5 ms·

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 th

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).
        lesuorac 4y ago
        How can you read the lawsuit [1] and come to any other conclusion that he's suing about a claim he cheating in the Sinquefield cup? You don't even have to read 5 pages to see it's entirely about (2). > Notorious for his inability to cope with defeat, Carlsen snapped. Enraged that the young Niemann, fully 12 years his junior, dared to disrespect the “King of Chess,” and fearful that the young prodigy would further blemish his multi-million dollar brand by beating him again, Carlsen viciously and maliciously retaliated against Niemann by falsely accusing Niemann, without any evidence, of somehow cheating during their in-person game and demanding that the organizers of the Sinquefield Cup immediately disqualify Niemann from the tournament. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.moed.198608/gov.uscourts.moed.198608.1.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.moed.19...
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.

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).
      - lesuorac 4y ago
        How can you read the lawsuit [1] and come to any other conclusion that he's suing about a claim he cheating in the Sinquefield cup? You don't even have to read 5 pages to see it's entirely about (2). > Notorious for his inability to cope with defeat, Carlsen snapped. Enraged that the young Niemann, fully 12 years his junior, dared to disrespect the “King of Chess,” and fearful that the young prodigy would further blemish his multi-million dollar brand by beating him again, Carlsen viciously and maliciously retaliated against Niemann by falsely accusing Niemann, without any evidence, of somehow cheating during their in-person game and demanding that the organizers of the Sinquefield Cup immediately disqualify Niemann from the tournament. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.moed.198608/gov.uscourts.moed.198608.1.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.moed.19...

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.