Not only is that a logical fallacy (appeal to authority) but magnus lost to him and is claiming cheating which is clearly a huge conflict of interest. His opinion should be heavily scrutinized.
> Not only is that a logical fallacy (appeal to authority)
You know appeal to authorities are not always logical fallacies right? It can be, but it's not a "haha you quoted someone therefore you are wrong". Heavily invested and repeatedly successful individuals can be great sources for information on heuristic endevours.
> magnus lost to him and is claiming cheating which is clearly a huge conflict of interest
Except it is verifiable that he talked about leaving the tournament before even playing him. Therefore his suspicions and problems are older than the result. Also you might be overestimating how much chess players care about losing at that level. They play constantly against each other and most have pretty equal head to heads. Magnus usually is a bit ahead like 5 victories to 3 and then like 15 draws against most of them. Losing once against Hans is not gonna make someone cause all of this.
> His opinion should be heavily scrutinized.
By FIDE sure, not by people online whose knowledge of chess comes from the first Harry potter movie.
Which pilots were the best pilots in the world? At a certain point, expertise does matter.
We're not talking commodity expertise, this person is literally the best to have ever done his craft. And has show the ability to "legitly" lose to others.
You’re not addressing the content of the argument and instead trying to dismiss it because of a phrase I used.
Just because magnus is a world class expert at chess does not necessarily mean he is good at detecting a cheater. Furthermore I would argue that taking an experts “gut feeling” as evidence is a terrible argument.
>You’re not addressing the content of the argument and instead trying to dismiss it because of a phrase I used.
The phrase you used has a well-known meaning. If that wasn't what you meant, then you shouldn't have used it.
Magnus may not be great at spotting a cheater, but his expertise in this game suggests that he could be, and adding that fact to an existing body of evidence isn't even close to committing an appeal to authority fallacy. To bring up that fallacy here is just lazy thinking.
> Magnus may not be great at spotting a cheater, but his expertise in this game suggests that he could be, and adding that fact to an existing body of evidence isn't even close to committing an appeal to authority fallacy.
OP:
> He is widely regarded as the greatest chess player to have ever lived. His opinion on what it takes to play high level chess is worth taking extremely seriously.
- A: Magnus is a great chess player
- B: Magnus claims cheating because "gut"
- C: Therefore Hans cheated
The argument rests solely on the fact that since he's an expert his word should be taken "seriously," heavily implying that Hans cheated.
> To bring up that fallacy here is just lazy thinking.
I disagree and you're not going to convince me otherwise with statements like this one.
You are intentionally misrepresenting the argument, to the point of being outright dishonest. The main piece of evidence in this comment thread is that Hans cheated in the past, not Magnus's expertise. So your letter A should be about Hans admitting to cheating, and somewhere further down--maybe C or D--would mention Magnus's expertise, if you were trying to debate in good faith (which you're not).
As for his "gut" feeling being part of the argument, you're not quoting anyone here; you are again intentionally misrepresenting what others are saying.
If you're going to analyze an argument someone else is making, be honest about it or there is really no point in discussing anything with you.
