What is the probability that Hans Niemann cheated in the September 4 chess game against Magnus Carlsen in the Sinquefield Cup?

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/13/crosswords/hans-niemann-magnus-carlsen-cheating-accusation.html

If conclusive evidence emerges, resolves to YES if he cheated or NO if he did not. Otherwise, resolves to market probability at the time of close.

The market close time will be quasi-randomly extended if there is still ongoing trading activity; using a procedure similar to that described in 

https://manifold.markets/MartinRandall/is-the-sky-blue-resolves-to-mkt

. This is to avoid encouraging big last-minute trades to move the market.  The close time will be no earlier than 10/15 and no later than 10/30.

(The intent is if the market collectively decides for example 75% chance that he cheated based on the available evidence, then this market should end up at about 75%.)

Close date updated to 2022-10-30 11:59 pm

 are mostly at least tangentially aligned with common EA/rationalist cause areas and goals. Some may be judged by many rationalists to be less effective (e.g. I don't know many people who argue that the WWF is the best way to reduce animal suffering). This may be because these were the charities most desired by current users and adding a charity to the list takes time and effort. But, equally, there's surely some part of the manifold devs and community managers that feels resistant to adding charities they either find profoundly ineffective or actively harmful.

Depending on your viewpoints, you probably find at least one of the following 501(c) organizations to be net negative (please don't read too much into the distribution here, just tried to grab enough variety so there's something for everybody):

-Planned Parenthood Federation of America

Should Manifold actively choose not to list some charities? I will resolve this market to the market % at close. If it appears someone has swooped in to move the market at the last moment, I reserve the right to re-open the market to allow people to correct it. No bright-line test because those are gameable.

https://manifold.markets/MartinRandall/will-manifold-support-donating-mana

Another "debate" topic similar to this: https://manifold.markets/ManifoldMarkets/plastic-straws-should-be-banned

Instead of defining what exactly universal basic income would entail in the US for this argument, I'm going to let you present what "level" you want to argue for/against and hopefully it is reflected in the probability.

The way this will work is that you may present an argument for or against the statement by commenting. Hopefully we get some heated discussion going back and forth. The more confident you are in your view and argument the more you should bet, however if you feel like you are being swayed to the opposing side you can begin to sell. You can also bet as a spectator without engaging in the comments on which side of the argument you think has the most merit.

Resolution: The market resolves with "PROB" being chosen, thus allowing those participating and spectating to effectively decide which side has more merit and to what extent. That being said, if there isn't enough volume/not enough people participating (or there is an overwhelming consenseus for one side) I may use my discretion to objectively chose the argument I think has the most merit and choose YES/NO. I will try to avoid this but as an experiment it might be the best thing to do if there isn't enough people thus allowing whales to control the price which doesn't reflect the arguments presented.