More Cheaters For Magnus to Call Out and Condemn

Niemann's rise in rating is a statistical anomaly.

It's not hard proof, but either Niemann is the next Fischer, or he has cheated OTB.

There are two simple answers to the original question

1. Niemann is 100% guilty of cheating online in the past, by his own admission. Whether he still cheats is another story, but you can understand why Magnus treats Niemann differently than other youngsters like Erigiasi, Gukesh or Praggnanandhaa who have beaten him.
2. Equally important is the attitude. The Indian GMs treat Magnus like a god among mortals. If they actually beat him, it's a miracle and they continue to speak of him with the greatest admiration. Not like Niemann who arrogantly mouths off about how fantastic he is and a future world champion. No doubt Magnus feels Niemann is disrespectful and that's part of the reason why the eye of Sauron is upon him.

@Tim_Pool said in #21:

Niemann's rise in rating is a statistical anomaly.

It's not hard proof, but either Niemann is the next Fischer, or he has cheated OTB.

Are we just making shit up as we go along or what?

en.chessbase.com/post/tracking-a-player-s-progress

"Note that Hans Niemann and Arjun Erigaisi are both of the same age. Arjun is on an even steeper meteoric path and is now the second-highest ranked Indian grandmaster – and number eighteen in the world."

"Data surveys show that other grandmasters before Niemann made leaps from 2475 to 2675 Elo points even faster, such as super-grandmaster Anish Giri – or Magnus Carlsen himself. Niemann's performance is extraordinary compared to good chess players, but plausible in comparison with the top players."

Please explain why online cheating is different than OTB.

Please explain how you can Prove a Negative

@Edgy1 said in #24:

Please explain why online cheating is different than OTB.

OTB cheating is quite different from online cheating. With online cheating you sit comfortably at home and have an engine running next to the chess site, or a bot that makes moves for you. Or you have a friend who is better at chess than you, telling you the moves. Or your friend can play for you on your account. So very easy.
When cheating OTB, you need a technical device that tells you the moves. You must also be able to operate this device. You must not be seen so that this is not noticed, so you have to go to the toilet more often. That becomes apparent after a while. Or you have a friend who tells you the moves through signs. The latter is less conspicuous, but still very complex. It can also be discovered at any time. So OTB cheating has a completely different quality and is extremely time-consuming.

So you see, you can't compare the two types of cheating.

@Cedur216 said in #10:

I'm NOT loyal to Magnus, I was confused by his lack of explanation too, but I feel the same about cheating and have similar experiences - cheating remains a serious issue, and lack of provability shall not protect cheaters!

Also, to re-emphasize, Niemann claims he never cheated since 2019 and never when something was at stake, and the chesscom report contradicted him, chesscom has proof it was lies (even tho the proof is not public).

Also as the first post starts with the sass of "two young guys beat Magnus, why are they not singled out?" - No. If Magnus acts against someone saying they're a cheater, it's because he thinks there's cheating, not just because he was defeated.

Chesscom has not presented any analysis that is convincing for proving cheating by Niemann since 2019. As you correctly note, Chesscom has not made its proof of alleged online cheating by Niemann since 2019 public. It therefor remains an unsupported allegation by Chesscom. So much sound and fury signifying nothing.

I'll look to Ken Regan before looking to Danny Rensch for a cheating analysis. If Carlsen accepts his business partner Danny Rench's word over that of Ken Regan, he's a fool. People are starting to realize that Danny Rensch spouting cheating suspicions is little more than a cynical business strategy designed to give cover to Carlsen's bald allegations of cheating by Niemann. That said, even Danny Rensch has said that there is no indication that Niemann has cheated over the board.

@pretzelattack1 said in #11:

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?

As an attorney I have to chuckle when anyone references lawyers in the context of honesty and criminality. My favorite lawyer joke is this. Do you know the difference between a lawyer and a prostitute? The prostitute stops fucking you when you're dead.

Is Niemann a public figure under NY Times vs. Sullivan? Probably. In Carlsen's situation it should not be difficult to prove actual malice if Carlsen has nothing to factually indicate that Niemann cheated against him otb in St. Louis. IMO, that would qualify as reckless disregard for the truth which establishes actual malice.

Carlsen is in this box where if he admits he has no proof of otb cheating, he's likely made an admission against interest that will quickly lead to the damages phase of a defamation trial. What I'm hoping is that someone, Nigel Short perhaps, can negotiate an end to this with an apology from Carlsen, acceptance of same from Niemann along with Niemann giving Carlsen a liability release as to this incident with a token payment by Carlsen to a youth chess anti-cheating educational program to be run by FIDE in public schools. Then Niemann and Carlsen toast one another with some 25 year old single malt Scot's whiskey, smile for the cameras and promise to play the Scandinavian in every online game that they play as Black against 1. e4 for a year. :-)

@Tim_Pool said in #21:

Niemann's rise in rating is a statistical anomaly.

It's not hard proof, but either Niemann is the next Fischer, or he has cheated OTB.

Not according to an article with relevant data that Chessbase published not long ago.

@lizani said in #22:

There are two simple answers to the original question

1. Niemann is 100% guilty of cheating online in the past, by his own admission. Whether he still cheats is another story, but you can understand why Magnus treats Niemann differently than other youngsters like Erigiasi, Gukesh or Praggnanandhaa who have beaten him.
2. Equally important is the attitude. The Indian GMs treat Magnus like a god among mortals. If they actually beat him, it's a miracle and they continue to speak of him with the greatest admiration. Not like Niemann who arrogantly mouths off about how fantastic he is and a future world champion. No doubt Magnus feels Niemann is disrespectful and that's part of the reason why the eye of Sauron is upon him.

"God is dead and we have killed him." -- Fred N.

@odoaker2015

Failing to see any Objective Difference. Online cheating you need "a technical device" like a computer telling you the moves, or an advisor.

Further, the result is the same, cheating.

I understand the difference between OTB and online thanks, coming from OTB originally. OTB/online are just different methods to play the game.

Like there are multiple different methods to cheat.