There are only a couple people here who've demonstrated a likely background in chess, and I would encourage others to listen more than speak when they're dealing with a topic they actually have no background in, or, as in my case, at least defer to those with the requisite experience and acknowledge our own limitations. Of course, this is the internet, so the opposite approach is the norm. I'm speaking as someone with only a very limited background in professional chess who had quite similar misgivings about the suggestion of foul play. Of course my initial reaction to the accusations of cheating was that a bunch reactionary, grumpy old farts were angry that this new guy discovered the secret new training method that has all the chess doctors angry (lol internet ad), but after hearing from DoPo and electric method I was encouraged to look into it myself. The game analysis DoPo posted (and the response video linked in its description on youtube) was very informative and those, along with a couple trips to some chess forums for a little additional reading convinced me of the improbability of someone accomplishing this without some illicit aide. Specifically, when that video examines specific moves and describes how and why humans would be unlikely to make such moves, the point really comes through.
Look, it's a common reaction in situations where we don't really know what people are talking about to try and establish a comparison to something we -do- know, but that approach almost always leads to us trying to compare apples to oranges and asserting a false equivalence. I don't think anyone here is saying that they know beyond any doubt this guy cheated, but it's really not looking good on the "reasonable" doubt front. The odds of someone suddenly being able to play like a computer would to such a great extent beyond what other players have been able to accomplish, and to then use that type of play to perform so uncharacteristically well appear so minuscule that, at the very least, our default assumption SHOULD be that he cheated. This isn't a courtroom; nobody's going to jail if we're wrong, but we'd be fools to bet against the claim of cheating. The odds just don't swing that way.
What's apparent from this instance is that professional-level chess needs to adapt and find ways to prevent repeat occurrences, because if they don't it will keep happening. Whether that involves building transmission-proof rooms or using jammers or having the damned players go at it naked, there needs to be a new standard for this, and it needs to start with a conversation between players and organizers about where the line for intrusiveness goes. Being such a "civilized" and storied game, chess has, it seems, lagged behind in keeping up with modern cheating efforts. I think we all agree that needs to be remedied.
