4 ms·
It's not convincing to say that Hans was cheating because few people can beat Magnus playing black when Magnus was playing poorly in that game. I still feel lik
by rbongers 4y ago
It's not convincing to say that Hans was cheating because few people can beat Magnus playing black when Magnus was playing poorly in that game.
I still feel like more information that could come out at any moment that could swing the situation in either direction, and this statement doesn't say much.
I wish Magnus and chess.com would come out with whatever extra information they have.
- lvl102 4y agoI don’t think you understand why cheating is so bad. Once you know your opponent COULD BE cheating, your approach changes entirely. You will know this if you played against Stockfish.
- rbongers 4y agoWhat was the evidence that Hans COULD be cheating on top of the two incidents we know about? Was it, for example, video evidence of Hans using Stockfish on an illegal phone during an OTB tournament, or was it second hand accounts of Hans cheating during an online game years ago after he claimed to stop? We have no idea and that's still the issue, even if this topic is entirely about making players more comfortable and not actually about whether Hans was cheating on the game in question.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- adamdusty 4y agoThere is always a chance your opponent could be cheating. Just because you get tilted does not mean the opponent was cheating.