3 ms·

You're asking for more than just evidence though, you're asking for concrete proof which is very different. You can have evidence that changes your belief - peo

by jstx1 4y ago

You're asking for more than just evidence though, you're asking for concrete proof which is very different. You can have evidence that changes your belief - people acting suspiciously their behaviour being consistent with cheating, lying, changing their story, having history of doing this in the past - all of this is perfectly valid evidence that can change your own belief about what's happening, and you should be able to speak to speak about it. Imagine that we're flipping a coin and it keeps coming up heads every time, and I make a statement that I don't think the coin is fair. By your standards I shouldn't be able to speak until we examine the coin directly and no number of further flipping will convince you that the coin is biased (because it's technically possible that a fair coin does this too). Well, sometimes in real life we can't weigh/measure/scan the coin directly, we can only make judgments based on the flips that come out and we should be able to say that they look fishy.

joekrill 4y ago
> You're asking for more than just evidence though, you're asking for concrete proof which is very different. There is neither of these, though. There is only people speculating that they MUST be cheating because they didn't behave exactly as they were expected to. > By your standards I shouldn't be able to speak until we examine the coin directly [...] I never made any such statement or made and indication of specific "standards". We should absolutely look at the coin if it's behaving this way. But we can't just conjecture that it must be weighted with zero evidence of that.
- jstx1 4y ago
  > But we can't just conjecture that it must be weighted with zero evidence of that. I don't think any of the accusation that have been brought up in this thread have been with zero evidence. I think we have very different understanding of what's evidence and how much of it sufficient to speak up, and we're kind of talking past each other (the last part seems very likely).
mind-blight 4y ago
I think that's hyperbolic. Evidence doesn't have to be concrete or prove anything. It just has to convince a reasonable person that the thing being claimed may have happened. But, I have yet to see any evidence besides Carlson's claims of cheating. I'm not even looking for "how", but I'd like to at least hear what Carlson thought was so strange in the match that it could imply cheating. Him showing up for a single play of a rematch and then quitting after the first move seems mostly like a tantrum. I'd be much not sympathetic to something like "these 4 moves we're so it of the ordinary that I can't see a way he would have taken them besides computer assistance"
- Pyramus 4y ago
  I think you are missing the bigger picture here. The question is not whether Niemann cheated in this specific game against Carlsen (he likely didn't) but to what extent Niemann has cheated in the past, how (online) cheaters should be treated when it comes to over-the-board chess and if the chess profession will finally take cheating seriously, i.e. introduce anti-cheating measures similar to other professional sports or gambling. As has been stated several times in this thread: Niemann has a history of (online) cheating, admitted to it, and while doing so likely lied about the extent and recency of his (online) cheating.
- parineum 4y ago
  > Him showing up for a single play of a rematch and then quitting after the first move seems mostly like a tantrum. I'm not a chess expert at all but, from my understanding, he is known for some unconventional play. I could see Magnus having done a calculation ahead of time of a very unconventional opening and, seeing the counter being the exact optimal choice, being convinced of cheating. All that I really know is he has a lot of credibility and the person he's accusing does not. I think it's a big story because it's dramatic no matter how it turns out.

by jstx1 4y ago

joekrill 4y ago

> You're asking for more than just evidence though, you're asking for concrete proof which is very different. There is neither of these, though. There is only people speculating that they MUST be cheating because they didn't behave exactly as they were expected to. > By your standards I shouldn't be able to speak until we examine the coin directly [...] I never made any such statement or made and indication of specific "standards". We should absolutely look at the coin if it's behaving this way. But we can't just conjecture that it must be weighted with zero evidence of that.

jstx1 4y ago
> But we can't just conjecture that it must be weighted with zero evidence of that. I don't think any of the accusation that have been brought up in this thread have been with zero evidence. I think we have very different understanding of what's evidence and how much of it sufficient to speak up, and we're kind of talking past each other (the last part seems very likely).

mind-blight 4y ago

I think that's hyperbolic. Evidence doesn't have to be concrete or prove anything. It just has to convince a reasonable person that the thing being claimed may have happened. But, I have yet to see any evidence besides Carlson's claims of cheating. I'm not even looking for "how", but I'd like to at least hear what Carlson thought was so strange in the match that it could imply cheating. Him showing up for a single play of a rematch and then quitting after the first move seems mostly like a tantrum. I'd be much not sympathetic to something like "these 4 moves we're so it of the ordinary that I can't see a way he would have taken them besides computer assistance"

Pyramus 4y ago
I think you are missing the bigger picture here. The question is not whether Niemann cheated in this specific game against Carlsen (he likely didn't) but to what extent Niemann has cheated in the past, how (online) cheaters should be treated when it comes to over-the-board chess and if the chess profession will finally take cheating seriously, i.e. introduce anti-cheating measures similar to other professional sports or gambling. As has been stated several times in this thread: Niemann has a history of (online) cheating, admitted to it, and while doing so likely lied about the extent and recency of his (online) cheating.
parineum 4y ago
> Him showing up for a single play of a rematch and then quitting after the first move seems mostly like a tantrum. I'm not a chess expert at all but, from my understanding, he is known for some unconventional play. I could see Magnus having done a calculation ahead of time of a very unconventional opening and, seeing the counter being the exact optimal choice, being convinced of cheating. All that I really know is he has a lot of credibility and the person he's accusing does not. I think it's a big story because it's dramatic no matter how it turns out.