7 ms·

Magnus Carlsen has basically been a model champion for close to a decade now. He's not known for controversy and the odd situations where he dealt with less-tha

Magnus Carlsen has basically been a model champion for close to a decade now. He's not known for controversy and the odd situations where he dealt with less-than-classy opponents, he's taken it on the chin and moved on, usually with nothing more than brief statement. And he has been very positive about other younger GM's. So him coming out and "accusing" Niemann is akin to a nobel prize winning scientist accusing a graduate student of plagiarism... even if chess cheating isn't very provable, I have to take Magnus seriously and give him a giant benefit of the doubt, he's earned it.

H8crilA 4y ago
What? Just because of reputation? What are you even talking about... Have you ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty"? The burden of proof is on the accuser. We should be shown evidence, or Carlsen should apologize.
- vasco 4y ago
  Turns out if someone acts in a way for years people start to believe they'll act the same way later on. Crazy.
- NotYourLawyer 4y ago
  It’s not a court of law, and the kid has cheated before.
- eschatology 4y ago
  It's just a principle, used in some laws in some legal systems in some countries — nothing dictates all accusations made on the planet has to abide by "innocent until proven guilty" principle. Nothing dictates that burden of proof is always on the accuser, especially in the internet where there isn't really any authority or agreements on subjects like this. It's just a statement/opinion by grandparent and it baffles me why presumption of innocence is even brought up like it's something to be held everywhere.
  - concinds 4y ago
    > If the chess community decides to trust Magnus and his credentials without any proof, that's their prerogative, the concept of criminal innocence doesn't come into play at all here. "Innocent until proven guilty" is not just a legal concept but a social norm. I'm a big Carlsen fan, but that same logic, applied to other domains, has led to witch-hunts throughout history, or character assassination/reputational damage when someone is accused of something but those accusations are never tested in court. Coming back to chess, this isn't a casual situation with your friends, but a professional environment with norms and with money on the line. Imagine the same thing at your workplace. Random non-experts taking sides here is inappropriate. Even many other Grandmasters have opinions on these accusations (true or false), but are refusing to state them publicly, preferring to let it play itself out, due to their respect for norms. Magnus is entitled to his opinion and to expressing them, but treating them as facts rather than accusations is just strange. Chess cheating expert Ken Regan thinks Niemann didn't cheat. "Innocent until proven guilty" obviously applies.
    - lordnacho 4y ago
      > "Innocent until proven guilty" is not just a legal concept but a social norm. I think the question is whether it ought to be a social norm. What do you think of Prince Andrew? Hasn't been proven guilty. Should we just go about our business with him as usual? What about everyone else who settles a case? I think of "Innocent until proven guilty" as a sort of viral trope. People think it's the norm, so when the question comes up, this phrase appears in their minds and is the first thought on justice. But I'm not sure it's a good norm, at least I have yet to hear arguments about why we should follow it, especially outside of the legal realm.
      - bombcar 4y ago
        As a moral principle it’s kind of vague but you can take it as “when in doubt assume the best of people” which can work as an anti-prejudice tool. But just because the bar is set so high for criminal guilt doesn’t mean we can or should use it elsewhere. And much of personal interactions are basically “guilty until proven innocent” because the risk (even if minor) isn’t worth it. Most people have no problem being told they can’t share a bathroom stall with you even if you’d share one with a spouse. Even civil cases have a lower bar, and many personal interactions are way lower. And while I do have a problem with “do one crime and never be hirable again for anything” I do not have a problem with certain crime blocking certain types of work, and/or subjecting you to additional scrutiny.
- wheresmycraisin 4y ago
  Yes, when it's something that's unprovable (if done well enough), reputation can play a role, esp. if it's golden boy v.s. admitted past cheater. And Carlsen didn't technically accuse him and Niemann is not technically on trial, so "innocent until proven guilty" is irrelevant. Magnus's goal seems to be to get Niemann disinvited from tournaments. He's taking such drastic measures for a reason at the expense of his own hard earned rep, and given his benevolence as world champion you have to trust his judgement.
  - FartyMcFarter 4y ago
    You definitely don't have to trust his judgment. People change, he could be paranoid at the moment for all we know. Magnus should explain his actions to the organisers and the public, or just not enter tournaments.
    - wheresmycraisin 4y ago
      If it becomes known that Magnus was having mental health issues (wouldn't be the first chess genius to have such things), then sure, my opinion may change. He most certainly did talk to the organizers. Why he has not made a public statement is beyond me, but I wouldn't be surprised if commercial interests and law suits are involved.
    - manojlds 4y ago
      His biggest challenge is next generation of younger prodigies like Pragg. He clapped at the end of their game in appreciation of Pragg. He's not paranoid about being usurped and knowing him through the years, he is going to take that as a challenge.
      - H8crilA 4y ago
        manojlds 4y ago
        I am not supporting Magnus on his actions here. Just that this behaviour is a massive outlier for him.
- throwawaylinux 4y ago
  > What? Just because of reputation? What are you even talking about... Is this a troll or some kind of rhetorical question? OP explained exactly his reasoning and clearly they said it was because of reputation. > Have you ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty"? It is not a court and Hans is not being tried on criminal charges, so what does that have to do with anything? Legal systems also have other standards for evidence such as balance of probability. > The burden of proof is on the accuser. We should be shown evidence, or Carlsen should apologize. What exact accusation did Carlsen make? A verbatim quote with complete context will be sufficient.
- honkdaddy 4y ago
  "Innocent until proven guilty" is generally used in when talking about the state and punitive decision making, not a social norm. If my three best friends accused someone of trying to rob them, I'd be comfortable believing them even if they didn't get the altercation on camera. Would the police? Depends on the country, because as you said, the robber would be (and should be) considered innocent until the state can explicitly prove their guilt. I don't think we should live in a society where people can be imprisoned by relying on accusations alone, of course hard evidence should be required, but I don't mind living in a society where people are free to use the shared knowledge of their own community to reach epistemological conclusions. If the chess community decides to trust Magnus and his credentials without any proof, that's their prerogative, the concept of criminal innocence doesn't come into play at all here.
- pfortuny 4y ago
  The "if I talk I am in big problem" video is exactly the most he can say without forcing him to go to an unwinnable (because the burden of the proof is on him and it is practically impossible) trial. What can he do if he is completely convinced of the other player cheating. He can only let the other player win and at the same time make clear that he is not going to play against him. That is the only legal and honest way to deal with what you perceive is a cheating opponent. What else can you do? Get a libel trial? He has not said that the other player does not cheat. But he is not going to play against him. It is not so easy as to say: "hey, this player cheats". OK: he has no proof. Perfect, he is willing to lose and keep his mouth shut. But he has said something: "I cannot say anything without getting into an unsolvable trouble".
  - jackmott 4y ago
- Lapsa 4y ago
  who's accusing?
- rasz 4y ago
  >Have you ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty"? why would you need proof when Niemann already admitted to cheating in the past?
  - Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
    Because whatever a person did as a child playing online on a second-rate chess site is hardly relevant for a top-level over the board tournament with strict anti-cheating measures. It is simply immoral to deny any kind of redemption to any person who has ever made a mistake. For a person so ready to cast stones, are you yourself without any sin? Should the errors you once made follow you for the rest of your life? I'd say people should put up some evidence of Niemann's cheating, how exactly he was receiving information on best possible moves, or just shut up about it. Or dial the anti-cheating measures to eleven, strip the players naked, put them in a Faraday-cage without spectators and cameras, and see how they do.
    - krisoft 4y ago
      > people should put up some evidence of Niemann's cheating, how exactly he was receiving information on best possible moves, Do you see how absolutely impossible to do this, don't you?
      - Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
        I believe that cheating in over the board tournaments is hardly possible with all the security measures that are now taken by event organizers. If you suspect cheating you must come up with some explanation how exactly it is happening.
        tiagod 4y ago
        Do they Xray their clothing and shoes? Is there an anal inspection of sorts? Do they ban all RF devices and run wide-spectrum spectrum analysers?
- lvl102 4y ago
  Burden of proof is on the accuser? That only applies in legal sense. Fortunately, we don’t live in a world bound by lawyers.
- peteradio 4y ago
  Ya did Carlsen even read him his rights before he booked him danno?
- rodary 4y ago
  > Have you ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty"? In the criminal court of law, that's the burden of proof. This is not it.
systemvoltage 4y ago
Nobel prize or not, evidence is needed. Nobel prize is sort of orthogonal to the situation where many other Nobel prize winners also have reservations about the accusation including Gary Kasparov and Fabiano Caruana. Magnus can’t play God, sorry. Eh, let’s call Caruana Fields medalist :-).
- pfortuny 4y ago
  Evidence of what? Has Carlssen explicitly said "This guy has cheated?" He has only said "I cannot speak because I would be in such a big trouble that I am not willing to do so". It is not so trivial as "prove it" when you only have a deep, serious, professional conviction.
  - ithkuil 4y ago
    Just curious if there is any other plausible motivation other than cheating. Some personal issue? Blackmail?
  - dwild 4y ago
    > Has Carlssen explicitly said "This guy has cheated?" How would you explain his reaction then? He didn't explicitly said that, but he certainly implicitly said that, which is essentially the same in this situation.
- TrackerFF 4y ago
  I don't think there's not going to be any binary or absolute outcome in this - if Niemann is actually (formally) accused of cheating. Best thing would probably be some statistical analysis, and some likelihood of the moves made. And in the end, someone will probably conclude that there's a x% chance that cheating occurred. With that said - at this level, I don't know how you differentiate true outlier moves, from the player just being incredibly apt at the game? I've heard that one way of identifying algorithmic / computer programs, is that the moves can extremely weird compared to what a human player would have done.
chirau 4y ago
addicted 4y ago
Carlsen had no problem playing Hans in the Meltwater championship weeks before the Sinquefeld cup. He had no issue playing Hans in the Sinquefeld cup. Until he lost to Hans. It’s also important to note that Magnus has still not actually accused Hans of anything. He’s letting insinuations, innuendo and Twitter imaginations run wild do all the work for him.
- wheresmycraisin 4y ago
  He's lost to many players for many reasons, even during his reign as WC.
- vintermann 4y ago
  He's lost to weaker players before. He's lost to younger players before, and praised them. He's lost longer streaks. He's lost with white in such situations too. He's even lost to Hans before, with white, in the game where Hans infamously said "The chess speaks for itself". And he didn't immediately withdraw from Sinquefield. Hans' postgame comments, where he made an odd claim about preparation, came in between and may have been a factor. Remember, Chess is a LOT about preparation these days, and Carlsen was also at one point #1 fantasy football player in the world. He probably knows a thing or two about applied statistics. Even overlooking the specifics, he wouldn't get as far as he has if he wasn't pretty good at keeping his frustration at losing from influencing his judgments.
  - mach1ne 4y ago
    This is the most enlightening comment I've read about this case.
- me_me_me 4y ago
  The thing about that loss, was that it was basically a curved ball, and Hans was prepared for it. It sounds like Magnus was suspecting something and prepared obscure line to test his response. Its not conclusive evidence as there is always some chance he just studied that sideline and know how to exploit it. But it looks like its conclusive evidence to Magnus or he knows more than he lets out.
jackmott 4y ago
stephc_int13 4y ago
Anyone should be considered innocent until proven guilty, this is a strong rule for a reason.
- kurupt213 4y ago
  It’s not the rule, it’s a rather modern exception.
  - swores 4y ago
    The word "rule" doesn't imply how old or recent it is (most rules aren't things like "rules of physics", they're things that governments, parents, bosses, teachers etc. make up quite regularly). The rule (in this case, rule of law) that forbids slavery is pretty modern, surely that doesn't make it any less important?
    - kurupt213 4y ago
      Rule also implies universality, which is how I interpreted it here. I was saying this is a new, ‘limited’ belief.
davidguetta 4y ago
Even Karpov said he played badly in the Sinquefield game. Personally I think Hans didn't cheat in this game ...... but: my best theory is that Carlsen is afraid to play against people who HAVE cheated once, because there mere thought that he COULD be cheating right now is enough to derail him from clear thinking. I think this because it's exactly what he declared in an interview ABOUT cheating on 2021. So basically he's boycotting someone as a message for other cheaters and, even if hans is innocent, and keep Chess clean. It's of unfair for Hans if he's not cheating but ... what is a fair justice anyway ? There's always a message sent by a sentence.
- kurupt213 4y ago
  So why even begin the match? The story would hold a lot more water if he boycotts from the outset
  - kamaal 4y ago
    Just a guess may be Carlsen set the whole thing up. Like make a move and see if the opponent makes a move that could only be recommended by a chess engine. Do it in your preparation time and see this. Like in your preparation you make an opening move and see what move the engine makes in response. Now do this in your live game and see if the opponent made the very same move. If they do, this confirms cheating. In this case may be that's the first he would do given he already suspects cheating?
    - EGreg 4y ago
      One opening move can’t possibly confirm cheating since the opening moves played by the best chess engines are also the same moves played by the vast majority of human players.
      - mach1ne 4y ago
        But if there is no obviously desirable move, and instead a wide array of potential equally good moves, then picking the same as the computer picked gives a high probability of cheating. That being said, I find it unlikely that that's the case here.

H8crilA 4y ago

What? Just because of reputation? What are you even talking about... Have you ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty"? The burden of proof is on the accuser. We should be shown evidence, or Carlsen should apologize.

vasco 4y ago
Turns out if someone acts in a way for years people start to believe they'll act the same way later on. Crazy.
NotYourLawyer 4y ago
It’s not a court of law, and the kid has cheated before.
eschatology 4y ago
It's just a principle, used in some laws in some legal systems in some countries — nothing dictates all accusations made on the planet has to abide by "innocent until proven guilty" principle. Nothing dictates that burden of proof is always on the accuser, especially in the internet where there isn't really any authority or agreements on subjects like this. It's just a statement/opinion by grandparent and it baffles me why presumption of innocence is even brought up like it's something to be held everywhere.
- concinds 4y ago
  > If the chess community decides to trust Magnus and his credentials without any proof, that's their prerogative, the concept of criminal innocence doesn't come into play at all here. "Innocent until proven guilty" is not just a legal concept but a social norm. I'm a big Carlsen fan, but that same logic, applied to other domains, has led to witch-hunts throughout history, or character assassination/reputational damage when someone is accused of something but those accusations are never tested in court. Coming back to chess, this isn't a casual situation with your friends, but a professional environment with norms and with money on the line. Imagine the same thing at your workplace. Random non-experts taking sides here is inappropriate. Even many other Grandmasters have opinions on these accusations (true or false), but are refusing to state them publicly, preferring to let it play itself out, due to their respect for norms. Magnus is entitled to his opinion and to expressing them, but treating them as facts rather than accusations is just strange. Chess cheating expert Ken Regan thinks Niemann didn't cheat. "Innocent until proven guilty" obviously applies.
  - lordnacho 4y ago
    > "Innocent until proven guilty" is not just a legal concept but a social norm. I think the question is whether it ought to be a social norm. What do you think of Prince Andrew? Hasn't been proven guilty. Should we just go about our business with him as usual? What about everyone else who settles a case? I think of "Innocent until proven guilty" as a sort of viral trope. People think it's the norm, so when the question comes up, this phrase appears in their minds and is the first thought on justice. But I'm not sure it's a good norm, at least I have yet to hear arguments about why we should follow it, especially outside of the legal realm.
    - bombcar 4y ago
      As a moral principle it’s kind of vague but you can take it as “when in doubt assume the best of people” which can work as an anti-prejudice tool. But just because the bar is set so high for criminal guilt doesn’t mean we can or should use it elsewhere. And much of personal interactions are basically “guilty until proven innocent” because the risk (even if minor) isn’t worth it. Most people have no problem being told they can’t share a bathroom stall with you even if you’d share one with a spouse. Even civil cases have a lower bar, and many personal interactions are way lower. And while I do have a problem with “do one crime and never be hirable again for anything” I do not have a problem with certain crime blocking certain types of work, and/or subjecting you to additional scrutiny.
wheresmycraisin 4y ago
Yes, when it's something that's unprovable (if done well enough), reputation can play a role, esp. if it's golden boy v.s. admitted past cheater. And Carlsen didn't technically accuse him and Niemann is not technically on trial, so "innocent until proven guilty" is irrelevant. Magnus's goal seems to be to get Niemann disinvited from tournaments. He's taking such drastic measures for a reason at the expense of his own hard earned rep, and given his benevolence as world champion you have to trust his judgement.
- FartyMcFarter 4y ago
  You definitely don't have to trust his judgment. People change, he could be paranoid at the moment for all we know. Magnus should explain his actions to the organisers and the public, or just not enter tournaments.
  - wheresmycraisin 4y ago
    If it becomes known that Magnus was having mental health issues (wouldn't be the first chess genius to have such things), then sure, my opinion may change. He most certainly did talk to the organizers. Why he has not made a public statement is beyond me, but I wouldn't be surprised if commercial interests and law suits are involved.
  - manojlds 4y ago
    His biggest challenge is next generation of younger prodigies like Pragg. He clapped at the end of their game in appreciation of Pragg. He's not paranoid about being usurped and knowing him through the years, he is going to take that as a challenge.
    - H8crilA 4y ago
      - manojlds 4y ago
        I am not supporting Magnus on his actions here. Just that this behaviour is a massive outlier for him.
throwawaylinux 4y ago
> What? Just because of reputation? What are you even talking about... Is this a troll or some kind of rhetorical question? OP explained exactly his reasoning and clearly they said it was because of reputation. > Have you ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty"? It is not a court and Hans is not being tried on criminal charges, so what does that have to do with anything? Legal systems also have other standards for evidence such as balance of probability. > The burden of proof is on the accuser. We should be shown evidence, or Carlsen should apologize. What exact accusation did Carlsen make? A verbatim quote with complete context will be sufficient.
honkdaddy 4y ago
"Innocent until proven guilty" is generally used in when talking about the state and punitive decision making, not a social norm. If my three best friends accused someone of trying to rob them, I'd be comfortable believing them even if they didn't get the altercation on camera. Would the police? Depends on the country, because as you said, the robber would be (and should be) considered innocent until the state can explicitly prove their guilt. I don't think we should live in a society where people can be imprisoned by relying on accusations alone, of course hard evidence should be required, but I don't mind living in a society where people are free to use the shared knowledge of their own community to reach epistemological conclusions. If the chess community decides to trust Magnus and his credentials without any proof, that's their prerogative, the concept of criminal innocence doesn't come into play at all here.
pfortuny 4y ago
The "if I talk I am in big problem" video is exactly the most he can say without forcing him to go to an unwinnable (because the burden of the proof is on him and it is practically impossible) trial. What can he do if he is completely convinced of the other player cheating. He can only let the other player win and at the same time make clear that he is not going to play against him. That is the only legal and honest way to deal with what you perceive is a cheating opponent. What else can you do? Get a libel trial? He has not said that the other player does not cheat. But he is not going to play against him. It is not so easy as to say: "hey, this player cheats". OK: he has no proof. Perfect, he is willing to lose and keep his mouth shut. But he has said something: "I cannot say anything without getting into an unsolvable trouble".
- jackmott 4y ago
Lapsa 4y ago
who's accusing?
rasz 4y ago
>Have you ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty"? why would you need proof when Niemann already admitted to cheating in the past?
- Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
  Because whatever a person did as a child playing online on a second-rate chess site is hardly relevant for a top-level over the board tournament with strict anti-cheating measures. It is simply immoral to deny any kind of redemption to any person who has ever made a mistake. For a person so ready to cast stones, are you yourself without any sin? Should the errors you once made follow you for the rest of your life? I'd say people should put up some evidence of Niemann's cheating, how exactly he was receiving information on best possible moves, or just shut up about it. Or dial the anti-cheating measures to eleven, strip the players naked, put them in a Faraday-cage without spectators and cameras, and see how they do.
  - krisoft 4y ago
    > people should put up some evidence of Niemann's cheating, how exactly he was receiving information on best possible moves, Do you see how absolutely impossible to do this, don't you?
    - Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
      I believe that cheating in over the board tournaments is hardly possible with all the security measures that are now taken by event organizers. If you suspect cheating you must come up with some explanation how exactly it is happening.
      - tiagod 4y ago
        Do they Xray their clothing and shoes? Is there an anal inspection of sorts? Do they ban all RF devices and run wide-spectrum spectrum analysers?
lvl102 4y ago
Burden of proof is on the accuser? That only applies in legal sense. Fortunately, we don’t live in a world bound by lawyers.
peteradio 4y ago
Ya did Carlsen even read him his rights before he booked him danno?
rodary 4y ago
> Have you ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty"? In the criminal court of law, that's the burden of proof. This is not it.

systemvoltage 4y ago

Nobel prize or not, evidence is needed. Nobel prize is sort of orthogonal to the situation where many other Nobel prize winners also have reservations about the accusation including Gary Kasparov and Fabiano Caruana. Magnus can’t play God, sorry. Eh, let’s call Caruana Fields medalist :-).

pfortuny 4y ago
Evidence of what? Has Carlssen explicitly said "This guy has cheated?" He has only said "I cannot speak because I would be in such a big trouble that I am not willing to do so". It is not so trivial as "prove it" when you only have a deep, serious, professional conviction.
- ithkuil 4y ago
  Just curious if there is any other plausible motivation other than cheating. Some personal issue? Blackmail?
- dwild 4y ago
  > Has Carlssen explicitly said "This guy has cheated?" How would you explain his reaction then? He didn't explicitly said that, but he certainly implicitly said that, which is essentially the same in this situation.
TrackerFF 4y ago
I don't think there's not going to be any binary or absolute outcome in this - if Niemann is actually (formally) accused of cheating. Best thing would probably be some statistical analysis, and some likelihood of the moves made. And in the end, someone will probably conclude that there's a x% chance that cheating occurred. With that said - at this level, I don't know how you differentiate true outlier moves, from the player just being incredibly apt at the game? I've heard that one way of identifying algorithmic / computer programs, is that the moves can extremely weird compared to what a human player would have done.

chirau 4y ago

addicted 4y ago

Carlsen had no problem playing Hans in the Meltwater championship weeks before the Sinquefeld cup. He had no issue playing Hans in the Sinquefeld cup. Until he lost to Hans. It’s also important to note that Magnus has still not actually accused Hans of anything. He’s letting insinuations, innuendo and Twitter imaginations run wild do all the work for him.

wheresmycraisin 4y ago
He's lost to many players for many reasons, even during his reign as WC.
vintermann 4y ago
He's lost to weaker players before. He's lost to younger players before, and praised them. He's lost longer streaks. He's lost with white in such situations too. He's even lost to Hans before, with white, in the game where Hans infamously said "The chess speaks for itself". And he didn't immediately withdraw from Sinquefield. Hans' postgame comments, where he made an odd claim about preparation, came in between and may have been a factor. Remember, Chess is a LOT about preparation these days, and Carlsen was also at one point #1 fantasy football player in the world. He probably knows a thing or two about applied statistics. Even overlooking the specifics, he wouldn't get as far as he has if he wasn't pretty good at keeping his frustration at losing from influencing his judgments.
- mach1ne 4y ago
  This is the most enlightening comment I've read about this case.
me_me_me 4y ago
The thing about that loss, was that it was basically a curved ball, and Hans was prepared for it. It sounds like Magnus was suspecting something and prepared obscure line to test his response. Its not conclusive evidence as there is always some chance he just studied that sideline and know how to exploit it. But it looks like its conclusive evidence to Magnus or he knows more than he lets out.

jackmott 4y ago

stephc_int13 4y ago

Anyone should be considered innocent until proven guilty, this is a strong rule for a reason.

kurupt213 4y ago
It’s not the rule, it’s a rather modern exception.
- swores 4y ago
  The word "rule" doesn't imply how old or recent it is (most rules aren't things like "rules of physics", they're things that governments, parents, bosses, teachers etc. make up quite regularly). The rule (in this case, rule of law) that forbids slavery is pretty modern, surely that doesn't make it any less important?
  - kurupt213 4y ago
    Rule also implies universality, which is how I interpreted it here. I was saying this is a new, ‘limited’ belief.

davidguetta 4y ago

Even Karpov said he played badly in the Sinquefield game. Personally I think Hans didn't cheat in this game ...... but: my best theory is that Carlsen is afraid to play against people who HAVE cheated once, because there mere thought that he COULD be cheating right now is enough to derail him from clear thinking. I think this because it's exactly what he declared in an interview ABOUT cheating on 2021. So basically he's boycotting someone as a message for other cheaters and, even if hans is innocent, and keep Chess clean. It's of unfair for Hans if he's not cheating but ... what is a fair justice anyway ? There's always a message sent by a sentence.

kurupt213 4y ago
So why even begin the match? The story would hold a lot more water if he boycotts from the outset
- kamaal 4y ago
  Just a guess may be Carlsen set the whole thing up. Like make a move and see if the opponent makes a move that could only be recommended by a chess engine. Do it in your preparation time and see this. Like in your preparation you make an opening move and see what move the engine makes in response. Now do this in your live game and see if the opponent made the very same move. If they do, this confirms cheating. In this case may be that's the first he would do given he already suspects cheating?
  - EGreg 4y ago
    One opening move can’t possibly confirm cheating since the opening moves played by the best chess engines are also the same moves played by the vast majority of human players.
    - mach1ne 4y ago
      But if there is no obviously desirable move, and instead a wide array of potential equally good moves, then picking the same as the computer picked gives a high probability of cheating. That being said, I find it unlikely that that's the case here.