Status Update On Niemann Litigation

if the case makes it to trial (with a jury) then Hans can expect a nice, fat settlement. There's a reason they specified a jury trial.
Some of the legal analysts highlight the issue of jurisdiction: that the only party who might be subject the jurisdiction of the Missouri court where Niemann filed his suit is Carlsen, because he's the only one whose actions took part in Missouri. The other defendants named in the suit (Chess.com, Rensch, Nakamura etc) aren't based in Missouri and didn't do anything in Missouri. and will probably file to be dismissed from the suit on those grounds well before it reaches any trial. Will be interesting to see if that's what actually happens.

@GrandPatzerDave said in #30: > if the case makes it to trial (with a jury) then Hans can expect a nice, fat settlement. There's a reason they specified a jury trial. Some of the legal analysts highlight the issue of jurisdiction: that the only party who might be subject the jurisdiction of the Missouri court where Niemann filed his suit is Carlsen, because he's the only one whose actions took part in Missouri. The other defendants named in the suit (Chess.com, Rensch, Nakamura etc) aren't based in Missouri and didn't do anything in Missouri. and will probably file to be dismissed from the suit on those grounds well before it reaches any trial. Will be interesting to see if that's what actually happens.

Alientcp

#32

@Nomoreusernames said in #29:

Do you think that someone reasonable and without bias, would think that this may be an accusation and a call to action?

Nope. Some one reasonable should be able to make a difference between an accusation and an opinion.
Also, in defamation cases, if the person is already defamed by his own actions you cannot argue your persona was defamed because your reputation is already compromised.

Niemann has admitted cheating in the past. His cred is already compromised.

We must do something about cheating.

Dont you agree this statement is perfectly reasonable in any sport/competition? It doesnt matter if some one has been accused or not, the statement by itself is reasonable and any competitor in any discipline should agree with it.

I agree with that statement 100%. I dont see Niemann's name anywhere on that statement.

".I have only been able been able to speak with my actions, and those actions have stated clearly that I am not willing to play chess with Niemann."

Opinions inform our actions, and we act based on that. Thats what we do normally, regardless if the opinion is correct or not. Thats another story.

I only see a person having an opinion and acting in his own behalf on said opinion. He never asked anyone to do x or y.
If some one else acted based on Magus's opinion and that inflicted damage on Niemann's, thats their issue, not Magnus's.

@Nomoreusernames said in #29: > Do you think that someone reasonable and without bias, would think that this may be an accusation and a call to action? Nope. Some one reasonable should be able to make a difference between an accusation and an opinion. Also, in defamation cases, if the person is already defamed by his own actions you cannot argue your persona was defamed because your reputation is already compromised. Niemann has admitted cheating in the past. His cred is already compromised. >We must do something about cheating. Dont you agree this statement is perfectly reasonable in any sport/competition? It doesnt matter if some one has been accused or not, the statement by itself is reasonable and any competitor in any discipline should agree with it. I agree with that statement 100%. I dont see Niemann's name anywhere on that statement. ".I have only been able been able to speak with my actions, and those actions have stated clearly that I am not willing to play chess with Niemann." Opinions inform our actions, and we act based on that. Thats what we do normally, regardless if the opinion is correct or not. Thats another story. I only see a person having an opinion and acting in his own behalf on said opinion. He never asked anyone to do x or y. If some one else acted based on Magus's opinion and that inflicted damage on Niemann's, thats their issue, not Magnus's.

hardbitten

#33

be sure to ask Kanye for legal advice. Its the same gig. You get poked and prodded until you utter a mild complaint, your words mischaracterized and turned into hate speech or slander, then the massive legal and cultural onslaught. In this case, Niemann has limited culture-wide support because chess is mostly obscure and not much 1% cash is at risk, unlike Kayne.

Nomoreusernames edited

#34

@Nomoreusernames said in #29:

Do you think that someone reasonable and without bias, would think that this may be an accusation and a call to action?
@Alientcp said in #32:
Nope. Some one reasonable should be able to make a difference between an accusation and an opinion.
"We must do something about cheating ... I don't want to play against people who have cheated... I have only been able been able to speak with my actions, and those actions have stated clearly that I am not willing to play chess with Niemann."

Also, in defamation cases, if the person is already defamed by his own actions you cannot argue your persona was defamed because your reputation is already compromised.
"I believe that Niemann has cheated more- and more recently -than he has publicly admitted. His over the board progress has been unusual, and throughout our game in the Sinquefield Cup... This game contributed to changing my perspective."
This is specific to his over the board game. Magnus has cheated many times online himself, so at worst they have a shared reputation for online fair play.

@Nomoreusernames said in #29:

"We must do something about cheating."
@Alientcp said in #32:
Dont you agree this statement is perfectly reasonable in any sport/competition? It doesnt matter if some one has been accused or not, the statement by itself is reasonable and any competitor in any discipline should agree with it.
Magnus Carlsen has cheated repeatedly in the past, as evidenced by video. Let me know if you haven't seen the videos of Carlsen cheating, and I will post them again. The solution is to take account of your own actions, not to try get your ego back from a terrible loss by attacking a teenagers character. Magnus is 31 years old, he is not a kid any more!

I agree with that statement 100%. I dont see Niemann's name anywhere on that statement.
The statement is titled "My statement regarding the last few weeks.", so you must surely mean the paragraph describing the reason for his action, and stating that "we must do something about cheating". For example:
"...round three against Hans Niemann."
"When Niemann was invited..."
"I believe Niemann has cheated..."
"...permission form Niemann to speak..."
"...to play chess with Niemann."
Do you mean that Magnus has taken a break from the rest of his statement to assert something about someone else, and then shortly after follow it with, "...so far I have only been able to speak with my actions, and those actions have stated clearly that I am not willing to play chess with Niemann." And if he means someone else, then why has he only mentioned Niemann? You are not making sense here.

".I have only been able been able to speak with my actions, and those actions have stated clearly that I am not willing to play chess with Niemann."
Opinions inform our actions, and we act based on that. Thats what we do normally, regardless if the opinion is correct or not. Thats another story.
Magnus said he didn't want to play chess with people who have cheated in just before this, he is openly quantifying his actions in this statement, to the belief that Niemann cheated. This constitutes an accusation, rationally and technically.

I only see a person having an opinion and acting in his own behalf on said opinion. He never asked anyone to do x or y.
Magnus said: "We must do something about cheating..." and went on to describe his actions. This is a call to action.

If some one else acted based on Magus's opinion and that inflicted damage on Niemann's, thats their issue, not Magnus's.
Magnus has said he is not willing to play Niemann, as "we must do something about cheating" and his "actions have stated clearly that (he) is not willing to play chess with Niemann.

Blind idolisation is not a secure method for rational thought.

@Nomoreusernames said in #29: > Do you think that someone reasonable and without bias, would think that this may be an accusation and a call to action? @Alientcp said in #32: >Nope. Some one reasonable should be able to make a difference between an accusation and an opinion. "We must do something about cheating ... I don't want to play against people who have cheated... I have only been able been able to speak with my actions, and those actions have stated clearly that I am not willing to play chess with Niemann." >Also, in defamation cases, if the person is already defamed by his own actions you cannot argue your persona was defamed because your reputation is already compromised. "I believe that Niemann has cheated more- and more recently -than he has publicly admitted. His over the board progress has been unusual, and throughout our game in the Sinquefield Cup... This game contributed to changing my perspective." This is specific to his over the board game. Magnus has cheated many times online himself, so at worst they have a shared reputation for online fair play. @Nomoreusernames said in #29: >"We must do something about cheating." @Alientcp said in #32: >Dont you agree this statement is perfectly reasonable in any sport/competition? It doesnt matter if some one has been accused or not, the statement by itself is reasonable and any competitor in any discipline should agree with it. Magnus Carlsen has cheated repeatedly in the past, as evidenced by video. Let me know if you haven't seen the videos of Carlsen cheating, and I will post them again. The solution is to take account of your own actions, not to try get your ego back from a terrible loss by attacking a teenagers character. Magnus is 31 years old, he is not a kid any more! I agree with that statement 100%. I dont see Niemann's name anywhere on that statement. The statement is titled "My statement regarding the last few weeks.", so you must surely mean the paragraph describing the reason for his action, and stating that "we must do something about cheating". For example: "...round three against Hans Niemann." "When Niemann was invited..." "I believe Niemann has cheated..." "...permission form Niemann to speak..." "...to play chess with Niemann." Do you mean that Magnus has taken a break from the rest of his statement to assert something about someone else, and then shortly after follow it with, "...so far I have only been able to speak with my actions, and those actions have stated clearly that I am not willing to play chess with Niemann." And if he means someone else, then why has he only mentioned Niemann? You are not making sense here. >".I have only been able been able to speak with my actions, and those actions have stated clearly that I am not willing to play chess with Niemann." >Opinions inform our actions, and we act based on that. Thats what we do normally, regardless if the opinion is correct or not. Thats another story. Magnus said he didn't want to play chess with people who have cheated in just before this, he is openly quantifying his actions in this statement, to the belief that Niemann cheated. This constitutes an accusation, rationally and technically. >I only see a person having an opinion and acting in his own behalf on said opinion. He never asked anyone to do x or y. Magnus said: "We must do something about cheating..." and went on to describe his actions. This is a call to action. >If some one else acted based on Magus's opinion and that inflicted damage on Niemann's, thats their issue, not Magnus's. Magnus has said he is not willing to play Niemann, as "we must do something about cheating" and his "actions have stated clearly that (he) is not willing to play chess with Niemann. Blind idolisation is not a secure method for rational thought.

boilingFrog

#35

The lawsuit has had at least one positive effect for Niemann - at least everybody has shut the f* up about the whole thing. So that's pretty good ...

Nomoreusernames edited

#36

@boilingFrog said in #35:

The lawsuit has had at least one positive effect for Niemann - at least everybody has shut the f* up about the whole thing. So that's pretty good ...
It's not appropriate that everyone just ignore what Magnus, chess.corn, Rensch and the chess.corn popularisers have done. If you mean that it has stopped Hikaru and the other chess.corn agents from spreading malicious and perverse fiction about a teenager, for example, then I would agree.

@boilingFrog said in #35: > The lawsuit has had at least one positive effect for Niemann - at least everybody has shut the f* up about the whole thing. So that's pretty good ... It's not appropriate that everyone just ignore what Magnus, chess.corn, Rensch and the chess.corn popularisers have done. If you mean that it has stopped Hikaru and the other chess.corn agents from spreading malicious and perverse fiction about a teenager, for example, then I would agree.

boilingFrog

#37

@Nomoreusernames said in #36:

It's not appropriate ... spreading malicious and perverse fiction about a teenager ...
Dude, get a grip bro ...

@Nomoreusernames said in #36: > It's not appropriate ... spreading malicious and perverse fiction about a teenager ... Dude, get a grip bro ...

Alientcp

#38

@Nomoreusernames said in #34:

Magnus Carlsen has cheated repeatedly in the past, as evidenced by video. Let me know if you haven't seen the videos of Clarsen cheating, and I will post them again.

Tu quoque.

The statement is titled " This game contributed to changing my perspective.", so you must surely mean the paragraph describing the reason for his action, and stating that "we must do something about cheating".

He did not state "We must do something about cheating" in the same paragraph where he talked about his opinions and actions. When there is a period and another paragraph starts means that the first idea ended and a new one started. Obviously they are somewhat connected to the main topic, but not necessarily both paragraphs are connected between them.

"...round three against Hans Niemann."
"When Niemann was invited..."
"I believe Niemann has cheated..."
"...permission form Niemann to speak..."
"...to play chess with Niemann."
Do you mean that Magnus has taken a break from the rest of his statement to assert something about someone else, and then shortly after follow it with, "...so far I have only been able to speak with my actions, and those actions have stated clearly that I am not willing to play chess with Niemann?

Those quotes are from distinct parts of the original statement, again, separated by paragraphs, Those are separated ideas united by the main statement, but putting them together as if he actually said it the way you make it its just twisting what he originally said

Magnus said he didn't want to play chess with people who have cheated in just before this, he is openly quantifying his actions in this statement, to the accusation that Niemann cheated.

He didnt accused anyone. Stating Nieman cheated in the past isnt an accusation, its a fact.

He said: "We must do something about cheating..."
I agree 100%.

Magnus has said he is not willing to play Niemann, as "we must do something about cheating" and his "actions have stated clearly that (he) is not willing to play chess with Niemann.

Nope. Magnus said he is not willing to play Niemann. Yes. You cant force him to do so. Thats his choice. The same way FIDE cant force him to defend his title. Its a choice.

The other part "we must do something about cheating". He is talking about cheating in general, as you can clearly see, its on another paragraph, and I agree with that statement. You are the one connecting the dots, but they are clearly separated ideas. The rest of the idea, he refers to Neimann's cheating past, which again, it isnt a slander, its a fact.

Blind idolisation is not a secure method for rational thought.
?? Free speech is in jeopardy and you think im defending Carlsen because im a fan? Silly you.

@Nomoreusernames said in #34: > Magnus Carlsen has cheated repeatedly in the past, as evidenced by video. Let me know if you haven't seen the videos of Clarsen cheating, and I will post them again. Tu quoque. > The statement is titled " This game contributed to changing my perspective.", so you must surely mean the paragraph describing the reason for his action, and stating that "we must do something about cheating". He did not state "We must do something about cheating" in the same paragraph where he talked about his opinions and actions. When there is a period and another paragraph starts means that the first idea ended and a new one started. Obviously they are somewhat connected to the main topic, but not necessarily both paragraphs are connected between them. > "...round three against Hans Niemann." > "When Niemann was invited..." > "I believe Niemann has cheated..." > "...permission form Niemann to speak..." > "...to play chess with Niemann." > Do you mean that Magnus has taken a break from the rest of his statement to assert something about someone else, and then shortly after follow it with, "...so far I have only been able to speak with my actions, and those actions have stated clearly that I am not willing to play chess with Niemann? Those quotes are from distinct parts of the original statement, again, separated by paragraphs, Those are separated ideas united by the main statement, but putting them together as if he actually said it the way you make it its just twisting what he originally said > Magnus said he didn't want to play chess with people who have cheated in just before this, he is openly quantifying his actions in this statement, to the accusation that Niemann cheated. He didnt accused anyone. Stating Nieman cheated in the past isnt an accusation, its a fact. > He said: "We must do something about cheating..." I agree 100%. > Magnus has said he is not willing to play Niemann, as "we must do something about cheating" and his "actions have stated clearly that (he) is not willing to play chess with Niemann. Nope. Magnus said he is not willing to play Niemann. Yes. You cant force him to do so. Thats his choice. The same way FIDE cant force him to defend his title. Its a choice. The other part "we must do something about cheating". He is talking about cheating in general, as you can clearly see, its on another paragraph, and I agree with that statement. You are the one connecting the dots, but they are clearly separated ideas. The rest of the idea, he refers to Neimann's cheating past, which again, it isnt a slander, its a fact. > Blind idolisation is not a secure method for rational thought. ?? Free speech is in jeopardy and you think im defending Carlsen because im a fan? Silly you.

Nomoreusernames

#39

Dude, get a grip bro ...
That is a grip, and that is what they have done, literally and in writing and on video, all evidenced. So I'm not sure on what you mean by "get a grip".

@Nomoreusernames said in #36 It's not appropriate that everyone just ignore what Magnus, chess.corn, Rensch and the chess.corn popularisers have done. If you mean that it has stopped Hikaru and the other chess.corn agents from spreading malicious and perverse fiction about a teenager, for example, then I would agree. @boilingFrog said in #37: > Dude, get a grip bro ... That is a grip, and that is what they have done, literally and in writing and on video, all evidenced. So I'm not sure on what you mean by "get a grip".

boilingFrog

#40

I'm just sayin dude's a cheater ... by his own admission ... and if the objective of this filing was to shut everybody up about the Sinquefield Incident then everybody's happy ... and on that basis alone I expect the whole thing to eventually fade quietly away into the mists of time ...

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.