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 s

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?