He admitted to cheating online when he was a child. Magnus is clearly just salty someone younger is better than him and is trying to humiliate him to hide his own embarrassment.
The first page of the report literally states: “We present evidence in this report that Hans likely cheated online much more than his public statements suggest”, and you’re trying to tell me that the report says there is no evidence of cheating at all?
Did you not open the link? Or are you Hans himself? If you’re trying to deny allegations, at least read the first page.
On page 3: “Despite the public speculation on these questions, in our view, there is no direct evidence that proves Hans
cheated at the September 4, 2022 game with Magnus, or proves that he has cheated in other OTB games
in the past.”
(I missed that OTB means on the board).
But regardless, there is no concrete proof as you are suggesting, the report is speculation based on other player styles. As they say themselves, it’s very difficult to know whether younger players may have learnt chess playing against AI and developed styles to match that.
But regardless, there is no concrete proof as you are suggesting, the report is speculation based on other player styles. As they say themselves, it’s very difficult to know whether younger players may have learnt chess playing against AI and developed styles to match that.
This doesn’t make it less ridiculous to claim the report contains no evidence of Hans cheating more frequently and more recently than he admitted. It’s not definitive proof, but it’s pretty darn likely. That’s the neat thing about statistics: even if you can’t prove a single case definitively, you can make likely inferences.
He admitted to cheating online when he was a child. Magnus is clearly just salty someone younger is better than him and is trying to humiliate him to hide his own embarrassment.
Yes, after which it was proven that he cheated later than he admitted and more often than he admitted.
Can you link to that please, it says the opposite in the article?
It’s mentioned in the chess.com report: https://www.chess.com/blog/CHESScom/hans-niemann-report
It says in the report there is no evidence of him cheating at all, how is this proven?
The first page of the report literally states: “We present evidence in this report that Hans likely cheated online much more than his public statements suggest”, and you’re trying to tell me that the report says there is no evidence of cheating at all?
Did you not open the link? Or are you Hans himself? If you’re trying to deny allegations, at least read the first page.
Yep, I am Hans, well foiled.
On page 3: “Despite the public speculation on these questions, in our view, there is no direct evidence that proves Hans cheated at the September 4, 2022 game with Magnus, or proves that he has cheated in other OTB games in the past.”
(I missed that OTB means on the board).
But regardless, there is no concrete proof as you are suggesting, the report is speculation based on other player styles. As they say themselves, it’s very difficult to know whether younger players may have learnt chess playing against AI and developed styles to match that.
This doesn’t make it less ridiculous to claim the report contains no evidence of Hans cheating more frequently and more recently than he admitted. It’s not definitive proof, but it’s pretty darn likely. That’s the neat thing about statistics: even if you can’t prove a single case definitively, you can make likely inferences.
You said:
“Yes, after which it was proven that he cheated later than he admitted and more often than he admitted.”
This is what I am disputing. It hasn’t been proved.