2 ms·

>proving he cheated [...] Sorry I missed the part where there was a proof. Could you pinpoint to it?

by moralestapia 4y ago

John23832 4y ago
https://www.chess.com/blog/CHESScom/hans-niemann-report https://www.chess.com/blog/CHESScom/hans-niemann-report
- moralestapia 4y ago
  We present evidence in this report that Hans likely cheated online much more than his public statements suggest. However, while Hans has had a record-setting and remarkable rise in rating and strength, in our view there is a lack of concrete statistical evidence that he cheated in his game with Magnus or in any other over-the-board (“OTB”)—i.e., in-person—games. We are presenting our findings here and will cooperate with FIDE on any further investigation. ... Despite the public speculation on these questions, in our view, there is no direct evidence that proves Hans cheated at the September 4, 2022 game with Magnus, or proves that he has cheated in other OTB games in the past. Uh oh ... that doesn't look good for the defendants.
  - John23832 4y ago
    It doesn't matter. Nobody outright said that Hans cheated in the match (except for Hikaru, but that's commentary on youtube. He has the right to say that.) There's no basis to sue Chess.com. Their report is their stance. They sponsor online games and run their own platform, so they can remove Hans if they please. Magnus specifically didn't call Hans a cheater, he just said that he believes that he has cheated more that Hans admitted. Libel starts at "you are" not "I believe". There was a lot of pilling-on on the internet, but that's the nature of the internet. You can't sue the internet.
    - moralestapia 4y ago
      >Libel starts at "you are" not "I believe". Nah, libel triggers as soon as there's intent. And, surprise, intent can be "presumed". "I believe <person did X>" qualifies as libel, if untrue and it has a defamatory effect. The defamatory effect implies the intent. Honestly, if no definitive proof comes out of Hans cheating, Carlsen/chess.com are in trouble.
      - John23832 4y ago
        But none of this is provably untrue. In fact, chess.com’s report gives evidence that Hans has cheated more than he has led on. In the report evened admits it. Which is all that is asserted here.
        raydiatian 4y ago
        I need help understanding how they “gave evidence” In any case, I know this won’t be officially resolved in the court of public opinion.
        John23832 4y ago
        In their report, Chess.com statistically showed why they believed that Hans was cheating on their site. They also shared that he admitted it, and why he said he did it (a higher rating gets more streams). That all they need to show, because that’s all they assert.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        moralestapia 4y ago
        >that’s all they assert Nah, chess.com asserts that he's cheating more than he admitted to. While Carlsen asserts that Hans cheated on OTB games against him. No clear evidence on any of those things. Also, chess.com is far from an authority here, plus, there's a conflict of interest. They would have to show with some method that a court considers valid (much better than "trust me, bro ;)") that Hans was cheating. Disregarding the underlying truth, something like that is quite difficult to prove. Making all the right moves and "you can't be that good" is not evidence of cheating, they have to prove that there was an artifact/device/technique being used by Hans to win. Good luck with that.

>proving he cheated [...] Sorry I missed the part where there was a proof. Could you pinpoint to it?

John23832 4y ago

https://www.chess.com/blog/CHESScom/hans-niemann-report https://www.chess.com/blog/CHESScom/hans-niemann-report

moralestapia 4y ago
We present evidence in this report that Hans likely cheated online much more than his public statements suggest. However, while Hans has had a record-setting and remarkable rise in rating and strength, in our view there is a lack of concrete statistical evidence that he cheated in his game with Magnus or in any other over-the-board (“OTB”)—i.e., in-person—games. We are presenting our findings here and will cooperate with FIDE on any further investigation. ... Despite the public speculation on these questions, in our view, there is no direct evidence that proves Hans cheated at the September 4, 2022 game with Magnus, or proves that he has cheated in other OTB games in the past. Uh oh ... that doesn't look good for the defendants.
- John23832 4y ago
  It doesn't matter. Nobody outright said that Hans cheated in the match (except for Hikaru, but that's commentary on youtube. He has the right to say that.) There's no basis to sue Chess.com. Their report is their stance. They sponsor online games and run their own platform, so they can remove Hans if they please. Magnus specifically didn't call Hans a cheater, he just said that he believes that he has cheated more that Hans admitted. Libel starts at "you are" not "I believe". There was a lot of pilling-on on the internet, but that's the nature of the internet. You can't sue the internet.
  - moralestapia 4y ago
    >Libel starts at "you are" not "I believe". Nah, libel triggers as soon as there's intent. And, surprise, intent can be "presumed". "I believe <person did X>" qualifies as libel, if untrue and it has a defamatory effect. The defamatory effect implies the intent. Honestly, if no definitive proof comes out of Hans cheating, Carlsen/chess.com are in trouble.
    - John23832 4y ago
      But none of this is provably untrue. In fact, chess.com’s report gives evidence that Hans has cheated more than he has led on. In the report evened admits it. Which is all that is asserted here.
      - raydiatian 4y ago
        I need help understanding how they “gave evidence” In any case, I know this won’t be officially resolved in the court of public opinion.
        John23832 4y ago
        In their report, Chess.com statistically showed why they believed that Hans was cheating on their site. They also shared that he admitted it, and why he said he did it (a higher rating gets more streams). That all they need to show, because that’s all they assert.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        moralestapia 4y ago
        >that’s all they assert Nah, chess.com asserts that he's cheating more than he admitted to. While Carlsen asserts that Hans cheated on OTB games against him. No clear evidence on any of those things. Also, chess.com is far from an authority here, plus, there's a conflict of interest. They would have to show with some method that a court considers valid (much better than "trust me, bro ;)") that Hans was cheating. Disregarding the underlying truth, something like that is quite difficult to prove. Making all the right moves and "you can't be that good" is not evidence of cheating, they have to prove that there was an artifact/device/technique being used by Hans to win. Good luck with that.