4 ms·

How aren't they impartial? They are obviously an interested party, but do they have an incentive to skew the facts? If so in which direction? Not doubting you,

How aren't they impartial? They are obviously an interested party, but do they have an incentive to skew the facts? If so in which direction? Not doubting you, just genuinely interested.

axxl 4y ago
Magnus owns a decent stake in them (20% maybe?) and has been very publicly making accusations as well.
- heartbreak 4y ago
  Their deal with Magnus hasn’t closed, but yes, they are purchasing his company.
- Version467 4y ago
  Oh, I didn't know that chess.com wanted to buy chess24. That does make it more difficult.
- suetoniusp 4y ago
  Its not that much, but the article ignores the fact that chess.com knew all of this and invited him to their tournaments. Then once the Singfield cup event happened and Magnus got mad they banned him. They have been selectively releasing information about him and his one time coach for a few weeks now. While in the past they have never, not once, released any of their cheating information. Why now? If they dont release the report they are talking about then this article is nothing.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Apparently they have a policy of only dealing internally, with their own online systems. Basically they just quietly ban players caught cheating, and don't report it anywhere normally. Even now, they haven't released this publicly yet.
darkwizard42 4y ago
As mentioned in the article they are in talks to buy Magnus's app Play Magnus. That being said, if they have literal screenshots of the discussions between Niemann and chess.com admitting to cheating and appealing the ban, those seem like smoking guns in addition to all this other analysis
- hollerith 4y ago
  >if they have literal screenshots of the discussions between Niemann and chess.com admitting to cheating Screenshots are easy enough to fake perfectly that if I didn't trust a party to give an honest summary of the discussion and (as in the current stake) thousands of dollars or more is at stake, then I wouldn't trust screenshots either.
  - ratg13 4y ago
    If you are one of the parties in the conversation, then it stands to reason that you have more than screenshots.
  - edanm 4y ago
    Screenshots in this case are perfectly reliable. If they are literally faking screenshots of what Hans said, it'd be incredibly easy for him to prove it and sue them for the falsification.
    - hollerith 4y ago
      Can you explain how Hans could prove that screenshots are fake? I suppose you mean Hans could subpoena records from his own ISP or Chess.com or Chess.com's ISP that reveal the content of Hans's communication; right?
      - edanm 4y ago
        Exactly. He can subpoena records, can have a third party get access to e.g. Gmail or whatever he uses, etc.
permo-w 4y ago
I would say that more than relationships with Magnus, chess.com are not impartial in the same way that the tabloid press are not impartial. controversy -> attention -> money. I bet their brand recognition is through the fucking roof after being in international news and spread all over tiktok for a couple of weeks this isn't to say that I don't think Niemann cheated. I think he probably did, just that chess.com is getting great publicity from all this and it would be un-shocking for them to want to string it out a bit longer. it would be poor business not to, in fact

How aren't they impartial? They are obviously an interested party, but do they have an incentive to skew the facts? If so in which direction? Not doubting you, just genuinely interested.

axxl 4y ago

Magnus owns a decent stake in them (20% maybe?) and has been very publicly making accusations as well.

heartbreak 4y ago
Their deal with Magnus hasn’t closed, but yes, they are purchasing his company.
Version467 4y ago
Oh, I didn't know that chess.com wanted to buy chess24. That does make it more difficult.
suetoniusp 4y ago
Its not that much, but the article ignores the fact that chess.com knew all of this and invited him to their tournaments. Then once the Singfield cup event happened and Magnus got mad they banned him. They have been selectively releasing information about him and his one time coach for a few weeks now. While in the past they have never, not once, released any of their cheating information. Why now? If they dont release the report they are talking about then this article is nothing.
- bombcar 4y ago
  Apparently they have a policy of only dealing internally, with their own online systems. Basically they just quietly ban players caught cheating, and don't report it anywhere normally. Even now, they haven't released this publicly yet.

darkwizard42 4y ago

As mentioned in the article they are in talks to buy Magnus's app Play Magnus. That being said, if they have literal screenshots of the discussions between Niemann and chess.com admitting to cheating and appealing the ban, those seem like smoking guns in addition to all this other analysis

hollerith 4y ago
>if they have literal screenshots of the discussions between Niemann and chess.com admitting to cheating Screenshots are easy enough to fake perfectly that if I didn't trust a party to give an honest summary of the discussion and (as in the current stake) thousands of dollars or more is at stake, then I wouldn't trust screenshots either.
- ratg13 4y ago
  If you are one of the parties in the conversation, then it stands to reason that you have more than screenshots.
- edanm 4y ago
  Screenshots in this case are perfectly reliable. If they are literally faking screenshots of what Hans said, it'd be incredibly easy for him to prove it and sue them for the falsification.
  - hollerith 4y ago
    Can you explain how Hans could prove that screenshots are fake? I suppose you mean Hans could subpoena records from his own ISP or Chess.com or Chess.com's ISP that reveal the content of Hans's communication; right?
    - edanm 4y ago
      Exactly. He can subpoena records, can have a third party get access to e.g. Gmail or whatever he uses, etc.

permo-w 4y ago

I would say that more than relationships with Magnus, chess.com are not impartial in the same way that the tabloid press are not impartial. controversy -> attention -> money. I bet their brand recognition is through the fucking roof after being in international news and spread all over tiktok for a couple of weeks this isn't to say that I don't think Niemann cheated. I think he probably did, just that chess.com is getting great publicity from all this and it would be un-shocking for them to want to string it out a bit longer. it would be poor business not to, in fact