6 ms·

Imagine you know someone with a history of stealing cars and other valuable objects. He has been caught multiple times. Now you see him with a shiny new car tha

Imagine you know someone with a history of stealing cars and other valuable objects. He has been caught multiple times. Now you see him with a shiny new car that you’re pretty sure he can’t afford. Did he steal it? Not necessarily — it’s entirely possible that he got a higher-paying legit job and saved up for it, or inherited money from a relative, or got it legally in some other way. He shouldn’t be convicted of a new crime with no other evidence just because he committed similar crimes in the past. However, it would be entirely natural for a reasonable person to assume that theft is the most likely explanation of the facts, and to avoid trusting that person. This is basically what happened with Hans. He has been caught cheating multiple times, and then had an unusually fast rise in rating. Is that rise impossible? No. But it’s consistent with cheating, and given his history, cheating is the simplest explanation. So it would be totally normal for Magnus to refuse to trust such a person even though it can’t be conclusively proven that he’s still dirty. But even then, Magnus agreed to play against him, until further circumstantial evidence came to light and it just got to be too much. So, is it possible that Hans is clean? Sure. If that’s indeed the case, do I feel sorry for him? No. He made the choice to destroy his own reputation when he cheated multiple times. If he doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt now, it’s on him.

a9entroy 4y ago
That's not a complete analogy tho. Everyone knows Hans cheated in the past. But Magnus is going beyond that and saying that Hans cheated in the over-the-board game against him. Coming back to your analogy. So now imagine this person suddenly has a new shiny car but he also has the Title and registration for that car. Not only that, someone reported him to the cops and the cops said that the car is not stolen. He also has income tax returns that show that he has a legit source of income. Would it be natural for a reasonable person to assume that theft is the most likely explanation?
- School-Cotton 4y ago
  I don’t understand your analogy. There’s no evidence that Hans didn’t cheat in the game against Magnus. This isn’t Hans’s fault, as it’s hard to imagine what such evidence could even be possible, but the fact remains that there’s nothing comparable to having the title, etc. to a car.
  - a9entroy 4y ago
    He has been caught of cheating online. Where you just open a new window and follow engine moves. Or you have a friend sitting beside you giving engine moves. In his over-the-board match, he didn't have a laptop. He didn't have a friend giving him moves. He didn't have any communication device. He was mostly looking at the board or into the distance while he was playing. He was scanned with a metal detector. So we know he definitely didn't use any of his earlier methods of cheating if he even did cheat. Carlsen's statement confirms that his preparation wasn't leaked or hacked. I count these as evidence of him not cheating with his usual MO. But in your analogy, it's completely possible for the guy to have used his usual MO to steal the new shiny car. Now of course I'm not saying he didn't cheat. It's possible he used some other sophisticated method of cheating. But it would not be natural for a reasonable person to assume that theft using his usual MO is the most likely explanation.
    - nonethewiser 4y ago
      Yet Magnus decided to play him. Only after losing he decided not to. Which means it's not simply about his past.
    - otherme123 4y ago
      There is a video explaining how Hans played ten 100% games (his moves matching 100% moves of what an engine would do) in the last three years and a lot of >90%: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfPzUgzrOcQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfPzUgzrOcQ For reference, Magnus at his best does a 70% match with engines, and between 70-75% is historically enough to earn you the World Championship. This guy is consistently over 80%, come on. Reminds me of Lance Armstrong: a mediocre 90's cyclist that suddenly becomes the best in history, in such dominant fashion that I think everybody suspected something, but without proof you cannot do nothing about it.
      - goatlover 4y ago
        And here's Hikaru's video examining the Yosha's evidence by comparing it to games he and other GMs have played. There's definitely something going on with Hans having so many >90% games, when the other higher rated players struggle to 80%. https://youtu.be/qjtbXxA8Fcc https://youtu.be/qjtbXxA8Fcc
- registeredcorn 4y ago
  >Would it be natural for a reasonable person to assume that theft is the most likely explanation? Based off of their previous behavior of stealing cars? Yes it would absolutely be the most likely explanation. Under such a circumstance, it would simply mean that their skill at stealing cars has improved to now include forging documents, and possibly bribing police. Given their passed behavior, the objective is no longer for you to prove guilt, but for them to prove innocence. It is illogical to continually approach accusations of theft, or cheating, under a neutral assumption when a pattern emerges. If you own ten chickens and come out one morning to nine, and a pile of feathers next to a fox, you have your culprit. Should you wander around demanding to see feathers each time another chicken goes missing before you blame the fox sleeping at your doorstep? The fox is there. There are fewer chickens. The easiest answer is the most likely. There is enough certainty for the alternative to be inconsequential.
- lupire 4y ago
  Please don't make blatantly false statements.
kryogen1c 4y ago
Magnus' evidence of "it didn't seem like he was thinking very hard during critical junctures" is the nail in the coffin for me. If he has a history of stealing cars AND his new car is hot wired? Possible it's legal? Sure. Let's not twist our hands about a grand theft auto charge, however.
- WastingMyTime89 4y ago
  I don’t think you can call the opinion of the famous player who lost about how hard he thought his opponent was thinking during the game evidence without twisting the meaning of the word past the breaking point.
  - baumy 4y ago
    I don't think you can casually dismiss the ability of one of the greatest chess players to ever live to identify when his opponents are engaged, concentrating and thinking hard, and when they are not, without twisting common sense past its breaking point either.
  - kryogen1c 4y ago
    > the opinion of the famous player This is a hilariously inaccurate description of magnus. He is widely regarded as the greatest chess player to have ever lived. His opinion on what it takes to play high level chess is worth taking extremely seriously. It's not like he has a history of temper tantrums or petulant behavior; he's an upstanding custodian of the mantle of world champion.
    - WastingMyTime89 4y ago
      > He is widely regarded as the greatest chess player to have ever lived. By whom exactly? He has a large fan club on the internet and uses modern social network very well but I don’t think there is a wide consensus that he is better than Kasparov at his prime. I personally don’t believe him to be better than neither Fischer nor Botvinnik but that’s only me and is impossible to verify anyway. And no, his opinion against his own opponent after suffering an embarrassing defeat poorly playing with white doesn’t hold much credibility.
contravariant 4y ago
I'm not sure if letting the chess players be the arbiters of this is the best course of action though.
- School-Cotton 4y ago
  Nobody is claiming they should be. FIDE isn’t banning Hans based on Magnus’s vague suspicions, as indeed they shouldn’t. Magnus is just refusing to invest time and energy (and rating points) to play against someone he doesn’t like, which is absolutely his right. Nobody has the right to force Magnus or anyone else to play against them.
  - gpm 4y ago
    > Magnus is just refusing to invest ... (and rating points) I think resigning on move 2 might just be investing rating points to avoid investing time and energy... not avoiding investing them.
    - School-Cotton 4y ago
      I’m confident Magnus doesn’t care about his rating on chess24.com. Was this tournament also FIDE rated? I genuinely don’t know and can’t find that information via google.
      - NhanH 4y ago
        It was not FIDE rated, no online tournament has been
  - WastingMyTime89 4y ago
    I think you might want to read the rules of chess tournaments. You will quickly realise that in fact Magnus doesn’t have a choice of who he plays against and can’t actually resign for no reason.
    - School-Cotton 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
wayeq 4y ago
found the car analogy
- D-Coder 4y ago
  Yep. Car analogies are the Rolls Royces of analogies.
aqme28 4y ago
My issue with this is that it's all circumstantial evidence. If you suspect someone of cheating but can't show it, then enact some anti-cheating provisions and move on. We can't have a rule of law based on just the suspicions of interested parties.
- xiphias2 4y ago
  Of course we can rule out people by past cheating. Technology changes, it makes it easier to cheat but harder to hide cheating history (as most of the games between people at this time are online). Rules have to adapt to technology.
  - aqme28 4y ago
    You can punish people for past cheating. But you can't say "he cheated before, therefore he's cheating now and that's why he won." I've seen that sentiment a bit too often.

a9entroy 4y ago

That's not a complete analogy tho. Everyone knows Hans cheated in the past. But Magnus is going beyond that and saying that Hans cheated in the over-the-board game against him. Coming back to your analogy. So now imagine this person suddenly has a new shiny car but he also has the Title and registration for that car. Not only that, someone reported him to the cops and the cops said that the car is not stolen. He also has income tax returns that show that he has a legit source of income. Would it be natural for a reasonable person to assume that theft is the most likely explanation?

School-Cotton 4y ago
I don’t understand your analogy. There’s no evidence that Hans didn’t cheat in the game against Magnus. This isn’t Hans’s fault, as it’s hard to imagine what such evidence could even be possible, but the fact remains that there’s nothing comparable to having the title, etc. to a car.
- a9entroy 4y ago
  He has been caught of cheating online. Where you just open a new window and follow engine moves. Or you have a friend sitting beside you giving engine moves. In his over-the-board match, he didn't have a laptop. He didn't have a friend giving him moves. He didn't have any communication device. He was mostly looking at the board or into the distance while he was playing. He was scanned with a metal detector. So we know he definitely didn't use any of his earlier methods of cheating if he even did cheat. Carlsen's statement confirms that his preparation wasn't leaked or hacked. I count these as evidence of him not cheating with his usual MO. But in your analogy, it's completely possible for the guy to have used his usual MO to steal the new shiny car. Now of course I'm not saying he didn't cheat. It's possible he used some other sophisticated method of cheating. But it would not be natural for a reasonable person to assume that theft using his usual MO is the most likely explanation.
  - nonethewiser 4y ago
    Yet Magnus decided to play him. Only after losing he decided not to. Which means it's not simply about his past.
  - otherme123 4y ago
    There is a video explaining how Hans played ten 100% games (his moves matching 100% moves of what an engine would do) in the last three years and a lot of >90%: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfPzUgzrOcQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfPzUgzrOcQ For reference, Magnus at his best does a 70% match with engines, and between 70-75% is historically enough to earn you the World Championship. This guy is consistently over 80%, come on. Reminds me of Lance Armstrong: a mediocre 90's cyclist that suddenly becomes the best in history, in such dominant fashion that I think everybody suspected something, but without proof you cannot do nothing about it.
    - goatlover 4y ago
      And here's Hikaru's video examining the Yosha's evidence by comparing it to games he and other GMs have played. There's definitely something going on with Hans having so many >90% games, when the other higher rated players struggle to 80%. https://youtu.be/qjtbXxA8Fcc https://youtu.be/qjtbXxA8Fcc
registeredcorn 4y ago
>Would it be natural for a reasonable person to assume that theft is the most likely explanation? Based off of their previous behavior of stealing cars? Yes it would absolutely be the most likely explanation. Under such a circumstance, it would simply mean that their skill at stealing cars has improved to now include forging documents, and possibly bribing police. Given their passed behavior, the objective is no longer for you to prove guilt, but for them to prove innocence. It is illogical to continually approach accusations of theft, or cheating, under a neutral assumption when a pattern emerges. If you own ten chickens and come out one morning to nine, and a pile of feathers next to a fox, you have your culprit. Should you wander around demanding to see feathers each time another chicken goes missing before you blame the fox sleeping at your doorstep? The fox is there. There are fewer chickens. The easiest answer is the most likely. There is enough certainty for the alternative to be inconsequential.
lupire 4y ago
Please don't make blatantly false statements.

kryogen1c 4y ago

Magnus' evidence of "it didn't seem like he was thinking very hard during critical junctures" is the nail in the coffin for me. If he has a history of stealing cars AND his new car is hot wired? Possible it's legal? Sure. Let's not twist our hands about a grand theft auto charge, however.

WastingMyTime89 4y ago
I don’t think you can call the opinion of the famous player who lost about how hard he thought his opponent was thinking during the game evidence without twisting the meaning of the word past the breaking point.
- baumy 4y ago
  I don't think you can casually dismiss the ability of one of the greatest chess players to ever live to identify when his opponents are engaged, concentrating and thinking hard, and when they are not, without twisting common sense past its breaking point either.
- kryogen1c 4y ago
  > the opinion of the famous player This is a hilariously inaccurate description of magnus. He is widely regarded as the greatest chess player to have ever lived. His opinion on what it takes to play high level chess is worth taking extremely seriously. It's not like he has a history of temper tantrums or petulant behavior; he's an upstanding custodian of the mantle of world champion.
  - WastingMyTime89 4y ago
    > He is widely regarded as the greatest chess player to have ever lived. By whom exactly? He has a large fan club on the internet and uses modern social network very well but I don’t think there is a wide consensus that he is better than Kasparov at his prime. I personally don’t believe him to be better than neither Fischer nor Botvinnik but that’s only me and is impossible to verify anyway. And no, his opinion against his own opponent after suffering an embarrassing defeat poorly playing with white doesn’t hold much credibility.

contravariant 4y ago

I'm not sure if letting the chess players be the arbiters of this is the best course of action though.

School-Cotton 4y ago
Nobody is claiming they should be. FIDE isn’t banning Hans based on Magnus’s vague suspicions, as indeed they shouldn’t. Magnus is just refusing to invest time and energy (and rating points) to play against someone he doesn’t like, which is absolutely his right. Nobody has the right to force Magnus or anyone else to play against them.
- gpm 4y ago
  > Magnus is just refusing to invest ... (and rating points) I think resigning on move 2 might just be investing rating points to avoid investing time and energy... not avoiding investing them.
  - School-Cotton 4y ago
    I’m confident Magnus doesn’t care about his rating on chess24.com. Was this tournament also FIDE rated? I genuinely don’t know and can’t find that information via google.
    - NhanH 4y ago
      It was not FIDE rated, no online tournament has been
- WastingMyTime89 4y ago
  I think you might want to read the rules of chess tournaments. You will quickly realise that in fact Magnus doesn’t have a choice of who he plays against and can’t actually resign for no reason.
  - School-Cotton 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

wayeq 4y ago

found the car analogy

D-Coder 4y ago
Yep. Car analogies are the Rolls Royces of analogies.

aqme28 4y ago

My issue with this is that it's all circumstantial evidence. If you suspect someone of cheating but can't show it, then enact some anti-cheating provisions and move on. We can't have a rule of law based on just the suspicions of interested parties.

xiphias2 4y ago
Of course we can rule out people by past cheating. Technology changes, it makes it easier to cheat but harder to hide cheating history (as most of the games between people at this time are online). Rules have to adapt to technology.
- aqme28 4y ago
  You can punish people for past cheating. But you can't say "he cheated before, therefore he's cheating now and that's why he won." I've seen that sentiment a bit too often.