This is why i think Hans Niemann is cheating

Could he have simply had a very good day?

Like when us normal players have a 0,0,0 score, even though we can't explain every move verbally when asked, but at the time we knew exactly why we played a move.

I don't know either way, I'm just asking.

@sheckley666 I'm sorry but you're saying yourself that he should've been able to give a proper analysis. And he has given dozens of interviews after his games so the whole argument that he was nervous doesn't stand. He simply had no idea of why he played Qg3. And when tried to explained got outplayed by the interviewer. Again, this is at the very least weird

@Bionaut the fact he can't explain his moves, fails to analyze a position, cheated 3 years ago and lied about the game he studied 1 night before beating Magnus is not evidence? Okay then

@valjr92

Again, display where the evidence is that he cheated in the game. All you are telling me is that because you dont like his post-analysis then this means he cheated.

So where is the evidence he cheated against magnus? Dont tell me what he did years ago. Evidence please.

@valjr92 said in #13:

> Also, he said he studied the opening Carlsen used by accident the night before the game. And when asked about which game was it he answered a game that doesn't exist. So you guys really believe that he can remember all the 20 moves of a opening that he studied 1 day before but he can't remember which game was it?

I'm not taking sides here, but it's normal to get a convoluted answer when you ask a player about his opening prep. Actually, most people would change the subject or tell you outright bullshit. If he indeed knew that nimzo variation by transposition, because he prepared a certain line against the catalan, it makes perfect sense he wasn't forthcoming about that.

I find chess dot com's ever growing tentacles more concerning than Hans' drama. In a few years at this rate, they'll have made FIDE essentially obsolete and then chess will become a crassly commercialised, American e-sport along the lines of Superbowl or NBA. Lichess by itself can't stop this tide of monetisation at all costs. They're already the final word in online chess where prize money is involved and titled players are gonna go where the money is. They have no competition to speak of at the moment and it doesn't seem like any will spring up any time soon since a startup is not going to be able to put up as much prize money as they do.

@Bionaut i gave 3 examples. You can read so don't play dumb

@valjr92

Oh, so you gave evidence for him cheating in his game against Magnus? How odd, when I went back over your earlier post you didnt provide anything concerning the game he played whatsoever. Never mind that he was cleared by the tournament directors and his games were analyzed and no evidence was found.

Try again, and this time actually provide evidence that he cheated in his game with Magnus instead of telling me what he did years ago or you not liking his post-game analysis. As Barden stated: "The position out of the opening was almost level, a minimal 0.3 plus for Black, but the world champion seemed to try too hard, with sub-optimal choices at moves 22, 40 and 42. Niemann also made inaccuracies, so the game lacked the tell-tale signs of computer aid."

Has it been mentioned yet Danny R. has 'removed privately' Hans the Man's access to chess.com ?

This was probably 24 hours ago, along with a brief statement ...

What could this possibly mean ?

@valjr92 said in #22:
> @sheckley666 I'm sorry but you're saying yourself that he should've been able to give a proper analysis. And he has given dozens of interviews after his games so the whole argument that he was nervous doesn't stand. He simply had no idea of why he played Qg3. And when tried to explained got outplayed by the interviewer. Again, this is at the very least weird

So how do you estimate Niwmann's "true" Elo, i.e. without cheating?

Is it below 1200? This would explain his errors in the after game interviews, but is it imaginable that he cheated himself to 2700?

Or is it high enough, so that he could reach 2700 by clever cheating, what needs a thorough chess understanding? But then explain his simple blunders in the aftergame analysis'.