"Most incriminating evidence that Hans cheated" video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfPzUgzrOcQ

For me, this video started to get real interesting around the 11:45 mark... But it's worth watching the whole thing.

At 11:45 , 100% engine correlation in a Hans Niemann game

And he gets 100% engine correlation in multiple games.

This is basically a statistical impossibility in the short amount of time that he has done it

Now I'm starting to feel convinced... This is pretty good evidence.

Weren't some of the games with 100 from 2021?

did chessbase not say that this tool should NOT be used to prove cheating? I believe there was a Reddit post which completely and utterly debunked this...

Magnus has also had 100% correlation?

Statistical improvability? Laughable

And what kind of name is Moke anyway.  That's suspicious in itself, that's kind of like having a name like Borislav.  Definitely guilty just based on that.

And what kind of name is Moke anyway.  That's suspicious in itself, that's kind of like having a name like Borislav.  Definitely guilty just based on that.

Borislav Moke, the new GOAT

If you actually bothered to watch the video, she gets into the odds of it.

It's how OFTEN Hans has done it - much more than once - and in how SHORT amount of time he has done it.  No Magnus hasn't done it like Hans has and neither has anyone else in history.

What Hans is doing right now is showing he's either probably the best chess player in history, OR he's cheating.

Statistical improvability? Laughable

If you actually bothered to watch the video, she gets into the odds of it.

and she's completely wrong, as many people with a background in statistics have already pointed out. this some serious trump tactics, repeat the same lies and 'alternative facts' over and over again even though your bs has been debunked numerous times.

You sound like a crazy insane person and I obviously can't have a discussion with you.

Statistical improvability? Laughable

If you actually bothered to watch the video, she gets into the odds of it.

and she's completely wrong, as many people with a background in statistics have already pointed out. this some serious trump tactics, repeat the same lies and 'alternative facts' over and over again even though your bs has been debunked numerous times.

You sound like a crazy insane person and I obviously can't have a discussion with you.

and yet you still had to reply to me with the above in an attempt to strengthen your point in our discussion by calling me 'crazy insanse' (what made you add 'insane' to your statement? you thought 'crazy insane' is much stronger than 'crazy'?).

in other words, you are an idiot not even capable of reflecting on what you do vs. what you write.

100% is too suspicious. This means that whoever used the computer for Hans, he/she used the exact same engine calculating at the exact same depth as this lady. What are the chances of that? Approximately nothing.

I would say that at first blush this video looks like a scam.

 Some loser on here use Trump as exemple of losing, Loser always loser 

98% = Sebastien Feller in Paris 2010

72-75% = Correspondence World Champion (pre engine era)

72% = Bobby Fischer during his 20 consecutive winning streak

70% = Magnus Carlsen at his best

69% = Garry Kasparov at his best

62-67% = Super GM's

57-62% = Normal GMs

73% = Hans Niemann for 5 tournaments in a row

73% for fire tournaments in a row, exactly.

Now someone can make the argument Hans is actually a genius and is really a great chess player...

But can anyone really possibly believe that Hans Niemann, right now, is better than Magnus Carlsen, Kasparov, or Fischer at their height, when compared to their competition?

I don't believe it.  The odds of him being a cheater are much, much higher.  And there's already devices that have been created that Hans can put inside of himself that will correspond with stockfish that will send him vibrations and patterns he can recognize that will tell him the moves.

THAT device already exists.  It's not hypothetical.

Which one is more believable?

There are an awful lot of "uh ohs" in there. 

That's a good question. What is more believable. Not counting biases and loyalties. But just the evidence alone, nothing else. 

I would say preponderance of evidence, yes.

Beyond a reasonable doubt, yes.

100% proof, no. 

For 100% proof, his butt needs to be searched.  That's the problem, because that's how he's cheating.  And he knows his butt isn't going to be searched.  That's the big dilemma.