8 ms·

For all the people defending Hans, he has admitted to cheating in real, official, prize money online tournaments, and chess.com believes that in his apology he

For all the people defending Hans, he has admitted to cheating in real, official, prize money online tournaments, and chess.com believes that in his apology he still lied about the extent of his cheating. Maybe Hans did cheat OTB, maybe he didn't, but the tough part about reputation is it is very hard to build and very easy to break. And Hans had proven to the world that he would cheat. I personally don't think Hans did cheat in that particular tournament but at the same time I don't think he deserves too much sympathy. Cheaters literally destroy the game, and Hans at the very least was a cheater.

flawn 4y ago
I could also decide to cheat when being in the top players in the world. Even better, because I would only need to use my cheats sometimes and hide it even better because my knowledge holds up enough.
- bombcar 4y ago
  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.
  - MauranKilom 4y ago
    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".
    - medvezhenok 4y ago
      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.
      - floor2 4y ago
        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".
        evol262 4y ago
        I'm not sure why you think anything has changed, in any sport.
    - sodality2 4y ago
      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.
    - toomanyrichies 4y ago
      Lance Armstrong would like a word with you.
      - hughw 4y ago
        Only two kinds of bike racers: cheaters and losers.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- peter422 4y ago
  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).
neaden 4y ago
To be fair to Hans, his claim is he cheated in a prize money tournament when he was 12. If he cheated in prize money games besides that it would be different, but I think most people are willing to forgive a 12 year old.
- shawabawa3 4y ago
  He's admitted to cheating at 12 years old and at 16 years old (just 3 years ago)
  - neaden 4y ago
    Right but the claim he made is at 16 he cheated only in no-stakes games, not for prize money.
    - frumper 4y ago
      You realize you're putting your trust in the word of someone admitting they cheated. It only goes downhill from there.
      - roflyear 4y ago
        No, just trying to put into perspective that people are morons and witch hunts are not fun for anyone. He's just a kid, he made a mistake.
    - landryraccoon 4y ago
      That argument doesn’t make sense to me. If someone has acknowledged that they will cheat when there are NO stakes, why does that make it less likely they will cheat if something is on the line? If anything someone who is already known to cheat “just because” is even more likely to cheat when there is something to gain.
      - neaden 4y ago
        The claim in the original comment that I replied to was that Hans had admitted to cheating in "real, official, prize money online tournaments", which was when he was 12. As for cheating and stakes I think it all depends. His claim is he cheated when he was 16 to boost his rating so he could player higher level opponents on stream and boost his career. If you accept that claim it would make sense that he rationalized it that he was just cheating to get to his "true" Elo and stopped cheating once he got there. Now Chess.Com seems to believe that he cheated beyond that but they haven't specified more at this point.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
addicted 4y ago
So you agree that Magnus is wrong and that Hans did not cheat in the OTB game. And if you also agree with Magnus that cheating is a major problem then him singling out a single player who happened to beat him in OTB chess, as opposed to asking for wholesale changes for the past so many years to tackle cheating more seriously when he owns one of the top chess organizations and has partnerships with nearly every other chess organization, seems like him just being a sore loser. I don’t need to defend Hans’s cheating to point out that Magnus’s response has been ridiculous because it’s entirely focused on 1 individual player as opposed to the actual large scale problem of cheating in chess. A guy who happened to beat him OTB in a game where he likely did not cheat at all.
- simonh 4y ago
  > So you agree that Magnus is wrong and that Hans did not cheat in the OTB game. There’s a world of difference between holding a personal opinion that X is probably true, and agreeing that X is an established fact. > Magnus’s response has been ridiculous because it’s entirely focused on 1 individual player as opposed to the actual large scale problem of cheating in chess From the letter: “I also believe that chess organizers and all those who care about the sanctity of the game we love should seriously consider increasing security measures and methods of cheat detection for over the board chess.”
root_axis 4y ago
As an outsider to the chess world, this all seems like a roundabout way of saying "we have no evidence that he cheated, but in lieu of evidence let's go with gut feelings".
- casion 4y ago
  He did cheat in impactful events, and he admitted it.
  - roflyear 4y ago
    - blangk 4y ago
      Hans?
      - roflyear 4y ago
        Yeah. He cheated online. By his own admission. I wouldn't say that is impactful events.
    - casion 4y ago
      Online games often: - are how players make their living in cash tournaments - qualify for OTB events (including wct events) - are rated by FIDE or national organizations - count for points in otb/online hybrid tournaments. All of those are significantly impactful for a professional player.
      - roflyear 4y ago
        That's barely true.
        Bud 4y ago
        In other words, it's completely true. Right? Things are either true, or not. Which is it? Come on, just have the guts to admit it.
epolanski 4y ago
It is very unlikely a 2700 GM can beat Magnus on black pieces. Moreover the live coverage showed an Hans way too relaxed about moves with 100% accuracy he was pulling. He could also not give an explanation about of his moves in the game in an interview. This, coupled with Magnus complaining about low security standards in the tournament make all the things very suspicious.
- roflyear 4y ago
  - blangk 4y ago
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- nonethewiser 4y ago
  But cheating wouldn't explain a relaxed state. You could easily expect that he'd be nervous as fuck to cheat OTB against Carlsen. This is just wildly speculative and ultimately meaningless.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - epolanski 4y ago
    Sherlock Holmes used to say that a clue is just a clue, two clues are just two clues, but three clues make a proof.
    - Sebb767 4y ago
      Except that you can't really call things a clue if you're just looking for things to confirm your existing opinion. Any stance Hans could have had during that game could be construed as indication of him cheating.
nonethewiser 4y ago
> Maybe Hans did cheat OTB, maybe he didn't, but the tough part about reputation is it is very hard to build and very easy to break. The problem is this was true a month ago. And a year ago. And 2 years ago. If he should be banned by reputation then it should have already happened. If they do it now they just weaponize cheating accusations.
icambron 4y ago
But you can't go about punishing him this way. If FIDE or Chess.com or whoever wanted to ban him from events for his past behavior--or players simply wanted to ostracize him by refusing to play in tournaments with him--they needed to have banned/ostracized him for that behavior. I don't think anyone would complain if Niemann were caught cheating and then permanently banned. That's what Carlsen implies he's after and it's fine. In contrast, this is "well, you cheated in the past, but we're going to let you play, unless you play really well, in which case we'll assume you cheated". This is just not a sane way to go about it, and creates the scenario in which Niemann is playing with a sort of externally-imposed skill cap. An accusation has to come with evidence specific to that accusation, not some hazy combination of past history + unease with his play. This all sounds like a slow-motion tantrum, which Carlsen can get away with because he's Magnus Carlsen.
- triyambakam 4y ago
  > which Carlsen can get away with because he's Magnus Carlsen. Exactly.
- zamalek 4y ago
  > This all sounds like a slow-motion tantrum, which Carlsen can get away with because he's Magnus Carlsen. Unlike Hans history of cheating, Magnus does not have a history of baseless accusations when he loses (which he has on many occasions).

flawn 4y ago

I could also decide to cheat when being in the top players in the world. Even better, because I would only need to use my cheats sometimes and hide it even better because my knowledge holds up enough.

bombcar 4y ago
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.
- MauranKilom 4y ago
  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".
  - medvezhenok 4y ago
    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.
    - floor2 4y ago
      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".
      - evol262 4y ago
        I'm not sure why you think anything has changed, in any sport.
  - sodality2 4y ago
    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.
  - toomanyrichies 4y ago
    Lance Armstrong would like a word with you.
    - hughw 4y ago
      Only two kinds of bike racers: cheaters and losers.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
peter422 4y ago
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).

neaden 4y ago

To be fair to Hans, his claim is he cheated in a prize money tournament when he was 12. If he cheated in prize money games besides that it would be different, but I think most people are willing to forgive a 12 year old.

shawabawa3 4y ago
He's admitted to cheating at 12 years old and at 16 years old (just 3 years ago)
- neaden 4y ago
  Right but the claim he made is at 16 he cheated only in no-stakes games, not for prize money.
  - frumper 4y ago
    You realize you're putting your trust in the word of someone admitting they cheated. It only goes downhill from there.
    - roflyear 4y ago
      No, just trying to put into perspective that people are morons and witch hunts are not fun for anyone. He's just a kid, he made a mistake.
  - landryraccoon 4y ago
    That argument doesn’t make sense to me. If someone has acknowledged that they will cheat when there are NO stakes, why does that make it less likely they will cheat if something is on the line? If anything someone who is already known to cheat “just because” is even more likely to cheat when there is something to gain.
    - neaden 4y ago
      The claim in the original comment that I replied to was that Hans had admitted to cheating in "real, official, prize money online tournaments", which was when he was 12. As for cheating and stakes I think it all depends. His claim is he cheated when he was 16 to boost his rating so he could player higher level opponents on stream and boost his career. If you accept that claim it would make sense that he rationalized it that he was just cheating to get to his "true" Elo and stopped cheating once he got there. Now Chess.Com seems to believe that he cheated beyond that but they haven't specified more at this point.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

addicted 4y ago

So you agree that Magnus is wrong and that Hans did not cheat in the OTB game. And if you also agree with Magnus that cheating is a major problem then him singling out a single player who happened to beat him in OTB chess, as opposed to asking for wholesale changes for the past so many years to tackle cheating more seriously when he owns one of the top chess organizations and has partnerships with nearly every other chess organization, seems like him just being a sore loser. I don’t need to defend Hans’s cheating to point out that Magnus’s response has been ridiculous because it’s entirely focused on 1 individual player as opposed to the actual large scale problem of cheating in chess. A guy who happened to beat him OTB in a game where he likely did not cheat at all.

simonh 4y ago
> So you agree that Magnus is wrong and that Hans did not cheat in the OTB game. There’s a world of difference between holding a personal opinion that X is probably true, and agreeing that X is an established fact. > Magnus’s response has been ridiculous because it’s entirely focused on 1 individual player as opposed to the actual large scale problem of cheating in chess From the letter: “I also believe that chess organizers and all those who care about the sanctity of the game we love should seriously consider increasing security measures and methods of cheat detection for over the board chess.”

root_axis 4y ago

As an outsider to the chess world, this all seems like a roundabout way of saying "we have no evidence that he cheated, but in lieu of evidence let's go with gut feelings".

casion 4y ago
He did cheat in impactful events, and he admitted it.
- roflyear 4y ago
  - blangk 4y ago
    Hans?
    - roflyear 4y ago
      Yeah. He cheated online. By his own admission. I wouldn't say that is impactful events.
  - casion 4y ago
    Online games often: - are how players make their living in cash tournaments - qualify for OTB events (including wct events) - are rated by FIDE or national organizations - count for points in otb/online hybrid tournaments. All of those are significantly impactful for a professional player.
    - roflyear 4y ago
      That's barely true.
      - Bud 4y ago
        In other words, it's completely true. Right? Things are either true, or not. Which is it? Come on, just have the guts to admit it.

epolanski 4y ago

It is very unlikely a 2700 GM can beat Magnus on black pieces. Moreover the live coverage showed an Hans way too relaxed about moves with 100% accuracy he was pulling. He could also not give an explanation about of his moves in the game in an interview. This, coupled with Magnus complaining about low security standards in the tournament make all the things very suspicious.

roflyear 4y ago
- blangk 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
nonethewiser 4y ago
But cheating wouldn't explain a relaxed state. You could easily expect that he'd be nervous as fuck to cheat OTB against Carlsen. This is just wildly speculative and ultimately meaningless.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- epolanski 4y ago
  Sherlock Holmes used to say that a clue is just a clue, two clues are just two clues, but three clues make a proof.
  - Sebb767 4y ago
    Except that you can't really call things a clue if you're just looking for things to confirm your existing opinion. Any stance Hans could have had during that game could be construed as indication of him cheating.

nonethewiser 4y ago

> Maybe Hans did cheat OTB, maybe he didn't, but the tough part about reputation is it is very hard to build and very easy to break. The problem is this was true a month ago. And a year ago. And 2 years ago. If he should be banned by reputation then it should have already happened. If they do it now they just weaponize cheating accusations.

icambron 4y ago

But you can't go about punishing him this way. If FIDE or Chess.com or whoever wanted to ban him from events for his past behavior--or players simply wanted to ostracize him by refusing to play in tournaments with him--they needed to have banned/ostracized him for that behavior. I don't think anyone would complain if Niemann were caught cheating and then permanently banned. That's what Carlsen implies he's after and it's fine. In contrast, this is "well, you cheated in the past, but we're going to let you play, unless you play really well, in which case we'll assume you cheated". This is just not a sane way to go about it, and creates the scenario in which Niemann is playing with a sort of externally-imposed skill cap. An accusation has to come with evidence specific to that accusation, not some hazy combination of past history + unease with his play. This all sounds like a slow-motion tantrum, which Carlsen can get away with because he's Magnus Carlsen.

triyambakam 4y ago
> which Carlsen can get away with because he's Magnus Carlsen. Exactly.
zamalek 4y ago
> This all sounds like a slow-motion tantrum, which Carlsen can get away with because he's Magnus Carlsen. Unlike Hans history of cheating, Magnus does not have a history of baseless accusations when he loses (which he has on many occasions).