3 ms·

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

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.
- raydiatian 4y ago
  Invariably, I suspect that this trial will not prove anything. While I’m frustrated at the realization that Chess.com has a conflict of interest, I think halting Niemann’s career without proof of OTB cheating is absolutely foolish from the Carlsen camp. A far better solution is to tell Niemann he has been flagged, and his games will be watched for an extended time period with added scrutiny, he’ll need to explain why he made the moves accurately, etc etc. if after an extended period up against difficult opponents he proves he can’t function with the same fervor as he had against Carlsen, “let that speak for itself” as everybody seems to want to say wrt this case. I don’t know if Carlsen is personally liable, but man, it seems pretty fucking foolish on his part to have said what he said.
  - NickC25 4y ago
    >While I’m frustrated at the realization that Chess.com has a conflict of interest There is no conflict of interest outside of keeping games fair. They are a platform that hosts chess matches. That's it. Banning an admitted cheater who admitting to cheating in order to make more money is not a conflict of interest at all - it's what would keep people from using their site. >A far better solution is to tell Niemann he has been flagged And that's happened. And Niemann STILL cheated. Did you see the letter the Chess.com folks sent Hans? Hans admitted to cheating, was banned, was allowed to come back, and cheated again. Chess.com was extremely lenient with Hans, and admitted as such. >he’ll need to explain why he made the moves accurately That's where the whole "the chess speaks for itself" thing came from....he was put on the spot in the post match interview against Carlsen. He couldn't explain why he made some of the moves he made and would fall back to "the chess speaks for itself" line. That's why people are suspicious of him.
- John23832 4y ago
  Chess.com is the authority on the data gathered on their site… which is their basis of kicking him off of their site. They’ve done nothing else. They really don’t have to prove anything to remove him from their site. Him admitting to it, and their interpretation of the stats is icing on the cake.

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.

raydiatian 4y ago
Invariably, I suspect that this trial will not prove anything. While I’m frustrated at the realization that Chess.com has a conflict of interest, I think halting Niemann’s career without proof of OTB cheating is absolutely foolish from the Carlsen camp. A far better solution is to tell Niemann he has been flagged, and his games will be watched for an extended time period with added scrutiny, he’ll need to explain why he made the moves accurately, etc etc. if after an extended period up against difficult opponents he proves he can’t function with the same fervor as he had against Carlsen, “let that speak for itself” as everybody seems to want to say wrt this case. I don’t know if Carlsen is personally liable, but man, it seems pretty fucking foolish on his part to have said what he said.
- NickC25 4y ago
  >While I’m frustrated at the realization that Chess.com has a conflict of interest There is no conflict of interest outside of keeping games fair. They are a platform that hosts chess matches. That's it. Banning an admitted cheater who admitting to cheating in order to make more money is not a conflict of interest at all - it's what would keep people from using their site. >A far better solution is to tell Niemann he has been flagged And that's happened. And Niemann STILL cheated. Did you see the letter the Chess.com folks sent Hans? Hans admitted to cheating, was banned, was allowed to come back, and cheated again. Chess.com was extremely lenient with Hans, and admitted as such. >he’ll need to explain why he made the moves accurately That's where the whole "the chess speaks for itself" thing came from....he was put on the spot in the post match interview against Carlsen. He couldn't explain why he made some of the moves he made and would fall back to "the chess speaks for itself" line. That's why people are suspicious of him.
John23832 4y ago
Chess.com is the authority on the data gathered on their site… which is their basis of kicking him off of their site. They’ve done nothing else. They really don’t have to prove anything to remove him from their site. Him admitting to it, and their interpretation of the stats is icing on the cake.