4 ms·
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 tournamen
by 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 agoWhatever 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 agoRight; 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.