• earmuff@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    11 months ago

    Statistics only really work, if you have a reasonable amount of data at hand. Obviously it was easy for the Chess.com games to find the problematic games. But Niemann only played in 13 over-the-board tournaments.

    Carlsen and another (anonymous) GM said some games were suspicious. For me, this is still more accurate than the statistics they used.

      • CallumWells
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        When looking at it after the fact you’re actively looking to find the problems and using analytical tools to help you figure it out. While the match is happening few people will be looking to find evidence of cheating based on analysis. Sure, you can have tools actively looking at all times, but that takes extra work, which means extra money.

        It’s like when you’re looking at a bush; only when you’re actively trying to count the branches will you actually find how many there are. Only the blatant weird configurations like there being only 1 to 10 branches or so will be that obvious.

  • johan@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Headline writers are the worst, they so often misrepresent the article. I don’t mean you OP, but in this case a headline writer at CNN (the actual author of the article most likely did not write the headline). From the article:

    “…the ultimate conclusion that GM Niemann had not made himself guilty of over-the-board cheating” and “there was no “statistical evidence to support GM Niemann cheating in over the-board games””.

    The headline implies they found he didn’t cheat, whereas it should probably say they didn’t find (enough) evidence he cheated. It’s a subtle difference, but with big implications.

    Niemann is a scumbag. Sure he’s innocent until proven guilty, but he’s already been proven to be a cheater and a liar.