Do you think Hans Is cheating?

You can go through all the events he has played and look at the CPL as well as the performance rating. Besides, the FIDE page shows all the rated tournaments. And there is a notable difference.

That is in dispute, actually.  The person who made the "corrections" added back in the FIDE unrated games the first analysis had skipped over...but if you are analyzing to determine whether someone is cheating to increase their rating, wouldn't you want to eliminate the games that do not count for rating?

Especially after the poor analysis, I like the Turing Test idea. Have nine 2700 players plus Hans do anonymous one on one analysis.

For practical reasons it wont happen, and the results wouldn't prove anything, but it would be fun.

Yeah, we can already agree that if he cheated, he didn't cheat in every tournament... and now it becomes a mess because there's nothing to say he will never cheat in an unrated event, or always cheat in rated events.

It's also a mess because, whether he cheats or not, it's reasonable to believe he's roughly GM strength, so in the worst case we're trying to detect between something like 2500 and 2700 which should be nearly impossible if the cheater is careful.

Yes, the fact that cherry-picked data can show he consistently preformed one way in one sub-group and consistently preformed a different way in a different sub-group is suspicious... but the obvious issue is not every tournament is included.

I think too, that it's worth noting that there will always be a new way to cheat. New tech, new ideas, new systems. Known ways of cheating are easier to block, which are then followed by the creation of new ways. If you want to be on the cutting edge of cheating it's probably always possible. 

im better than carlson, I can beat him sooo easily

I think Carlsen also didn’t like Han’s trash talking afterward if you want to call that trash talking. i don’t see anything wrong with what Hans said about carlsen feeling embarrassed losing to him.  He’s being refreshingly candid instead of saying the same boring polite things all others say.

Yes, but a relatively poor 19 year old with no connections to e.g. the tech industry is unlikely to be on the cutting edge.

In contrast, IIRC, during Michael de la Mesa's rapid rise and suspicion, he was finishing up his electrical engineering degree at a pricy university.

I'm not saying Hans is definitely innocent, just that it's hard to imagine he has an elaborate/high tech/expensive team of cheaters working with him.

He better come out soon and say something. This continued silence is damaging to the whole chess world. 

Yeah, I'm not saying he is, I'm just saying there's always a way to cheat. 

If you left a party, said you could not talk about why you were leaving, and the people remaining at the party started assuming you left because your girlfriend was cheating on you, is it your fault they started that rumor?  Do you have any obligation to refute that rumor?  If you did try to refute it, the most obvious follow-up would be "Well, why did you leave then?"  Since you stated initially you could not talk about it, who would believe you when you said "I simply cannot talk about it, but the reason you came up with is not it."

if you’re a gentleman you should refute the rumor that your girlfriend was cheating on you. If you don’t, no woman in their right mind wants to date you.

Whatever his reason was for withdrawing, Peter Heine Nielsen (in last week's Chicken Chess Club Podcast) seemed to indicate that he thought Magnus was going to withdraw after the game with Hans (though he was cagey as to the reason).  In fact, he admitted he was so confident in that thinking that he did not even do any preparation for the round 4 game.  So, whatever Magnus' reasons were, Peter seemed to know about them during round 3 at least.

Not entirely accurate.  The ones categorized as "mislabeled" often only had DGT boards for the top boards and Hans was not playing on those in those events.  But yes, it was missing non-USCF rated events as they were looking specifically at events that could be easily compared.

Not saying the breakdown is evidence of cheating, but calling the dataset "garbage" is just as inaccurate as saying it proves he was cheating.

If I recall correctly, de la Maza had already finished his PhD in electrical and computer engineering at MIT when he started his chess improvement journey.  He was basically unemployed for 2 years and did nothing but chess during that time (i.e. no school either) and was able to raise his rating from ~1300 to 2000.  The cheating rumors did not start regarding him until about 5 years after he stopped playing chess, and none of them have any "meat" to them.

Look up.  The 767 flying over your head is the point you missed.

Thank you, 18:32 is the time stamp.

There are photos purportedly showing him during the tournament he broke 2000 and won his money (I think it was $10,000). It was summer and everyone was in t-shirts except him, who was wearing a puffy jacket.

Plus his book was tripe and he immediately retired. I'm not saying he cheated but I think it's suspicious.

Entry level clandestine earbuds designed specifically for cheating start at $400.  Earbuds plus hidden feedback buttons for a remote partner are $600.  I already mentioned on one of these threads that companies will build custom solutions for $2,000-$3,000.  I will not post any links here, obviously.  But if you know me, I will PM you where to take a look at them.

It's a small investment, really.