More Cheaters For Magnus to Call Out and Condemn

look, there is absolutely no evidence that Niemann has ever shoplifted, but if you were a storeowner, would you keep your eye on him if he walked into your shop? we know he's dishonest, and we don't know that he has changed. the relevant distinction between otb and online cheating is the difficulty, not the character of the cheater. i don't know enough to say how difficult it is though. Borislav Ivanov went on to some other kind of scam after being kicked out of the chess scene. Norman Whitaker, in addition to being a lawyer and a chess master, was convicted of several crimes. I think he tried to swindle the Lindbergh widow.

as far as defamation goes, wouldn't you have to prove actual malice? Niemann is clearly a public figure, maybe better known at this point than Magnus himself, and how can it be malicious to be suspicious of a confessed cheater?

If he's never shop lifted, or stolen, a much better word, then why would you pay special attention to him - or anyone else for that matter?

Since he's admitted cheating at chess in the past, I'm sure he's being subjected to additional scrutiny - in all games and tournaments. His recent past games have, as we all know, not shown any evidence of wrong doing. So maybe he has reformed.

If he was a convicted shoplifter (thief) the as the store owner you've always the option to not serve him and bar him from your shop. Chess sites and tournaments have the same option at their disposal but they've opted to let him play. That could be equivalent to letting the fox into the hen house after its told you it won't eat your chickens but thats the call they've made.

A past conviction for theft does not mean someone is still thieving. They may be more likely to but they could also have admitted their thefts in the past and apologised for and will never thieve again.

Maybe theyre giving hime enough rope to see if he hangs himself but until he does, the insinuations really should stop.

ps.. not a HN fanboy or fanboy of any other player.

"If he's never shop lifted, or stolen, a much better word, then why would you pay special attention to him - or anyone else for that matter?"

because he's dishonest, and, knowing that, I don't trust him not to engage in other forms of dishonesty. the insinuations are going to continue for awhile, and he brings it on himself. a public apology and an actual admission of the extent of his cheating would help.

I'm not a fan of Magnus's behavior either, resigning like that affected other players in the tournament who were not gifted free points.

@VTWood said in #1:

Both Arjun Erigaisi and Gukesh Dommaraju have defeated Magnus Carlsen online. Why hasn't Carlsen accused them both of cheating??!! Come on Magnus! Call them out and brand them as cheaters. How could they have beaten you otherwise?

But this sort of adds weight to the thing you've been vehemently arguing against, right? Clearly, he doesn't care too much about losing and doesn't have a history of doing this when he does. But he did with Hans - it adds more heft to his accusations, no? It's not his typical MO, it's quite unusual. I wonder what his reason could be? It's not proof of Hans' honesty or lack thereof, but it is strong evidence that Magnus called Hans out for a reason that's well beyond "He lost".

@SomewhatUnsound said in #14:

But this sort of adds weight to the thing you've been vehemently arguing against, right? Clearly, he doesn't care too much about losing and doesn't have a history of doing this when he does. But he did with Hans - it adds more heft to his accusations, no? It's not his typical MO, it's quite unusual. I wonder what his reason could be? It's not proof of Hans' honesty or lack thereof, but it is strong evidence that Magnus called Hans out for a reason that's well beyond "He lost".

It looks as though Carlsen has no evidence that Niemann cheated against him otb. Regardless of whether he was aware of Niemann's prior online cheating, he appears to have no evidence of otb cheating by Niemann at any time, ever. What Carlsen does have in classical timed otb competition is a history of anger and rude behavior in the aftermath of losing. That is well known.

If Carlsen has any reason that's well beyond "he lost," it's long overdue to put the reason on the table for all to see and test the validity of it.

It might be helpful, as pretzelattack1 suggests, to distinguish between

(1) the standard of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (which is at least theoretically the standard for convicting a criminal defendant in the U.S.); and

(2) the standard of information that would warrant suspicion by one player regarding another.

FIDE is conducting an investigation in the cheating allegations and seems likely to offer some guidance about how a player should behave when he has reasons to suspect an opponent (even if not absolute proof of cheating).

I don't know whether Hans Niemann cheated in his game against Magnus Carlsen at the Sinquefield Cup and I don't think we should be speculating about his guilt as such while an official fair play investigation is pending.

Regarding the game in Saint Louis, I certainly haven't seen anything that would rise to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt (the standard in a criminal prosecution) that Hans was guilty of using illegal computer assistance during his game against Magnus. But "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is simply not the relevant standard when the issue is whether there is justified suspicion about whether a player might be cheating.

Several pieces of information (circumstantial evidence) suggest that it would not be entirely unreasonable to be suspicious, including the following:

1, Niemann's own post-game statement struck me as extremely strange: Hans said that, the very day of the game, just before the game, by a "ridiculous miracle" that could not be explained, he had been analyzing, with a computer engine, the unusual position that shortly thereafter arose in the actual game. This certainly doesn't prove anything, but his invoking of coincidence or miraculous divine intervention might strike a reasonable observer as not altogether plausible. It's the sort of statement that raises one's eyebrows. Was he attempting to offer an innocent explanation as to why the moves he made in that position coincided with engine-preferred moves? When Niemann said this about a "miracle," it occurred to me that he was perhaps deliberately trying to make people suspect that he was using computer assistance during the game, even if he was not actually doing so, perhaps in order to make his future opponents uncomfortable. I remember the baseball pitcher Gaylord Perry enjoying an advantage by making opposing hitters worry that he might throw an illegal spitball, even if Perry never actually threw a spitter. My immediate thought that Hans might be trying to create suspicion was purely imaginative speculation on my part, and I don't actually think this was the case, but at the time I was trying to conceive of a circumstance in which he might declare a "ridiculous miracle" even if he was not guilty of having cheated during the game. I mention this to underscore that it seems utterly reasonable to be suspicious of his statement about the "ridiculous miracle.")

2. Carlsen's impression that Niemann didn't seem to be concentrating or focusing in the critical positions is of course conclusive proof of nothing (and would probably not be admissible evidence in a hypothetical criminal trial of Niemann), but other GMs, including Fabiano Caruana, have said that they would definitely not discount Carlsen's strong impression. Fabiano pointed out that Carlsen has played a lot of games and against many strong opponents, and that Carlsen has developed excellent intuitions that help him read his opponents. Fabiano's view is that Carlsen is far more skilled at reading his opponents in an over-the-board game than any other GM. Again, this isn't conclusive proof of anything, but it suggest that we should not assume that Carlsen's suspicions against were simply manufactured maliciously.

3. Niemann's admitted history of cheating online, after having been caught, is enough to warrant some level of suspicion, even though it would of course not be proof beyond a reasonable doubt of cheating in a particular game. But what's under discussion here is not the standard of proof for a criminal conviction, but instead the standard of information that would warrant suspicions. I would certainly reject the harsh words "once a cheater, always a cheater," but I can understand this: "caught cheating a lot in the past, therefore reasonably suspected now."

4. In the interview after game 5, Niemann supposedly "came clean" about his past cheating, but it appears that his "admissions"
   in that interview were far from fully candid. He denied having cheated more than a few times, whereas his actual cheating appears to be much more extensive than that. This doesn't prove that Niemann always lies about his cheating. But it does provide reasons that we might not necessarily fully believe all of his denials of cheating. (The thought process is: if he lied about the extent of his online cheating while pretending to come clean, might he not also have lied about never having cheated over the board?) I suppose we can probably be fairly certain that Niemann did not cheat online during the periods of time that his account was closed beginning some time in 2020, but, based on his incomplete admissions and inaccurate denials, who would be eager to put money on his insistence that he has completely reformed?

5. Other GMs had strong suspicions about Niemann even before the Sinquefield Cup began. Both Nepomniachtchi and Carlsen expressed concerns to the organizers as soon as they learned, shortly before the tournament, that Niemann would be replacing GM Richard Rapport. Those suspicions do not in themselves prove wrongdoing by Niemann, but they indicate that the suspicions against Niemann were not simply made up after the game with Carlsen.

6. The rapid rise of ELO for Niemann has drawn a lot of attention. It isn't totally unprecedented and it doesn't prove any wrongdoing by Niemann, but it's another piece of information that might reasonably contribute to suspicions against a player who is known to have cheated in some chess games.

Let me repeat: The above list is not intended to marshal evidence that Niemann actually cheated in his game against Carlsen at Sinquefield. I don't think that's even an appropriate topic for discussion for us. The list instead offers some of the reasons that many GMs, including the world champion, are suspicious of Niemann.

Finally, I would like to say that I wish Hans Niemann well. I hope he has indeed renounced cheating, but I believe we should all be able to understand why suspicions have continued to surround him.

Best regards to all!

@pretzelattack1 said in #13:

"If he's never shop lifted, or stolen, a much better word, then why would you pay special attention to him - or anyone else for that matter?"

because he's dishonest, and, knowing that, I don't trust him not to engage in other forms of dishonesty. the insinuations are going to continue for awhile, and he brings it on himself. a public apology and an actual admission of the extent of his cheating would help.

I'm not a fan of Magnus's behavior either, resigning like that affected other players in the tournament who were not gifted free points.

If you know of a person's prior dishonesty, it is absolutely reasonable to not trust that person in the present. It is reasonable to take appropriate steps to prevent a recurrence of prior bad behavior. It is NOT reasonable without present evidence to accuse that person at the present time of dishonesty based solely on prior bad acts. It is reasonable to take increased precautionary measures, as the organizers in St. Louis have done, to insure that there is no otb cheating, provided that the anti-cheating measures are applied equally to all competitors. That is what has been done in St. Louis since the commencement of the US Championship and no evidence of cheating otb by anyone has been found.

The effects of Carlsen's unjustified withdrawal from the St. Louis tournament and his one move loss to Niemann, both of which did impact all the other players in those tournaments, will hopefully be addressed by FIDE, at least in relation to St. Louis.

@SomewhatUnsound in #14:

That was a very long post to conclude there is no evidence of cheating otb.

And it's a spurious point to say court room standards are not the same as suspicions. We all know that. You're comparing apples and oranges. People can have their suspicions, good for them, but when you publicly accuse someone, then you damn well better have some proof.

And who cares if Carlsen or other GMs think it's weird that Niemann doesn't look stressed or is not concentrating whilst playing? Who are they to judge others' behaviours? This idea that Carlsen is some master psychologist who can read other people? Please. Chess GMs are not best placed to comment about anybody's weirdness, as some of them are amongst the strangest people on the planet.

@jadubovic said in #16:

It might be helpful, as pretzelattack1 suggests, to distinguish between

(1) the standard of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (which is at least theoretically the standard for convicting a criminal defendant in the U.S.); and

(2) the standard of information that would warrant suspicion by one player regarding another.

FIDE is conducting an investigation in the cheating allegations and seems likely to offer some guidance about how a player should behave when he has reasons to suspect an opponent (even if not absolute proof of cheating).

I don't know whether Hans Niemann cheated in his game against Magnus Carlsen at the Sinquefield Cup and I don't think we should be speculating about his guilt as such while an official fair play investigation is pending.

Regarding the game in Saint Louis, I certainly haven't seen anything that would rise to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt (the standard in a criminal prosecution) that Hans was guilty of using illegal computer assistance during his game against Magnus. But "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is simply not the relevant standard when the issue is whether there is justified suspicion about whether a player might be cheating.

Several pieces of information (circumstantial evidence) suggest that it would not be entirely unreasonable to be suspicious, including the following:

1, Niemann's own post-game statement struck me as extremely strange: Hans said that, the very day of the game, just before the game, by a "ridiculous miracle" that could not be explained, he had been analyzing, with a computer engine, the unusual position that shortly thereafter arose in the actual game. This certainly doesn't prove anything, but his invoking of coincidence or miraculous divine intervention might strike a reasonable observer as not altogether plausible. It's the sort of statement that raises one's eyebrows. Was he attempting to offer an innocent explanation as to why the moves he made in that position coincided with engine-preferred moves? When Niemann said this about a "miracle," it occurred to me that he was perhaps deliberately trying to make people suspect that he was using computer assistance during the game, even if he was not actually doing so, perhaps in order to make his future opponents uncomfortable. I remember the baseball pitcher Gaylord Perry enjoying an advantage by making opposing hitters worry that he might throw an illegal spitball, even if Perry never actually threw a spitter. My immediate thought that Hans might be trying to create suspicion was purely imaginative speculation on my part, and I don't actually think this was the case, but at the time I was trying to conceive of a circumstance in which he might declare a "ridiculous miracle" even if he was not guilty of having cheated during the game. I mention this to underscore that it seems utterly reasonable to be suspicious of his statement about the "ridiculous miracle.")

2. Carlsen's impression that Niemann didn't seem to be concentrating or focusing in the critical positions is of course conclusive proof of nothing (and would probably not be admissible evidence in a hypothetical criminal trial of Niemann), but other GMs, including Fabiano Caruana, have said that they would definitely not discount Carlsen's strong impression. Fabiano pointed out that Carlsen has played a lot of games and against many strong opponents, and that Carlsen has developed excellent intuitions that help him read his opponents. Fabiano's view is that Carlsen is far more skilled at reading his opponents in an over-the-board game than any other GM. Again, this isn't conclusive proof of anything, but it suggest that we should not assume that Carlsen's suspicions against were simply manufactured maliciously.

3. Niemann's admitted history of cheating online, after having been caught, is enough to warrant some level of suspicion, even though it would of course not be proof beyond a reasonable doubt of cheating in a particular game. But what's under discussion here is not the standard of proof for a criminal conviction, but instead the standard of information that would warrant suspicions. I would certainly reject the harsh words "once a cheater, always a cheater," but I can understand this: "caught cheating a lot in the past, therefore reasonably suspected now."

4. In the interview after game 5, Niemann supposedly "came clean" about his past cheating, but it appears that his "admissions"
   in that interview were far from fully candid. He denied having cheated more than a few times, whereas his actual cheating appears to be much more extensive than that. This doesn't prove that Niemann always lies about his cheating. But it does provide reasons that we might not necessarily fully believe all of his denials of cheating. (The thought process is: if he lied about the extent of his online cheating while pretending to come clean, might he not also have lied about never having cheated over the board?) I suppose we can probably be fairly certain that Niemann did not cheat online during the periods of time that his account was closed beginning some time in 2020, but, based on his incomplete admissions and inaccurate denials, who would be eager to put money on his insistence that he has completed reformed?

5. Other GMs had strong suspicions about Niemann even before the Sinquefield Cup began. Both Nepomniachtchi and Carlsen expressed concerns to the organizers as soon as they learned, shortly before the tournament, that Niemann would be replacing GM Richard Rapport. Those suspicions do not in themselves prove wrongdoing by Niemann, but they indicate that the suspicions against Niemann were not simply made up after the game with Carlsen.

6. The rapid rise of ELO for Niemann has drawn a lot of attention. It isn't totally unprecedented and it doesn't prove any wrongdoing by Niemann, but it's another piece of information that might reasonably contribute to suspicions against a player who is known to have cheated in some chess games.

Let me repeat: The above list is not intended to marshal evidence that Niemann actually cheated in his game against Carlsen at Sinquefield. I don't think that's even an appropriate topic for discussion for us. The list instead offers some of the reasons that many GMs, including the world champion, are suspicious of Niemann.

Finally, I would like to say that I wish Hans Niemann well. I hope he has indeed renounced cheating, but I believe we should all be able to understand why suspicions have continued to surround him.

Best regards to all!

There is presently NO evidence that Niemann cheated otb against Carlsen in St. Louis. Nieman has no obligation or burden to provide any evidence "proving" that he did not cheat in that game. It is totally Carlsen's burden to prove his accusation to be valid. Requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt (the US criminal burden of proof level) as FIDE appears to require or proof by a preponderance of the evidence (just greater than 50% certainty as would be used in a US civil tort case for defamation of character) is a different matter from having sufficient evidence to suspect a person of cheating and reasonably ask an official body like FIDE to open an investigation.

As to Niemann's interview in which he admitted cheating twice at Chesscom and stated that he has not cheated since, it is important to remember that the subsequent claim by Chesscom that Niemann cheated online is nothing more than an unproven accusation by Chesscom. At this point in time, Niemann's denial of cheating after the incidents where he admitted cheating online stands as valid.

Lastly, there is nothing at all improper about discussing any of these publicly known matters, most of which require no speculation whatsoever by the public. Speculation by the public, including factually unsupported suspicions of cheating by Grandmasters, is unseemly as to Niemann and those GMs would do well to consider the potential liability that their speculation might create for them with FIDE or a court of competent jurisdiction.

@jadubovic said in #16:

Finally, I would like to say that I wish Hans Niemann well. I hope he has indeed renounced cheating, but I believe we should all be able to understand why suspicions have continued to surround him.
You are eloquent, but the words don't carry meaning. You don't wish Niemann well: he has been falsely accused, implicated in disgusting theories, blackballed and treated like a doormat, for something which he did over 2 years ago as a child, and because the powerful wish it so. You don't have the excuse of being thick like the others, and you are trying to cover for those who have inflicted that on a teenager without substance. How dare you?