421–430 of 1001 posts
Magnus isn't trying to be judge, jury and executioner by refusing to play Hans. He has stated before that merely having suspicions (e.g. based on past cheating as in Niemann's case) about your opponent possibly cheating completely ruins one's mentality during a game. He simply wants to avoid going through that, which imo is understandable.
Magnus is not doing this in the best possible way. If Hans is cheating (possible, especially given his past) Magnus should act and use his connections in the Chess world to catch him cheating. Suspicion is not proof. Using his reputation as leverage can work to destroy Hans's reputation, but there is a high risk of collateral damages. He should be smarter than that.
You are assuming that his goal is to somehow uncover Hans cheating.
On the other hand if his goal is to highlight that in his opinion the security arrangements are not sufficient to be able to tell if an opponent is cheating or not, then he is doing that just right.
He spoke up and the competition in question introduced anti-cheating measures right the next day. That means there were things they could have been doing but were not before.
> Magnus should act and use his connections in the Chess world to catch him cheating.
How do you propose that could happen? Life is not a TV show with Perry Mason moments.
There are two things that must be understood before making any judgement on this case: 1. It is solidly within the realm of possibility that a person who spends all his time devoted to succeeding in tournament chess would be able to devise a cheating method that cannot be easily detected by standard protocols 2. It is impossible to prove a negative, so it is impossible to disprove Magnus' claims With these things bei…
Since this statement is itself a negative, you've presented a paradox, because if it were proven true it would then be false.
A key fact to understand in thinking about cheating in over the board chess: a strong player can defeat a much stronger opponent with just 1-3 hints per game indicating the strongest move. For example, most chess experts agree that a ~2600 rated player with 2-3 hints at key moments per game would be expected to beat a ~2800 rated player. Many people might assume that a cheater needs guidance every move, thereby requi…
> Also, clever cheating devices have been found in over the board chess competitions The most convincing candidate for such a device I've seen is an Illuminati Thumper Pro hidden in Hans's shoe: https://illuminati-magic.com/products/thumper . If you watch the footage of him getting scanned before his match with Alireza (and, crucially, before Magnus announced he was dropping), there are a couple of subtle things that…
Do they do any tests for substances? How about nootropics which are known to boost brainpower, are these banned just doping in athletics? Would nootropics be considered cheating??
Adversaries knew and invited him believing it would make him blunder, but it seems Blackburne actually played better while drunk.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> (or Niemann, if concrete evidence against him emerges) This window seems closed though. Carlsen seems to have no evidence. Where else could the evidence come from? All we have is character attacks. Even if justified, they can't prove that he cheated. All we know for sure is that Carlsen accused him of cheating with no evidence.
What hard evidence—exactly—do you expect Carlsen to be able to produce? Alternatively, imagine anyone in a similar position. What hard evidence can anyone produce in situations such as this? 100% serious question.
If he saw something unusual, like "Hans was messing with his shoe" or "I heard several vibrations coming from Hans during the game" etc.. that would be at least something.
It would be something. Magnus has given nothing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> (or Niemann, if concrete evidence against him emerges) This window seems closed though. Carlsen seems to have no evidence. Where else could the evidence come from? All we have is character attacks. Even if justified, they can't prove that he cheated. All we know for sure is that Carlsen accused him of cheating with no evidence.
What hard evidence—exactly—do you expect Carlsen to be able to produce? Alternatively, imagine anyone in a similar position. What hard evidence can anyone produce in situations such as this? 100% serious question.
Magnus is not doing this in the best possible way. If Hans is cheating (possible, especially given his past) Magnus should act and use his connections in the Chess world to catch him cheating. Suspicion is not proof. Using his reputation as leverage can work to destroy Hans's reputation, but there is a high risk of collateral damages. He should be smarter than that.
How do you think he can accomplish that exactly? You think they’re going to install hidden cameras everywhere?
Problem solved.
The questions I have about this are pretty basic: 1. How would Niemann have cheated? The shoe computer theory is a bit far fetched - are devices that small capable enough? Is he suspected of having an accomplice? 2. Why didn't Magnus just say something right away? He could have easily made his accusations at the moment to event organizers - quietly - and they could have had Niemann remove his shoes or something. Inst…
> The shoe computer theory is a bit far fetched - are devices that small capable enough? Yes, they are. The Stockfish game you can install on your iPhone would beat Carlsen almost 100% of time.
There are two things that must be understood before making any judgement on this case: 1. It is solidly within the realm of possibility that a person who spends all his time devoted to succeeding in tournament chess would be able to devise a cheating method that cannot be easily detected by standard protocols 2. It is impossible to prove a negative, so it is impossible to disprove Magnus' claims With these things bei…
> It is impossible to prove a negative Since this statement is itself a negative, you've presented a paradox, because if it were proven true it would then be false.
It is easier to prove a positive since it requires only the "smoking gun" to be made apparent. It is much harder to disprove a negative because it requires hypothetical smoking gun that could have caused the effect (Han's beating of Magnus) to be disproven. Since we don't have a record of every electromagnetic and sonic wave which passed through the room the day Hans beat Magnus, disproving the cheating claim is likely impossible.