Magnus Carlsen on Hans Niemann (FULL INTERVIEW)

@VTWood said in #18:
> It clearly is an accusation of cheating. Unless Carlsen can prove that Niemann cheated in St. Louis, he's digging himself a defamation litigation grave. Dlugy may also have grounds for a defamation action. And Magnus has such wonderfully deep financial pockets to go after......

I think you're seriously overestimating the possibilities for legal action. There is no doubt in my mind that every word Carlsen has said has gone through his lawyer first.

@Molurus said in #19:
> Carlsen probably doesn't have proof, and he's wise not to say more than he does.
>
> Of course FIDE doesn't legally need any reason to suspend him. In essence it's a private organization that can do whenever they want, without giving any justification.
>
> But I would be very much surprised if they did, and I certainly disagree with your opinion that they should.
FIDE does in fact need to have a valid reason to suspend Carlsen. Making a false charge of cheating has already been found by FIDE to be grounds for suspension. If FIDE suspends a player and the player feels the suspension is unjust, the player can always appeal to CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne).

@VTWood said in #22:
> FIDE does in fact need to have a valid reason to suspend Carlsen.

They only need a valid reason if FIDE declares that a requirement. It's not a requirement from any legal standpoint.

Heck, they even get to define what valid reasons might be. Effectively that means they can suspend whoever whenever they want for whatever reason they can come up with.

@VTWood said in #22:
> FIDE does in fact need to have a valid reason to suspend Carlsen. Making a false charge of cheating has already been found by FIDE to be grounds for suspension. If FIDE suspends a player and the player feels the suspension is unjust, the player can always appeal to CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne).

Exactly!

Either way, this is completely irrelevant. FIDE isn't going to suspend Carlsen, regardless if they need valid reasons.

@Molurus said in #21:
> I think you're seriously overestimating the possibilities for legal action. There is no doubt in my mind that every word Carlsen has said has gone through his lawyer first.
Perhaps. We shall see. Up until the Dlugy comment today, it might have been a close call as to whether or not Carlsen had actually accused Niemann of cheating. I spoke with two litigator friends in NYC just now. They'd love to bring an action against Carlsen on Niemann's behalf. IMO, Niemann should first try the FIDE ethics complaint route. If FIDE finds that Carlsen made a false accusation, that will strengthen Niemann's case in court.
Regardless of the legal issues, this is terribly damaging to chess absent clear proof from Carlsen. He needs to show us his proof or apologize to chess fans everywhere.

@Molurus said in #25:
> Either way, this is completely irrelevant. FIDE isn't going to suspend Carlsen, regardless if they need valid reasons.

We will see. We do not know it yet. If Carlsen's allegations are false, he will face consequences.

And in your words: he's (Magnus) an a-hole for knowingly accusing someone of cheating when he's innocent. And that is unforgivable in the chess world. And even worse than cheating.

@VTWood said in #26:
> Perhaps. We shall see. Up until the Dlugy comment today, it might have been a close call as to whether or not Carlsen had actually accused Niemann of cheating. I spoke with two litigator friends in NYC just now. They'd love to bring an action against Carlsen on Niemann's behalf. IMO, Niemann should first try the FIDE ethics complaint route. If FIDE finds that Carlsen made a false accusation, that will strengthen Niemann's case in court.
> Regardless of the legal issues, this is terribly damaging to chess absent clear proof from Carlsen. He needs to show us his proof or apologize to chess fans everywhere.

Personally, I thought that Bobby Fischer's actions were a LOT more damaging to chess. But for some mysterious reason people still consider him the greatest chess player of all time.

But then again, it's hard to objectify damage. I mean.. in practice this scandal (and Fischer's) generates a lot of publicity for the sport. In the end this may even be good for the sport. (That too would be hard to objectify in numbers. It's hard to isolate such factors.)

And technically Carlsen didn't accuse anyone of anything. His statements might be interpreted as suggestions in that direction, but that really is the best you have. And that's just not good enough to suspend him or file legal actions against him.

For now we just have... a juicy scandal. We don't have actual damage to the sport, we don't have an actual accusation of cheating, we don't have a suspension of anyone, and we have no law suit of any kind.

@odoaker2015 said in #27:

> And in your words: he's (Magnus) an a-hole for knowingly accusing someone of cheating when he's innocent. And that is unforgivable in the chess world. And even worse than cheating.

This is, for now, completely hypothetical. This didn't actually happen. And unlike the question of whether or not Niemann cheated, this doesn't require proof. This unambiguously didn't happen.

PS: in my opinion, cheating is still a lot worse than falsely accusing someone of cheating. But I can't stress this enough: Carlsen didn't actually accuse anyone of anything.

@Molurus said in #29:
> This is, for now, completely hypothetical. This didn't actually happen.

This is right. For now. But it all boils down to that.