5 ms·

> The person Carlsen accused of cheating has a documented and admitted history of it. So what? Just because someone has cheated in the past does not in any wa

> The person Carlsen accused of cheating has a documented and admitted history of it. So what? Just because someone has cheated in the past does not in any way prove that they've cheated in this particular case. It only proves they've cheated in the past. Is it suspicious? Sure. But any accusations of cheating are still pure speculation. > Officials literally found weights inside the fish. Both of those are in this story. And I specifically mentioned this in my comment.

threatofrain 4y ago
> So what? Getting caught for cheating has an impact on credibility. Credibility is a big deal and a hard problem. The boy who cried wolf is not a story of no wolves. Are you surprised that cheating impacts credibility? In a court of law we might have standards like preponderance of evidence or reasonable doubt. In everyday human relations everyone is free to develop their own theories of credibility and to act upon their freedoms accordingly. You are free to judge whether Microsoft is trustworthy even without proof that they will betray your trust in the future, which nobody really knows.
- ryandrake 4y ago
  Neither lack of credibility nor a history of cheating is evidence of cheating.
  - threatofrain 4y ago
    Evidence is the tool by which people attempt to get an edge over uncertainty. Lacking medical credibility is not proof that you're medically foolish, but it's certainly evidence. Conversely, having medical credibility is not proof that your doctor's plan is medically wise, but it's certainly evidence. It's your call if you wish ignore to medical credibility when evaluating your doctor's advice. Perhaps you'll engage in a discussion about how their medical credibility is not adequate evidence, but at that point, isn't it time to get a doctor you find credible?
mylons 4y ago
statistical analysis of Hans play indicates he’s cheating, especially against Magnus’ style. your comments indicate you lack any depth in poker or chess.
- roflyear 4y ago
  This isn't true at all.
  - mylons 4y ago
    Hans makes the most +EV plays against unconventional Magnus openings. He’s either the greatest chess player alive, (and like Robbi can’t even explain his game, and admitted to cheating in the past) or he’s cheating. i’m happy to bet quite a bit of money that Hans is a nobody in 5 years in chess. what evidence do you have for your position?
    - whimsicalism 4y ago
      If you think making engine moves at the level Hans is at is evidence that he is cheating, I think you are just not very well informed about chess. > He’s either the greatest chess player alive Ridiculous, nothing about his play suggests he's the greatest chess player alive.
      - mylons 4y ago
        how do you defend Hans, then? you’re just doubting what i’m saying without substance
        whimsicalism 4y ago
        The burden is to show that Hans is cheating OTB. I don't really know whether he is cheating OTB, although I think it is unlikely - but AFAIK there hasn't really been any statistical evidence of Hans cheating OTB and I'm not really sure what such evidence would even look like for a super GM who one would expect to routinely play engine moves.

threatofrain 4y ago

> So what? Getting caught for cheating has an impact on credibility. Credibility is a big deal and a hard problem. The boy who cried wolf is not a story of no wolves. Are you surprised that cheating impacts credibility? In a court of law we might have standards like preponderance of evidence or reasonable doubt. In everyday human relations everyone is free to develop their own theories of credibility and to act upon their freedoms accordingly. You are free to judge whether Microsoft is trustworthy even without proof that they will betray your trust in the future, which nobody really knows.

ryandrake 4y ago
Neither lack of credibility nor a history of cheating is evidence of cheating.
- threatofrain 4y ago
  Evidence is the tool by which people attempt to get an edge over uncertainty. Lacking medical credibility is not proof that you're medically foolish, but it's certainly evidence. Conversely, having medical credibility is not proof that your doctor's plan is medically wise, but it's certainly evidence. It's your call if you wish ignore to medical credibility when evaluating your doctor's advice. Perhaps you'll engage in a discussion about how their medical credibility is not adequate evidence, but at that point, isn't it time to get a doctor you find credible?

mylons 4y ago

statistical analysis of Hans play indicates he’s cheating, especially against Magnus’ style. your comments indicate you lack any depth in poker or chess.

roflyear 4y ago
This isn't true at all.
- mylons 4y ago
  Hans makes the most +EV plays against unconventional Magnus openings. He’s either the greatest chess player alive, (and like Robbi can’t even explain his game, and admitted to cheating in the past) or he’s cheating. i’m happy to bet quite a bit of money that Hans is a nobody in 5 years in chess. what evidence do you have for your position?
  - whimsicalism 4y ago
    If you think making engine moves at the level Hans is at is evidence that he is cheating, I think you are just not very well informed about chess. > He’s either the greatest chess player alive Ridiculous, nothing about his play suggests he's the greatest chess player alive.
    - mylons 4y ago
      how do you defend Hans, then? you’re just doubting what i’m saying without substance
      - whimsicalism 4y ago
        The burden is to show that Hans is cheating OTB. I don't really know whether he is cheating OTB, although I think it is unlikely - but AFAIK there hasn't really been any statistical evidence of Hans cheating OTB and I'm not really sure what such evidence would even look like for a super GM who one would expect to routinely play engine moves.