Was it an anal probe? Because that’s the only one kind I would trust in this situation
Haha, beat me to it.
They caught the rat under his hat, and sure enough it squealed.
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.
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.
Magnus is a pos who cant admit defeat so he needs to accuse his opponents of cheating without evidence.
Magnus has lost plenty of games, and he never accused anyone after losing those.
So why make a big stink over Niemann all of a sudden then?
They may have been online, but he still used the vibrating buttplug.
