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.
They state:
Consistent with the letter we sent Hans privately on September 8, 2022, we are prepared to show within
this report that he, in fact, appears to have cheated against multiple opponents in Chess.com prize events
(beyond the Titled Tuesday event that Hans admitted to having cheated in when he was 12), Speed Chess
Championship Qualifiers, and the PRO Chess League. We also have evidence that he appears to have
cheated in sets of rated games on Chess.com against highly-rated, well-known figures in the chess
community, some of which he streamed online. These findings contradict Hans’ public statements.
I’m sure you’ll understand that I trust chess.com a lot more than you.
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.
They state:
I’m sure you’ll understand that I trust chess.com a lot more than you.
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.
If chess.com feels safe enough to use confident language, I do too.
They aren’t…