I saw a really neat statistical breakdown that essentially proves the kid has cheated many times. Matching the best computer moves for every move in a game several times when no other grandmaster does it ever.
Well I saw a really neat interview with a renowned expert on chess cheating that is often brought in by the chess federations to review these allegations and his models revealed to him that it is very unlikely that Neiman cheated when he beat Magnus.
Well?
Yeah the vid I saw didn’t say he cheated against Magnus. Just that he cheated many times throughout his career. People in the chess community have surmised that Magnus played poorly and then tilted since he was facing a known cheater. That’s at least the speculation.
Hans Niemann Plays 45 Moves at 100% Engine Correlation? According to Yosha and gambit-man's analysis, he does. Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf...
I saw a really neat statistical breakdown that essentially proves the kid has cheated many times. Matching the best computer moves for every move in a game several times when no other grandmaster does it ever.
Well I saw a really neat interview with a renowned expert on chess cheating that is often brought in by the chess federations to review these allegations and his models revealed to him that it is very unlikely that Neiman cheated when he beat Magnus.
"Proof is a fact that demonstrates something to be real or true. Evidence is information that might lead one to believe something to be real or true. Proof is final and conclusive. Evidence is tentative."
What you claim to have seen is evidence, not proof.
Overwhelming evidence counts as proof though right? I’m pretty sure it does in our legal system
Neither term has a single meaning, but it would be unusual to refer to proof as "a fact that demonstrates." Proof isn't usually a "fact." It's a description of what the sum of the evidence demonstrates. If you saw sufficient evidence to draw a conclusion, you could correctly refer to that evidence as "proof," regardless of whether it's a single piece of evidence of lots of little pieces considered as a whole.
In legal context, there are also different "burdens of proof" that apply to different circumstances. The typical civil burden of proof is "a fair preponderance of the evidence," which is sometimes described as "50% plus a feather" or "more likely than not."
Outside of the legal context, "proof" is typically understood to entail a much higher standard than a preponderance of the evidence. Still, it's nonsense to say that something isn't proven if there's any possibility that it isn't true. There's no such thing as 100% certainty. The highest standard in law is, "beyond a reasonable doubt," and even that standard is not 100% certainty.
Overwhelming evidence counts as proof though right? I’m pretty sure it does in our legal system
Neither term has a single meaning, but it would be unusual to refer to proof as "a fact that demonstrates." Proof isn't usually a "fact." It's a description of what the sum of the evidence demonstrates. If you saw sufficient evidence to draw a conclusion, you could correctly refer to that evidence as "proof," regardless of whether it's a single piece of evidence of lots of little pieces considered as a whole.
In legal context, there are also different "burdens of proof" that apply to different circumstances. The typical civil burden of proof is "a fair preponderance of the evidence," which is sometimes described as "50% plus a feather" or "more likely than not."
Outside of the legal context, "proof" is typically understood to entail a much higher standard than a preponderance of the evidence. Still, it's nonsense to say that something isn't proven if there's any possibility that it isn't true. There's no such thing as 100% certainty. The highest standard in law is, "beyond a reasonable doubt," and even that standard is not 100% certainty.
The FIDE investigation will not rely on a preponderance of evidence. To sanction a player they will need to catch the player in the act or have an admittance of guilt. The only "evidence" that will be looked at is data analysis from Ken Regan. Most experts believe that cheating players can beat Ken Regan's analysis and therefore not get caught.
Right or wrong, this is where chess is. These are private companies than can be sued into oblivion if they don't have 100% proof, whatever that looks like.
So… 2 pages in with the resident LetsRun chess experts and the consensus seems to be that he cheated. However, the real chess experts have weighed in and there’s not one of them backing up Magnus. That’s curious by itself..
So… 2 pages in with the resident LetsRun chess experts and the consensus seems to be that he cheated. However, the real chess experts have weighed in and there’s not one of them backing up Magnus. That’s curious by itself..
chess.com investigation finds Niemann cheated more than 100 times up to August 2020. That’s a little more than the 2 he admitted to and explains why they banned him. Obviously this is only online and not over the board.
An internal report reviewed by The Wall Street Journal alleges a previously unknown pattern of likely widespread cheating by Hans Moke Niemann, the player whose September victory over Magnus Carlsen has rocked the chess world...
The article: https://www.wsj.com/articles/chess-cheating-hans-niemann-report-magnus-carlsen-11664911524?st=jbv6jo2kpal0y6b&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink➡...
This is obviously damning, but it doesn’t address OTB cheating. Did Magnus resign because he knew Hans to be a cheater and he didn’t want to lend him credibility or is there an allegation that he also cheated in his OTB matches?
Also, I’d like to see how they ‘proved’ cheating here. Thats’ probably a every useful algorithm in a variety of fields, and could be used for things like insider trading.
