This is pretty ridiculous, as he was TWELVE years old.
I am pretty happy people don't come up with the s*** I did when I was 12, and I am sure you're as well.
Innocent until proven guilty!
Also, with it being the only theory not being complete brain gymnastics, even if Hans got to know the preparation of Magnus Carlssen, why would Magnus be beaten in his OWN preparation?
It all makes no sense.
Hans Niemann is not a cheater, also, he lost today against Wesley So. Why did he not win if cheats?
You people are completely blinded.
Yes, yes. Thank you. There needs to be accountability for people on platforms with many followers as well. The phrase I used in the other thread on this topic, heightened pitch of emotion, Nakamura called him "Completely crazy" in an evaluation. When emotion gets high enough, then logical thinking is no longer there. It would be nice if we had enlightened people doing pod-casts and so forth, but until then we just have to make our own way and push forward. It would be nice if Carlsen, who evidently has such stock in the chess world, would use his voice for something other than praising himself and insulting opponents.
@Toadofsky
Eh! It's my favourite Lichess moderator.
Good to see that you're still around, Toadofsky.
I sure hope you're wrong about online chess fizzling out...and yeah...chesscom have not always made the best decisions for chess.
Who knows what the future will bring? Maybe everyone will miraculously get their act together. Stranger things have happened!
@Autofill said in #10:
> Cheated in the past doesn’t mean cheater for life
which ist just ... a trueism. the sun rose yesterday ... means nothing. no debate, no drama. thank you. ehm .... so what?
But seriously : HN admittedt "things" *which some people don't like and these ones would spell out as cheat events* in his past, and these "things" , other than if he cheated now, do not need to be debated further.
one of the points you are encouraged to think about from the opening statement : Can a cheater expect from all others to not call him a cheater ... because he was cought? because he admitted it? without delay? or with 2 years? or has he to accept, and live with , many people call him cheater for longer as he likes?
"to have stolen many times like a thief" doesnt mean I will continue stealing the rest of my life. oh yes. good news. But people who know about call me a thief.. I am so unhappy. To have cheated in at least one otb game ... does'nt mean I continue that in every game. Oh... good news too.
I just tried to help you. "Sorry about that"
> 5. Because of Hans, the top GMs, who have amicably been playing each other for decades, are now being scanned with metal detectors.
is that a fact? I didn't know.
https://handbook.fide.com/files/handbook/ACCProtectionMeasures.pdf
so fide put those anti cheat measures in place years ago because hans beat magnus?
I would have thought all of those years ago, they wouldn't have know hans would beat magnus?
I mean you honestly consider lambasting a 2688 rated Grandmaster, who crushed the world champion in a beautiful game, an important use of your time?
https://lichess.org/broadcast/sinquefield-cup--grand-chess-tour-2022/round-3/jNzNS3br/89RoVoRC
Here's the game, by the way.
Except incorrectly labeled as a draw.
could the problem of cheating be about the pressure or traditions around high level chess competition. Perhaps, if these were olympics ideal, if one could not make a living based on being top or not, but for other liviing arangement contracts with societies?
i have no clue.. But is seems that it might get lonely at the top even if glorious, and having so much high stake spotlight has always twisted the human individuals under, in many activities with some fame attached, not just chess...
Perhaps the old tournament, one to rule them all, reminiscent of some earlier society structures, where one would actually rule them all, might be a heavy and corrupting crown to bear or aspire to. No talking about anyone in particular, just pointing to the psychological or social forces that may be behind all this sorry set of rumors, opinions, facts, or moral turpitudes.... putting some shadow over a game we would enjoy in many contexts.. even in high level competition otherwise.
I speak from afar.. not having any historical knowledge (or so little), no experience from any tournament ever myself... as a lichess tourist perhaps.. but I do like spending time with chess on boards. (digital mostly for the past 3 years).
Transposing to online chess, these structural meta-game competitions forces impact of individual psychology, I think, that online chess should keep the tournament proportion of its overall game populations very low, so that the ever-going and well-mixed band like pattern of game pairing ensure that ranking does not become the sole focus of player ratings, as it is currently, and in consequence the pressure on any one game over many others in the rating determination (which becomes less of a ranking measure, and more of a move difficulty or quality average measure promise to a new pairing in future gaming.. The problem might be about the amount of social ranking reward all concentrated on too few games, while if one standing was about on ongoing pool ever renewed of game pairing over many other players, such "derive" in the nature of the player competitive psychology versus respect of the game itself, would get diluted, as i believe it is currently. for those not staring too much at the new lichess lobby full of tournament related derived products (sorry, could not help that)...
I don't see why that iniated OTB question should concern online-chess. Besides the online behavior admissions, that is not enough data to generalize to whole population or predict population behavior.. I think people should look at the contexts, and not so much the individuals.. because whatever the facts (that seem absent for that OTB story), it seems to me not to be an isolated concern if not problem, about high level chess competition which i understand to happen only in tournament tier formats, which is not the dominant mode of chess activity onine, is it not?
Hans says it's just because people are idiots ...
@OddJohnJohn said in #11:
> This is pretty ridiculous, as he was TWELVE years old.
> I am pretty happy people don't come up with the s*** I did when I was 12, and I am sure you're as well.
> Innocent until proven guilty!
This.
I strongly believe, that lying, cheating and doing all kinds of things, that are considered morally wrong are preconditions for *every* mature human being, to develop their conscience.
Hell, I don't remember the age, but I stole from my Mom's purse at one point (must've been around 12) and I even cheated in rated chess-games on lichess- or chess.com (I don't even remember, which), as an adult, when (after years of abstinence from the game), I discovered there are chess engines, running on my laptop, that could beat grandmasters and I also discovered there exists a thriving chess-internet-world (which all didn't exist, when I was a youngster).
An account of mine got banned for it, and I'm thankful for that experience, because it helped me understand and cherish the world of online-chess, as it exists today.
None of this (stealing or cheating) led me into a criminal career as a bank-robber or a repeated cheater and I believe it is the post-processing of such experiences, which leads to more criminally-inclined vs. responsible lifes. Hans' passionate and disclosive responses don't make me suspicious of him, but that, ofc, is just my personal take on things.
I don't know (and I don't feel like I have the knowledge to judge), whether or not Hans Niemann cheated in that Cup.
But one thing I *do* know: All the insinnuations, even using evidence of "fake accents", behavior & sub-par analysis-skills, in interviews directly following a game with a stockfish-equipped and prepared interviewer, directly after the game, as well as past cheating in non-critical situations (non-tourney-games with prize money), which he admitted to, openly, as a kid and a teenager, already, are no "evidence" to be taken seriously and can be explained easily by common traits, that every experienced human should be able to relate to.
I wish the organizers of that tourney would either open up, explicitly, what (if any) reasons for MC's drop-out were given, or would protect their participants more, from such devastating accusations (which, if true, would also partly be their responsibility, to prevent).
I also wish, that "chess" as a social construct would have (and listen to) some elders (like Kasparov), who know this world with all its complications, and the life of chess-players, in general - on the loosing and the winning end of matches and psychological warfare and who are mostly beyond the point of being personally involved with consequences, of any outcome of this drama.
Cheats deserve a lifetime ban.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.