This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
For what it's worth, while Magnus didn't provide anything besides "just a hunch", Chess.com ruled that Hans most likely cheated more than 100 times in a 72-page report (52 of which is just the appendix).
Chesscom published the report based on cheating from over 2 years ago, but the most recent game that prompted all these cheating accusations was from last month. So far there's no evidence that cheating occurred in that game other than character evidence of him cheating online 2 years ago.
This is almost certainly chesscom trying, and succeeding, to cover for their questionable decision of re-banning Hans, most likely motivated by their financial stake in the reputation of Magnus. Here's the timeline, and you can double check this by reading the report you linked:
Up to 2020-08-11: Hans was cheating on chesscom. He cheated in 100 games, including prized tournaments.
2020-08-12: Hans was banned by chesscom and given an ultimatum to confess to cheating so he can recreate his account. He confessed, and chesscom let him create a new account
2020-08-12 to 2022-09: No evidence of cheating on Hans' new account was detected by chesscom, in the 4000 games played in the interval.
2022-09: Hans won over Magnus, who then implicitly accused him of cheating.
2022-09: Chesscom banned Hans for cheating.
NO EVIDENCE!
There is absolutely evidence. Chess.com even cites some it, while saying that they say, in their own opinion, it is not enough to ban him from OTB chess (which they do not moderate anyway).
More options
Context Copy link
When it's difficult to detect cheating in a sport, I think it's fair to cast suspicion on someone who became 'best in the world' but has been caught and literally admitted to cheating quite a few times.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
the more pertinent question is did he cheat more than the average online player . If someone plays thousands of games, then probably inevitably some of of the games are going to look suspicious . IF chess. com ran such a detailed audit on dozens of other players, would there also be suspicious activity? And if chess. com knew he cheated 100 times, why wouldn't they ban him on the 5th time or something. So it's like they compiled this huge dossier to make him look bad , even though they suspected he had cheated in the past and didn't do anything, which makes chess .com also look bad? Also, does not answer the question of over the table cheating, which is what my OP mentioned.
the report is a joke . it does not even address how he cheated in those 100 games. only that his strength score was high.
When you are regularly winning prize money you should expect higher scrutiny than that.
Yes, and they do. You say you read the report so I do not know how you missed this.
Because it was found on looking back. Also, when your job is "catching cheaters" you absolutely do not tell someone the instant they trip an alarm.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link