"It's comparing apples to oranges." Similarities: fruit with a harder outside than it's inside. Contains seeds, grown on trees. Come in varieties. Sweet, contains simple carbs Differences: orange peel is rarely consumed, different taste, orange is juicier. Large differences in colors. Hmm, you CAN compare them. Online cheating to OTB: Similarities: can both be done with outside assistance, typically requires an engine (unless you are hiding a carry-on board in the bathroom), both will increase your standing and thereby open the player up to tournaments or opportunities they otherwise would not have. Both put doubt on the player for the near future. Cheating in one raises the suspicion you cheat in the other. Differences: OTB is obviously more serious and harder to do and therefore more likely to end your career, online is easier to do alone. Cheating in one does not mean you cheated on the other. So why can't you compare them?
Occam's Razor Supports that Hans Niemann did not cheat against Magnus, or in OTB in general.
"The measure of a life is a measure of love and respect, so hard to earn, so easily burned"- Lyrics from " The Garden" by Rush. Hans is a self-confessed cheater, and also lied about the extent of his cheating, and about not cheating in cash prize events. He burned any respect or trust he might have earned from anyone with a sense of fair play and morality. I certainly wouldn't want to play him, especially in an important tournament setting. His current rating is false, bouyed up by cheating against higher rated opponents. Had he not cheated, his rating might not be high enough to merit inclusion in these tournaments. Take a page from the world of cycling. Lance Armstrong cheated. He confessed to doing it. As a result he was stripped of all his titles, had to return any prize money he won. And, banned for life from any participation in professional cycling. Has that stopped people from cheating in cycling? I doubt it. But it does return at least a bit of credibility to the sport. I believe FIDE, and all the online chess organizations need to cooperate and work together on this, or competitive chess will lose all credibility as well. Zero tolerance for cheating.
Manchmal ist es die beste Wahl, aufzugeben.
foxtoyevsky Doppelschakal Sie
Tell them the oppressed father has come to take back the world he deserves
Wow, pointing out that Occam's Razor can be used to argue both sides of the argument has unleashed a number of comments (most pro Hans). With that said, go back to my original post and show me where it is pro or anti Hans. Do I believe Hans has behaved unethical, yes I do (he has admitted to this behavior). Do I believe their is sufficient statistical evidence point to his past behavior is more recent and extensive than his admission, yes I do.
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.
Carlsen considered withdrawing when it was announced that Niemann would be playing in the Sinquefield cup, as a replacement.
Caruana confirmed this (which suggests that Carlsen was vocal about his concerns).
In addition: Nepomniatchi requested stronger anti-cheating measures, when he learned that Niemann would be playing.
So even before the Carlsen-Niemann game occurred, several top GMs expressed concerns about Niemann participating in the event ...
This is the link some people were asking about before (Nepo talking about Hans on his stream):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OoXfHVfqEg
Note that this is not a game online between them, just Nepo voicing suspicions.
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.
Carlsen considered withdrawing when it was announced that Niemann would be playing in the Sinquefield cup, as a replacement.
Caruana confirmed this (which suggests that Carlsen was vocal about his concerns).
In addition: Nepomniatchi requested stronger anti-cheating measures, when he learned that Niemann would be playing.
So even before the Carlsen-Niemann game occurred, several top GMs expressed concerns about Niemann participating in the event ...
You're conversing with an intellectually dishonest person. Don't waste your time.
Wow, pointing out that Occam's Razor can be used to argue both sides of the argument has unleashed a number of comments (most pro Hans). With that said, go back to my original post and show me where it is pro or anti Hans. Do I believe Hans has behaved unethical, yes I do (he has admitted to this behavior). Do I believe their is sufficient statistical evidence point to his past behavior is more recent and extensive than his admission, yes I do.
If you are counting posts, maybe...Crusader and Rook tend to post a lot.
My count here is Occam's Razor falling Hans' way 7 times, Magnus' way 16 times by poster opinion. Which seems to be in line with the assumptions of the chess world in general, 2 to 1 against Niemann being the new Fischer.
Wow, pointing out that Occam's Razor can be used to argue both sides of the argument has unleashed a number of comments (most pro Hans). With that said, go back to my original post and show me where it is pro or anti Hans. Do I believe Hans has behaved unethical, yes I do (he has admitted to this behavior). Do I believe their is sufficient statistical evidence point to his past behavior is more recent and extensive than his admission, yes I do.
If you are counting posts, maybe...Crusader and Rook tend to post a lot.
My count here is Occam's Razor falling Hans' way 7 times, Magnus' way 16 times by poster opinion. Which seems to be in line with the assumptions of the chess world in general, 2 to 1 against Niemann being the new Fischer.
Saying someone didn't cheat OTB is not saying they are fischer.
I don't understand why anyone is investing too much emotional energy into defending one position or another.
I don't understand why anyone is investing too much emotional energy into defending one position or another.
Its the internet. It gives people something to do while they wait for there welfare check.
That and the search for purpose in a comfortable but atomised society where material needs are largely met. Arguing over public figures (secular gods) who don't know they exist fills a spiritual void. It can be observed across the internet and is fascinating anthropologically.
Wow, pointing out that Occam's Razor can be used to argue both sides of the argument has unleashed a number of comments (most pro Hans). With that said, go back to my original post and show me where it is pro or anti Hans. Do I believe Hans has behaved unethical, yes I do (he has admitted to this behavior). Do I believe their is sufficient statistical evidence point to his past behavior is more recent and extensive than his admission, yes I do.
If you are counting posts, maybe...Crusader and Rook tend to post a lot.
My count here is Occam's Razor falling Hans' way 7 times, Magnus' way 16 times by poster opinion. Which seems to be in line with the assumptions of the chess world in general, 2 to 1 against Niemann being the new Fischer.
Saying someone didn't cheat OTB is not saying they are fischer.
No. It is saying Niemann is the GOAT. That is, the new Giulio Cesare Polerio!
Saying someone didn't cheat OTB is not saying they are fischer.
If you cannot follow logic and connect the dots, maybe.
If you believe that Niemann's meteoric rise and his beating Carlsen twice in a row with the black pieces is perfectly legit (the FTX game is *much* more suspect than the Sinquefield game, btw), and if you buy his "chess speaks for itself", "all the top players are going to look like idiots" and "it was such a ridiculous miracle that I studied that opening line" demeanor is justified because he's just so talented...then you are definitely putting him in Fischer territory, performance-wise and "he's abrasive and immature but that's okay because he's brilliant"-wise.
The problem is, he's no Fischer.
Saying someone didn't cheat OTB is not saying they are fischer.
If you cannot follow logic and connect the dots, maybe.
If you believe that Niemann's meteoric rise and his beating Carlsen twice in a row with the black pieces is perfectly legit (the FTX game is *much* more suspect than the Sinquefield game, btw), and if you buy his "chess speaks for itself", "all the top players are going to look like idiots" and "it was such a ridiculous miracle that I studied that opening line" demeanor is justified because he's just so talented...then you are definitely putting him in Fischer territory, performance-wise and "he's abrasive and immature but that's okay because he's brilliant"-wise.
The problem is, he's no Fischer.
Tell me how his game against Magnus looked suspicious to you, because top GMs generally disagree that he cheated against Magnus at the Sf. cup.
Notice how @CrusaderKing1 is adept at arguing in circles like religious zealots do. "It says so in the Bible."
Notice how @CrusaderKing1 is adept at arguing in circles like religious zealots do. "It says so in the Bible."
Your obsession with religion is unhealthy.
...
If you believe that Niemann's meteoric rise and his beating Carlsen twice in a row with the black pieces is perfectly legit (the FTX game is *much* more suspect than the Sinquefield game, btw), ...
Tell me how his game against Magnus looked suspicious to you, because top GMs generally disagree that he cheated against Magnus at the Sf. cup.
Reading comprehension ....
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.
many chess masters have snuck in devices for cheating in rigorous anti-cheating measures in many tournaments and prize funded events, so this assumption that just because he was playing chess in a secure area therefore it means he didnt cheat is a stupid argument..
I don't think you understand the nuance of cheating in chess at the highest level. You think it would be obvious. If you actually studied cheating at the highest level you would find out you only need 1 or 2 moves from the engine to win almost every match. As Magnus has said you wouldn't even need the moves told to you, you would just need the engine for example to tell you that you are winning in your current position, which would prompt you to find the winning move. Chess players above the 2500 rating understand chess very deeply, they dont use an engine the same way we do, and thus if you look at some of Hans game from a period of 6 tournaments he played in a row that many have pointed out, there are many suspicious games within those tournaments.
The fact that he has cheated EXTENSIVELY online, which is definitively proven by chess.coms analysis and cheat detection system (which Hans has himself claimed is the best in the world) only adds on to the "simple" conclusion that he is in fact cheating.
I don't understand why we set aside the presumption innocence until proven guilty in this case.
Just because some players OTB have cheated or have been caught cheating, doesn't mean Hans is more or less likely to cheat.
Simply put, nothing indicates he cheated in that game against Magnus, so it's just weird to presume he's guilty over his innocence.
Cheating online is an entirely different concept than cheating OTB. Different circumstances, different environment, and different consequences if caught (would destroy entire career).
It's comparing apples to oranges.
But even if it were comparing apples to apples, it doesnt change the fact that the game he beat Magnus was not suspicious and he should be seen as innocent until proven guilty. Even a tiny iota of evidence would help prove his guilt, but there is none. Even top GMs said his moves were not unusual.
The presumption of innocence is used in a court of Law. This isn't a court of Law. We have conclusive evidence that he has cheated online for well over 3 years, that makes him a prime suspect to be cheating in OTB as well. People don't just suddenly stop cheating.
This situation is completely different you can't just slap the presumption of innocence onto this topic. Magnus almost never accuses people, and you can't claim this is because of a bruised ego because hes LOST to Hans multiple times BEFORE, as well as other younger players than Hans. He never mentioned anything about cheating then.
Magnus has called out people in the past before for cheating that no one was suspicious of and he was proven right, go research about it. In his official Statement after his Silence on Hans, he literally said that during his game against him he felt uneasy about Hans' demeanour, and that he was outplaying him in a way that would require relatively intense focus which Hans didn't show.
Sorry but no one is just gonna ignore Magnus' personal experience just because it doesn't tantamount to "Tangible evidence". It's literally impossible to get that kind of evidence unless you caught Hans with a chip in his ear or something like that. You do realise that right? at the highest level of chess, 2700+ which Hans is, You only need ONE, or TWO, moves to be able to win, Do you think anyone would be able to detect that with the methods you keep preaching about?
No. Han's quick rise from 2500-2700 is suspicious, he's cheated for over a 100 games online, he completely LIED about his cheating footprints in multiple interviews and has not co-operated with chess.com and Danny, who gave him multiple chances. None of this is ringing alarm bells for you?