I didn't watch the podcast, just read the Chessdom summary which doesn't give new insights in my opinion. The key question is whether admitted Internet cheating by Niemann years ago can be discarded as a "youth sin", or - as Caruana says, "(still) shows a facet of his personality". Anyone's choice, no-one has to agree with Caruana's opinion just because he is an "American great".
Story behind the clickbait title "I would take Regan's analysis with a large grain of salt": Caruana had "absolute certainty" that someone (anonymous but "high-profile") cheated, Regan's method couldn't confirm it - "exonerate" would mean "not enough evidence", not the unattainable "proven innocent". Regan is wrong because Caruana is right, and Caruana is right because he says so?! Chessdom in the first paragraph ("personal experience with a cheater") believes Caruana.
Caruana kinda dismisses Regan as "a statistician ... a professor", Ken is also a decent chess player .... . His method is publicly documented, both at a level understandable to many and (in peer-reviewed scientific papers) with full mathematical details. For a given reason, I had delved deeply into it 1 1/2 years ago, exchanging emails and data with Ken Regan. The chess.com method is considered superior by Caruana (who is "we" in "from what we understand"?) - for the time being, until he has a similar experience on chess.com? It's undisclosed, rather OK as long as it only concerns their site, but here no longer - for Niemann, it should be submitted to external scrutiny. FIDE uses the transparent Regan method.
Latest twist: FIDE will (or "may") address the case. The statement by Dvorkovich includes "when the adequate initial proof is provided, and all parties involved disclose the information at their disposal". "All parties" probably means Carlsen and chess.com, which information "at his disposal" could Niemann provide? Not clear what happens if no information is provided, because it doesn't exist or because chess.com won't disclose it. Nothing, or consequences for Carlsen? Other cases of cheating allegations without evidence (Topalov/Danailov, Mamedyarov, Zhukova and others) were addressed by the FIDE Ethics Commission, it should also be the case for a "Norwegian great"?!
If I was an active chess player, I would find this very discouraging. Regardless of Niemann, the main message I read into Caruana's comment is that except (I hope) at super GM level, cheating is already embedded and very difficult to detect. I wasn't sure from Ken Regan's reply how existing methods are going to deal with e.g. just being told when the position is critical. The thing I fear is a gradual encroachment of standards. There are going to be people who will think that being told when the position is critical isn't even really cheating: other people are doing it, and you still have to find the key move yourself. Levelling the playing field, in Lance Armstrong's obnoxious and self serving phrase.
I didn't watch the podcast, just read the Chessdom summary which doesn't give new insights in my opinion. The key question is whether admitted Internet cheating by Niemann years ago can be discarded as a "youth sin", or - as Caruana says, "(still) shows a facet of his personality". Anyone's choice, no-one has to agree with Caruana's opinion just because he is an "American great".
Story behind the clickbait title "I would take Regan's analysis with a large grain of salt": Caruana had "absolute certainty" that someone (anonymous but "high-profile") cheated, Regan's method couldn't confirm it - "exonerate" would mean "not enough evidence", not the unattainable "proven innocent". Regan is wrong because Caruana is right, and Caruana is right because he says so?! Chessdom in the first paragraph ("personal experience with a cheater") believes Caruana.
Caruana kinda dismisses Regan as "a statistician ... a professor", Ken is also a decent chess player .... . His method is publicly documented, both at a level understandable to many and (in peer-reviewed scientific papers) with full mathematical details. For a given reason, I had delved deeply into it 1 1/2 years ago, exchanging emails and data with Ken Regan. The chess.com method is considered superior by Caruana (who is "we" in "from what we understand"?) - for the time being, until he has a similar experience on chess.com? It's undisclosed, rather OK as long as it only concerns their site, but here no longer - for Niemann, it should be submitted to external scrutiny. FIDE uses the transparent Regan method.
Latest twist: FIDE will (or "may") address the case. The statement by Dvorkovich includes "when the adequate initial proof is provided, and all parties involved disclose the information at their disposal". "All parties" probably means Carlsen and chess.com, which information "at his disposal" could Niemann provide? Not clear what happens if no information is provided, because it doesn't exist or because chess.com won't disclose it. Nothing, or consequences for Carlsen? Other cases of cheating allegations without evidence (Topalov/Danailov, Mamedyarov, Zhukova and others) were addressed by the FIDE Ethics Commission, it should also be the case for a "Norwegian great"?!
If I was an active chess player, I would find this very discouraging. Regardless of Niemann, the main message I read into Caruana's comment is that except (I hope) at super GM level, cheating is already embedded and very difficult to detect. I wasn't sure from Ken Regan's reply how existing methods are going to deal with e.g. just being told when the position is critical. The thing I fear is a gradual encroachment of standards. There are going to be people who will think that being told when the position is critical isn't even really cheating: other people are doing it, and you still have to find the key move yourself. Levelling the playing field, in Lance Armstrong's obnoxious and self serving phrase.