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.
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…