things, rather than mastery of what has gone before. After all, in hard sciences, the emphasis is on building on what went before. In phisosophy, if I wished to make a name for myself it would involve replacing what went before.

You're not from the USA, so there could be some differences.

I'm not sure on the total expectations of a physics PhD, but I did know some PhD chemists there when I was in chemistry graduate school. It seemed fairly similar. 

Although organic chemistry specifically took a massive amount of time in lab and took all of our free time while it did appear more quantum based chemists and physicists got to do a lot of work in more leisure areas. 

Could be, although I've heard that it's more difficult to get a PhD in the USA, provided of course that it's at a legitimate academic establishment. Not sure if that's true but it does seem to take longer in the USA and there's no reason to think that in the USA you're less intelligent than elsewhere. My wife would dispute that but that's out of prejudice, although I love her.

If I had to go back in time, perhaps I would have just got a retail job and worked on stock trading. The rewards for graduating chemistry graduate school or medical school aren't particularly that great for living a stress-free life. 

rookNoob1982
IronSteam1 wrote:
rookNoob1982 wrote:

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.

Carlsen offered a plausible (and relatively simple) way for a grandmaster to cheat at chess:

They simply need to be alerted when there is a winning opportunity on the board. No additional information, or moves, need to be given.

Just something as simple as a single vibration, on a critical move, is all that's needed.

After that, it's up to the grandmaster to use this extra information, to the best of his ability.

This method of cheating would almost certainly avoid detection, via game analysis.

Combine this with the statements of top players like Caruana, who suggested that the anti-cheating measures in place, before this whole controversy, were inadequate to catch anything sophisticated.

Also combine this with Niemann's repeated history of cheating in prize-money chess tournaments.

And combine that with Niemann's sudden Elo rise (unprecedented in history).

It seems well within reason to conclude that Niemann might have been dabbling in such a system, before security tightened.

The conclusion might prove incorrect, but it's certainly not as outlandish as some make it seem ...

Based on that theory any GM could be cheating OTB. And every previous fastest rise in chess would be a new record and thus unprecedented. But even for your theory to be true you still need all the additional components thus adding to the complexity of the theory to make it work. 

MaetsNori
CrusaderKing1 wrote:

What do you think is the most erroneous part of applying Occam's Razor to saying its unlikely Han's cheated OTB when there is no evidence to support the claim, nor statistical alarm bells according to Regan?

Grandmaster Ramirez (who was responsible for inviting Hans to compete in that now-famous tournament) suggested that a skilled cheater would be aware of cheat-detection methods (such as Regan's), and would intentionally play in a way that avoids statistical anomalies - therefore leaving "no trail" to be found.

That's part of what makes this controversy so long-lasting in the forums ... there are so many possible angles.

rookNoob1982
onBoard64 wrote:

"Occam's razor is only relevant if the two theories predict identical results..."

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/08/occams-razor/495332/

 

Isn’t the result in this case Niemanns win? And the two theory’s are trying to explain that win.

zone_chess

"when you hear hooves, think horses, not zebras".

 

"When you see inhumanly good chess play, think computer assistance, not human intelligence."

Your reasoning is completely flawed I'm afraid. The opposite is true and that exactly why all these debates are going on. Because the simplest explanation for extraordinarily perfect play is...cheating.

CraigIreland

#81: A better result to hypothesise about is Niemann's FIDE rating. There's a lot of evidence to take into consideration. The best and simplest explanation is the one that best matches that evidence. It's just common sense so there's no need to invoke Occam's Razor unless someone wants to appear clever to people who haven't heard of it before. There's no need to back it up with university degrees unless they're trying to convince others that the logic is less trivial than it is. If they've done the data analysis themselves then I'm interested in credentials but no credentials are required for watching YouTube videos and posting an opinion on these forums.

MaetsNori
rookNoob1982 wrote:

Based on that theory any GM could be cheating OTB. And every previous fastest rise in chess would be a new record and thus unprecedented. But even for your theory to be true you still need all the additional components thus adding to the complexity of the theory to make it work. 

Only two components are needed to make that cheating method work: a device, and an accomplice.

Stage magicians / mentalists already use this technique - so it's not as implausible as it may seem. The device (and the technique itself) is called a "thumper" - a small, flat device (usually concealed in a coat pocket) that sends discrete vibrations to the stage magician - signals from the accomplice.

This way, the magician/mentalist can appear to have "magical" powers of perception - possessing answers and insights that seem impossible to have.

The only real difficulty here is finding a device that can elude the Garrett SuperWand. (That part of the theory is beyond my knowledge ...)

Though, if (hypothetically) a player truly wanted to, they could purchase the Garrett SuperWand online.

Then they could use it to scan their cheating equipment, to see if their method is detectable or not ...

GlutesChess
CrusaderKing1 wrote:

2. The website has said he hasn't cheated since 2020, so he probably hasn't cheated on this website in any major way for years.

 

They didn't say that though. They just said there isn't conclusive evidence that he did. Big difference. 

rookNoob1982
zone_chess wrote:

"when you hear hooves, think horses, not zebras".

 

"When you see inhumanly good chess play, think computer assistance, not human intelligence."

Your reasoning is completely flawed I'm afraid. The opposite is true and that exactly why all these debates are going on. Because the simplest explanation for extraordinarily perfect play is...cheating.

But his play isn’t extraordinarily perfect. Stock fish gave him a score of like 92% in his game with Magnus. He played well but not impossibly well by any means.

Chr0mePl8edSt0vePipe
I think Occam’s razor would be the least applicable in chess. We should use Magnus’ Razor or Magnus’ Beard Growth Supplement. Chess is often way more complex than it seems.
A beginner can look at a position and see a pawn hanging but a GM will look at the same position and looking 8 moves ahead he will see that not only is the pawn hanging but a full piece is also after a multiple move tactic but it ends up giving him a strong positional advantage to sac the piece anyways.
Similarly, there are so many factors in action within this cheating controversy. A basic “they didn’t find a computer on him” isn’t going to help anything.
jfri57
IronSteam1 wrote:
rookNoob1982 wrote:

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.

Carlsen offered a plausible (and relatively simple) way for a grandmaster to cheat at chess:

They simply need to be alerted when there is a winning opportunity on the board. No additional information, or moves, need to be given.

Just something as simple as a single vibration, on a critical move, is all that's needed.

After that, it's up to the grandmaster to use this extra information, to the best of his ability.

This method of cheating would almost certainly avoid detection, via game analysis.

Combine this with the statements of top players like Caruana, who suggested that the anti-cheating measures in place, before this whole controversy, were inadequate to catch anything sophisticated.

Also combine this with Niemann's repeated history of cheating in prize-money chess tournaments.

And combine that with Niemann's sudden Elo rise (unprecedented in history).

It seems well within reason to conclude that Niemann might have been dabbling in such a system, before security tightened.

The conclusion might prove incorrect, but it's certainly not as outlandish as some make it seem ...

 

But from what I understand the broadcast is transmitted with a delay. Would that not make it very difficult ? The cheater getting in to lack of time problem ?

rookNoob1982
stopvacuuming wrote:

saying "from what i understand" is silly, considering you understand nothing

Hey troll king give it a rest. Your 1200+ rating isn't exactly grounds for superiority.

Don
rookNoob1982 wrote:
stopvacuuming wrote:

saying "from what i understand" is silly, considering you understand nothing

Hey troll king give it a rest. Your 1200+ rating isn't exactly grounds for superiority.

Hey troll king give it a rest. Your 1400+ rating isn't exactly grounds for superiority.

rookNoob1982
DonRajesh wrote:
rookNoob1982 wrote:
stopvacuuming wrote:

saying "from what i understand" is silly, considering you understand nothing

Hey troll king give it a rest. Your 1200+ rating isn't exactly grounds for superiority.

Hey troll king give it a rest. Your 1400+ rating isn't exactly grounds for superiority.

Thats fair. But I also didn't say someone "understood nothing." I.e. Id like to think I'm not trolling anyone. But go ahead, feed the trolls.

Don
rookNoob1982 wrote:
DonRajesh wrote:
rookNoob1982 wrote:
stopvacuuming wrote:

saying "from what i understand" is silly, considering you understand nothing

Hey troll king give it a rest. Your 1200+ rating isn't exactly grounds for superiority.

Hey troll king give it a rest. Your 1400+ rating isn't exactly grounds for superiority.

Thats fair. But I also didn't say someone "understood nothing." I.e. Id like to think I'm not trolling anyone. But go ahead, feed the trolls.

Thats fair. But I also didn't say someone "understood nothing." I.e. Id like to think I'm not trolling anyone. But go ahead, feed the tro-

Sorry, I just found it funny that your reasoning was founded upon rating.