Yes and I think this is the real risk that Magnus or others who cares about chess are worried about. Not the 1200 player who plays like the world champion which is blatently obvious, but a 2700 player who selectively uses computer assistance to play like a 2800 and get into the elite circuit of the top players (which also is where all the money is).

The second best player in the world would be best positioned to cheat; they'd need a small advantage to become best.

And the best player in the world could cheat, too, reducing their mental load and taking it easy.

Both cases would likely be exposed by the cheaters getting lazy.

I don't think you become the best or second best player through a mindset that includes "I'll cheat if that's what it takes to reach the top".

All the history of doping in the Olympics would disagree.

It is possible that some people can reach quite a high level but top out in their natural abilities well below the absolute top of the game and be incentivized to cheat to break through their personal, natural ceiling.

Or even further, look at professional cycling in the 90s and 2000s. It wasn't just people doping to break through their ceiling to reach the top, literally everyone at the top was doping and it was necessary to be able to keep up.

Even worse than "some people are cheating to make it to the elite level" would be "everyone at the elite level is cheating, you can't compete without cheating".

No, but once you’re there, it becomes an easier mental hurdle to jump over, because they’re already incredibly talented and skilled. They can justify it with phrases like “it’s just a small edge to help. I could easily do it myself with more training but this is easier/faster/more bulletproof”. you’ll find that at the top level morals can be corrupted easier because it’s such a small edge needed. Oh, i’ll only use the move generator once, i’ll only use it to catch obvious blunders, etc.

Lance Armstrong would like a word with you.

Only two kinds of bike racers: cheaters and losers.