You know appeal to authorities are not always logical fallacies right? It can be, but it's not a "haha you quoted someone therefore you are wrong". Heavily invested and repeatedly successful individuals can be great sources for information on heuristic endevours.
> magnus lost to him and is claiming cheating which is clearly a huge conflict of interest
Except it is verifiable that he talked about leaving the tournament before even playing him. Therefore his suspicions and problems are older than the result. Also you might be overestimating how much chess players care about losing at that level. They play constantly against each other and most have pretty equal head to heads. Magnus usually is a bit ahead like 5 victories to 3 and then like 15 draws against most of them. Losing once against Hans is not gonna make someone cause all of this.
> His opinion should be heavily scrutinized.
By FIDE sure, not by people online whose knowledge of chess comes from the first Harry potter movie.
Most things that are called that are not.
This would be a fallacy:
1. World’s best player (to have ever lived)
2. Therefore his opinion is correct
This on the other hand is not a fallacy:
1. Ditto
2. Therefore one should take his opinions on this matter extremely seriously
It’s not fallacious since it doesn’t pretend or present itself as a derived fact.
Humans are mentally fragile.
We're not talking commodity expertise, this person is literally the best to have ever done his craft. And has show the ability to "legitly" lose to others.
Just because magnus is a world class expert at chess does not necessarily mean he is good at detecting a cheater. Furthermore I would argue that taking an experts “gut feeling” as evidence is a terrible argument.
The phrase you used has a well-known meaning. If that wasn't what you meant, then you shouldn't have used it.
Magnus may not be great at spotting a cheater, but his expertise in this game suggests that he could be, and adding that fact to an existing body of evidence isn't even close to committing an appeal to authority fallacy. To bring up that fallacy here is just lazy thinking.
OP:
> He is widely regarded as the greatest chess player to have ever lived. His opinion on what it takes to play high level chess is worth taking extremely seriously.
- A: Magnus is a great chess player
- B: Magnus claims cheating because "gut"
- C: Therefore Hans cheated
The argument rests solely on the fact that since he's an expert his word should be taken "seriously," heavily implying that Hans cheated.
> To bring up that fallacy here is just lazy thinking.
I disagree and you're not going to convince me otherwise with statements like this one.
As for his "gut" feeling being part of the argument, you're not quoting anyone here; you are again intentionally misrepresenting what others are saying.
If you're going to analyze an argument someone else is making, be honest about it or there is really no point in discussing anything with you.
you're not quoting anyone here; you are again intentionally misrepresenting what others are saying.
If you're going to analyze an argument someone else is making, be honest about it or there is really no point in discussing anything with you.
He absolutely does. People forget because he so rarely loses a classical game. But he almost always shows petulant behavior when he loses an important classical game.
Is this a joke? He literally does have a history of being a sore loser.
By whom exactly? He has a large fan club on the internet and uses modern social network very well but I don’t think there is a wide consensus that he is better than Kasparov at his prime. I personally don’t believe him to be better than neither Fischer nor Botvinnik but that’s only me and is impossible to verify anyway.
And no, his opinion against his own opponent after suffering an embarrassing defeat poorly playing with white doesn’t hold much credibility.
Maybe a better metric would be running both players games through a computer to see the "%best move" metric?
Due to computers being common place now, Magnus would absolutely destroy that metric compared to older eras. Chess has changed a ton in the past 10-20 years due to computers, being able to analyse lines. And now Magnus is known for playing "Ai Lines" which is the kind of stuff the new ML models do which tends to be pretty bonkers and un-human but gets long term results.
I lost all respect I had for him. If you don't have foolproof evidence, you take your loss like a professional.
This is a hilariously inaccurate description of magnus. He is widely regarded as the greatest chess player to have ever lived. His opinion on what it takes to play high level chess is worth taking extremely seriously. It's not like he has a history of temper tantrums or petulant behavior; he's an upstanding custodian of the mantle of world champion.