A documented history of cheating online counts as "no evidence" in your book?

Not exactly. Chess GMs have a somewhat "over-fitted gut." On studies done on their memory, they could routinely recall a chess board after seeing that board for only a few moments provided that the layout the pieces could be reached in a regular game. When the board was laid out in an unlikely manner, they performed no better than the control group.[1]

Let's say you arrive home with your 2y/o child and are greeted with dog shit on the floor. If I asked the 2y/o who shat on the floor they wouldn't be able to answer, but you could easily deduce that the dog did it. Why? Because you have an immense bank of experience concerning everyday causality that the 2y/o doesn't have.

Magnus has a bank of human chess moves in his mind, that we don't. He knows that the dog shat on the floor.

And keep in mind that Magnus has not thrown this accusation around in the past, even in the face of defeat.

[1]: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brain-study-shows...

It kinda smacks of some deficit in the modern game. Consider a hypothetical chess player who does not cheat, never has cheated, but through some combination of the occasional atypical move or odd behavior, makes players think they are cheating.

They seem to be saying that such behavior can confer an advantage — that to seem to be cheating is itself cheating.

I say we carry on like normal. Either Niemann's success falls apart, he messes up and gets caught, or we find out he's actually onto something brilliant.

Yeah it is 100% what it means. In contrast with the me-too stuff, Magnus did not even see Hans cheat. If Magnus could say

Most people just don't like Hans. They don't like his personality, so they have motivation to pile on. See this comment that has been linked EVERYWHERE: https://talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=80630&start...

Nevermind have people shot down this dudes analysis, but he says in the post "But, if you will permit some editorializing, despite Niemann's claims that "it's impossible to play under these conditions," he gives every indication of quite enjoying the attention."

What fucking garbage that is a smear on the face of chess.

He did cheat in impactful events, and he admitted it.

I cheated with your wife, but would you like to go to dinner with me to discuss business? I promise I won't do it again.

Thanks

That's exactly what this means.