• FooBarrington@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

          • Lazylazycat@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • Lazylazycat@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.