could this be not a moral question, but an addiction one?
@hpqd said in #59:
> this is not a court room. people are allowed to explain why they have any opinions.
> These do not have to fulfill "without reasonable doubt" criteria but should respect common sense. You are allowed to have no opinion and no thoughts, of course.
>
> The bulletproof evidence for all thinkable events around the game with carlsen is in HN s hands.
No one stated this was a court room neither did anyone state they couldn't have opinions. It all comes down to this: where is the evidence he cheated in that game, especially as the organisers made an official statement which emphatically denied any wrongdoing by any of the players throughout the event.
> this is not a court room. people are allowed to explain why they have any opinions.
> These do not have to fulfill "without reasonable doubt" criteria but should respect common sense. You are allowed to have no opinion and no thoughts, of course.
>
> The bulletproof evidence for all thinkable events around the game with carlsen is in HN s hands.
No one stated this was a court room neither did anyone state they couldn't have opinions. It all comes down to this: where is the evidence he cheated in that game, especially as the organisers made an official statement which emphatically denied any wrongdoing by any of the players throughout the event.
honestly, I d risk to say: "evident cheating" is not cheating anymore, but a conjob or a joke. :-)
There may not be evidence of cheating, but it is unsurprising that Carlsen and others are inclined to suspect somebody of cheating if he has a long history of dishonest play.
I think Niemann will go down as one of the greatest cheats in chess history. The truth will come out, sooner or later.
@ofrm1 said in #57:
> "
Those chess players are absolutely wrong. Defamation cases are never simple wins. Period. Anybody saying that has no clue what they're talking about. Even defamation per se cases where you don't even need to prove damages because they're implied by the heinous nature of the defamatory statements are difficult to win by a plaintiff due to the strong first amendment protections in US courts.
Also, lying about one's role in war crimes is without a doubt far worse than baselessly accusing someone of cheating in chess. The idea that this kind of lie is the worst in the history of humanity is hilariously asinine.
And I thought the r/chess subreddit had terrible takes. Wow."
-----
Warcrimes is not at all what I was referring to, I was referring to the humanity aspects included scientific method, clinical trials, legal evidence, epistemology, mathematic proof etc. And the legal point is not whether it is easy to win the case, but rather that it is not a misdemeanour, it's a crime.
> "
Those chess players are absolutely wrong. Defamation cases are never simple wins. Period. Anybody saying that has no clue what they're talking about. Even defamation per se cases where you don't even need to prove damages because they're implied by the heinous nature of the defamatory statements are difficult to win by a plaintiff due to the strong first amendment protections in US courts.
Also, lying about one's role in war crimes is without a doubt far worse than baselessly accusing someone of cheating in chess. The idea that this kind of lie is the worst in the history of humanity is hilariously asinine.
And I thought the r/chess subreddit had terrible takes. Wow."
-----
Warcrimes is not at all what I was referring to, I was referring to the humanity aspects included scientific method, clinical trials, legal evidence, epistemology, mathematic proof etc. And the legal point is not whether it is easy to win the case, but rather that it is not a misdemeanour, it's a crime.
Why he is cheating?
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.