6 ms·

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 d

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.
      - H8crilA 4y ago
        Yes, and it doesn't matter.
        Cederfjard 4y ago
        Who are you to decide for whom it does and does not matter? Like others have said, this isn’t a court of law. You have made your standard here clear, cool. Other people have other standards they apply to various situations, and they are using those to discuss this specific topic.
        H8crilA 4y ago
        Ok, but the other presented standards are obviously ridiculous. "This guy is famous and a master of the game, so I'm going to trust him when he's seriously trashing some young guy." I am someone who can think.
        LeonB 4y ago
        Unlike pretty much everything in Chess, this is an international news story. That’s quite significant.
  - Tenoke 4y ago
    Hans made a comment after their game but before the drama - "Must be embarrassing for the World Champion to lose to such an idiot like me" which couldve easily tilted Magnus more than a simple loss with black (rather than white) or draw with someone like Pragg.
    - me_me_me 4y ago
      this is not an online game where people rage quit. Carlsen himself said something akin to "Watzkin didn't have thick enough skin to become chess world champion", if you knew a bit about chess you wouldn't suggest this silly explanation
      - Tenoke 4y ago
        Fischer (e.g. 1975), Kasparov (e.g. screw you I'll make my own federation with hookers and blow) are both as prominent players to do things even more qualifying of a ragequit than this though there's plenty of examples more similar to this event. Suggesting that pro chess players don't tilt is absurd given that we've seen it happen plenty of times, often after losses.
- threatofrain 4y ago
  And the other side is that people can trust someone's judgment. Credibility matters and people have to make judgment calls on that basis all the time. When companies decide to hire or even fire people they do so on the basis of credibility, and that can have some pretty serious consequences. Hans has cheated before and that affects credibility. Magnus has been around for awhile and gathered a reputation regarding professional style. That affects credibility. Having high or low credibility is not a crime and everyone is free to create their own personal theories on credibility. Magnus has decided that he does not want to play Hans. As the world chess champion people will want to know why. Magnus has pre-emptively tweeted a meme which basically says that he refuses to say anything. I don't see what's wrong with Magnus avoiding Hans while basically saying nothing.
  - FartyMcFarter 4y ago
    > I don't see what's wrong with Magnus throwing his points away to satisfy his preference. Losing games on purpose is unsportsmanlike. Now, if Magnus has good reason to believe that he's just countering bad sportmanship with his own brand of it, that could perhaps be justified in some circumstances. But to the general audience, it makes chess look really bad.
    - threatofrain 4y ago
      Magnus & Nakamura and a handful of other grandmasters are basically the only reason why chess is not dead to the public; I'm not sure thriving is in the cards ever again for chess. Chess has a lot more to be grateful for with Magnus than not. That's what Magnus is to the "general audience" with regards to chess, and it's going to take a lot for Magnus to be a net negative to chess. We are only making drama because Magnus is so good. Nobody would be blinking an eye if I failed to show up to a tournament, and my opponent would be glad to reap the points.
      - Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
        > Magnus & Nakamura and a handful of other grandmasters are basically the only reason why chess is not dead to the public Not really, at all. That TV series and the COVID pandemic have way more to do with current chess popularity than Magnus & Nakamura. The playing public doesn't really care who the champion is, they play with themselves and only very few follow every game on major tournaments. As a spectator sport, chess is beyond boring, even worse than baseball (seriously, how come people in the US are so into watching baseball??!)
- wongarsu 4y ago
  > Magnus should explain his actions to the organisers He almost certainly explained himself to the organizers of the Sinquefield Cup, given how they instituted more anti-cheating measures as soon as he withdrew. They knew what was up, they just didn't come to a good resolution with Magnus and he withdrew instead. > and the public No good can come from that, any resolution will be either Hans being caught red handed, tournaments employing anti-cheating measures that put Magnus at ease, or tournaments having to choose between inviting Hans or Magnus. None of those involve the public in any way. > or just not enter tournaments I'm pretty sure he told the organizers of this tournament "I'm not coming if Hans is coming", and they told him "you signed the contract months ago, you have to come". So instead Magnus did the closest equivalent to not playing Hans: play one move and forfeit.
  - LeonB 4y ago
    Yeh, it’s reasonable to assume this was the best move available to him, strategically. If he’s quiet: it’s for strategic reasons. If he play and forfeits, instead of not playing at all: it’s for strategic reasons. Etc. Saying it’s petulant or childish or whatever just shows you think toddlers are far more strategic than anyone realises.
hammock 4y ago
This is a solved problem. You don’t accuse them yourself but you leak information anonymously or have an undeclared mouthpiece (“friends close to Carlsen”) speak for you.
Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
> Magnus's goal seems to be to get Niemann disinvited from tournaments. In other words, he is bullying Niemann using his status and renown as a world champion. Nice.

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.
    - H8crilA 4y ago
      Yes, and it doesn't matter.
      - Cederfjard 4y ago
        Who are you to decide for whom it does and does not matter? Like others have said, this isn’t a court of law. You have made your standard here clear, cool. Other people have other standards they apply to various situations, and they are using those to discuss this specific topic.
        H8crilA 4y ago
        Ok, but the other presented standards are obviously ridiculous. "This guy is famous and a master of the game, so I'm going to trust him when he's seriously trashing some young guy." I am someone who can think.
      - LeonB 4y ago
        Unlike pretty much everything in Chess, this is an international news story. That’s quite significant.
- Tenoke 4y ago
  Hans made a comment after their game but before the drama - "Must be embarrassing for the World Champion to lose to such an idiot like me" which couldve easily tilted Magnus more than a simple loss with black (rather than white) or draw with someone like Pragg.
  - me_me_me 4y ago
    this is not an online game where people rage quit. Carlsen himself said something akin to "Watzkin didn't have thick enough skin to become chess world champion", if you knew a bit about chess you wouldn't suggest this silly explanation
    - Tenoke 4y ago
      Fischer (e.g. 1975), Kasparov (e.g. screw you I'll make my own federation with hookers and blow) are both as prominent players to do things even more qualifying of a ragequit than this though there's plenty of examples more similar to this event. Suggesting that pro chess players don't tilt is absurd given that we've seen it happen plenty of times, often after losses.
threatofrain 4y ago
And the other side is that people can trust someone's judgment. Credibility matters and people have to make judgment calls on that basis all the time. When companies decide to hire or even fire people they do so on the basis of credibility, and that can have some pretty serious consequences. Hans has cheated before and that affects credibility. Magnus has been around for awhile and gathered a reputation regarding professional style. That affects credibility. Having high or low credibility is not a crime and everyone is free to create their own personal theories on credibility. Magnus has decided that he does not want to play Hans. As the world chess champion people will want to know why. Magnus has pre-emptively tweeted a meme which basically says that he refuses to say anything. I don't see what's wrong with Magnus avoiding Hans while basically saying nothing.
- FartyMcFarter 4y ago
  > I don't see what's wrong with Magnus throwing his points away to satisfy his preference. Losing games on purpose is unsportsmanlike. Now, if Magnus has good reason to believe that he's just countering bad sportmanship with his own brand of it, that could perhaps be justified in some circumstances. But to the general audience, it makes chess look really bad.
  - threatofrain 4y ago
    Magnus & Nakamura and a handful of other grandmasters are basically the only reason why chess is not dead to the public; I'm not sure thriving is in the cards ever again for chess. Chess has a lot more to be grateful for with Magnus than not. That's what Magnus is to the "general audience" with regards to chess, and it's going to take a lot for Magnus to be a net negative to chess. We are only making drama because Magnus is so good. Nobody would be blinking an eye if I failed to show up to a tournament, and my opponent would be glad to reap the points.
    - Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
      > Magnus & Nakamura and a handful of other grandmasters are basically the only reason why chess is not dead to the public Not really, at all. That TV series and the COVID pandemic have way more to do with current chess popularity than Magnus & Nakamura. The playing public doesn't really care who the champion is, they play with themselves and only very few follow every game on major tournaments. As a spectator sport, chess is beyond boring, even worse than baseball (seriously, how come people in the US are so into watching baseball??!)
wongarsu 4y ago
> Magnus should explain his actions to the organisers He almost certainly explained himself to the organizers of the Sinquefield Cup, given how they instituted more anti-cheating measures as soon as he withdrew. They knew what was up, they just didn't come to a good resolution with Magnus and he withdrew instead. > and the public No good can come from that, any resolution will be either Hans being caught red handed, tournaments employing anti-cheating measures that put Magnus at ease, or tournaments having to choose between inviting Hans or Magnus. None of those involve the public in any way. > or just not enter tournaments I'm pretty sure he told the organizers of this tournament "I'm not coming if Hans is coming", and they told him "you signed the contract months ago, you have to come". So instead Magnus did the closest equivalent to not playing Hans: play one move and forfeit.
- LeonB 4y ago
  Yeh, it’s reasonable to assume this was the best move available to him, strategically. If he’s quiet: it’s for strategic reasons. If he play and forfeits, instead of not playing at all: it’s for strategic reasons. Etc. Saying it’s petulant or childish or whatever just shows you think toddlers are far more strategic than anyone realises.

hammock 4y ago

This is a solved problem. You don’t accuse them yourself but you leak information anonymously or have an undeclared mouthpiece (“friends close to Carlsen”) speak for you.

Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago

> Magnus's goal seems to be to get Niemann disinvited from tournaments. In other words, he is bullying Niemann using his status and renown as a world champion. Nice.