> Not only is that a logical fallacy (appeal to authority) You know appeal to authorities are not always logical fallacies right? It can be, but it's not a "ha

> Not only is that a logical fallacy (appeal to authority) You know appeal to authorities are not always logical fallacies right? It can be, but it's not a "haha you quoted someone therefore you are wrong". Heavily invested and repeatedly successful individuals can be great sources for information on heuristic endevours. > magnus lost to him and is claiming cheating which is clearly a huge conflict of interest Except it is verifiable that he talked about leaving the tournament before even playing him. Therefore his suspicions and problems are older than the result. Also you might be overestimating how much chess players care about losing at that level. They play constantly against each other and most have pretty equal head to heads. Magnus usually is a bit ahead like 5 victories to 3 and then like 15 draws against most of them. Losing once against Hans is not gonna make someone cause all of this. > His opinion should be heavily scrutinized. By FIDE sure, not by people online whose knowledge of chess comes from the first Harry potter movie.