Team Carlsen or Team Niemann

Team Carlsen

No, that is a trashy analysis, firstly since Niemann's game against Carlsen is _more_ consistent with cheating than with being honest (to be precise, based on certain established statistics, the probability of a game like that if he was cheating is higher than the probability of a game like that if he were not cheating).

This does not prove cheating: it is also true of a small fraction of honest games by world class players, and it can be assumed reasonably there are a larger number of honest world class players (admittedly, Niemann is historically not one of them).

Anyone who claims there is evidence that shows the game did not involve cheating is delusional (and probably misquoting someone who has at least half a clue).

That's very true. But not just from country to country, also from state to state. We have some states like Texas or Alabama where gas is as "low" as 3 dollars a gallon. And other states like Oregon or California where it's 5.50 and up.  The same is probably true for differences in the price of real estate, or food, or anything else. In my particular area of Oregon a million dollars literally will not buy a lot to build a house on. In other states you can not only buy a lot for that price but a HOUSE on top of it as well. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnnJ0Da4Rp0

That's neat.

Wish he'd done it for 100 players so we could see what kinds of graphs we should expect.

Note when Gukesh was rated 2500 he had a lower average CP loss than Niemann does at 2600 so... the presenter is wrong to say one day Niemann woke up to play like Carlsen. Seems he knows how to code but doesn't know how to interpret what he's found.

At some point they eventually become the same thing the closer and closer you move towards catastrophe ...

I just find it interesting that people are so quick to dispel world renowned statistician Dr. Regen on his findings but will listen to the most random bachelor degree coders and statisticians. 

Regan didn't say that Niemann didn't cheat. Regan said he didn't detect cheating.

this llama guy is in every Magnus and Niemann post but anyway I am team Hans don’t be mad cuzzzzz bad 

Correct, as anyone who wants to avoid saying something definitive would say.

However, saying he didn't detect cheating is extraordinary close to being synonymous with just saying he didn't cheat. 

When I taught university chemistry, I could of course never say 100% that a student didn't cheat. The correct terminology would be that there is no reason to believe they cheated based on "x" and "y".

No one can prove a negative. 

The key point is that he find Hans no more likely to cheat than anyone else (Magnus, Fabiano, etc.) based on his model. 

I don't think he's trying to avoid being definitive, I think he's a professor and people with careers in academia habitually make precise statements. I don't think he was trying to suggest Niemann is innocent either.

---

Having said that, it's certainly a point in Niemann's favor. Because of Regan, it's my opinion that Niemann hasn't cheated often in OTB tournaments.

It is a point in Niemann's favour that Regan has not concluded he was cheating, just like it was a point in his favour that when he was scanned the day after the Carlsen game no electronic device was detected on his body. Admittedly, there was far less reason for suspicion about his play from that point, which was when they introduced a 15-minute delay in the relay.

It is probably a point in Regan's disfavour, though. There is good reason to believe he should have done better. It is most likely Niemann has cheated in a large fraction of his tournaments and the first 3 games of Sinquefield 2022.

Unless you thoroughly understand Regan's method, then I have to think your criteria for "doing better" is "reaching the conclusion I want you to reach" which is... not a serious notion.

It's reasonable to believe Niemann is a typical dumb 19 year old. It's unreasonable to think that his cheating is sophisticated in a way that would avoid detection... certainly Niemann could have cheated in one game or one tournament, and I think it's more likely than not that this has happened, but this is not what Regan's method is designed to detect, so I can't say that he should have "done better."

Although, ok... it's still messy... his coach is a known habitual cheater... a cheater who has had time to think about how to not get caught. And Niemann's rating progress is unusual so... IMO, no matter what a person believes, there's a lot of reason to be unsure.

Putting aside the likelihood we are not heading for catastrophe, one must already be in a position of privilege to worry about the distant future and unborn humans. A significant percentage of the world's population is still using cow dung as fuel to cook with. Unless their countries are permitted to industrialise using fossil fuels, they will continue to live under these conditions. I personally prioritise their material desires over the whims of some overindulged western student making a noise on the streets of London or California.

Your premise relies on the notion that the only way to industrialize is to go through the same process, fossil fuels first.  But electricity generation using solar and wind is now cheaper than using fossil fuels.  No need for the outdated and obsolete burning dinosaurs phase .

Do 3rd world countries have to buy vacuum tube TVs before they can graduate to LEDs?

Anyway, this subtopic belongs in the climate change thread, not here.

Heavy industry still needs fossil fuels for reliable and cost effective energy. Household energy is not the majority of energy use in industrialised societies, but environmentalists and ignorant politicians always focus on this.

I have no intention of participating in a climate change thread. You and I have had our exchange and we can leave it there.

Yes, that's not right.

It's like Niemann's overzealous wish to win, to increase his rating, to make money.

My point is that Regan seems to have completely ignored the information off the board relating to the existence of a live relay. If true, that is being too narrow in his viewpoint.

This needs to be thought of as much more like a court of law than a academic exercise. I fully understand why Regan might focus solely on the moves without any context like a mathematical problem, and that might often be adequate, but it is not necessary to be blind to other information.

The degree of confidence in the result is also of interest. Without catching someone in the act, you never prove they were cheating. You can merely conclude it was the more likely explanation for what happened. Ideally very much more likely.  It is a choice how much more likely you require to act: chess.com is very cautious about this and acted three times against Niemann.

Yes, and as of this decade and going forward, fossil fuels have been surpassed in this capacity due to technology advances...even for "heavy industry".  

Ok, we can leave it there .