Regan's analysis works, in part, the way you suggest is better. He looks for tricky moves with non-obvious consequences and looks at one's success rate in those. For the Niemann-Carlsen game, he identified two such moves and Niemann chose suboptimally for both of them. For one is those, Niemann played a nice that could have cost him a tempo. Definitely an inaccuracy.
Regan claims that if you consult the computer just three times during a game, he will catch you after three games. If you consult just once, it gets a lot harder.
He seems to define "consult" as "receive a specific move from the engine". GMs have stated that they could throw a game simply by being alerted that a good move existed. I doubt that would ever show up on a statistical analysis of moves. It would at the very least require an analysis correlating think time, move, and depth of analysis required to correctly analyze the current position. You'd have to say "hey wait player doesn't usually notice there's some X depth analysis opportunity and actually take it." And that doesn't seem to be the analysis which happened here by a long shot.
Regan's analysis is a good deal more detailed than that. He claims that if you check the computer just three times a game, he is going to catch you within three games. Now, if you check just once, it becomes a lot harder.
For the game against Carlsen, he looked at the key moves in that game. The first 20 or so moves were theory. You can't ever prove cheating in theory. After they diverged from theory, Regan said there were only two really key moves. For both of those, Niemann did not use the computers top choice. One of them he played a downright inaccurate move that could have cost him a tempo.
I don't know if Niemann cheated or did not, or even what exactly Carlsen suspects, but Regan's analysis seems to me to be strong enough that it counterbalances the known character deficiency of Niemann.
If there are three or four good moves of approximately equal strength in a position, then it just isn't a position where someone at grandmaster level needs to cheat or benefits from doing so. They were going to find one of those moves anyway.
Like I said, it depends on the available set of moves. If #1 is +1 and #2 is +0.7, but the cheater wanted to play #5 at -0.5 then that’s an outcome-changing difference.
Chess engines like Hiarcs can show a series of good, ok, questionable and bad moves for each touched piece color-coded on the board for example.
A universal theory is not the same thing as universal advice. What would one universally do just because one knows the universal theory?
...Now that you bring it up, the OP is offering a piece of universal advice. The irony seems stronger there. Not sure if that invalidates his advice or not. Probably just invalidates taking it as a hard and fast rule.
The overriding concern of the constitution is that the federal government not tromp all over the rights of the States. It would not be reasonable for the constitution to have provisions to secure the right of the federal government to arm its police, but it does seem reasonable to me to have provisions to ensure that the federal government does not interfere with the right of the several States to arm their police.
However, multiple states specify in their constitutions who comprises their militias. In Virginia, for example, it is "composed of the body of the people." In Illinois, "The State militia consists of all able-bodied persons
residing in the State except those exempted by law." Given such constitutional provisions, it seems unreasonable to think that police were in view when speaking of a "well-regulated militia."
The policing and military functions were, because large permanent standing forces for internal and external security which would inevitably become closed societies with interests divergent from the public were the threat the 2A was to protect against, by providing an alternative that would make them unnecessary.
At the time of the constitution most policing was done by a local sheriff that was elected and did not really have a "dept", the sheriff would enlist local volunteers if there needed to be a police action that required more than him and a single deputy.
For this reason the ability to local community members to be armed was required as they needed to defend themselves as well as the local community when called upon by the sheriff.
Have you ever watched a press conference after a sports game and the losing coach is convinced that all the calls went against his team? And then the other coach gets up and starts talking about the calls that went against his team? One could conclude that there is not a reliable way to determine when fouls should be called. And in some sports for some rules that comes into play. But a much larger factor is just self-interest. A man with a great desire to win will be blind to objective reality, all the while fully convinced that he is utterly in the right.
There are very different views on what the United States Constitution means and requires. Arguments about it are had on the internet daily, in congress frequently, in the court system constantly, and there was once even a war over it. One could conclude that the Constitution is such a badly written document that you can make it mean whatever you want it to mean, but I see here the work of self-interest. When the stakes are sufficiently high, men are geniuses at convincing themselves that what they want to be true, is true.
For churches claiming that they believe the bible to be the divinely inspired word of God, the stakes are very, very high. In consequence, the incentives to convince yourself that the bible says what you want it to say are also extremely high. Self-deception thrives under those conditions.
I'm not completely certain what you're stating, so I apologize if I assume the wrong meaning. Please do correct me if that's the case.
> One could conclude that there is not a reliable way to determine when fouls should be called.
One certainly could conclude that, but it seems strange to me to give equal weight to the opinions of those who're most invested in the outcome. I would instead turn to a more objective measure--either the calls of the officials, or even a close reading of the rules and reviewing all the available observations of the event.
> One could conclude that the Constitution is such a badly written document that you can make it mean whatever you want it to mean...
I would certainly agree that there are many points on which the Constitution is unclear or poorly written :) The caveat of the constitution is that we don't have to exist alongside its poor meanings for eternity with no recourse--We the People are imbued with the ability to clarify and update the constitution, a power we've used many times to correct its shortcomings.
If I am to take your use of the Constitution as an analogy to the Christian bible, the opposite is true of that bible: we're unable to clarify and update it where flaws are discovered, and must continue to exist with it as the supposed-word-of-God in its current form. Just as with the Constitution, it is possible that new interpretations of the text can develop, but it's impossible to decide if they are truly "correct" with regard to authorial intent--something much more important of the bible than the constitution.
> Self-deception thrives under those conditions.
I absolutely agree. Part of what frustrates me about conversations around religious accuracy is that the stakes are (typically) set so, so much higher for the religious party: the threat of damnation, eternal torment, and not being able to see one's deceased loved ones make a powerful incentive to overlook otherwise obvious shortcomings in one's reasoning.
If they are using the money saved on taxes to sell their products cheaper, then it is not themselves (only) that they are enriching thereby, but (also) you and I and everyone else who buys IKEA products. The consumers end up being the ones paying less money into governmental coffers.
Not sure where you're from, but round here taxes are used for the infrastructure that private business need to have a market - schools, roads, health care and sometimes even direct investments in private businesses. The two start-ups I've been working for in the past have been helped off the ground by both government and EU money.
If Ikea are using elaborate company structures to pay less tax than other furniture stores, they are stealing from the societies that enable them to thrive. Especially if they are using that advantage to depress prices.
I think you are getting this wrong. The problem is not all the inexpert persons styling themselves as "independent journalists", the problem is all the inexpert persons who think they understand enough about the world's problems to cast a vote on who should legislate solutions for them. The electorate must be restricted to those who prove they can use the franchise wisely. /s
Okay, you probably are not opposed to democracy. But if not, why not? If the people are too stupid to choose to consume good journalism and ignore bad journalism, how can they be considered wise enough to elect good legislators instead of bad ones?
The US system of government is predicated on having a populace that is sufficiently intelligent, prudent, and moral that it will not give in to mob excess. If we the people no longer possess that sort of character, restricting the speech of said people will not be sufficient to solve the problem. A full dictatorship will be the only solution.
Your point about the character of the people is a good one. But if you jettison free speech, you have jettisoned the entirety of democratic government with it.
"We the people" have never possessed that quality, and direct democracy is a terrible idea for precisely that reason.
Our democratic norms are intended to filter that irrationality into something more functional - though the election of a certain someone I don't feel like naming at the moment shows those norms aren't perfect. I expect quite a few people are thinking very hard about how to make sure none of this ever happens again.
Nevertheless, the ideal of representative democracy relies on experts.
