4 ms·
They 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
by gsinclair 4y ago
They 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?