6 ms·

> 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 live

> 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.
- fastball 4y ago
  Well he does have the highest ELO of all time, no?
  - thundrio 4y ago
    It seems like ELO skill ratings fall apart when comparing players of two different eras, since ELO Ratings involve the skill level of your opponents too. Maybe a better metric would be running both players games through a computer to see the "%best move" metric?
    - Arkhaine_kupo 4y ago
      > Maybe a better metric would be running both players games through a computer to see the "%best move" metric? Due to computers being common place now, Magnus would absolutely destroy that metric compared to older eras. Chess has changed a ton in the past 10-20 years due to computers, being able to analyse lines. And now Magnus is known for playing "Ai Lines" which is the kind of stuff the new ML models do which tends to be pretty bonkers and un-human but gets long term results.
- John23832 4y ago
  His peers, lol?
qudat 4y ago
Not only is that a logical fallacy (appeal to authority) but magnus lost to him and is claiming cheating which is clearly a huge conflict of interest. His opinion should be heavily scrutinized.
- SantalBlush 4y ago
  Appeal to authority is erroneously invoked so often that it should just be retired as a concept.
  - qudat 4y ago
    You’re not addressing the content of the argument and instead trying to dismiss it because of a phrase I used. Just because magnus is a world class expert at chess does not necessarily mean he is good at detecting a cheater. Furthermore I would argue that taking an experts “gut feeling” as evidence is a terrible argument.
    - SantalBlush 4y ago
      >You’re not addressing the content of the argument and instead trying to dismiss it because of a phrase I used. The phrase you used has a well-known meaning. If that wasn't what you meant, then you shouldn't have used it. Magnus may not be great at spotting a cheater, but his expertise in this game suggests that he could be, and adding that fact to an existing body of evidence isn't even close to committing an appeal to authority fallacy. To bring up that fallacy here is just lazy thinking.
      - qudat 4y ago
        > Magnus may not be great at spotting a cheater, but his expertise in this game suggests that he could be, and adding that fact to an existing body of evidence isn't even close to committing an appeal to authority fallacy. OP: > 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. - A: Magnus is a great chess player - B: Magnus claims cheating because "gut" - C: Therefore Hans cheated The argument rests solely on the fact that since he's an expert his word should be taken "seriously," heavily implying that Hans cheated. > To bring up that fallacy here is just lazy thinking. I disagree and you're not going to convince me otherwise with statements like this one.
nonethewiser 4y ago
It's not inaccurate because Carlsen is famous.
stale2002 4y ago
> It's not like he has a history of temper tantrums or petulant behavior Is this a joke? He literally does have a history of being a sore loser.
lupire 4y ago
> not like he has a history of temper tantrums or petulant behavior; He absolutely does. People forget because he so rarely loses a classical game. But he almost always shows petulant behavior when he loses an important classical game.
zouhair 4y ago
Is he the Champion of all time in cheating. I doubt that. I lost all respect I had for him. If you don't have foolproof evidence, you take your loss like a professional.

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.

fastball 4y ago
Well he does have the highest ELO of all time, no?
- thundrio 4y ago
  It seems like ELO skill ratings fall apart when comparing players of two different eras, since ELO Ratings involve the skill level of your opponents too. Maybe a better metric would be running both players games through a computer to see the "%best move" metric?
  - Arkhaine_kupo 4y ago
    > Maybe a better metric would be running both players games through a computer to see the "%best move" metric? Due to computers being common place now, Magnus would absolutely destroy that metric compared to older eras. Chess has changed a ton in the past 10-20 years due to computers, being able to analyse lines. And now Magnus is known for playing "Ai Lines" which is the kind of stuff the new ML models do which tends to be pretty bonkers and un-human but gets long term results.
John23832 4y ago
His peers, lol?

qudat 4y ago

Not only is that a logical fallacy (appeal to authority) but magnus lost to him and is claiming cheating which is clearly a huge conflict of interest. His opinion should be heavily scrutinized.

SantalBlush 4y ago
Appeal to authority is erroneously invoked so often that it should just be retired as a concept.
- qudat 4y ago
  You’re not addressing the content of the argument and instead trying to dismiss it because of a phrase I used. Just because magnus is a world class expert at chess does not necessarily mean he is good at detecting a cheater. Furthermore I would argue that taking an experts “gut feeling” as evidence is a terrible argument.
  - SantalBlush 4y ago
    >You’re not addressing the content of the argument and instead trying to dismiss it because of a phrase I used. The phrase you used has a well-known meaning. If that wasn't what you meant, then you shouldn't have used it. Magnus may not be great at spotting a cheater, but his expertise in this game suggests that he could be, and adding that fact to an existing body of evidence isn't even close to committing an appeal to authority fallacy. To bring up that fallacy here is just lazy thinking.
    - qudat 4y ago
      > Magnus may not be great at spotting a cheater, but his expertise in this game suggests that he could be, and adding that fact to an existing body of evidence isn't even close to committing an appeal to authority fallacy. OP: > 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. - A: Magnus is a great chess player - B: Magnus claims cheating because "gut" - C: Therefore Hans cheated The argument rests solely on the fact that since he's an expert his word should be taken "seriously," heavily implying that Hans cheated. > To bring up that fallacy here is just lazy thinking. I disagree and you're not going to convince me otherwise with statements like this one.

nonethewiser 4y ago

It's not inaccurate because Carlsen is famous.

stale2002 4y ago

> It's not like he has a history of temper tantrums or petulant behavior Is this a joke? He literally does have a history of being a sore loser.

lupire 4y ago

> not like he has a history of temper tantrums or petulant behavior; He absolutely does. People forget because he so rarely loses a classical game. But he almost always shows petulant behavior when he loses an important classical game.

zouhair 4y ago

Is he the Champion of all time in cheating. I doubt that. I lost all respect I had for him. If you don't have foolproof evidence, you take your loss like a professional.