6 ms·

Chess.com Says Hans Niemann’s $100M Lawsuit Is a ‘Public Relations Stunt’

35 points by isaacfrond 4y ago

isaacfrond 4y ago
Destroy someone's career and livelihood with unsubstantiated claims. Then complain when said person files a law suit. To add insult to injury. Chess.com is the one who jumped on the Niemann bandwagon. But somehow is Niemann how is doing the public relations stunt. I find this whole episode very unpleasant. How one famous person's word against can make you a pariah to entire community; just like that.
- josefresco 4y ago
  Are you suggesting the "Hans Niemmann Report"* released in October did not substantiate the claims? *https://drive.google.com/file/d/11IokKgTVSXdpYEzAuyViIleSZ_2wl0ag/view https://drive.google.com/file/d/11IokKgTVSXdpYEzAuyViIleSZ_2...
  - lesuorac 4y ago
    Correct, it does not substantiate the claims. The Hans Niemmann Report does not claim that Hans beat Magnus by cheating. > X. The Sinquefield Cup and the Game with Magnus Carlsen > ... In our view, no conclusions should be made from this data.
    - rgoulter 4y ago
      Distinguishing two claims: 1. Hans Niemann is a cheater. 2. Hans Niemann defeated Magnus Carlsen by cheating in an over the board tournament. I think claim (1) is well substantiated by chess.com's report. There's no concrete evidence which supports (2).
      - lesuorac 4y ago
        Good thing for Hans the lawsuit is about (2) then.
        rgoulter 4y ago
        Sure, but I wouldn't describe the situation as: "Hans beat the world champion; the world champion then accused him of cheating and forfeited from the tournament. ... No evidence of his cheating has been found. chess.com later released a report which did nothing to substantiate claims of cheating" I think closer is: "... Hans defended himself from accusations of cheating by admitting he has cheated online a few times, but never for money. chess.com later reported he has cheated prolifically, including for prize money. Despite this, no evidence of cheating during the tournament was found". I think the main tension is to what extent having cheated online should affect regard treatment during over the board games. It's not really a situation of 'sore loser suspects cheating'.
        Brian_K_White 4y ago
        Whatever extent that should be, needs to have been decided and implemented before allowing him to enter the competition, not after allowing him to play and win.
        rgoulter 4y ago
        Right; protesting like that after losing does look bad. As well, forfeiting from a round-robin tournament for anything less than health reasons is (afaict) unprecedented at that level. On the other hand, protesting to make a statement is much stronger if the action is disruptive, and if you feel the problem of "cheating in chess" hasn't otherwise been acknowledged.
        gliptic 4y ago
        His lawsuit against chess.com is certainly not about (2).
- cwzwarich 4y ago
  > Destroy someone's career and livelihood with unsubstantiated claims. Hans admitted cheating while playing games on Chess.com. Is alleging that he cheated more than he previously admitted destroying his career and livelihood?
  - adamsmith143 4y ago
    They also documented numerous other occasions of him cheating on Chess.com beyond what he admitted to.
    - wongarsu 4y ago
      Which was the real blow against him. It started with unprovable not-quite-accusations from Carlsen against Niemann, but once Niemann said "I only cheated twice, back when I was young" and chess.com came out with "actually, he cheated a lot on our platform" his credibility was gone
  - lesuorac 4y ago
    > Is alleging that he cheated more than he previously admitted destroying his career and livelihood? That's not what Hans is claiming so it's irrelevant. Hans is claiming that as a result of him beating Magnus in a game he did not cheat in. Hans is now blacklisted from nearly every chess event.
    - frumper 4y ago
      Life is tough when you're an admitted and known cheater. I don't wish him luck in his lawsuit, but he's welcome to it.
    - karaterobot 4y ago
      I'm not following this story, so I don't know the details. Is the reason he's ostracized because he beat Magnus in a game he did not cheat in, or because of wider allegations of cheating? Did people say "we don't trust you" or "we're blacklisting you because you beat Magnus?". That feels relevant to the law suit.
- grraaaaahhh 4y ago
  >I find this whole episode very unpleasant. How one famous person's word against can make you a pariah to entire community; just like that. One famous person's word and Han's own history as a cheater that is.
  - Brian_K_White 4y ago
    If his history is valid disqualification from playing, then they should not have allowed him to play in the first place. But they did allow him to play, and only now after the fact want to somehow disqualify that he played and won and fairly. I don't think people willing to do that are in a great position from which to talk about anyone else's integrity.
- constantcrying 4y ago
  Then don't cheat. If you are a known cheater other players have the right to be suspicious of you, especially in high stakes tournaments. >But somehow is Niemann how is doing the public relations stunt. What else would you call this lawsuit? Do you think Niemann, a known cheater, has an actual claim which meets the very high standards he needs to overcome to win the suite? Do you not think a professional chess player has the right to withdraw from a series and say that he does not feel comfortable playing a known cheater?
  - whaaswijk 4y ago
    So there can be no redemption? I can’t, off the top of my head, think of any endeavors where someone can never participate again once they’ve cheated. Certainly not in sports.
    - makoz 4y ago
      Really? Doping and Lance Armstrong is the first thing that comes to mind. Although I guess we could argue he wasn't competing anymore
    - constantcrying 4y ago
      >So there can be no redemption? Maybe, maybe not. If it had turned out that it really had been the case that he hadn't done any cheating since childhood I would have been quite a bit more sympathetic. Redemption is not something you are entitled to, it is something you may receive after many years of exemplary behaviour. Personally I wouldn't want him blacklisted from the entire sport. But at the same time he is deserving of suspicicion by other players. I also think that he didn't do himself any favors with that lawsuit and it makes it even more understandable if other professional players want to avoid playing him.
    - TylerE 4y ago
      Could there be? Sure. Has Hans done anything to warrant it? Not that I can see. If he were to announce, say, a 5 year break from competitive play and a substantial amount of volunteer work, that'd be a start. Not filing this sham of lawsuit.
- oldstrangers 4y ago
  Chess.com never said Hans cheated OTB, they just provided factual evidence of his rampant online cheating in both casual and money events... Something they probably wouldn't have done if he hadn't decided to lie about the extent of his cheating on camera at the Sinquefield Cup. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes, etc.
- threatofrain 4y ago
  From the outside perspective, Hans used Chess.com’s brand by essentially saying that Chess.com vouches for his credibility. Then Chess.com asked Hans to recant and came out with their fat report after he refused. Chess.com said very little about Magnus's charge of cheating and constrained their commentary to their relationship with Hans. I don't see this as Chess.com trying to punish Hans as opposed to Chess.com trying to protect their brand by (1) banning a problematic player from their own online games and (2) retorting Han's claims about further online cheating. Note that Hans does not dispute the legality of (1) and does not dispute the factuality of (2). Hans is trying to tie Chess.com into this by saying there's a conspiracy against him when he has provided zero evidence of that.
ergonaught 4y ago
The number one chess player on the planet qualifies as someone who can express an informed, professional opinion that another individual was calmer than he should have been under certain circumstances. Many similarly qualified experts will support that contention. Such experts professing the belief that someone who admits cheating has done so more than they've admitted is similarly not going anywhere.
spookybones 4y ago
This is the boy who cried wolf. Hans lost his credibility by cheating multiple times. If he actually played that game fairly, it’s still on him for many people doubting him.
- dqpb 4y ago
  So, guilty until proven innocent?
  - agolio 4y ago
    No, guilty after proven guilty, which he has been (he has also admitted to it)
  - ru552 4y ago
    No, he's been proven guilty and personally admitted on multiple occasions that he cheated.
    - onepointsixC 4y ago
      Well, most importantly IMO, after having been caught cheating online multiple times more than the cases he had admitted to.
    - N3Xxus_6 4y ago
      He's not proven guilty because the issue is did he cheat OTB when he played Magnus. The answer is no.
      - aeturnum 4y ago
        If that's the issue what is this lawsuit about? Chess.com did not accuse him of cheating OTB. Here is a quote from the report[1]: "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." [1] https://www.chess.com/blog/CHESScom/hans-niemann-report https://www.chess.com/blog/CHESScom/hans-niemann-report
alexb_ 4y ago
If Hans cheated once in an event for money, he should be banned from competing in chess. It's absolutely astounding to me that he has admitted to cheating multiple times and yet he's still playing in tournaments.
- oldstrangers 4y ago
  Even sillier is the number of people willing to completely ignore his rampant cheating just because it was "online". Hans has to carry the burden of his decisions, that's how this work.
  - lesuorac 4y ago
    The lawsuit is alleging that he is being penalized for cheating in a game that he did not cheat. Afaik, nobody is arguing that you can't punish somebody for breaking a rule. He even was banned in the past for cheating. However, you can't use an already punished infraction to issue a second infraction. Hans is claiming that he's been blacklisted from a bunch of tournaments as a result of a very unproven claim he cheated in the Sinquefield Cup.
    - oldstrangers 4y ago
      Except chess.com never claimed he cheated at the Sinquefield Cup. He's also seemingly faced zero backlash from any tournaments following Sinquefield Cup, including participating in the US Chess Championship.
  - hitekker 4y ago
    There's a vocal minority who earnestly believe that because the internet obscures wrongdoing, it absolves all wrongdoing. Those people cheat, steal, lie, and then say "it's online, what's the big deal" to skulk away from the consequences. I think they identify with Hans Niemann, Dredd Pirate Roberts and other internet celebrities of ill repute because there's not much else for them to hide behind.
    - 4y ago
AntoniusBlock 4y ago
Online chess and OTB chess are not the same. This is a mistake many people ITT are making. If they can prove that he cheated OTB (especially if they can prove he cheated during that now infamous game against Magnus Carlsen at the Sinquefield Cup, which is what set this whole thing off in the first place) then by all means he should be banned but until then let's put the pitchforks down.
- rgoulter 4y ago
  "Online chess", and "online chess for money" aren't the same either. I'd say the "for money"/not, vs "online"/not is a more significant factor. I mean, if someone shows they're willing to cheat for prize money in online games, I'd be surprised to hear that they'd have qualms about cheating for money in an OTB game.
- alexb_ 4y ago
  Why should people be set to a different competitive standard? Both are chess tournaments played for money with the expectation that everyone is playing fairly.
  - kelipso 4y ago
    This is a very recent line of thinking that started last year or so when serious prize funds started happening online. Takes some time for this to disperse to everyone....if it merits it even. Definitely no FIDE rated ones but has there been a classical game played in an online tournament by GMs?
- onepointsixC 4y ago
  The fact that he cheated more than he previously confessed to puts enough doubt to black list him. Just about every other sport permanently disqualifies cheaters, I have no idea why Hans was allowed in spite of his own admissions plus his lies of omisson.
  - kelipso 4y ago
    It's not a fact. Hans disputes this and chess.com who made the accusation provides no evidence. Even then, taking some rant he made while under the camera shouldn't be taken seriously enough to attack him like this.
usgroup 4y ago
I’m going to guess this lawsuit will fail mostly because it looked to me like Magnus and Chess.com both made statements that were qualified and sounded like read outs. I’d surmise that a legal red team had hit this in preparation for this contingency.
dehrmann 4y ago
As someone not particularly interested in competitive chess, this reminds me of the Billy Mitchell Donkey Kong high score drama.
moralestapia 4y ago
>Is a 'Public Relations Stunt' Haha, cute. No, it is a lawsuit and they have to defend themselves properly. There's also a chance they could lose. If I was them I'd start taking this seriously, this is no game anymore.
- lesuorac 4y ago
  I think there is no chance for Chess.com to lose. Hans will need to prove they were malicious which I don't think he will be able to. However, I suspect he will consider losing a lawsuit because of that fact he failed to prove maliciousness as opposed to Chess.com proving he cheated (in the game vs Magnus) a win.
  - moralestapia 4y ago
    >I think there is no chance for Chess.com to lose. We'll see.
goldenchrome 4y ago
This should be a reminder everyone to guard your reputation. It doesn’t matter if Hans cheated this time. He cheated in the past which tarnished his reputation so now no one knows what to believe. Always do the right thing to the best of your ability. Additionally, and importantly, fitting in and doing the right thing are NOT the same thing, though many people conflate the former with the latter as a moral shortcut. Doing the right thing is hard and Hans is going to have to do a lot of growing to get past this moment. His lawsuit suggests he’s not there yet.
- TylerE 4y ago
  I know what I believe... once a cheat, always a cheat. Certainly many times a cheat, over an extended time frame, always a cheat.
  - Brian_K_White 4y ago
    I know what I believe... Projection. You make assumptions about others based on what you know of yourself.
buzzdenver 4y ago
IANAL but my understanding is that in a libel lawsuit the plaintiff has to prove that the defendant knew what they were saying was incorrect. That is a really high bar, and it is hard for me to imagine a scenario where Hans could do that. And $100M is a ridiculous amount, so calling it a PR stunt is spot on. There are no winners in this. Magnus looks like a spoiled kid who throws tantrums (I think he psyched himself out in the game where he lost to Nieman), Hans looks even worse than him for bringing in lawyers.
thinkingemote 4y ago
Magnus has an involved and close business relationship with chess.com They will protect their investments with each other.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
kcplate 4y ago
I never gave two shits about competitive chess, but this soap opera makes it interesting.

35 points by isaacfrond 4y ago

Destroy someone's career and livelihood with unsubstantiated claims. Then complain when said person files a law suit. To add insult to injury. Chess.com is the one who jumped on the Niemann bandwagon. But somehow is Niemann how is doing the public relations stunt. I find this whole episode very unpleasant. How one famous person's word against can make you a pariah to entire community; just like that.

josefresco 4y ago
Are you suggesting the "Hans Niemmann Report"* released in October did not substantiate the claims? *https://drive.google.com/file/d/11IokKgTVSXdpYEzAuyViIleSZ_2wl0ag/view https://drive.google.com/file/d/11IokKgTVSXdpYEzAuyViIleSZ_2...
- lesuorac 4y ago
  Correct, it does not substantiate the claims. The Hans Niemmann Report does not claim that Hans beat Magnus by cheating. > X. The Sinquefield Cup and the Game with Magnus Carlsen > ... In our view, no conclusions should be made from this data.
  - rgoulter 4y ago
    Distinguishing two claims: 1. Hans Niemann is a cheater. 2. Hans Niemann defeated Magnus Carlsen by cheating in an over the board tournament. I think claim (1) is well substantiated by chess.com's report. There's no concrete evidence which supports (2).
    - lesuorac 4y ago
      Good thing for Hans the lawsuit is about (2) then.
      - rgoulter 4y ago
        Sure, but I wouldn't describe the situation as: "Hans beat the world champion; the world champion then accused him of cheating and forfeited from the tournament. ... No evidence of his cheating has been found. chess.com later released a report which did nothing to substantiate claims of cheating" I think closer is: "... Hans defended himself from accusations of cheating by admitting he has cheated online a few times, but never for money. chess.com later reported he has cheated prolifically, including for prize money. Despite this, no evidence of cheating during the tournament was found". I think the main tension is to what extent having cheated online should affect regard treatment during over the board games. It's not really a situation of 'sore loser suspects cheating'.
        Brian_K_White 4y ago
        Whatever extent that should be, needs to have been decided and implemented before allowing him to enter the competition, not after allowing him to play and win.
        rgoulter 4y ago
        Right; protesting like that after losing does look bad. As well, forfeiting from a round-robin tournament for anything less than health reasons is (afaict) unprecedented at that level. On the other hand, protesting to make a statement is much stronger if the action is disruptive, and if you feel the problem of "cheating in chess" hasn't otherwise been acknowledged.
      - gliptic 4y ago
        His lawsuit against chess.com is certainly not about (2).
cwzwarich 4y ago
> Destroy someone's career and livelihood with unsubstantiated claims. Hans admitted cheating while playing games on Chess.com. Is alleging that he cheated more than he previously admitted destroying his career and livelihood?
- adamsmith143 4y ago
  They also documented numerous other occasions of him cheating on Chess.com beyond what he admitted to.
  - wongarsu 4y ago
    Which was the real blow against him. It started with unprovable not-quite-accusations from Carlsen against Niemann, but once Niemann said "I only cheated twice, back when I was young" and chess.com came out with "actually, he cheated a lot on our platform" his credibility was gone
- lesuorac 4y ago
  > Is alleging that he cheated more than he previously admitted destroying his career and livelihood? That's not what Hans is claiming so it's irrelevant. Hans is claiming that as a result of him beating Magnus in a game he did not cheat in. Hans is now blacklisted from nearly every chess event.
  - frumper 4y ago
    Life is tough when you're an admitted and known cheater. I don't wish him luck in his lawsuit, but he's welcome to it.
  - karaterobot 4y ago
    I'm not following this story, so I don't know the details. Is the reason he's ostracized because he beat Magnus in a game he did not cheat in, or because of wider allegations of cheating? Did people say "we don't trust you" or "we're blacklisting you because you beat Magnus?". That feels relevant to the law suit.
grraaaaahhh 4y ago
>I find this whole episode very unpleasant. How one famous person's word against can make you a pariah to entire community; just like that. One famous person's word and Han's own history as a cheater that is.
- Brian_K_White 4y ago
  If his history is valid disqualification from playing, then they should not have allowed him to play in the first place. But they did allow him to play, and only now after the fact want to somehow disqualify that he played and won and fairly. I don't think people willing to do that are in a great position from which to talk about anyone else's integrity.
constantcrying 4y ago
Then don't cheat. If you are a known cheater other players have the right to be suspicious of you, especially in high stakes tournaments. >But somehow is Niemann how is doing the public relations stunt. What else would you call this lawsuit? Do you think Niemann, a known cheater, has an actual claim which meets the very high standards he needs to overcome to win the suite? Do you not think a professional chess player has the right to withdraw from a series and say that he does not feel comfortable playing a known cheater?
- whaaswijk 4y ago
  So there can be no redemption? I can’t, off the top of my head, think of any endeavors where someone can never participate again once they’ve cheated. Certainly not in sports.
  - makoz 4y ago
    Really? Doping and Lance Armstrong is the first thing that comes to mind. Although I guess we could argue he wasn't competing anymore
  - constantcrying 4y ago
    >So there can be no redemption? Maybe, maybe not. If it had turned out that it really had been the case that he hadn't done any cheating since childhood I would have been quite a bit more sympathetic. Redemption is not something you are entitled to, it is something you may receive after many years of exemplary behaviour. Personally I wouldn't want him blacklisted from the entire sport. But at the same time he is deserving of suspicicion by other players. I also think that he didn't do himself any favors with that lawsuit and it makes it even more understandable if other professional players want to avoid playing him.
  - TylerE 4y ago
    Could there be? Sure. Has Hans done anything to warrant it? Not that I can see. If he were to announce, say, a 5 year break from competitive play and a substantial amount of volunteer work, that'd be a start. Not filing this sham of lawsuit.
oldstrangers 4y ago
Chess.com never said Hans cheated OTB, they just provided factual evidence of his rampant online cheating in both casual and money events... Something they probably wouldn't have done if he hadn't decided to lie about the extent of his cheating on camera at the Sinquefield Cup. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes, etc.
threatofrain 4y ago
From the outside perspective, Hans used Chess.com’s brand by essentially saying that Chess.com vouches for his credibility. Then Chess.com asked Hans to recant and came out with their fat report after he refused. Chess.com said very little about Magnus's charge of cheating and constrained their commentary to their relationship with Hans. I don't see this as Chess.com trying to punish Hans as opposed to Chess.com trying to protect their brand by (1) banning a problematic player from their own online games and (2) retorting Han's claims about further online cheating. Note that Hans does not dispute the legality of (1) and does not dispute the factuality of (2). Hans is trying to tie Chess.com into this by saying there's a conspiracy against him when he has provided zero evidence of that.

ergonaught 4y ago

The number one chess player on the planet qualifies as someone who can express an informed, professional opinion that another individual was calmer than he should have been under certain circumstances. Many similarly qualified experts will support that contention. Such experts professing the belief that someone who admits cheating has done so more than they've admitted is similarly not going anywhere.

spookybones 4y ago

This is the boy who cried wolf. Hans lost his credibility by cheating multiple times. If he actually played that game fairly, it’s still on him for many people doubting him.

dqpb 4y ago
So, guilty until proven innocent?
- agolio 4y ago
  No, guilty after proven guilty, which he has been (he has also admitted to it)
- ru552 4y ago
  No, he's been proven guilty and personally admitted on multiple occasions that he cheated.
  - onepointsixC 4y ago
    Well, most importantly IMO, after having been caught cheating online multiple times more than the cases he had admitted to.
  - N3Xxus_6 4y ago
    He's not proven guilty because the issue is did he cheat OTB when he played Magnus. The answer is no.
    - aeturnum 4y ago
      If that's the issue what is this lawsuit about? Chess.com did not accuse him of cheating OTB. Here is a quote from the report[1]: "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." [1] https://www.chess.com/blog/CHESScom/hans-niemann-report https://www.chess.com/blog/CHESScom/hans-niemann-report

alexb_ 4y ago

If Hans cheated once in an event for money, he should be banned from competing in chess. It's absolutely astounding to me that he has admitted to cheating multiple times and yet he's still playing in tournaments.

oldstrangers 4y ago
Even sillier is the number of people willing to completely ignore his rampant cheating just because it was "online". Hans has to carry the burden of his decisions, that's how this work.
- lesuorac 4y ago
  The lawsuit is alleging that he is being penalized for cheating in a game that he did not cheat. Afaik, nobody is arguing that you can't punish somebody for breaking a rule. He even was banned in the past for cheating. However, you can't use an already punished infraction to issue a second infraction. Hans is claiming that he's been blacklisted from a bunch of tournaments as a result of a very unproven claim he cheated in the Sinquefield Cup.
  - oldstrangers 4y ago
    Except chess.com never claimed he cheated at the Sinquefield Cup. He's also seemingly faced zero backlash from any tournaments following Sinquefield Cup, including participating in the US Chess Championship.
- hitekker 4y ago
  There's a vocal minority who earnestly believe that because the internet obscures wrongdoing, it absolves all wrongdoing. Those people cheat, steal, lie, and then say "it's online, what's the big deal" to skulk away from the consequences. I think they identify with Hans Niemann, Dredd Pirate Roberts and other internet celebrities of ill repute because there's not much else for them to hide behind.
  - 4y ago

AntoniusBlock 4y ago

Online chess and OTB chess are not the same. This is a mistake many people ITT are making. If they can prove that he cheated OTB (especially if they can prove he cheated during that now infamous game against Magnus Carlsen at the Sinquefield Cup, which is what set this whole thing off in the first place) then by all means he should be banned but until then let's put the pitchforks down.

rgoulter 4y ago
"Online chess", and "online chess for money" aren't the same either. I'd say the "for money"/not, vs "online"/not is a more significant factor. I mean, if someone shows they're willing to cheat for prize money in online games, I'd be surprised to hear that they'd have qualms about cheating for money in an OTB game.
alexb_ 4y ago
Why should people be set to a different competitive standard? Both are chess tournaments played for money with the expectation that everyone is playing fairly.
- kelipso 4y ago
  This is a very recent line of thinking that started last year or so when serious prize funds started happening online. Takes some time for this to disperse to everyone....if it merits it even. Definitely no FIDE rated ones but has there been a classical game played in an online tournament by GMs?
onepointsixC 4y ago
The fact that he cheated more than he previously confessed to puts enough doubt to black list him. Just about every other sport permanently disqualifies cheaters, I have no idea why Hans was allowed in spite of his own admissions plus his lies of omisson.
- kelipso 4y ago
  It's not a fact. Hans disputes this and chess.com who made the accusation provides no evidence. Even then, taking some rant he made while under the camera shouldn't be taken seriously enough to attack him like this.

usgroup 4y ago

I’m going to guess this lawsuit will fail mostly because it looked to me like Magnus and Chess.com both made statements that were qualified and sounded like read outs. I’d surmise that a legal red team had hit this in preparation for this contingency.

dehrmann 4y ago

As someone not particularly interested in competitive chess, this reminds me of the Billy Mitchell Donkey Kong high score drama.

moralestapia 4y ago

>Is a 'Public Relations Stunt' Haha, cute. No, it is a lawsuit and they have to defend themselves properly. There's also a chance they could lose. If I was them I'd start taking this seriously, this is no game anymore.

lesuorac 4y ago
I think there is no chance for Chess.com to lose. Hans will need to prove they were malicious which I don't think he will be able to. However, I suspect he will consider losing a lawsuit because of that fact he failed to prove maliciousness as opposed to Chess.com proving he cheated (in the game vs Magnus) a win.
- moralestapia 4y ago
  >I think there is no chance for Chess.com to lose. We'll see.

goldenchrome 4y ago

This should be a reminder everyone to guard your reputation. It doesn’t matter if Hans cheated this time. He cheated in the past which tarnished his reputation so now no one knows what to believe. Always do the right thing to the best of your ability. Additionally, and importantly, fitting in and doing the right thing are NOT the same thing, though many people conflate the former with the latter as a moral shortcut. Doing the right thing is hard and Hans is going to have to do a lot of growing to get past this moment. His lawsuit suggests he’s not there yet.

TylerE 4y ago
I know what I believe... once a cheat, always a cheat. Certainly many times a cheat, over an extended time frame, always a cheat.
- Brian_K_White 4y ago
  I know what I believe... Projection. You make assumptions about others based on what you know of yourself.

buzzdenver 4y ago

IANAL but my understanding is that in a libel lawsuit the plaintiff has to prove that the defendant knew what they were saying was incorrect. That is a really high bar, and it is hard for me to imagine a scenario where Hans could do that. And $100M is a ridiculous amount, so calling it a PR stunt is spot on. There are no winners in this. Magnus looks like a spoiled kid who throws tantrums (I think he psyched himself out in the game where he lost to Nieman), Hans looks even worse than him for bringing in lawyers.

thinkingemote 4y ago

Magnus has an involved and close business relationship with chess.com They will protect their investments with each other.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

kcplate 4y ago

I never gave two shits about competitive chess, but this soap opera makes it interesting.