3 ms·

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.
    - joshuamorton 4y ago
      I'm saying that you can't sue someone who didn't defame you (I mean you can, I guess, you'll just lose), and chess.com hasn't claimed that hans cheated in the sinquefield. So if they're party to the suit, it must be for something else. Or in other words given that the report is chess.coms only statement, unless hans is suing them about something in the report, they shouldn't be in the suit. Like to be clear, in a legal proceedings like this, onus is on the plaintiff to show preponderance of evidence. So the question isn't for me, but for you: why is hans suing chess.com? What did they say that was defamatory?

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.
  - joshuamorton 4y ago
    I'm saying that you can't sue someone who didn't defame you (I mean you can, I guess, you'll just lose), and chess.com hasn't claimed that hans cheated in the sinquefield. So if they're party to the suit, it must be for something else. Or in other words given that the report is chess.coms only statement, unless hans is suing them about something in the report, they shouldn't be in the suit. Like to be clear, in a legal proceedings like this, onus is on the plaintiff to show preponderance of evidence. So the question isn't for me, but for you: why is hans suing chess.com? What did they say that was defamatory?