[a9entroy]

That's not a complete analogy tho. Everyone knows Hans cheated in the past. But Magnus is going beyond that and saying that Hans cheated in the over-the-board game against him.

Coming back to your analogy. So now imagine this person suddenly has a new shiny car but he also has the Title and registration for that car. Not only that, someone reported him to the cops and the cops said that the car is not stolen. He also has income tax returns that show that he has a legit source of income. Would it be natural for a reasonable person to assume that theft is the most likely explanation?

[umanwizard]

I don’t understand your analogy. There’s no evidence that Hans didn’t cheat in the game against Magnus. This isn’t Hans’s fault, as it’s hard to imagine what such evidence could even be possible, but the fact remains that there’s nothing comparable to having the title, etc. to a car.

[a9entroy]

He has been caught of cheating online. Where you just open a new window and follow engine moves. Or you have a friend sitting beside you giving engine moves.

In his over-the-board match, he didn't have a laptop. He didn't have a friend giving him moves. He didn't have any communication device. He was mostly looking at the board or into the distance while he was playing. He was scanned with a metal detector. So we know he definitely didn't use any of his earlier methods of cheating if he even did cheat. Carlsen's statement confirms that his preparation wasn't leaked or hacked. I count these as evidence of him not cheating with his usual MO.

But in your analogy, it's completely possible for the guy to have used his usual MO to steal the new shiny car.

Now of course I'm not saying he didn't cheat. It's possible he used some other sophisticated method of cheating. But it would not be natural for a reasonable person to assume that theft using his usual MO is the most likely explanation.

[otherme123]

There is a video explaining how Hans played ten 100% games (his moves matching 100% moves of what an engine would do) in the last three years and a lot of >90%:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfPzUgzrOcQ

For reference, Magnus at his best does a 70% match with engines, and between 70-75% is historically enough to earn you the World Championship. This guy is consistently over 80%, come on.

Reminds me of Lance Armstrong: a mediocre 90's cyclist that suddenly becomes the best in history, in such dominant fashion that I think everybody suspected something, but without proof you cannot do nothing about it.

[goatlover]

And here's Hikaru's video examining the Yosha's evidence by comparing it to games he and other GMs have played. There's definitely something going on with Hans having so many >90% games, when the other higher rated players struggle to 80%.

https://youtu.be/qjtbXxA8Fcc

[otherme123]

Exactly. And Nakamura takes in that video the position that 100% is the perfect game. It's not. 100% means you made exactly the same moves an engine would made, but engines sometimes have two best moves with only a minimal preference for one of them. Those decisions are the ones that made Nakamura best games "mere" 80'ish%, in less important moves he did the second bests according to the engine.

If you are a top player and cheat, you would only require a couple of decisions here an there in complex positions, and the games would be still at roughly 75%. But if you don't fully understand the line, or you're not in the zone, and the engine suggest something crazy (but winner) you need all the following moves.

[nonethewiser]

Yet Magnus decided to play him. Only after losing he decided not to. Which means it's not simply about his past.

[registeredcorn]

>Would it be natural for a reasonable person to assume that theft is the most likely explanation?

Based off of their previous behavior of stealing cars? Yes it would absolutely be the most likely explanation. Under such a circumstance, it would simply mean that their skill at stealing cars has improved to now include forging documents, and possibly bribing police.

Given their passed behavior, the objective is no longer for you to prove guilt, but for them to prove innocence. It is illogical to continually approach accusations of theft, or cheating, under a neutral assumption when a pattern emerges.

If you own ten chickens and come out one morning to nine, and a pile of feathers next to a fox, you have your culprit. Should you wander around demanding to see feathers each time another chicken goes missing before you blame the fox sleeping at your doorstep? The fox is there. There are fewer chickens. The easiest answer is the most likely.

There is enough certainty for the alternative to be inconsequential.

[lupire]

Please don't make blatantly false statements.