Re:Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes
by Andrew_nenakhov on Tuesday September 06, 2022 @03:58PM
(#32742438)
> The word you want is conclusive.
No. The word I want is indicative, as in "Serving to indicate; Pointing out; bringing to notice; giving intimation or knowledge of something not visible or obvious".
Giving "imprecise" analysis at the Q&A session does not mean anything at all, and of course it can't be used as an evidence of any kind that a cheating took place.
Re:Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes
by FreakLegion on Thursday September 08, 2022 @03:23AM
(#32762386)
If that's really the word you want then you're simply wrong. It can be and is being used as evidence that Hans may have cheated, just like his history of online cheating is being used, but nobody serious who's commented (Hikaru, Eric Hansen etc.) thinks the evidence is conclusive. It's evidence, but it's not proof.
There are two answers to this question. One is obvious and is the subject of the article we're all responding to: Cheating. Some people think he's cheating.
The other is that nobody actually thinks Hans is terrible. Even if he cheated he's still at least a 2500-level player and perfectly capable of taking the odd game off of super GMs. Being very good and cheating aren't mutually exclusive possibilities.
> that's not indicative at all
The word you want is conclusive. The interviews are certainly indicative, but they're very far from conclusive.