4 ms·

chess.com will put their credibility on the line to assassinate this one player? That sounds a bit conspiratorial - isn't it more likely that both Carlsen and

chess.com will put their credibility on the line to assassinate this one player? That sounds a bit conspiratorial - isn't it more likely that both Carlsen and chess.com take issue with cheating and they are in a business relationship, not because? Isn't the point that finally there is a discussion what a due process looks like?

Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
chess.com never had that much credibility ever, banning people left and right, and even joking about false positives. > Isn't the point that finally there is a discussion what a due process looks like? What do you mean, 'finally'? People who were appalled by Carlsen's tantrums were insisting on it from the very start. If you have an evidence of cheating, present it. If you don't, stop behaving like a spoiled child and do not bully your opponent.
- Pyramus 4y ago
  I'm not sure I understand your argument, I find it a bit too conspiratorial, and I'm not a fan of chess.com either. > What do you mean, 'finally'? It literally took the world champion to throw a 'tantrum' to get a public discussion about cheating in chess: How should FIDE sanction (online) cheaters? What is the process? What type of evidence is required? What are the statistical methods to distinguish a super GM from a GM with engine help? What anti-cheating measures are necessary?
  - Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
    I mean, chess.com does make mistakes and then laughs them off, 'oh, you are a really good player, ha-ha, sorry for our allegations about you cheating' - I find this attitude rather unhealthy, since according to some HN users, cheating once on chess.com is enough to justify a to permanent lifetime ban from all chess events, online or over the board ones. Regarding a 'tantrum' if Niemann is such a bad vile cheater, why did Carlsen start all this intimidation campaign only after losing? (and losing in a game where there were no obvious computer moves, just a solid play from Niemann and not the best play from Carlsen) If he has some evidence of cheating, he should bring it to the table. Or just play according to the rules.
    - Pyramus 4y ago
      Not sure what you mean - there is plenty of evidence Niemann cheated online, even if you personally don't believe chess.com. If you believe chess.com, Niemann is a cheater that lied about his cheating. Again, I don't get the whole 'campaign' thing, it sounds like a big collusion. Sure, had Carlsen won, he would maybe not have withdrawn (apparently he still felt uncomfortable with Niemann's inclusion, as did other GMs). But it's a logical fallacy to conclude that the cheating allegations are unfounded. My understanding is it simply was the straw that broke the camel's neck. Likely a false straw, but the bucket was already full at that point.
      - Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
        There is no evidence Niemann used computer engines to progress in FIDE ratings. Whatever happens in no stakes online games is irrelevant. I use CheatEngine to make my Crusader Kings 2 games me interesting, so what?

Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago

chess.com never had that much credibility ever, banning people left and right, and even joking about false positives. > Isn't the point that finally there is a discussion what a due process looks like? What do you mean, 'finally'? People who were appalled by Carlsen's tantrums were insisting on it from the very start. If you have an evidence of cheating, present it. If you don't, stop behaving like a spoiled child and do not bully your opponent.

Pyramus 4y ago
I'm not sure I understand your argument, I find it a bit too conspiratorial, and I'm not a fan of chess.com either. > What do you mean, 'finally'? It literally took the world champion to throw a 'tantrum' to get a public discussion about cheating in chess: How should FIDE sanction (online) cheaters? What is the process? What type of evidence is required? What are the statistical methods to distinguish a super GM from a GM with engine help? What anti-cheating measures are necessary?
- Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
  I mean, chess.com does make mistakes and then laughs them off, 'oh, you are a really good player, ha-ha, sorry for our allegations about you cheating' - I find this attitude rather unhealthy, since according to some HN users, cheating once on chess.com is enough to justify a to permanent lifetime ban from all chess events, online or over the board ones. Regarding a 'tantrum' if Niemann is such a bad vile cheater, why did Carlsen start all this intimidation campaign only after losing? (and losing in a game where there were no obvious computer moves, just a solid play from Niemann and not the best play from Carlsen) If he has some evidence of cheating, he should bring it to the table. Or just play according to the rules.
  - Pyramus 4y ago
    Not sure what you mean - there is plenty of evidence Niemann cheated online, even if you personally don't believe chess.com. If you believe chess.com, Niemann is a cheater that lied about his cheating. Again, I don't get the whole 'campaign' thing, it sounds like a big collusion. Sure, had Carlsen won, he would maybe not have withdrawn (apparently he still felt uncomfortable with Niemann's inclusion, as did other GMs). But it's a logical fallacy to conclude that the cheating allegations are unfounded. My understanding is it simply was the straw that broke the camel's neck. Likely a false straw, but the bucket was already full at that point.
    - Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
      There is no evidence Niemann used computer engines to progress in FIDE ratings. Whatever happens in no stakes online games is irrelevant. I use CheatEngine to make my Crusader Kings 2 games me interesting, so what?