More Cheaters For Magnus to Call Out and Condemn

@Edgy1 said in #30:

@odoaker2015

Failing to see any Objective Difference. Online cheating you need "a technical device" like a computer telling you the moves, or an advisor.

Further, the result is the same, cheating.

I understand the difference between OTB and online thanks, coming from OTB originally. OTB/online are just different methods to play the game.

Like there are multiple different methods to cheat.

But it still makes a difference if you're sitting comfortably at home and running an engine without any problems or you're sitting in a room full of people. It is more difficult to cheat in OTB than in online chess.
It's the same as comparing apples to pears. Both are fruits, but totally different.

Online Cheating is NOT OTB Cheating, just like an apple is not a pear.

@Cedur216 said in #10:

If Magnus acts against someone saying they're a cheater, it's because he thinks there's cheating, not just because he was defeated.

Firstly, as far as I'm aware, Magnus didn't formerly accuse Hans of anything. It's my understanding that he suspected Hans of cheating, and was annoyed at having had been put in that position.

Secondly, there has long been concerns about organizers not doing enough to prevent cheating and to dissuade cheaters.

Thirdly, Magnus didn't act within a vacuum and he should probably be afforded the same grace that everyone is giving to Hans. No proof that Hans didn't cheat? Fine. Then there's also no proof that Carlsen quit because he's a sore loser, either, then.
Where Hans has cheated in the past, Carlsen has never accused anyone of anything.

Fourthly, Magnus' colleagues were the ones voicing concerns about having to play Hans, and, as the world's #1, Magnus will have felt the pressure of being the one responsible for bringing this matter to the surface.

Magnus considered dropping out, but not sure what to do, he made the ad hoc decision to play.
Magnus lost to Hans in a perfect storm of peculiarity. Not sure what to do, he made the ad hoc decision to withdraw.

None of Magnus' actions show any deliberate or premeditated maliciousness.

Fifthly, it really was a peculiar set of circumstances that Magnus was faced with!

Let's look at it:

• Hans was/is a recent/current cheater.
• By Hans' own words "a miracle coincidence" in the opening prep.
• Hans' peculiar remarks after having just beat the worlds #1.
• Magnus' perception that he didn't feel as if Hans seemed aware of, much less troubled by, any of the challenges that Magnus put in the position...yet finding the correct answers to those challenges.
• Hans' abnormal post-game analysis of the game.
• A former teacher, and cheater, tweeting about being proud of Hans as a student and posting a picture of them embracing.
• Murmurs by Magnus' colleagues regarding concerns about Hans' legitimacy.
• Longstanding concerns with cheating not being prevented and cheaters not being dissuaded and punished enough.

This is the perfect storm of pressure that Carlsen was under.

Lastly, anything and everything that we chastise in Magnus' actions...is 100% fruit of the poisonous tree which cheaters planted. All Magnus did was object to being forced to having to play under the conditions that cheaters have imposed.

One thing is for absolute certain...it was not the loss that caused Magnus to withdraw.
It was the perfect storm of salient concern and suspicion which Hans created around himself.

I wish that Hans never cheated in the past so this would never have occurred.
I hope that Hans never cheats again in the future.
I hope that everyone can forgive and forget and move on.

@odoaker2015

Objective Systems Analysis my profession, failing to see your logic.

You are saying OTB cheating is harder than at home, online cheating, okay.

But cheating is cheating, with the same negatives that go with cheating.

Apples and pears are different fruits, but not totally different items. Both are fruits that you can eat, for calories.

A slight difference doesn't mean completely different. That's False Equivalency Logic, a simple logic fail.

@odoaker2015 said in #31:

Online Cheating is NOT OTB Cheating, just like an apple is not a pear.

The statement that "it's two different things" isn't really accurate and it seems to be gaslighting the chess world who looks on and takes issue with both online and OTB cheating for the exact same valid reasons, namely, the degradation of the sport.

Here are a few good examples of accurate 'Apple to Pear' comparisons:

Example #1: People who cheat are completely different than people that don't cheat.

Example #2: Behaving in a way that promotes a welcoming community that values respect, honesty, good sportsmanship, integrity, and fairplay...is completely different than misbehaving in a way that encourages hostility, disrespect, conniving, bad sportsmanship, a lack of integrity, and cheating.

It would be very bad, for both online and OTB chess, if it ever got to the degree where most people were convinced that most others were cheating; and it could be the end of chess, altogether, if an undetectable method of OTB cheating was ever invented.

@Edgy1 said in #34:

@odoaker2015

Objective Systems Analysis my profession, failing to see your logic.

You are saying OTB cheating is harder than at home, online cheating, okay.

But cheating is cheating, with the same negatives that go with cheating.

Apples and pears are different fruits, but not totally different items. Both are fruits that you can eat, for calories.

A slight difference doesn't mean completely different. That's False Equivalency Logic, a simple logic fail.

A logic fail is to say Niemann cheated online therefore he cheated otb!

@odoaker2015

A strawman debate

I never said he cheated OTB

I said prove the negative

Still waiting for you to explain the difference between cheating OTB and Online.

@Onyx_Chess said in #35:

The statement that "it's two different things" isn't really accurate and it seems to be gaslighting the chess world who looks on and takes issue with both online and OTB cheating for the exact same valid reasons, namely, the degradation of the sport.

Here are a few accurate examples of accurate 'Apple to Pear' comparisons:

Example #1: People who cheat are completely different than people that don't cheat.

Example #2: Behaving in a way that promotes a welcoming community that values respect, good sportsmanship, integrity, and fairplay...is completely different than misbehaving in a way that encourages hostility, disrespect, bad sportsmanship, a lack of integrity, and cheating.

It would be very bad, for both online and OTB chess, if it ever got to the degree where most people were convinced that most others were cheating.

See #36

@odoaker2015 said in #36:

A logic fail is to say Niemann cheated online therefore he cheated otb!

This is true. I'm curious if anyone has ever formerly accused Niemann of cheating?

@Edgy1 said in #34:

A slight difference doesn't mean completely different. That's False Equivalency Logic, a simple logic fail.

This is also true. There is a crystal clear comparison in regards to the damage that any cheating does to the chess world.

In the context of the discussion, 'apples and pears' would mean "cheating and not cheating".
It would not mean, "cheating in one way and cheating in another way".

@Edgy1 said in #37:

@odoaker2015

A strawman debate

I never said he cheated OTB

I said prove the negative

Still waiting for you to explain the difference between cheating OTB and Online.

I explained it to you. And I don't need to prove the negative. I don't have the burden of prove. I do not claim that Niemann didn't or doesn't cheat in otb chess.
And nobody has to prove their innocence. You have to prove them guilty. This is the basis of any democratic legal system.