Magnus Carlsen 26th Sept. statement

If Magnus Carlsen tomorrow, does say that he may have been misguided, do you think he deserves respect for that in the same way Niemann earned respect for apologising for cheating previously, or do you think the popular opinion will be that he is unforgivable?

I personally think that it is understandable for him to have made the mistake given the opinions flying around and chess.con potential backing of the narrative.

If, on the other hand, he continues to allege cheating without substantive evidence, do you think it is acceptable to treat chess this way?

I don't think he's going to accuse anyone because he's got no proof and could get sued for libel.

What he may say is something along the lines of cheaters with a past record such as Hans are a disgrace and he would not play against such players because it brings down the sport's rep, or something like that.

Im just guessing really.

Why are you so sure that he's gonna back down

@Cedur216 said in #3:
>
I am not 100% sure, but there is a sneaking suspicion, and he has definitely left the door open. He did actually praise Hans Niemann and his trainer for his good play in the previous statement. I know we expect he was being sarcastic, but there is a chance that he suspects that Niemann has found a new training methodology, and Prof. Regan has asserted that the methodology exists.

You see, finding the most impactful ridiculous computer moves in an opening or subsequent position, also has the biggest return for investment (on training) over the board. These moves are precisely the moves that other GMs don't understand and write off. Top GMs are continually saying that they don't understand them, so if you can find them and figure out why they exist, you have a massive advantage in the openings you study in this way (think Be2 v Aronian and e5 v Dominguez).

It is not implausible that Magnus could have rationally realised this, as he is after all one of the worlds most brilliant strategists.

When will he make his statement?

Meanwhile, FIDE has published a statement of their own. Be it a completely useless and meaningless one.

www.fide.com/news/1999

@PxJ said in #5:
> When will he make his statement?

Good point, I have heard that he will make a statement tomorrow, but he actually said, "I hope to say a little more after the tournament."

Thanks for pointing that out and apologies if he doesn't make a statement tomorrow, I am not able to fix the title for some reason!

@Nomoreusernames said in #4:
> He did actually praise Hans Niemann and his trainer for his good play in the previous statement.

You are aware that Dlugy isn't Niemann's trainer I hope.

I think the question that Caruana posed is relevant--Has Ken Regan examined the games in which Hans cheated online, from the chess.com database? that might help demonstrate the usefulness of his algorithm.

@pretzelattack1 said in #9:
> I think the question that Caruana posed is relevant--Has Ken Regan examined the games in which Hans cheated online, from the chess.com database? that might help demonstrate the usefulness of his algorithm.

Agreed. The fact that his algorithm didn't find an indication of cheating would only be interesting if the algorithm is shown to be able to expose cheating in the first place.

As far as I know, this hasn't happened yet. And I must say: I'm very suspicious of any cheat detection algorithm that has no problem with being publicly exposed. Either the algorithm is completely useless, or it is effectively helping cheaters cheat.