4 ms·
"I'm not saying Hans Niemann cheated in this very specific instance against me. I'm just saying he's a professional cheater, and that fact may or may not be rel
by Victerius 4y ago
"I'm not saying Hans Niemann cheated in this very specific instance against me. I'm just saying he's a professional cheater, and that fact may or may not be related to my withdrawal in a game against him after just one move."
Carlsen is all but accusing Niemann of having cheated against him. Why can't he go the extra step? Is this something his lawyers have advised him to do? (I don't have a dog in this fight)
- bombcar 4y agoIn a carefully worded statement like this (clearly it has been reviewed by legal council) you will say things that cannot be charged as defamation in the appropriate courts. It's also a gambit to get Hans to say something like "sure, Carlsen, say whatever you want" which could be used as a defense in a defamation case. There's even a hint that Carlsen has evidence of cheating that has yet to be revealed (but not this game).
- Bakary 4y agoI was about to say that the word is counsel but, come to think of it, Carlsen can well afford an entire council of lawyers.
- bombcar 4y agoHa! Good catch (did you have a computer help you!!!) but I daresay Carlsen's lawyer and perhaps Chess.com's have reviewed the statement.
- Y_Y 4y agoThe aforementioned Twitter Gambit first having been developed by Capablanca.
- itronitron 4y agoCheaters gonna cheat. Personally I don't think Carlsen needs to elaborate any further.
- tptacek 4y agoYes. Niemann has admitted to cheating in the past, and has apparently been banned from some past events for cheating. So Carlsen can safely relate to the public that he believes Niemann to be a "cheater". But to say for a fact that Niemann cheated in a specific match, he'd be communicating a statement of fact. If that statement is false, or could colorably be argued as false, then Niemann can take him to court for defamation, and even if Carlsen prevailed, it would still be painful and expensive. Remember that statements of opinions, including opinions that are analyses of previously disclosed facts, are protected from defamation claims. Defamation can only consist of a damaging false statement of fact, or the allegation that you're aware of specific undisclosed facts like that to support your opinion.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- bombcar 4y agoNote that the above defamation is the US-based one, I believe. Other countries have vastly different statues, and in some cases true statements of fact can be defamation (if they were not widely known, I believe).
- ChrisMarshallNY 4y agoI think the UK is that way. You could call out Lord St. Buggering-Little-Boys, complete with films, DNA evidence, and witness testimony, and still lose (and be on the hook for legal fees).
- moralestapia 4y agoBut he already accused Neimann of cheating ... the slander is already there. If I were Neimann I would actually sue now.
- tptacek 4y agoNeimann has already admitted to cheating in the past, so that claim is dead.
- defen 4y agoIf you're 49% sure someone cheated against you / would cheat against you, that's probably enough to make you never want to play against them, but also not enough to prevail in a court case.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- cxr 4y agoPlease don't post manufactured troll quotes.
- throw7 4y agoRead his statement again. He does accuse Niemann of cheating against him at the Sinquefield Cup. His reasoning is more feel/behaviour based.