More Cheaters For Magnus to Call Out and Condemn

@odoaker2015 said in #56:

That is a very, very big might.

Maybe. Maybe not. Enquiring minds want to know. But it is sort of the crux of the matter - and the logic is indisputable. Now, the debate would not be around true or false, but how much.

@Onyx_Chess

I don't know if I accused you of anything. I just meant that Niemann's behavior has other explanations than cheating. And that you have to rule out those explanations before concluding that he's acting this way because he's cheating. No more and no less. Maybe it was the word "you" that confused you. The word "you" can be translated into "man" in German.

Here the same text in German Language:

Ich wüsste nicht, dass ich dir irgendwas vorgeworfen habe. Ich meinte nur, dass Niemanns Verhalten auch andere Erklärungen hat, außer, dass er betrügt. Und das man diese Erklärungen erst ausschließen muss um zu dem Schluss zu kommen, dass er sich so verhält, weil er betrügt. Nicht mehr und nicht weniger.

Have the German text translated into English. The word "you" is also translated as "man" in German. Maybe that caused misunderstanding. I didn't mean you personally.

@Onyx_Chess

for further explanation: https://www.google.com/search?q=man+bedeutung&oq=man+bedeutung&aqs=chrome..69i57.10461j1j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

This is the explanation of how to define the German word "man". Unfortunately only in German.

@odoaker2015 said in #72:

Ah OK. That makes sense.

@Onyx_Chess
I'm glad to have cleared up the misunderstanding. Sometimes there are mistakes because of the different languages. English is not my mother tongue either.

@Edgy1 said in #49:

@Onyx_Chess

Believe it's ill advised to raise the temperature needlessly in any manner, including False Equivalency Logic and False Assertions.

The Most Empathy Model is the Least Amount of Objective Negatives to the Population.

AKA no BS.

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

Wanting to eliminate cheating in the game should be reasonable.
Sarcasm on my part. The lives of the humor impaired can be quite difficult......

How times have changed. I still remember when the world champion lost a game against a computer, and accused it of cheating by getting some of its moves from a human. What hasn't changed is that top chess players tend to be a little paranoid :)

@ProgrammerAngrim said in #77:

How times have changed. I still remember when the world champion lost a game against a computer, and accused it of cheating by getting some of its moves from a human. What hasn't changed is that top chess players tend to be a little paranoid :)

It did cheat... a human move was injected to make the position too complicated for a human to comprehend....

You would have to be stupid to believe otherwise.

A rapid rise in ELO does not by itself prove any wrongdoing.

Hans Niemann would of course not be required in a criminal prosecution to produce evidence in his own defense, nor would he have the burden of persuasion.
I think most of us value the "presumption of innocence" principle urged by people on this forum who want to protect Hans Niemann from what they believe are unfair suspicions. Even in the non-criminal context of suspicions of cheating in chess, it makes sense to me that a player under suspicion should normally enjoy such a presumption.

(Does anyone happen to know what evidentiary burdens or presumptions are in effect in a FIDE fair play investigation?)

On the other hand, even though he does not have the burden of proof, Hans Niemann has made public statements about the events in question. It is hard to ignore those statements.

Two days before his interview after round 5 of the Sinquefield Cup (the interview in which he admitted, but is believed to have understated the extent of, his past online cheating), Nieman volunteered his own post-game statement right after round 3 (the game he won against the world champion).
In that round 3 interview, Hans Niemann said that, on the very day of the game, just before the game, by a "ridiculous miracle" he could not explain, he had happened to analyze, with a computer engine, the unusual position that shortly thereafter arose in the actual game versus Magnus Carlsen.
Niemann's peculiar statements during this interview invoking miraculous coincidence or miraculous divine intervention do not prove that he cheated during the game, but the "ridiculous miracle" statement understandably could strike some reasonable observers as not altogether plausible and thus, especially in light of Niemann's history of cheating in the past, might naturally give rise to suspicions. The reference to "miracle" computer analysis of that exact unexpected position right before the game, has probably struck many observers as an awkward attempt to anticipate possible allegations of having cheated during the game, by preemptively offering an innocent scenario that might explain why the moves he made in the unusual position he "miraculously" analyzed "before the game" coincided with engine-preferred moves he made during the game, The seemingly far-fetched miracle narrative is not necessarily false, of course, but we can hardly blame anyone for feeling that it is strange and at least somewhat suspect.

Of course, it's not impossible that what Hans Niemann said in the interview after round 3 might be true. Indeed, it seems to me that a clever cheater who wanted to make up a false story to cover up his misdeeds would perhaps try to spin a much less incredible-seeming tale than one based on a "ridiculous miracle." But does the implausibility of a story make it less likely to be fabricated?
Maybe someone will take the time to parse the post-game-3 interview in a way that makes the "ridiculous miracle" assertion seem less implausible than it seems to many people. I would welcome an alternative interpretation, even if it necessarily involves speculation.

I notice that some of the contributors to this forum who seem most zealous in their accusations (unsupported by evidence) that there is a vast and maliciously evil conspiracy against Hans Niemann do not seem to be considering whether they themselves are observing the principle of presumption of innocence as applied to the targets of their own attacks. Rationality, fairness, and humane thought are usually not the hallmarks of Holy War.

Because we really don't know, we should probably make an effort to exercise restraint before making accusations against anyone. Even if we are convinced that our motives are good (e.g., seeking to protect the weak against oppression, fighting against injustice, etc.), we risk causing greater harm whenever we rush to accuse others. Or so it seems to me.

@odoaker2015

You are a logical fallacy

A toxic time waste