I think the answer is not that difficult really. All Hans Niemann's moves, all his games, are public information.
People can analyze them and form their own opinions about whether he has been cheating or not. The question "how" need not even be considered.
Carlsen has of course already looked at the games, with the experience of having preiviously looked at millions of games between humans, and millions of analyses from computer engines. And he must have realised that Niemann has achieved something unique, he has conducted many absolute masterpieces, sometimes one after the other in the same tournament, while being rated 2400-2500. Performances so perfect, that no other human has ever accomplished.
Also from a game theory point of view, it doesn't make much sense. Magnus would have nothing to win from such an encounter but a lot to lose. In his position I would never take such a deal.
Whether he is cheating or not, it doesn't make much sense for Hans either. Only one and unlikely outcome would be in his favor.
Cheater or not, he is A LOT more likely to lose to the current best player in the world. He won't gain anything from it. If he is a cheater odds are even lower. If he is honest and loses it would be devastating. If he is a cheater, it is a lot better for him to not take the deal and deny any wrongdoing.
With chess, at that level of play, you can't decide which player is better or worse by judging from a single game. Only the aggregate between many players playing between each other can tell you that - ELO system achieves that. So them sitting in a faraday cage naked after an X-ray and playing a single match would not tell much. If they played a whole lot of games against each other, it would more or less work but that is impractical and ridiculous.
This comment is beyond playing fast and loose with reality. It’s actually counter factual.
Pr Kenneth Regan who is the leading expert when it comes to cheating in chess did indeed do a statistical analysis of Niemann performance during the past two years [0]. He found no indication of cheating whatsoever.
As I wrote in another comment, I find it ridiculous to consider some Pr Kenneth Regan (a weak chess player actually) a leading expert on cheating, and to hold his opinion above the opinion of Magnus Carlsen, who has analysed Niemann's games and also faced him in tournaments.
He is not some Pr Kenneth Regan. He is actually a recognised expert on statistical analysis when it comes to cheating in chess and has worked for FIDE multiple times. Plus it’s not like it’s only his words. He actually published a very valid engine based analysis of Niemann performance in the last two years. Is the issue that it’s showing the opposite of what you would like it to?
Meanwhile Magnus is actually a player in the game involved and the losing one at that. He has zero claim to objectivity.
Hypothetically speaking, why doesn’t someone make a proof of concept. Cheat. Have an exhibition and try to get away with cheating. Best way to tackle cheating is to invite people to give it your best shot.
Thanks for the link! I agree there needs to be many more safeguards from cheating but I'm really not behind Magnuson on this one. Poor sportsmanship at the very least going on.
People can analyze them and form their own opinions about whether he has been cheating or not. The question "how" need not even be considered.
Carlsen has of course already looked at the games, with the experience of having preiviously looked at millions of games between humans, and millions of analyses from computer engines. And he must have realised that Niemann has achieved something unique, he has conducted many absolute masterpieces, sometimes one after the other in the same tournament, while being rated 2400-2500. Performances so perfect, that no other human has ever accomplished.