6 ms·
That argument doesn’t make sense to me. If someone has acknowledged that they will cheat when there are NO stakes, why does that make it less likely they will c
by landryraccoon 4y ago
That argument doesn’t make sense to me. If someone has acknowledged that they will cheat when there are NO stakes, why does that make it less likely they will cheat if something is on the line?
If anything someone who is already known to cheat “just because” is even more likely to cheat when there is something to gain.
- neaden 4y agoThe claim in the original comment that I replied to was that Hans had admitted to cheating in "real, official, prize money online tournaments", which was when he was 12. As for cheating and stakes I think it all depends. His claim is he cheated when he was 16 to boost his rating so he could player higher level opponents on stream and boost his career. If you accept that claim it would make sense that he rationalized it that he was just cheating to get to his "true" Elo and stopped cheating once he got there. Now Chess.Com seems to believe that he cheated beyond that but they haven't specified more at this point.
- bombcar 4y agoHow can a game be no-stakes and also rating-boosting? It sounds like he's saying he cheated to get to where he was going faster, but that he would have gotten there eventually so it's fine. It would be like Armstrong saying he only cheated during trials and training.
- neaden 4y agoWell steroids and doping are different because they effect your body but sure, if Armstrong had cheated during trials with something like a small motor but not during the actual tour it would have tarnished his legacy but I don't think it would have ruined it like his cheating did.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]