4 ms·

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 Niema

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.
stale2002 4y ago
> you not think a professional chess player has the right to withdraw from a series He may have a legal right to do that. But if someone does that, then the international chess federation should sanction that player for unsportsmanlike conduct, and bad the withdrawer from future tournaments.
- constantcrying 4y ago
  Absurd rule. Imagine feeling sick and having to play 8 hours of bad chess, because the alternative is a potential career end. Withdrawing already has a significant punishment. You lost. I also fail to see how it is unsportsmanlike by itself. All else aside, why shouldn't you be allowed to withdraw from a game?
  - stale2002 4y ago
    > Imagine feeling sick No, obviously people who are sick should not be punished for withdrawing. Instead, I am saying that if someone engages in unsportsmanlike conduct, where you withdraw specifically in relation to, and in a way that damages your opponent, then that should be punished. > how it is unsportsmanlike by itself Well if you think for one second, you'd realize that I obviously was not trying to imply that sick people should be punished.
    - constantcrying 4y ago
      >No, obviously people who are sick should not be punished for withdrawing. Then the rule is just pointless. Can anyone prove that you are not sick? >where you withdraw specifically in relation to, and in a way that damages your opponent, then that should be punished. Why should you be forced to play against a known cheater whom you suspect of having cheated against you? You already get your punishment for withdrawing. Why should there be a rule that forces you to play against an opponent that makes you uncomfortable. What if your opponent were insulting you, withdrawing certainly would damage his reputation. Should you be forced there for 8 hours having him demean you, because doing anything else might damage his reputation? What if he is "just" trolling you while you try to think? Not okay to withdraw? My point is where do you draw the line? Damaging your opponent certainly is not an acceptable standard.

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.

stale2002 4y ago

> you not think a professional chess player has the right to withdraw from a series He may have a legal right to do that. But if someone does that, then the international chess federation should sanction that player for unsportsmanlike conduct, and bad the withdrawer from future tournaments.

constantcrying 4y ago
Absurd rule. Imagine feeling sick and having to play 8 hours of bad chess, because the alternative is a potential career end. Withdrawing already has a significant punishment. You lost. I also fail to see how it is unsportsmanlike by itself. All else aside, why shouldn't you be allowed to withdraw from a game?
- stale2002 4y ago
  > Imagine feeling sick No, obviously people who are sick should not be punished for withdrawing. Instead, I am saying that if someone engages in unsportsmanlike conduct, where you withdraw specifically in relation to, and in a way that damages your opponent, then that should be punished. > how it is unsportsmanlike by itself Well if you think for one second, you'd realize that I obviously was not trying to imply that sick people should be punished.
  - constantcrying 4y ago
    >No, obviously people who are sick should not be punished for withdrawing. Then the rule is just pointless. Can anyone prove that you are not sick? >where you withdraw specifically in relation to, and in a way that damages your opponent, then that should be punished. Why should you be forced to play against a known cheater whom you suspect of having cheated against you? You already get your punishment for withdrawing. Why should there be a rule that forces you to play against an opponent that makes you uncomfortable. What if your opponent were insulting you, withdrawing certainly would damage his reputation. Should you be forced there for 8 hours having him demean you, because doing anything else might damage his reputation? What if he is "just" trolling you while you try to think? Not okay to withdraw? My point is where do you draw the line? Damaging your opponent certainly is not an acceptable standard.