> 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.
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.