I agree, but as I tried to state, there is simply more to it. Giving bad interviews doesn't mean anything. Accidentally beating the world champion doesn't mean anything. Spending all night studying a rarely played chess line that just happens to be the exact line played the next day doesn't really mean anything either. Not really being able to analyze like a GM doesn't mean anything too.

But when you have all these factors happening during one game, statistically it is not probable.

Given the amount of people who play Magnus in a year, it is not that improbable for one of them to fit this criteria.

And that one just happens to be a kid who was caught cheating online twice (unlike any of his other opponents) and was an unremarkable player until the age of 17 but has since attained 2700+ level (unlike any of the current young 2700+ players who all reached GM level before the age of 15).

You should see the sequence. He was totally unable to explain any lines he had in mind, stating some positions were « obviously winning » (where it was absolutely not obvious, and in fact the engine marked it as loosing), etc. A total disaster.

I have seen the sequence. I have also watched other chess interviews and while bad, it's really not as bad, comparatively, as you describe.

It isn't that bad.