6 ms·

Aaaaannd any last remaining respect I had for Hans is now gone.

by Group_B 4y ago

fdfaz 4y ago
NotYourLawyer 4y ago
Why? If he’s innocent, this seems like a reasonable lawsuit.
- rob74 4y ago
  Even if he's not innocent, proving that he cheated in a way that will hold up in court might be very difficult...
  - NotYourLawyer 4y ago
    Plaintiff has the burden of proof.
  - selfmodruntime 4y ago
    Well, perhaps then Magnus and Chess.com shouldn't have tried to deplatform him? Turns out, in civil matters what you say can bite you in the ass. Who knew.
    - threatofrain 4y ago
      I'd note that Chess.com prefers to deal with things privately and would've been quiet about this had Hans not publicly used Chess.com's brand to bolster his own credibility, essentially saying that Chess.com vouches for him. Then Chess.com asked him to retract his words but Hans refused. This is ultimately led to the WSJ article.
- parrellel 4y ago
  I mean we know he cheated before, he's said as much. Now, I don't know if he actually cheated in the match with Carlsen, but Carlsen had every reason to believe the man would and did. Which would make libel and slander pretty untenable by my limited understanding.
  - NotYourLawyer 4y ago
    Very much not legal advice here, but… believing that you’re telling the truth doesn’t automatically make it not slander.
    - tylerhou 4y ago
      In the US, it depends on whether Hans is a public figure. If he is, generally the standard is you have to know your statements are false.
      - klyrs 4y ago
        Ironic that most of us never would have heard of the guy if Carlsen hadn't walked out on the match.
      - NotYourLawyer 4y ago
        Sure, the actual malice standard. Seems like a tough sell on these facts, but might as well argue it and see what sticks.
  - iLoveOncall 4y ago
    > but Carlsen had every reason to believe the man would and did. Carlsen also had the perfect excuse for his bad performance by suggesting the other player cheated.
MichaelCollins 4y ago
If you previously still had respect for Hans, does that mean you considered it possible he is innocent of these specific cheating accusations? Supposing for the sake of argument that he really didn't cheat, isn't he well within his right to sue those defaming him? Personally I don't know; I see smoke but no fire and I'm not qualified to judge the meaning of that smoke. Hans' admitted history of cheating before online makes me inclined to believe he's cheated again, but it doesn't prove anything. In the future going forward, I think the chess community should adopt a zero tolerance policy towards cheating; one strike and you're out even if you were a teenager when you did it. This would be the most fair to the players who never cheat even once. But this isn't the sort of standard that should be applied retroactively.
- mannykannot 4y ago
  He has the option to sue, but the way to gain respect is to demonstrate his ability in an environment that controls for any means of cheating posited by those who suspect him of doing so.
  - iLoveOncall 4y ago
    He already did so, in the match that he won against Carlsen. The measures in all those tournaments are extremely stringent.
    - mannykannot 4y ago
      Clearly some people whose opinions matter do not regard those measures as stringent enough to settle the issue.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - iLoveOncall 4y ago
        Do you have any idea of what is in place to prevent cheating in those competitions? The only possible improvement would be for the players to be naked. This is just an easy excuse. "He cheated!" "There are anticheat measures" "They're not good enough" It's a cycle that can never be solved. The loser can always claim the anticheat measures were "not enough". You know what. I think Carlsen has cheated in every single one of his games. Prove the contrary.

Aaaaannd any last remaining respect I had for Hans is now gone.

fdfaz 4y ago

NotYourLawyer 4y ago

Why? If he’s innocent, this seems like a reasonable lawsuit.

rob74 4y ago
Even if he's not innocent, proving that he cheated in a way that will hold up in court might be very difficult...
- NotYourLawyer 4y ago
  Plaintiff has the burden of proof.
- selfmodruntime 4y ago
  Well, perhaps then Magnus and Chess.com shouldn't have tried to deplatform him? Turns out, in civil matters what you say can bite you in the ass. Who knew.
  - threatofrain 4y ago
    I'd note that Chess.com prefers to deal with things privately and would've been quiet about this had Hans not publicly used Chess.com's brand to bolster his own credibility, essentially saying that Chess.com vouches for him. Then Chess.com asked him to retract his words but Hans refused. This is ultimately led to the WSJ article.
parrellel 4y ago
I mean we know he cheated before, he's said as much. Now, I don't know if he actually cheated in the match with Carlsen, but Carlsen had every reason to believe the man would and did. Which would make libel and slander pretty untenable by my limited understanding.
- NotYourLawyer 4y ago
  Very much not legal advice here, but… believing that you’re telling the truth doesn’t automatically make it not slander.
  - tylerhou 4y ago
    In the US, it depends on whether Hans is a public figure. If he is, generally the standard is you have to know your statements are false.
    - klyrs 4y ago
      Ironic that most of us never would have heard of the guy if Carlsen hadn't walked out on the match.
    - NotYourLawyer 4y ago
      Sure, the actual malice standard. Seems like a tough sell on these facts, but might as well argue it and see what sticks.
- iLoveOncall 4y ago
  > but Carlsen had every reason to believe the man would and did. Carlsen also had the perfect excuse for his bad performance by suggesting the other player cheated.

MichaelCollins 4y ago

If you previously still had respect for Hans, does that mean you considered it possible he is innocent of these specific cheating accusations? Supposing for the sake of argument that he really didn't cheat, isn't he well within his right to sue those defaming him? Personally I don't know; I see smoke but no fire and I'm not qualified to judge the meaning of that smoke. Hans' admitted history of cheating before online makes me inclined to believe he's cheated again, but it doesn't prove anything. In the future going forward, I think the chess community should adopt a zero tolerance policy towards cheating; one strike and you're out even if you were a teenager when you did it. This would be the most fair to the players who never cheat even once. But this isn't the sort of standard that should be applied retroactively.

mannykannot 4y ago
He has the option to sue, but the way to gain respect is to demonstrate his ability in an environment that controls for any means of cheating posited by those who suspect him of doing so.
- iLoveOncall 4y ago
  He already did so, in the match that he won against Carlsen. The measures in all those tournaments are extremely stringent.
  - mannykannot 4y ago
    Clearly some people whose opinions matter do not regard those measures as stringent enough to settle the issue.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - iLoveOncall 4y ago
      Do you have any idea of what is in place to prevent cheating in those competitions? The only possible improvement would be for the players to be naked. This is just an easy excuse. "He cheated!" "There are anticheat measures" "They're not good enough" It's a cycle that can never be solved. The loser can always claim the anticheat measures were "not enough". You know what. I think Carlsen has cheated in every single one of his games. Prove the contrary.