Stop being a big baby, Mangus

You wanna know how good Magnus Carlsen is? He threw a game with Hans, absolutely resigns on move 2, and STILL won the tournament. Can you imagine, making a statement like that by resigning one game, then winning 4 and a half games and coming in at number 1. Yes that's how good Magnus Carlsen is. 

Now let me tell you how "good" Hans Niemann is. 

There are 20 possible arrangement of moves on the first move, 400 on the second, and 8,902 on the 3rd move. By the time you hit 15 moves, there are over 2 sextillion combinations (2,015,099,950,053,364,471,960 to be exact). The fact that Hans Niemann had 100% correlation to a computer analysis after 45 moves is pretty shocking.

What's even more crazy is that Hans has 10 games with 100% accuracy correlation. To put that in perspective, Magnus Carlsen, out of his whole career and who is about 12 years older than Hans Nieman, only had 2 games with 100%. Also, Bobby Fischer, who is considered by many to be the greatest of all time, NEVER had 100% computer correlated accuracy. 

Magnus has 4 games in his career above 90%.

Hans has 33 games above 90%. 

There's no way you can convince me that Hans Niemann is better than Magnus Carlsen and Bobby Fischer.

Well that depends. Better at what?

Cuz its chess.com

I also think it's suspicious. But then again, there needs to be evidence or it's an empty discussion.

It's not mammalian affinity or democratic majority that has any say in whether someone is guilty - it's no use to be for or against anyone. There is a justice system based on hard evidence and that's all there's to it.

By the way, the common crowd will have a hard time proving anything since a chess grandmaster is on a whole other level when it comes to outwitting other systems of thought. And yes, electronic means are relatively easy to create and miniaturize - the best way to prevent cheating is probably analog chess clocks and some sort of EMP-bomb at the start of each tournament day.

So what to do - it's best to just keep enjoying the chess and remain vigilant on signals that may hint at cheating. Innocent until proven guilty, and when guilty he's out, right? And that's that for the sensation-seekers.

Hans has 34 : - 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 1-0 was the perfect game.

This is the first I've actually seen that interview. I had not seen or was aware of most of what was said. There are a LOT of things to comment on but it would take up a whole page. Instead, thank you. 

I don't think many people do support hanz we all know he is a cheat none of which excuses magnus behavior.  Most of us are shocked that someone who is normally the pinnacle of a sportsman is acting like a child after losing that game.  Oh well its over now hopefully he goes back to acting the way he did before this whole scandal.  Maybe the silver lining is they employ more anti cheat in super high level tournaments but that doesn't do anything for the rest of us no one can afford the kind of stuff these super gms are asking for except for them it costs too much.  Same story as day 1 hans is a cheat magnus lost his composure  and acted like a fool. Best takes by Feingold and Maurice Ashley understanding cheating is a problem but the ends don't justify the means and peoples lives and how we do things are bigger than fairness in the tournaments of just the top players.  it doesn't matter what magnuses intentions where  this is a terrible look for the whole community he should have sucked it up and dealt with it in private sad all around.   

It's difficult to make a reasonable argument against someone who has been wronged. When someone robs your house, you can't fault the 911 caller for using vulgar language. When a spouse cheats you can't fault the jilted one for throwing a temper tantrum. Let's not forget this is an issue Hans, and Hans ALONE brought upon himself. Trying to shift any blame to the parties that were affected by his cheating is a bad look. 

That’s a terrible comparison because there is zero evidence Hans cheated against magnus ever or in that game so no his paranoia and poor play due to it doesn’t excuse his behavior.   He didn’t withdraw when they didn’t listen to him about tightening security he didn’t withdraw before hand despite already having the data about him cheating in other venues … he withdrew after he lost because  “he wasn’t tense enough I’m the best no one beats me with black” sorry that doesn’t cut it even Nakamura admits he wouldn’t have done a thing if he won that game.  Like I said ill never convince you magnus could be sacing kids on a blood altar and you would be telling me they are criminals and its for a good cause. No blame to be shifted hans is a cheat and magnus acted like a child the end.  

What's the 45 move game where Hans had 100% correlation between his moves and engine moves? I am interested to see that game.

That would be this one:

One way to get the evidence. Take Hans to a torture chamber and beat the hell out of him until he spills how he cheated.

@83 https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/xqvhgh/chessbases_engine_correlation_value_are_not/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share

There are other posts showing how ridiculous it is to use engine correlation as evidence.

wow just saw this too https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/xqvhgh/chessbases_engine_correlation_value_are_not/ 

this whole things just gets worse and worse. 

Here's all the definitive evidence that Hans was cheating, and there's quite a lot :- Naught, Zilch, Nil, Zero, Nix, Zip, Null, Absolutely nothin', Goose egg, Nought, Zippo, No chance, Diddly-squat, None, O.

@SaturnianMan

I also wanna add that Niemann seems to be very disingenuous and inconsistent when trying to tell the truth. His interview where he's trying to defend himself was caught with so many inconsistencies. Now I'm not saying he's a liar but I will say that good cheaters are not only good at cheating, they're also good at lying. 

He uses the term accuracy correlation which isn't a term that is used or has been used, there is accuracy and then there is engine correlation. Niemann has not had a single game with 100% accuracy and the correlation is probably the most ridiculous thing I've seen in this entire train wreck. It is a system used by chess base that cannot determine if someone is cheating and is not designed to see if someone is cheating, it can only determine that cheating is not likely if someone has a low correlation. However, when enough different engines are used even a comparatively weak GM might have 100% and it is a system that can also be rigged by those who contribute. It is completely ridiculous and anyone trying to pass it off as evidence is completely ignorant and is obviously suffering from confirmation bias, latching on to anything that claims their assumptions to be true.

I think you guys should stop inflaming dirrision