3 ms·

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 literall

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 Sure, had Carlsen won, he would maybe not have withdrawn (apparently he still felt uncomfortable with Niemann's inclusion, as did other GMs).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

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?