@Nomoreusernames said in #27:
>
> Magnus played pathetically, he can't handle the ego hit.
^This is pretty rich....
"Magnus played pathetically"
-- Random player with rapid lichess rating below 1800....
How on earth do you consider yourself to be in the position to judge Carlsen's games? Talking about ego....
Many backseat chess players in here throwing peanuts.
Ian Nepomniachtchi said in a recent video: https://www.chessdom.com/ian-nepomniachtchi-i-was-unhappy-to-hear-hans-niemann-will-replace-rapport-in-sinquefield-cup/
“I think I wasn’t the only person who was quite unhappy about this particular replacement [when Niemann replaced Richard Rapport at the Sinquefield Cup], this substitute, because somehow I felt things could be a little bit wrong. (...) I asked the organizers for some extra measures to be taken to make the tournament more safe and clean, but none of this was done until this sad case of Magnus’s withdrawal.“ --Neopmniachtchi
So, Nepo (and apparently others) were already concerned about Hans Niemann's history of cheating, prior to the Sinquefield Cup.
@esmiro said in #31:
> ^This is pretty rich....
>
> "Magnus played pathetically"
> -- Random player with rapid lichess rating below 1800....
>
> How on earth do you consider yourself to be in the position to judge Carlsen's games? Talking about ego....
I am not judging his game. I believe his accuracy was 34%. That is the judgement of top engines right? So it's not mine then?
I have never acted like he has when losing the game, that's because I don't have a big ego. I am not good at chess. But I have never acted like that when losing a game in any sport, or endeavour. I have never tried to destroy a 19 year olds character for anything. I am not a coward like Carlsen is.
But even if it was an uneducated opinion, get used to it, if he thinks spurious allegations are acceptable from him, he can't expect defence against them.
you don't have a big ego yet you're telling us you're soooooo much better than magnus.
@irollthenickels said in #35:
> you don't have a big ego yet you're telling us you're soooooo much better than magnus.
I am not better than anyone and said so. Everyone should not try to destroy a 19 year olds character because they have beaten them in a game fairly, I didn't expect that someone would think this to be "showing off".
@Nomoreusernames said in #34:
> I am not judging his game. I believe his accuracy was 34%. That is the judgement of top engines right? So it's not mine then?
That's the engine-move correlation, not the accuracy. If you check on lichess, you'll see that Carlsen's accuracy was 92% in that game and Niemann played at the remarkable accuracy of 95% with as little as 13 of acl. Niemann's game was extraordinary and Carlsen played a normal high level game.
Earlier, someone quoted Fabiano Caruana as having said he did not believe that Hans Niemann cheated at Sinquefield. It seems that Caruana has modified that view, because his earlier belief was based at least in part on the technical difficulty of cheating in over-the-board games.
Here an excerpt from a more recent statement by Fabiano: https://www.chessdom.com/fabiano-caruana-and-maurice-ashley-comment-on-carlsens-statement-c-squared-podcast/
“I think undoubtedly [cheating is] a threat to the entire nature of the game and it’s been like that for a while, but we are only now really getting into it publicly, while it stayed behind the scenes for quite some while.”
“It seems Magnus has concerns not only about online chess, but also over-the-board chess. And we didn’t think of that as much, because we thought maybe it’s not so easy. People tried, they went into the bathroom with their phones, and usually they get caught. I think the realization now is that with the technology, it is possible to cheat while sitting on the board potentially. And that’s the worry.“ --Caruana
@esmiro said in #37:
> That's the engine-move correlation, not the accuracy. If you check on lichess, you'll see that Carlsen's accuracy was 92% in that game and Niemann played at the remarkable accuracy of 95% with as little as 13 of acl. Niemann's game was extraordinary and Carlsen played a normal high level game.
My apologies, I possibly misunderstood. I will find what I read and see how I have mistaken the meaning
It might not be reasonable to blame Magnus Carlsen for having been reluctant for a few weeks to make any express public accusations. He indicated at the time of his withdrawal announcement from the St. Louis tournament that he felt constrained against saying anything, to avoid trouble. Carlsen was initially unwilling even to state overtly that his decisions (to withdraw from Sinquefield and to resign after one move against Niemann in the Generation tournament) were connected to suspicions about anyone cheating.
Some people were outraged with Carlsen because they were convinced he should have made more express accusations and explanations from the beginning.
On the other hand, if he had directly and expressly accused Niemann of cheating in Saint Louis, people would surely (and perhaps correctly) have been critical of such accusations, and their criticism would have seemed reasonable if Carlsen could not produce sufficient proof of such an allegation.
Several people insisted strongly that before Carlsen could make any specific public accusation at all, Carlsen must produce convincing evidence that Niemann cheated at Sinquefield. (Some people were saying that Carlsen would need proof "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is the burden of proof a prosecutor faces when seeking a conviction in a criminal case in the U.S. Of course, that criminal standard would not apply in the context of chessplayers raising questions about fair play, but if Niemann were ever to be accused of criminal fraud, not unlike what happened to GM Feller 12 years ago in France after he cheated in an Olympiad, such a burden of proof might apply.)
As soon as Carlsen withdrew, there were people already calling for a civil defamation lawsuit against Carlsen and his chess businesses (some were even calling for a criminal libel prosecution against Carlsen, although this doesn't happen in the U.S.). This despite the Carlsen;s having made no express accusation, because of what those people took to be a tacit innuendo against Hans Niemann's integrity. But Carlsen probably didn't have specific conclusive evidence to prove Niemann's cheating in St. Louis, beyond Carlsen's experience and observation (which Carlsen revealed today) that the game felt very strange, especially the detail that Niemann seemed not to be analyzing the position or concentrating during the game and yet was making extremely strong moves in complicated positions. On the other hand, Carlsen and others apparently did have plenty of evidence of Niemann's proneness to cheating generally, which was bolstered by Niemann's own admissions of multiple past cheating and was further amplified by the statement from chess.com that they had privately presented information to Niemann showing that Niemann's recent public "admissions of having cheated" did not amount to a full coming clean because his demonstrated cheating was not limited to the episodes he admitted to in his interview.
Evidence of past misconduct is not generally admissible to prove guilt of a crime under U.S. law, but there are exceptions to the exclusion of such evidence. For example where a pattern of practice or a mode of operating can be shown, or where dishonesty was involved, such evidence is sometimes admissible. But in any event, the context here (questions about whether his fellow GMs trust that Hans Niemann is playing fairly) is not a criminal context. In a civil context, past misbehavior is often relevant. And as probative of a good faith defense to a defamation charge, past cheating by a plaintiff would be highly relevant. If you warn your neighbor that an admitted scam artist has ripped people off in the past, do you really think the scam artist can successfully sue you for slander if you can't specifically prove that the scammer is intending to cheat your neighbor?
Of course, a lawsuit (even a meritless one) could be expensive.
Regardless of potential legal liability, specifically accusing someone of cheating is not an easy step to take. People don't like to bear witness against another person, without something approaching certainty.
Today, after the Generation tournament concluded, Magnus Carlsen finally expressed his belief that Niemann has cheated more often, and more recently, than Niemann has so far admitted. Magnus was not sticking his neck out very far here, because chess.com, which caught Niemann cheating, has already issued a statement that would seem to validate Carlsen's belief.
Carlsen indicated that he does have more he would like to say (perhaps including a proffer of additional evidence), but that he doesn't think he should reveal that information at this point unless Hans Niemann invites him to do so. Carlsen understandably doesn't want to get mired in litigation.
What does Niemann say to that? I'm only speculating but I suppose Niemann could take the position that Carlsen is free to say whatever he wants, and at the same time insist that Niemann will not agree to hold Carlsen harmless from speaking further. Perhaps Niemann has lawyers who are eager to bring a lawsuit against the deep pockets of the world champion?
If Niemann wants to resolve this (in some other way than by suing Magnus), then perhaps Niemann could propose that FIDE or some established chess entity set up, say, a three-person panel of inquiry composed of trusted chess people, before whom the evidence can be presented and considered in an orderly and systematic way. To the extent the controversy is seen as one between Carlsen and Niemann, then perhaps each of them could nominate one panel member, with the third to be selected by the two nominees. I suppose the panel could have jurisdiction to consider whether Carlsen's behavior was reasonable, as well as to consider whether Niemann has been playing fairly, and whether GMs who don't trust Niemann are required to play against him even if they are suspicious of him.
A related idea would be to have either that panel, or some related panel, look carefully into cheating in chess and develop recommendations to address this problem.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.