4 ms·
No, what it said was that it didn't find evidence he cheated. A failure to reject the null does not mean you should accept the null. As has been noted, current
by gwern 3y ago
No, what it said was that it didn't find evidence he cheated. A failure to reject the null does not mean you should accept the null. As has been noted, current techniques are just unable to detect subtle cheating by GMs, and Niemann would have done so subtly.
Given that this probe also shows Niemann has been lying and cheating even more extensively than has been known before, this should make you assume that he is cheating everywhere else he can get away with it until proven otherwise.
- RedCardRef 3y ago"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
- 8note 3y agoThe same applies to every chess pro - if they're cheating they're cheating in a way where modern techniques couldn't detect it, so we should consider everyone, Magnus included, as cheaters
- austhrow743 3y agoConsidering everyone which plays chess a cheater because they could possibly cheat ends chess as a sport. Considering everyone who has cheated to be a cheater allows chess to continue while costing nothing.