Niemann has been pretty quite from all of this which makes me think he probably lawyered up.
He probably should, especially if he also cheated OTB.
I don't believe he'll be filing a lawsuit against anyone soon; rather hope nobody sues him.
I don't believe he'll be filing a lawsuit against anyone soon; rather hope nobody sues him.
Chess.com releasing a 73 page paper called the "Hans Niemann report" in big bold letters and breaking down why they are so sure Niemann was cheating online is asking for a defamation case.
Once you have a litigation going lawyers can always find experts, consultants to show that the evidence is not in fact definitive. On top of that I don't know how much Chess.com wants to reveal their inner workings on finding a cheater. It's not just merely just looking at data, their is some social engineering involved as well ( they have admitted to this in the past )
Once you have a litigation going lawyers can always find experts, consultants to show that the evidence is not in fact definitive. On top of that I don't know how much Chess.com wants to reveal their inner workings on finding a cheater. It's not just merely just looking at data, their is some social engineering involved as well ( they have admitted to this in the past )
From a legal perspective I'd be interested to see if he could sue for reputational damage and loss of earnings.
There are two things surely in his favour:-
1. Carlsen had provided no evidence that he cheated against him over the board, despite insinuating so and suggesting he had cheated "more recently" than believed. Chess.com the sole provider of evidence of his cheating has confirmed no cheating within the past two years
2. Chess.com has confirmed it has evidence against at least 25 (?) GMs. It has released nothing publicly about who they are, yet has banned Hans from playing further on their platform without providing any additional evidence supporting this. Theirs is a targeted campaign.
Actually with regards to that second point, something which was additionally amusing was that despite Danny claiming that chess.com had the greatest cheat detection mechanisms available - and using that to discredit Hans now based upon their historical data - he said it was important to remove Hans NOW to ensure "fair play"!!
What is it - Are your cheat detection algorithms any good or not? Do they only work on data from years ago?!!
I know most people seem to either be "Team Carlsen" or "Team Hans" but surely everyone can enjoy getting a laugh from the irony of this excuse...
There are two things surely in his favour:-
1. Carlsen had provided no evidence that he cheated against him over the board, despite insinuating so and suggesting he had cheated "more recently" than believed. Chess.com the sole provider of evidence of his cheating has confirmed no cheating within the past two years
2. Chess.com has confirmed it has evidence against at least 25 (?) GMs. It has released nothing publicly about who they are, yet has banned Hans from playing further on their platform without providing any additional evidence supporting this. Theirs is a targeted campaign.
Actually with regards to that second point, something which was additionally amusing was that despite Danny claiming that chess.com had the greatest cheat detection mechanisms available - and using that to discredit Hans now based upon their historical data - he said it was important to remove Hans NOW to ensure "fair play"!!
What is it - Are your cheat detection algorithms any good or not? Do they only work on data from years ago?!!
I know most people seem to either be "Team Carlsen" or "Team Hans" but surely everyone can enjoy getting a laugh from the irony of this excuse...
Let's hope he does; let's hope he does it right, and that he wins. This kind of crap can't become the norm.
@filthymonkeyyyyyy23 said in #3:
> Chess.com releasing a 73 page paper called the "Hans Niemann report" in big bold letters and breaking down why they are so sure Niemann was cheating online is asking for a defamation case.
Truth is an absolute defense against defamation claims.
> Chess.com releasing a 73 page paper called the "Hans Niemann report" in big bold letters and breaking down why they are so sure Niemann was cheating online is asking for a defamation case.
Truth is an absolute defense against defamation claims.
@MidiChlorianCount said in #4:
> 2. Chess.com has confirmed it has evidence against at least 25 (?) GMs. It has released nothing publicly about who they are, yet has banned Hans from playing further on their platform without providing any additional evidence supporting this. Theirs is a targeted campaign.
I agree that they should release the list of all the names. It shouldn't be just Niemann. But Niemann is dirty.
> 2. Chess.com has confirmed it has evidence against at least 25 (?) GMs. It has released nothing publicly about who they are, yet has banned Hans from playing further on their platform without providing any additional evidence supporting this. Theirs is a targeted campaign.
I agree that they should release the list of all the names. It shouldn't be just Niemann. But Niemann is dirty.
Regardless who Niemann is going to sue, any lawyer having to defend against Niemann's lawyer is going to have a really easy time.
There is nothing more stupid Niemann can do than taking this to court, short of pulling out his phone during a tournament to analyse his game.
There is nothing more stupid Niemann can do than taking this to court, short of pulling out his phone during a tournament to analyse his game.
@tryan82 said in #7:
> I agree that they should release the list of all the names. It shouldn't be just Niemann. But Niemann is dirty.
Not releasing lists of banned accounts (titled or not) is pretty much the standard for online chess servers, Lichess included.
The only reason everyone got interested in Hans specifically is Carlsen's tweet and everything that followed.
> I agree that they should release the list of all the names. It shouldn't be just Niemann. But Niemann is dirty.
Not releasing lists of banned accounts (titled or not) is pretty much the standard for online chess servers, Lichess included.
The only reason everyone got interested in Hans specifically is Carlsen's tweet and everything that followed.
@MidiChlorianCount said in #4:
> What is it - Are your cheat detection algorithms any good or not? Do they only work on data from years ago?!!
The point is that cheat detection algorithms only work on games you've actually analysed.
Not all games are analysed. Most aren't. But now that everyone is completely interested in Hans' misbehaviour, I'm sure they've now analysed all of his games. You can't blame chess com for not having done that years ago.
> What is it - Are your cheat detection algorithms any good or not? Do they only work on data from years ago?!!
The point is that cheat detection algorithms only work on games you've actually analysed.
Not all games are analysed. Most aren't. But now that everyone is completely interested in Hans' misbehaviour, I'm sure they've now analysed all of his games. You can't blame chess com for not having done that years ago.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.