Of course he is. A lot of chess champions are.
@DERG_CHESS said in #34:
> Wdym only? From 16-19 are the years where u grow more mature than ever
What about bad people like Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein? Did they grow and mature between 16 and 19 from fledgling sex offenders to bone-fide ones as they "matured"?
Maturation for a sociopath, becoming a deeper, more capable bad guy.
Not saying Hans is this way, but if he IS cheating, he refined it during the 16-19 years, not banished it.
> Wdym only? From 16-19 are the years where u grow more mature than ever
What about bad people like Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein? Did they grow and mature between 16 and 19 from fledgling sex offenders to bone-fide ones as they "matured"?
Maturation for a sociopath, becoming a deeper, more capable bad guy.
Not saying Hans is this way, but if he IS cheating, he refined it during the 16-19 years, not banished it.
@esmiro said in #32:
> I love how there are super GMs who say they don't know and it's complicated, but random people on lichess talk like there is no doubt of what the truth is and it's super evident and everyone with a brain must agree.
The end all, be all of arguments about this.
I think it's weird when people are outraged by suspicions of cheating against someone who has a history of cheating, but pretending certainty either way is just bizarre.
For context Magnus talks in this interview (www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElHa52f_bC8&t=2923s) about cheating in the chess world and the psychological disadvantage that comes with suspecting your opponent. Well worth checking out. MC has this sarcastic persona towards the english speaking press but here he's just talking candidly. May interest some of you.
> I love how there are super GMs who say they don't know and it's complicated, but random people on lichess talk like there is no doubt of what the truth is and it's super evident and everyone with a brain must agree.
The end all, be all of arguments about this.
I think it's weird when people are outraged by suspicions of cheating against someone who has a history of cheating, but pretending certainty either way is just bizarre.
For context Magnus talks in this interview (www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElHa52f_bC8&t=2923s) about cheating in the chess world and the psychological disadvantage that comes with suspecting your opponent. Well worth checking out. MC has this sarcastic persona towards the english speaking press but here he's just talking candidly. May interest some of you.
@VTWood said in #15:
> There is no proof at all that he cheated otb against Carlsen. Ken Regan analyzed ALL of Neimann's otb games and has found NO evidence that Neimann has cheated otb.
You do realize that this is no better than analyzing nothing and having no evidence, right?
An analysis that yields no results whatsoever really isn't worth mentioning.
Or as they say: absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
> There is no proof at all that he cheated otb against Carlsen. Ken Regan analyzed ALL of Neimann's otb games and has found NO evidence that Neimann has cheated otb.
You do realize that this is no better than analyzing nothing and having no evidence, right?
An analysis that yields no results whatsoever really isn't worth mentioning.
Or as they say: absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
> @Molurus said in #45:
> You do realize that this is no better than analyzing nothing and having no evidence, right?
>
> An analysis that yields no results whatsoever really isn't worth mentioning.
It definitely is worth mentioning. And it definitely did yield results, just not the results you were hoping for.
> You do realize that this is no better than analyzing nothing and having no evidence, right?
>
> An analysis that yields no results whatsoever really isn't worth mentioning.
It definitely is worth mentioning. And it definitely did yield results, just not the results you were hoping for.
@Fastbond said in #46:
> It definitely is worth mentioning. And it definitely did yield results, just not the results you were hoping for.
Do tell, what results did we get?
I mean from no results you can't conclude Niemann didn't cheat. That's just a basic argument from ignorance.
But then again: it's fundamentally impossible to prove Niemann didn't cheat. I hope you get that. It's a lot like proving there are no Smurfs on Mars.
> It definitely is worth mentioning. And it definitely did yield results, just not the results you were hoping for.
Do tell, what results did we get?
I mean from no results you can't conclude Niemann didn't cheat. That's just a basic argument from ignorance.
But then again: it's fundamentally impossible to prove Niemann didn't cheat. I hope you get that. It's a lot like proving there are no Smurfs on Mars.
@Molurus said in #47:
> Do tell, what results did we get?
>
> I mean from no results you can't conclude Niemann didn't cheat. That's just a basic argument from ignorance.
I agree that it does not absolve Niemann. I just very much disagree with the idea that it's not worth mentioning. It basically suggests that only positive results are worth mentioning.
> Do tell, what results did we get?
>
> I mean from no results you can't conclude Niemann didn't cheat. That's just a basic argument from ignorance.
I agree that it does not absolve Niemann. I just very much disagree with the idea that it's not worth mentioning. It basically suggests that only positive results are worth mentioning.
@Fastbond said in #48:
> I agree that it does not absolve Niemann. I just very much disagree with the idea that it's not worth mentioning. It basically suggests that only positive results are worth mentioning.
Without the analysis we didn't know if Hans cheated, and with the analysis we don't know if Hans cheated.
How is that worth mentioning? We literally know nothing we didn't know already.
> I agree that it does not absolve Niemann. I just very much disagree with the idea that it's not worth mentioning. It basically suggests that only positive results are worth mentioning.
Without the analysis we didn't know if Hans cheated, and with the analysis we don't know if Hans cheated.
How is that worth mentioning? We literally know nothing we didn't know already.
@sigma_nation said in #6:
> Hans has a history of cheating and also had an extremely unnatural and literally unprecedented rate of growth. That, combined with his total inability to explain the moves he chose in interviews is about as much proof as you can get without actually pulling the stockfish beads out of his ass.
Tell me how can a person cheat over the board in such an elite tournament? All players are scanned through metal detectors and all before starting playing. Also Magnus has no proof that Hans Cheated other than hi instinct
> Hans has a history of cheating and also had an extremely unnatural and literally unprecedented rate of growth. That, combined with his total inability to explain the moves he chose in interviews is about as much proof as you can get without actually pulling the stockfish beads out of his ass.
Tell me how can a person cheat over the board in such an elite tournament? All players are scanned through metal detectors and all before starting playing. Also Magnus has no proof that Hans Cheated other than hi instinct
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.