Let me get this straight, your title is asking for a comparison of the following based on prima facie evidence:
Danny Rensch, IM incentivised to popularise a profit focussed conglomerate, which is itself incentivised to create scandalous narratives to increase profitability, with no scientific or mathematical education, who has said that he will not show his circumstantial evidence calculations even if in the strange event they are indisputable,
versus,
Prof Ken Regan, tenured so as to be unbiased of personal financial motivations, with the use of one of the worlds most powerful super-computers, an IM with a doctorate from Oxford in the specific field of applicable within computational mathematical analysis, and the most respected person in the world on this exact field, who has an unprecedented track record of accuracy, correctly predicted completely unexpected cheaters who were subsequently proven to be cheating on every currently resolved occasion, who has detailed his analysis methods in the public domain and put it to peer review.
If your title is about who is doing their job better, that's a different story altogether:
the explanation of mathematical understanding of the Prof Ken Regan's method seems to be of a caliber higher than current state-of-the-art, in terms of predictive modelling for detecting cheating across sports,
however Rensch's explanation seems to be at a very high level of public relations understanding, using how some people may be persuaded by appeals of popular figures, social media targeting, ridiculing applicable facts, marginalising truth based findings, attacks on the opponents character, appeal to sport fanaticism, patriotism and other popularist techniques.
Where the truth lies, is still a roll of the dice currently without empirical evidence.
Danny Rensch, IM incentivised to popularise a profit focussed conglomerate, which is itself incentivised to create scandalous narratives to increase profitability, with no scientific or mathematical education, who has said that he will not show his circumstantial evidence calculations even if in the strange event they are indisputable,
versus,
Prof Ken Regan, tenured so as to be unbiased of personal financial motivations, with the use of one of the worlds most powerful super-computers, an IM with a doctorate from Oxford in the specific field of applicable within computational mathematical analysis, and the most respected person in the world on this exact field, who has an unprecedented track record of accuracy, correctly predicted completely unexpected cheaters who were subsequently proven to be cheating on every currently resolved occasion, who has detailed his analysis methods in the public domain and put it to peer review.
If your title is about who is doing their job better, that's a different story altogether:
the explanation of mathematical understanding of the Prof Ken Regan's method seems to be of a caliber higher than current state-of-the-art, in terms of predictive modelling for detecting cheating across sports,
however Rensch's explanation seems to be at a very high level of public relations understanding, using how some people may be persuaded by appeals of popular figures, social media targeting, ridiculing applicable facts, marginalising truth based findings, attacks on the opponents character, appeal to sport fanaticism, patriotism and other popularist techniques.
Where the truth lies, is still a roll of the dice currently without empirical evidence.
@Nomoreusernames
That's a pretty creative description of the current situation. C.com is indeed "profit focused", and their profit is heavily dependent on the good reputation of the platform. So, their focus on profit, as you like to put it, will inevitably motivate them to do their best to avoid jeopardizing their reputation with unfounded accusations. Besides, your post seems to suggest that you're not aware of the fact that obviously Danny Rensch doesn't work alone, and he has a team of experts to rely on, who had an education appropriate for their task.
To say that that c.com would just randomly blame someone of cheating for the sake of self-advertisement is complete nonsense.
That's a pretty creative description of the current situation. C.com is indeed "profit focused", and their profit is heavily dependent on the good reputation of the platform. So, their focus on profit, as you like to put it, will inevitably motivate them to do their best to avoid jeopardizing their reputation with unfounded accusations. Besides, your post seems to suggest that you're not aware of the fact that obviously Danny Rensch doesn't work alone, and he has a team of experts to rely on, who had an education appropriate for their task.
To say that that c.com would just randomly blame someone of cheating for the sake of self-advertisement is complete nonsense.
@Nomoreusernames said in #42:
>
@esmiro said in #43:
> @Nomoreusernames
>
> That's a pretty creative description of the current situation. C.com is indeed "profit focused", and their profit is heavily dependent on the good reputation of the platform. So, their focus on profit, as you like to put it, will inevitably motivate them to do their best to avoid jeopardizing their reputation with unfounded accusations. Besides, your post seems to suggest that you're not aware of the fact that obviously Danny Rensch doesn't work alone, and he has a team of experts to rely on, who had an education appropriate for their task.
>
> To say that that c.com would just randomly blame someone of cheating for the sake of self-advertisement is complete nonsense.
I did not say that they randomly blamed someone for cheating. The fact they decided to enter the fray at such an opportunistic time, is indicative of motivation. To maximise their profit, their strategic focus should not be in getting the truth out there, but rather in positioning their company within the market income structure. They have just purchased a $82M dollar company, so they are "big business" whether you/they like it or not. One thing big business is compelled to excel at, is market positioning whether or not their claims have any basis. For example, if once tobacco was shown to be unhealthy, people lost trust in tobacco advertising, market positioning within that confusion made some people extravagantly wealthy. The motivation is unquestionable, what remains to be seen is whether it is intentional. Magnus will clear that up on Monday ;-)
>
@esmiro said in #43:
> @Nomoreusernames
>
> That's a pretty creative description of the current situation. C.com is indeed "profit focused", and their profit is heavily dependent on the good reputation of the platform. So, their focus on profit, as you like to put it, will inevitably motivate them to do their best to avoid jeopardizing their reputation with unfounded accusations. Besides, your post seems to suggest that you're not aware of the fact that obviously Danny Rensch doesn't work alone, and he has a team of experts to rely on, who had an education appropriate for their task.
>
> To say that that c.com would just randomly blame someone of cheating for the sake of self-advertisement is complete nonsense.
I did not say that they randomly blamed someone for cheating. The fact they decided to enter the fray at such an opportunistic time, is indicative of motivation. To maximise their profit, their strategic focus should not be in getting the truth out there, but rather in positioning their company within the market income structure. They have just purchased a $82M dollar company, so they are "big business" whether you/they like it or not. One thing big business is compelled to excel at, is market positioning whether or not their claims have any basis. For example, if once tobacco was shown to be unhealthy, people lost trust in tobacco advertising, market positioning within that confusion made some people extravagantly wealthy. The motivation is unquestionable, what remains to be seen is whether it is intentional. Magnus will clear that up on Monday ;-)
@odoaker2015 said in #39:
> Well, casinos host games of chance and there is always a chance of winning money. However, this is only comparable to chess to a very limited extent. There is no connection between chess and gambling. And if there is, it's pretty small.
> I don't think chess can be compared to poker, blackjack and other card games.
Human nature is unaffected by the games being played.
> Well, casinos host games of chance and there is always a chance of winning money. However, this is only comparable to chess to a very limited extent. There is no connection between chess and gambling. And if there is, it's pretty small.
> I don't think chess can be compared to poker, blackjack and other card games.
Human nature is unaffected by the games being played.
But c.com does DNA scans ... www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIMIfjYNZ1A
@esmiro said in #40:
> If they proved anything in a conclusive way, they wouldn't be CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence.... Jesus, just google the word once and for all.
>
> Also, not sure why you'd write facts in quotation marks. They're facts, as opposed to opinions, it's not a strange or unusual word.
So, circumstantial evidence is translated in German "Indizienbeweise". Quote: "Circumstantial evidence in court proceedings is given when the existence of one or more facts (indicative facts) can be used to logically infer the main fact to be proven.[1] The indicative facts must be fully proven in the process, i.e. they must be certain for the conviction of the court. All conventional evidence serves as evidence." (Translated from German). Source: de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indizienbeweis
But you can't logically conclude from your points that Niemann cheated at the Sinquefield Cup. I've been trying to make that clear to you all along. Therefore, your points are not circumstantial evidence. Especially since there is currently no indication that Niemann cheated at the Sinquefield Cup what so ever. And your so-called circumstantial evidence were already refuted in #35. I already wrote that.
And the fact that Niemann cheated in online chess does not logically mean that Niemann cheated at the Sinquefield Cup. Cheating in otb chess is in no way comparable to cheating in online chess. These are fundamentally different things. Therefore cheating in online chess cannot be transferred 1 to 1 to cheating in otb chess.
> If they proved anything in a conclusive way, they wouldn't be CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence.... Jesus, just google the word once and for all.
>
> Also, not sure why you'd write facts in quotation marks. They're facts, as opposed to opinions, it's not a strange or unusual word.
So, circumstantial evidence is translated in German "Indizienbeweise". Quote: "Circumstantial evidence in court proceedings is given when the existence of one or more facts (indicative facts) can be used to logically infer the main fact to be proven.[1] The indicative facts must be fully proven in the process, i.e. they must be certain for the conviction of the court. All conventional evidence serves as evidence." (Translated from German). Source: de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indizienbeweis
But you can't logically conclude from your points that Niemann cheated at the Sinquefield Cup. I've been trying to make that clear to you all along. Therefore, your points are not circumstantial evidence. Especially since there is currently no indication that Niemann cheated at the Sinquefield Cup what so ever. And your so-called circumstantial evidence were already refuted in #35. I already wrote that.
And the fact that Niemann cheated in online chess does not logically mean that Niemann cheated at the Sinquefield Cup. Cheating in otb chess is in no way comparable to cheating in online chess. These are fundamentally different things. Therefore cheating in online chess cannot be transferred 1 to 1 to cheating in otb chess.
@esmiro said in #34:
> For example, he made a sacrifice that Firouzja called "insane", the engine considered it a good move indeed, but Niemann could absolutely not provide the right reasons for why it works. He said "there's no need to analyze" (lol ! ) and then he just proposed wrong lines when the interviewer followed up.
This may be out of character for a SuperGM, but I don't find it particularly shocking. I have plenty of games where I smelled that the enemy king was weak and went for sacrifices to attack without having properly calculated lines. Quite often I'm wrong and end up worse, or I'm wrong but my opponent crumbles against the attack. But sometimes, whether I manage to convert or not, the computer analysis afterwards confirm that there was a winning attack and my initial intuition was right.
Carlsen himself said something to the effect that most of the time he calculates to confirm that the move his intuition suggests is correct. Sometimes it isn't, and that's the point of calculating concrete lines and ideas, but it's frequent that a move played after several minutes of thought was intuited as good within a few seconds.
> For example, he made a sacrifice that Firouzja called "insane", the engine considered it a good move indeed, but Niemann could absolutely not provide the right reasons for why it works. He said "there's no need to analyze" (lol ! ) and then he just proposed wrong lines when the interviewer followed up.
This may be out of character for a SuperGM, but I don't find it particularly shocking. I have plenty of games where I smelled that the enemy king was weak and went for sacrifices to attack without having properly calculated lines. Quite often I'm wrong and end up worse, or I'm wrong but my opponent crumbles against the attack. But sometimes, whether I manage to convert or not, the computer analysis afterwards confirm that there was a winning attack and my initial intuition was right.
Carlsen himself said something to the effect that most of the time he calculates to confirm that the move his intuition suggests is correct. Sometimes it isn't, and that's the point of calculating concrete lines and ideas, but it's frequent that a move played after several minutes of thought was intuited as good within a few seconds.
@IndigoEngun
As you said at the beginning of the post, for a GM of that level it usually doesn't work that way, especially in classical. You and I may do like that in a rapid game on lichess. Just follow the intuition without going too in depth. But a GM is not going to make a sacrifice and then "we'll see".
As you said at the beginning of the post, for a GM of that level it usually doesn't work that way, especially in classical. You and I may do like that in a rapid game on lichess. Just follow the intuition without going too in depth. But a GM is not going to make a sacrifice and then "we'll see".
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.