4 ms·
> Nobody has any explanations how he could do it over the board. If you believe this, its because you aren't looking. There's tons of explanations online of ho
by jobs_throwaway 4y ago
> Nobody has any explanations how he could do it over the board.
If you believe this, its because you aren't looking. There's tons of explanations online of how it could be possible. Go look at /r/chess.
- Andrew_nenakhov 4y agoTournament organizers and FIDE were pretty adamant that no cheating took place and that anti cheating measures were adequate.
- dane-pgp 4y agoTo concede that cheating took place would mean that they had failed in their responsibility to stop it happening, and that somehow their method of detection only worked after the cheating was happening, rather than during or before. For those two reasons, I think that any such "pretty adamant" statement can be discounted.
- gsinclair 4y agoThey said no evidence was found, not that no cheating took place. (After all, it would most likely be very hard to detect.) And the anti cheating measures were upped after Carlsen quit; therefore they were not adequate in the first place.
- Andrew_nenakhov 4y agoIf you decide to twist their statement this way, two can play the game. How about this: "No evidence was found that Magnus Carlsen was cheating. It does not mean no cheating took place in his championship matches." Does that seem fair or reasonable to you? Sure no man can be as good as Magnus, he is clearly cheating in some clear undetected way, right?
- roflyear 4y ago"random redditors say it!"
- jobs_throwaway 4y ago"nobody"