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

Reminds me of December 2009 when Mayweather - Pacquiao was on the verge of being signed and Mayweather suddenly made demands for additional drug testing. Internet trenches were immediately dug and everyone became an overnight performance enhancing drug (PED) expert. This rattled on for five years until the fight actually happened and was a damp squib. There's a cautionary tale there: if Niemann and Carslen meet OTB again eventually, it will probably be a tedious draw.

Occam's Razor in a contest between two, or more, equally valid hypothosis the one with the fewest assumptions is more likely to be true.

Many super GMs have said they found nothing suspicious in his gameplay against Magnus. 

I also disagree his OTB performance is suspicious. 

Actual reputable sources have disputed that claim, such as those used by Regan.

The bachelor degree computer scientists on YouTube are 100 times less knowledgeable on the statistics Regan uses.

It's like a medical student thinking he knows more than 30 year practicing surgeon.

Why are u on all forums u sussy baka

Maybe it's a false flag operation for the illuminati of which Carlsen is a member.

Absolutely right. Irrespective of whether Niemann has cheated more than he has admitted to, at least people now realise that chess is important enough to bother cheating in the first place  

Many Super GMs have stated they see Niemann's play in several key games to be highly suspicious.  These are players who know a lot more about Chess than Ken Regan.  If you are going to dismiss ideas based on expertise (i.e. appeals to authority), you get into murky waters quickly in either direction.

Regan has stated nothing about, and his model does not look at, the rating increase.

Someone posted an interview with Regan where he talked about Niemann’s rating increase in terms of his predictions. In that instance, he suggests that Niemann’s rating increase was a little surprising.

I think the main problem with these discussions is that there's a lot of evidence out there and different people have seen different things. I've considered creating a thread collating the evidence so everyone has the opportunity to have the same basis for debate but I'm concerned that it'd be a thankless task.

Those criticizing him in that manner do not know what they are talking about.

He did not exonerate Niemann. That nonsense is coming from people who either do not listen to/read what he has said, or those who completely fail to comprehend his statements.

I don't think there is that much evidence, there's a collection of factoids. That's something different. As Noam Chomsky has said of conspiracy theorists: "If you don't understand what an explanation is, a collection of factoids is an explanation."

Don't waste your time trying to reason with the unreasonable or reach the unreachable.

I have not seen any indication, nor heard any rumblings, of Regan being an academic fraud (and he is in my field).  I'm curious where you are hearing this?  The only criticisms I've seen are specifically with regards to his work in chess - that he simply is not a strong enough player to detect cheating at the top levels (note that criticism is not coming from me as he is a stronger player than I am, but from people who are in, have been in, or who have worked closely with people in the top 20 in the world).

The key evidence which I'm aware of is: Carlsen's statement. Niemann's statement. Chess.com's report. Dlugy's statement. Regan's analysis. Yoshu's analysis. Niemann's post match interviews. I'm sure there's more but that's quite a lot already. I doubt many of those passing judgement on this forum have taken it all into consideration.

It doesn't help that separate strands are being (in some cases disingenuously) conflated. There are three main strands to contend with.

1. Hans' online cheating: he admits to some of it, Chess.com contends it's more serious and has presented their evidence in support of that view.
2. Hans' alleged cheating in the specific OTB game at Sinquefield: Looks like he probably didn't cheat, Carlsen sincerely believes he did and handled it badly.
3. Hans' alleged OTB cheating more generally. Evidence: his unusual ratings rise.

Note that, short of a confession, these will never be fully resolved. Niemann is clearly a talented player regardless who probably has some moderate to serious personality disorders (narcissism/sociopathy). The extent of his talent will only be known with the fullness of time and I personally think he should be permitted to play on.

Carlsen has built himself up into a bit of a tower around this now and it will be difficult for him to climb down, especially given he probably feels he doesn't "need" to given his position in the game.

As for elaborate conspiracy theories (including those implying a Carlsen/Chess.com/Nakamura Axis of Evil) they can be disregarded.

Depends what you mean by "taken it all into consideration". They may be aware of it, but they probably don't know how to fit it all together cogently, if that's even possible. Even if one could, it's still a matter of judgement, albeit informed judgement, and will not resolve the specific Sinquefield Cup game allegation.

I would add that to this a bit:  it isn't just the unusual rise in the ratings, but several specific games against extremely strong players that are rather unusual.

If I remember correctly there was one member of congress who did often read entire bills. Ron Paul. I think that might be why he almost always voted no. 

#206: I think we're all waiting for proof but we may never get it. It might be that statistical analysis of existing data can provide proof. FIDE's findings will go some way to settling the issue but we may need security which people believe in and data from future matches before we'll be confident that we know what has happened in Niemann's recent matches.

I always thought opinion was evidence. In a trial an expert will give their opinion. That's evidence. Even a minor traffic ticket the officer's opinion is usually the "preponderance of evidence". Which is good enough to convict in probably over 90% of cases. 

Plus the past admissions, plus the unusual rating increases. Plus the weird excuses and explanations. That's all evidence. It's not proof, but it's evidence. 

Ron Paul was an interesting character.