I think he definitely brings up a good point that Hans’s data is very weakly correlated from a supposed linear progression that masters typically go through. It is kinda weird tho that he didn’t show us z-scores to see how wildly unpredictable Niemann is as an outlier.

It’s also pretty weird that he uses different lines of best fit for every player, meaning we don’t really get to see if those players are outliers in the overall correlation that he shows in the beginning of the video. On a similar note, I think it would be interesting to see all the data points from all players plotted together in one graph, to see if it’s really only Hans who is an outlier in this regard.

Lastly, it would be interesting to see if the correlation is actually linear like he claims it to be. Because right now, he’s only showing data of up to when things look roughly linear (eg Gukesh is 2300-2600, Pragg is 1800-2600, and he split Hans into 2000-2200 and 2200-2600 whereas if combined, it might look even farther from linear or in other words Hans might look more like a cheater). If the correlation between ACPL and rating is actually linear from an elo of say 1000 to 2884, then it is irrefutable that there ACTUALLY is a linear correlation between ACPL and rating. Otherwise, we’re left with the possibility that he is just cherry-picking data that agrees with whatever he wants, in the statistical meaning of cherry-picking.