5 ms·

Carlsen needs to be banned. I cannot see how this does anything for anyone and it's a ridiculous power move against a young player, whose only impact will be to

Carlsen needs to be banned. I cannot see how this does anything for anyone and it's a ridiculous power move against a young player, whose only impact will be to discourage other players. For Carlsen to act like this without giving a single explanatory statement despite now just having the widest platform any chess player can, but literally owning most of the biggest platforms, is ridiculous.

jstx1 4y ago
What's the ridiculous power move exactly - giving someone a free win?
- asdajksah2123 4y ago
  He hasn't even made a statement. The entire chess world has accused Niemann of cheating at this point, and Carlsen hasn't said a word. It's f'ing embarrassing. Further, Carlsen isn't just the #1 GM, and the most popular chess player in the world, his company also owns and partially owns 2 of the biggest chess platforms in the world. At this point for him to not even have made a statement is inexplicable.
  - jjulius 4y ago
    I am a complete outsider when it comes to chess. I know the basics and can play, but I've spent very little time on it and have no idea about the dynamics of the "chess world". All that is to say, is that as an outsider looking in at this controversy, I think it's utterly insane for anyone to be taking sides on this issue while Carlsen has said nothing, nor tried at all to shed light on anything. The additional context in this comment chain (and thread) definitely hurt his trustworthiness as well. Edit: Always happy to learn and adjust my perspectives. I don't mind the downvotes, but in the interest of personal growth I don't mind chatting about why I might be wrong. I also straight up admitted I'm likely to be ignorant on the subject, so hey - point me in the right direction!
    - WastingMyTime89 4y ago
      Carlsen didn’t actually say nothing. That’s the heart of the issue. He posted a semi-cryptic tweet then resigned after one move during their next game. He is manifestly trying to imply something which greatly impacts another player while avoiding actually saying it which most people tend to find frankly disrespectful and a bit childish.
  - jstx1 4y ago
    I'm not seeing what's embarrassing about any of this (or how it's related to him having stake in a chess website), or why you think it's so important that he makes a statement but I don't think I'll change your mind about it.
  - natch 4y ago
    Didn’t he make a statement on Twitter? I’m not saying Twitter is formal or anything but are we gatekeeping what is a statement? Or did I just hear wrong?
    - 6nf 4y ago
      All he said on Twitter was 'I cant say more because i'll get into trouble' after his initial resignation from the live event a couple of weeks ago.
      - natch 4y ago
        Then he’s telling us why he didn’t have a further statement. I guess that clears things up.
  - jeff-davis 4y ago
    One possible explanation is that cheating is a serious charge, and he's a chess player and probably wants to avoid getting involved in rules enforcement. Also, he probably doesn't want to get sued.
  - impossiblefork 4y ago
    There's analysis showing very few blunders and mistakes, not just for his rating, but in general and there are games of his with very strong correlation between his moves and the then best versions of Stockfish. He is certainly cheating.
    - neaden 4y ago
      Ken Ragan is the world regarded expert on detecting cheating on Chess through statistics and he says there is no proof of Hans cheating: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/did-hans-niemann-cheat-the-evidence-im-ken-regan/id794030859?i=1000579423486 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/did-hans-niemann-cheat...
      - impossiblefork 4y ago
        You say so, but others too have looked into it. This guy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AG9XeSPflrU&t=2s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AG9XeSPflrU&t=2s) isn't an IM, only an FM, but I don't think the skill matters, it's a matter of statistical analysis, which I don't think has been performed fully systematically, but from what I've seen I am fully convinced that Niemann cheated and I am convinced that the matter will become very clear once a careful analysis is finally performed.
        neaden 4y ago
        I agree it's a matter of statistical analysis, as well as being an IM Dr. Ragan is a professor at University of Buffalo, has published numerous papers on his methodology, and a former member of the Anti-Cheating Committee of the World Chess Federation. You say you want an analysis but you also say you are already convinced he's guilty and are just looking for something to confirm that.
        impossiblefork 4y ago
        Yes, I think it's clear that he's guilt from the games I've seen, the low mistake rates etc., and it surprises me that Ragan disagrees. Unfortunately I can't spend the time actually having a look at Ragan's analysis.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- shawnz 4y ago
  Carlsen intentionally throwing games against Niemann hinders his ability to advance his chess career and be recognized, and it makes him unsavoury to sponsors and organizations who favour Carlsen
- JohnDeHope 4y ago
  "giving someone a free win" In chess, people don't care as much about who won or lost, as they do about... I'm not sure exactly. It might be the specific tactic they used, or prescient intuition somebody showed, or the possibility of a move they saw but nobody else did, etc. But the point is they care about the playing of the game. It's a much different affair with most physical sports. There are so many possibilities, so many "moving parts", so much room for randomness to set in, that you can't really care nearly as much about exactly "how" anybody played a physical game. The winning and the loosing is really all you're left with. In chess, games are recorded move by move. You can literally buy a book and read exactly how dozens (hundreds?) of major chess games played out. And you'll be reading exactly how they played out. Every single relevant detail of the entire match is there, in a textual format, that you or anyone else can learn from. In physical sports you rarely get more than who won X major tournament each year, or what a team's win / loss ratio was. That's it. There are so vastly many more variables going in on a physical sports game that it is inconceivable to record exactly how they played out. Anyway, I think this and similar reasons, are why somebody "giving" away a win is hardly relevant. Who it was that won is hardly worth knowing. How they won, what strategy they employed, or what mental weakness the loser exhibited, are what everyone is really hankering for. By throwing the game he robbed everyone of what they are really after: knowledge. And not knowledge like "who won" but knowledge of "how do you win at chess against the best player in the world". Because in chess, and other games of pure mental gymnastics, anybody can employ that same knowledge in their next game.
JacobThreeThree 4y ago
Chess.com, Carlsen's major sponsor (who just bought PlayMagnus), put out the following statement after banning Hans from the platform: >The last few days have been tumultuous for many in the chess community. At this time, we have reached out to Hans Niemann to explain our decision to privately remove him from Chess.com and our events. We have shared detailed evidence with him concerning our decision, including information that contradicts his statements regarding the amount and seriousness of his cheating on Chess.com. We have invited Hans to provide an explanation and response with the hope of finding a resolution where Hans can again participate on Chess.com. We want nothing more than to see the best chess players in the world succeed in the greatest events. We will always act to protect the integrity of the game that we all love. Seems like Chess.com has evidence of cheating and Hans hasn't responded to this directly.
- isitmadeofglass 4y ago
  Maked sense. Imagine that your a kid who never cheats and try it once at age 12, and just happen to get caught, then never cheat again until one time when your 16 and trying to build a famous stream, which is going absolutely great without any cheating you think “hmm, might as well cheat just once to get a bigger crowd” and unlucky stars, you happen to get caught that one time again.
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  IMO that's just as bad as Carlson's lack of comment. How can the other guy possibly clear his name when people aren't even "charging" him? Instead of giving us this evidence they have, they're basically saying "Oh we know he did bad things in the past, just trust us, we should never trust him again" Like it might be true, but that is a really gross way to put pressure on someone.
- tsss 4y ago
  If they have evidence, why aren't they publishing it?
Ekaros 4y ago
I think it is reasonable to strip him from his rating at this point. This cannot be allowed to go on.
- richwater 4y ago
  lmao the dude has admitted to cheating in the past. you either know nothing about the sport or are intentionally gaslighting.
  - Ekaros 4y ago
    No I'm talking about Carlsen. After these antics he should be barred from official events.
faeriechangling 4y ago
Banning the world champion is a farce and so long as he resigns individual games instead of dropping out and thus affecting other players he can knock himself out.
Jach 4y ago
It is ridiculous, but chess history has a lot of silly drama at the top levels, so whatever. It's less silly to me than Carlsen throwing his title by refusing to play the next world championship, but again, whatever.

jstx1 4y ago

What's the ridiculous power move exactly - giving someone a free win?

asdajksah2123 4y ago
He hasn't even made a statement. The entire chess world has accused Niemann of cheating at this point, and Carlsen hasn't said a word. It's f'ing embarrassing. Further, Carlsen isn't just the #1 GM, and the most popular chess player in the world, his company also owns and partially owns 2 of the biggest chess platforms in the world. At this point for him to not even have made a statement is inexplicable.
- jjulius 4y ago
  I am a complete outsider when it comes to chess. I know the basics and can play, but I've spent very little time on it and have no idea about the dynamics of the "chess world". All that is to say, is that as an outsider looking in at this controversy, I think it's utterly insane for anyone to be taking sides on this issue while Carlsen has said nothing, nor tried at all to shed light on anything. The additional context in this comment chain (and thread) definitely hurt his trustworthiness as well. Edit: Always happy to learn and adjust my perspectives. I don't mind the downvotes, but in the interest of personal growth I don't mind chatting about why I might be wrong. I also straight up admitted I'm likely to be ignorant on the subject, so hey - point me in the right direction!
  - WastingMyTime89 4y ago
    Carlsen didn’t actually say nothing. That’s the heart of the issue. He posted a semi-cryptic tweet then resigned after one move during their next game. He is manifestly trying to imply something which greatly impacts another player while avoiding actually saying it which most people tend to find frankly disrespectful and a bit childish.
- jstx1 4y ago
  I'm not seeing what's embarrassing about any of this (or how it's related to him having stake in a chess website), or why you think it's so important that he makes a statement but I don't think I'll change your mind about it.
- natch 4y ago
  Didn’t he make a statement on Twitter? I’m not saying Twitter is formal or anything but are we gatekeeping what is a statement? Or did I just hear wrong?
  - 6nf 4y ago
    All he said on Twitter was 'I cant say more because i'll get into trouble' after his initial resignation from the live event a couple of weeks ago.
    - natch 4y ago
      Then he’s telling us why he didn’t have a further statement. I guess that clears things up.
- jeff-davis 4y ago
  One possible explanation is that cheating is a serious charge, and he's a chess player and probably wants to avoid getting involved in rules enforcement. Also, he probably doesn't want to get sued.
- impossiblefork 4y ago
  There's analysis showing very few blunders and mistakes, not just for his rating, but in general and there are games of his with very strong correlation between his moves and the then best versions of Stockfish. He is certainly cheating.
  - neaden 4y ago
    Ken Ragan is the world regarded expert on detecting cheating on Chess through statistics and he says there is no proof of Hans cheating: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/did-hans-niemann-cheat-the-evidence-im-ken-regan/id794030859?i=1000579423486 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/did-hans-niemann-cheat...
    - impossiblefork 4y ago
      You say so, but others too have looked into it. This guy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AG9XeSPflrU&t=2s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AG9XeSPflrU&t=2s) isn't an IM, only an FM, but I don't think the skill matters, it's a matter of statistical analysis, which I don't think has been performed fully systematically, but from what I've seen I am fully convinced that Niemann cheated and I am convinced that the matter will become very clear once a careful analysis is finally performed.
      - neaden 4y ago
        I agree it's a matter of statistical analysis, as well as being an IM Dr. Ragan is a professor at University of Buffalo, has published numerous papers on his methodology, and a former member of the Anti-Cheating Committee of the World Chess Federation. You say you want an analysis but you also say you are already convinced he's guilty and are just looking for something to confirm that.
        impossiblefork 4y ago
        Yes, I think it's clear that he's guilt from the games I've seen, the low mistake rates etc., and it surprises me that Ragan disagrees. Unfortunately I can't spend the time actually having a look at Ragan's analysis.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
shawnz 4y ago
Carlsen intentionally throwing games against Niemann hinders his ability to advance his chess career and be recognized, and it makes him unsavoury to sponsors and organizations who favour Carlsen
JohnDeHope 4y ago
"giving someone a free win" In chess, people don't care as much about who won or lost, as they do about... I'm not sure exactly. It might be the specific tactic they used, or prescient intuition somebody showed, or the possibility of a move they saw but nobody else did, etc. But the point is they care about the playing of the game. It's a much different affair with most physical sports. There are so many possibilities, so many "moving parts", so much room for randomness to set in, that you can't really care nearly as much about exactly "how" anybody played a physical game. The winning and the loosing is really all you're left with. In chess, games are recorded move by move. You can literally buy a book and read exactly how dozens (hundreds?) of major chess games played out. And you'll be reading exactly how they played out. Every single relevant detail of the entire match is there, in a textual format, that you or anyone else can learn from. In physical sports you rarely get more than who won X major tournament each year, or what a team's win / loss ratio was. That's it. There are so vastly many more variables going in on a physical sports game that it is inconceivable to record exactly how they played out. Anyway, I think this and similar reasons, are why somebody "giving" away a win is hardly relevant. Who it was that won is hardly worth knowing. How they won, what strategy they employed, or what mental weakness the loser exhibited, are what everyone is really hankering for. By throwing the game he robbed everyone of what they are really after: knowledge. And not knowledge like "who won" but knowledge of "how do you win at chess against the best player in the world". Because in chess, and other games of pure mental gymnastics, anybody can employ that same knowledge in their next game.

JacobThreeThree 4y ago

Chess.com, Carlsen's major sponsor (who just bought PlayMagnus), put out the following statement after banning Hans from the platform: >The last few days have been tumultuous for many in the chess community. At this time, we have reached out to Hans Niemann to explain our decision to privately remove him from Chess.com and our events. We have shared detailed evidence with him concerning our decision, including information that contradicts his statements regarding the amount and seriousness of his cheating on Chess.com. We have invited Hans to provide an explanation and response with the hope of finding a resolution where Hans can again participate on Chess.com. We want nothing more than to see the best chess players in the world succeed in the greatest events. We will always act to protect the integrity of the game that we all love. Seems like Chess.com has evidence of cheating and Hans hasn't responded to this directly.

isitmadeofglass 4y ago
Maked sense. Imagine that your a kid who never cheats and try it once at age 12, and just happen to get caught, then never cheat again until one time when your 16 and trying to build a famous stream, which is going absolutely great without any cheating you think “hmm, might as well cheat just once to get a bigger crowd” and unlucky stars, you happen to get caught that one time again.
mrguyorama 4y ago
IMO that's just as bad as Carlson's lack of comment. How can the other guy possibly clear his name when people aren't even "charging" him? Instead of giving us this evidence they have, they're basically saying "Oh we know he did bad things in the past, just trust us, we should never trust him again" Like it might be true, but that is a really gross way to put pressure on someone.
tsss 4y ago
If they have evidence, why aren't they publishing it?

Ekaros 4y ago

I think it is reasonable to strip him from his rating at this point. This cannot be allowed to go on.

richwater 4y ago
lmao the dude has admitted to cheating in the past. you either know nothing about the sport or are intentionally gaslighting.
- Ekaros 4y ago
  No I'm talking about Carlsen. After these antics he should be barred from official events.

faeriechangling 4y ago

Banning the world champion is a farce and so long as he resigns individual games instead of dropping out and thus affecting other players he can knock himself out.

Jach 4y ago

It is ridiculous, but chess history has a lot of silly drama at the top levels, so whatever. It's less silly to me than Carlsen throwing his title by refusing to play the next world championship, but again, whatever.