If Hans is cheating, then how is he doing it?

@Molurus said in #30:

He clearly is a witch.

It's probably a good thing you didn't live a few hundred years ago. You're completely unreasonable.

What's the point of this comment? lol! You are making a complete fool of yourself.

@ClayAndSilence said in #60:

I don't take positions on random people feeling "uncomfortable" or whatever. I don't care how they felt. I'm interested only in objective reality.

I'll say it again, for the umpteenth time: Niemann says he's never cheated otb, and not in any format for the last two years. All objective data supports his position. Until someone offers substantive evidence to the contrary, that's it as far as I'm concerned.

And again, for the record, I'm far too old to be anybody's fanboy or hater - I barely even recognise the terms. I'm looking at this dispassionately, jut on the evidence, unlike some people who appear to have a pathological dislike of Niemann, which colours their analysis.

If Carlsen had withdrawn before the tournament started, it wouldn't have been considered an accusation.

The fact that Carlsen withdrew at round 4 is inconsequential.

Hans did nothing but pile on 4 extra red flags for Magnus to deal with, and that was enough for Magnus to withdraw.

No accusations were necessary. No accusations were made.

You're finding accusations where none were made.

@odoaker2015 said in #61:

What's the point of this comment? lol! You are making a complete fool of yourself.

Yeah, lying about what I or Carlsen has said: no problem. Everything is OK if you're on the right side of the argument, right?

I'm done with debating with people who take no shame in lying to make a point. Good luck with your witch hunt, I will have no part in it.

@Molurus said in #63:

Yeah, lying about what I or Carlsen has said: no problem. Everything is OK if you're on the right side of the argument, right?

I'm done with debating with people who take no shame in lying to make a point. Good luck with that.

Agreed. Playing chess is much better than arguing against rhetorical diatribes and strawmen.

@Molurus said in #63:

Yeah, lying about what I or Carlsen has said: no problem. Everything is OK if you're on the right side of the argument, right?

I'm done with debating with people who take no shame in lying to make a point. Good luck with that.
So, why do you write with me?
And again: Ad hominem at its best! Lol!

@Onyx_Chess said in #64:

Agreed. Playing chess is much better than arguing against rhetorical diatribes and strawmen.

Do you know what a strawman is? Lol!

@Molurus said in #56:

To quote VTWood, where is the beef?
Where is anyone actually directly accussing Niemann of cheating OTB? Do tell.
"I believe Hans Niemann cheated more, and more recently than he claimed...our game at the Sinquefield Cup... contributed to me changing my perspective...we must do something about cheating...my actions...have clearly stated that I am not willing to play chess with Niemann"

@Molurus said in #55:

An attempt at an actual rebuttal would be making a bigger fool of yourself I suppose.

Easy there with the personal insults.

Genuinely, there's no need to rebut this. The whole world knows what accusations are being made, implied and explicit. To suggest otherwise is just dancing on the head of a pin, and it really can't be taken seriously. Debate the substance of the positions, fine, but the line of "no one ever actually accused him" is so risible it can't be taken seriously.

And of course Magnus behaved unethically and unsportsmanlike. For this he will bear the consequences.

@Molurus

show me where I lied!