4 ms·

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 (

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...
    - joshuamorton 4y ago
      Because chess.com has nothing to do with an otb tournament. Either he's suing chesscom for something else, or he shouldn't be suing them.
      - lesuorac 4y ago
        Circling back, what part of the lawsuit do you think is invalidated by the Hans Niemmann Report?
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        threatofrain 4y ago
        The part where it has to do with Chess.com. Chess.com was very careful in its commentary about the Magnus event and constrained their commentary to their relationship with Hans. 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. Hans is trying to bring Chess.com into this by saying that there's a conspiracy against him.

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...
  - joshuamorton 4y ago
    Because chess.com has nothing to do with an otb tournament. Either he's suing chesscom for something else, or he shouldn't be suing them.
    - lesuorac 4y ago
      Circling back, what part of the lawsuit do you think is invalidated by the Hans Niemmann Report?
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - threatofrain 4y ago
        The part where it has to do with Chess.com. Chess.com was very careful in its commentary about the Magnus event and constrained their commentary to their relationship with Hans. 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. Hans is trying to bring Chess.com into this by saying that there's a conspiracy against him.