More Cheaters For Magnus to Call Out and Condemn

@odoaker2015

And prove

Cheating =/= Cheating

And Prove the Negative

As the original op requested

@odoaker2015

You see no correlation when it suits you

Cheating = Cheating

I see no correlation between you and Simple Logic, or Fair Debate.

Just False Equivalency Logic and Strawman

Over and over and over again

@Edgy1 said in #49:

When did Magnus assert anyone that beats him is a cheater, as the OP to this thread asserts?

I don't think he said this at all.
And I don't think that he even formerly accused Hans of cheating, either.
Magnus voiced his feelings of suspicion, how they were caused by the cheating in chess, and he withdrew his participation.

Wanting to eliminate cheating in the game should be reasonable.

Agreed. I'm sure there is a 'best practice' debate to be had around how best to achieve this; I'm even sure that may Magnus could have been more effective.

But he was reacting real-time, ad hoc, to a very complicated and complex set of factors.
I think that Hans deserves the opportunity for redemption, but I also don't outright fault Magnus' choice, either.

@Edgy1 said in #41:

You didn't explain any difference, you asserted False Equivalency Logic and strawman debate.
@Edgy1: "But cheating is cheating, with the same negatives that go with cheating."
@Edgy1: "Cheating = Cheating. Online or not."
@odoaker2015: "A logic fail is to say Niemann cheated online therefore he cheated otb!"
That's not strawman. You made them both equal, and he said that they are not.
On the matter of false equivalency, would Magnus have taken over someone else's board like he did for LM Luckyriver for FIDE points? Would he have taken the FIDE points after GM Howell fed him the move?

Asked how you prove the negative.
A browse over critical reasoning, or scientific method can help with your understanding on this. I am not sure if you are being honest or obtuse about your career, but what do you think of chess.con published statistics on Niemann's FIDE rating rise?

@Onyx_Chess

There are a thousand explanations for Niemann's strange behavior. For example, Niemann has no experience in interviews, or he always acts that way, or he has a mental illness, maybe some form of autism, or he cheats. First you have to rule out all other explanations for his strange behavior to conclude that the only possible explanation is cheating.

@Onyx_Chess

I don't think he did as well.

But the title is "More cheaters for Magnus to Call out and Condemn". To me this asserting that anyone beats him is a cheater, while attributing the thought to Magnus. The thought of the original poster.

Yes, best practice. Usually in the Golden Mean area. Not unreasonable one way or the other.

Believe we are on the same page, expressing slightly different.

Hopefully this will get better, not worse.

@odoaker2015

You made the assertion that it's different because it is online, however

Cheating = Cheating

The fact it's online doesn't mean it isn't cheating.

Prove a Negative, an extremely difficult thing. You need a simple logic class.

Retired Economist. Objective Systems Analysis my profession.

The most Empathy Model in any Environment is an Opposite Sloping Regression Lines Model to meet in the Golden Mean Middle, Least Amount of Objective Negatives to the population.

I don't know what your profession is, it's not Logic or Integrity.

Former SWAT Nuke Team Leader US Army.

I don't know what your profession is, but I know what it isn't.

@odoaker2015 said in #65:

@Onyx_Chess

First you have to rule out all other explanations for his strange behavior to conclude that the only possible explanation is cheating.

You should stop hounding people about having had made conclusions when they didn't.
It won't work for you to say that I've concluded that Niemann has cheated, and to then hound me for my evidence.

I have not concluded that Hans cheated; I have concluded that nobody in these forums would be able to tell the difference between legitimate GM play and Computer play.

As for "many possible explanations"...you have to do that with the entire list of abnormal and bizarre factors that surrounded Magnus at the time.

While I can't conclude that Hans did or didn't cheat, and while I've made no accusation against him regarding his game with Magnus, it's a concrete fact that there was a plethora of abnormal and bizarre circumstances, all of which served to make Magnus extra super double bonus mega uncomfortable, and which served to, seemingly justifiably, elevate Magnus' suspicion of Hans.

To demand that Carlsen just miraculously "not see" the laundry list of abnormalities and bizarre circumstances, compounded by Hans' abnormal behaviour, and a history of being dishonest and having no respect for the sport or it's participants...

...is unjustified and uncalled for.

Carlsen's action can be questioned, but not on the basis or foundation that people are doing it. Nowhere near.

@Edgy1 said in #67:

@odoaker2015

You made the assertion that it's different because it is online, however

Cheating = Cheating

The fact it's online doesn't mean it isn't cheating.

Prove a Negative, an extremely difficult thing. You need a simple logic class.

Retired Economist. Objective Systems Analysis my profession.

The most Empathy Model in any Environment is an Opposite Sloping Regression Lines Model to meet in the Golden Mean Middle, Least Amount of Objective Negatives to the population.

I don't know what your profession is, it's not Logic or Integrity.

Former SWAT Nuke Team Leader US Army.

I don't know what your profession is, but I know what it isn't.

I never said cheating online isn't cheating. I said online cheating is not OTB cheating. Both are cheating, of course, but they're not the same thing. There are differences between the two types of cheating. And that is a fact.

@Edgy1

And you can't necessarily conclude from one to the other! I said that. This is a logical fallacy.