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

Well not entirely. But this guys been making fun of people in the forums for their low ratings. Figured someone should call him out on it.

Yes, the delay helps combat certain cheating methods. Personally, I think the delay should be even longer (an hour, or even 2 hours). But a 30-minute delay is still better than no delay.

This delay was not in effect until recently, though. In the Carlsen-Niemann Sinquefield Cup game, for example, (the game that began this whole controversy) there was no broadcast delay ...

I wish I could go back in time and give occam's mother an abortion so that people in 2022 wouldn't use occam's razor to try to draw any kind of conclusion

Oh no🫣

Ummm, if you knew the origin of the term you would know it would be William's mother...

Some just like to say Occam’s Razor. That’s about the simplest explanation it can be.

Occam's razor would've suggested that a known cheater, who lied about cheating, who has had suspicious rating increase during the same period he cheated over 100 times online, and was accused by a brilliant man who has never accused anyone else ever before, cheated. Don't overcomplicate things.

The amount of coincidence would have been almost overwhelming had he really not cheated OTB.

That said I believe Hans is no longer cheating and he is a capable GM level player. The only way for him to really prove doubters wrong is to continue his meteoric rise in rating and become a top 5 player in two to three years.

I haven't read all the comments, and someone way ahead of me probably already said it, but I think the issue isn't that one particular game. It's the overall situation, many different games. 

When many different games have extraordinary results there are really only three options in my opinion. First, the player really is amazing. They are the best, or near the best that has ever existed. The second option is Divine guidance. Or as Hans called it "ridiculous miracle". 

And the third option, which to many appears to be the most logical and reasonable explanation, is simply outside assistance. Now that I'm becoming familiar with what occams razor is I think cheating is the most logical and uncomplicated answer. 

You have used Occam's Razor (the simplest explanation is usually correct) to argue that Hans did not cheat. One could argue that given, past unethical behavior, and overwhelming statistical analysis Occam's Razor would point to the simple explanation of cheating.

Statistical data according to who? Because it's definitely not Regan, the reigning authority of OTB cheating. 

The statistical data is usually from people with 1/1000th the expertise and knowledge Regan has. 

Again, if there is no evidence Hans cheated, no strange moves in his game against Magnus, etc...then the simplest explanation is he won fair and square.

The simplest explanation is not that he was using a device in a secured area for OTB chess.

The more you type, the more I wonder if you are the same person that tried making this argument on Chessable.

The issue is not the single game against Magnus.  Also, the Sinquefield Cup was not "secured" until after Magnus withdrew - and interestingly enough, Hans' play degraded significantly following that.

But to your conclusion:  You have a decent high school sprinter who disappears for 6 months and comes back and is suddenly crushing Ben Johnson and Usain Bolt in the 100m dash.  Obviously, it is because he was training hard - after all, that is the "simplest" explanation, right?

I do not go to chessable.

I would say that if the high school sprinter passed steroid testing and any other anti cheat methods that it would be likely that he beat Usain Bolt fair and square.

I don't follow running sports like that, but I assume that is a very unlikely scenario and it's not a very good anaology.

The reason it's not a good analogy is because Hans is 2700 and Magnus is 2800. The difference isn't nearly as extreme. 

It is clear that you don’t follow running sports.

As someone who claims to be a physician with a background in chemistry, you most assuredly know that many people work on making custom anabolic cocktails that avoid detection by testing methods at any given time period.

And of course it isn't a good analogy - it refutes your entire argument, so you must dismiss it

Lets assume Hans' rating of 2700 is accurate.  Magnus is ~2860.  The expected result in a 100-game match would be roughly +51=41-8 in favor of Magnus.  So yes, Hans would be expected to do slightly better than someone running against Usain Bolt or Ben Johnson (since you don't keep up with running sports - Usain Bolt is the World Record holder with 8 of the 10 fastest times in history.  Ben Johnson had the Word Record, but later tested positive for steroids, so his record was negated).

However, if you assume his rating of ~2500 is accurate, The expected result in that same match would be +82=16-2.  Considering Hans had 2 nearly flawless games against Magnus in a matter of 2 weeks (and had 4 other nearly flawless games at the FTX Crypto Cup, and the first 2 rounds of the Sinquefield Cup were incredible), you must accept one of 2 scenarios:

1)  Despite having been in a 3+ year rating plateau at the 2400-2500 level, Hans, as a young adult, has managed to figure out a way to dramatically improve faster than any of his contemporaries, and is becoming one of the world's elite players.

2)  Hans has found a way to cheat in key OTB games in order to pump up his rating and get invited to larger events.

Now, before you jump to pick one, go to the St Louis Chess Club YouTube channel and watch the post-game analysis of Hans after rounds 1-4 of the Sinquefield Cup.  Then watch Sam Shankland's post-game analysis after his game with Hans the other day.  Then decide which scenario is more likely.

EDIT:  I should note that there is a 3rd possibility:  Hans has made a Faustian deal.  But no one but me seems to take that option seriously :-P

But it's also irrelevant to my response.

The point is that Hans at 2700 and Magnus at 2800 isn't as large as people are making it seems, and Hans taking a single game of Magnus is hardly anything at all. It's not like he won a best of 14. 

No, your running analogy is just not that concrete.

Also, analogies can be twisted into whatever you want them to be. So in my opinion, it's better to stick the the facts rather than pursue analogies.

Hans is rising, so 2700 might even be underrepresenting his skill.

At one point, Magnus was an IM who drew Kasparov. Someone ranked 700+ in the world drawing the best player.

Did that mean Magnus was cheating? Or did it mean he was a rising star?

Yep, that's right. He was a rising star.

This isn't nearly as extreme, as Hans is ranked in top 50 or so, beating the worlds 1st. A much smaller gap.

You are focusing on the wrong thing. The game he won over Magnus was not even close to the main evidence he cheated. In fact Magnus losing a game to a young guy isn't anything suspicious as he does every now and then. It was merely a trigger that put Hans in the spotlight. Before that it was already consensus he cheated among the small circle of super GMs. Fabi said Magnus was already about to withdraw when Hans got invited to Sinqfield Cup, before they even played. I would go as far as saying even if you proved to me Hans was clean in that specific game, it's still incredibly likely he cheated his way to 2700.

Showing your age there @PawnTsunami - Ben Johnson is now 60 and would likely struggle against any high-school sprinter

But Magnus didn't withdraw until he lost fair and square, so I don't know if there is any bulk to saying he was planning on withdrawing before the tournament started. 

If Magnus would have won, none of this would have been an issue. Therefore, it's hard to take that argument seriously. 

Fabi and other super GMs also said nothing seemed suspicious in that game.