@jadubovic said in #33:
> We should probably try to resist getting drawn into taking a side.
> Let's also aim to be respectful of other people, especially those with whom we might disagree.
> One good place to start might be to try to clarify what facts are known.
>
> I think the following statements are true:
> GM Maxim Dlugy has in the past served as a trainer/coach/mentor to Hans Niemann.
> Dlugy has recently posted at least one congrats message to his former pupil Hans.
>
> So, even if you might suppose that Magnus was obliquely alluding to cheating by invoking Dlugy's name, for Magnus to mention Dlugy's mentorship of Hans Niemann is not a falsehood made up for the sole purpose of creating a false innuendo against Hans Niemann. Hypothetically, if Magnus Carlsen had said, for example, that Hans Niemann's mentor Lance Armstrong or Bobby Bonds (implicated in sports cheating through performance-enhancing drug use in cycling and in baseball, respectively) must have done a good job teaching Hans, then Carlsen's words would be more obviously a slur against Niemann, because neither Lance Armstrong nor Bobby Bonds ever mentored Hans Niemann in chess.
>
> It does appear that Dlugy was sanctioned on more than one occasion for online cheating at chess. However, a reference to Maxim Dlugy is not necessarily a reference to dishonesty or cheating. Many of us recognize Dlugy as a GM who was prominent on the American scene maybe three decades ago after his family moved to the US and we know him also more recently as the author of a New In Chess column on how to win at Blitz.
>
> It is not surprising that the world champion (or anyone else) would consider Hans Niemann's performance "impressive." Carlsen doesn't specify exactly what type of impression is made, but the rise of Hans Niemann has been objectively remarkable. Those who accuse Magnus Carlsen of making unsupported accusations might feel they are correctly criticizing Carlsen, but they are going beyond the actual bare words Carlsen had uttered, to read a defamatory meaning into Carlsen's words.
>
> There's a familiar saying: if the shoe fits, wear it.
>
> If Niemann has cheated at chess, then maybe it would be fitting for him to understand Carlsen's words as a veiled accusation of cheating. The previous sentence isn't entirely fair, though, because even if Niemann had not cheated at chess in the past, he might still feel very much accused by Carlsen's decision to resign before move 2 in the Generations tournament, after having withdrawn from Sinquefield two weeks earlier. But I will repeat anyway: if the shoe fits, wear it.
>
> I doubt that either Hans Niemann or Maxim Dlugy would be wise to bring a defamation lawsuit against Magnus Carlsen. Carlsen has been very careful not to make any direct statement of accusation, so it would be difficult for Niemann as a plaintiff to show the elements required of such a legal case. And the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. It seems possible that Carlsen's silence on this issue is at least partly based on legal advice not to speak about this prematurely, to avoid litigation. It is always annoying to be sued, even if the claim is without merit. At the same time, it seems possible that a zealous attorney acting on behalf of Hans Niemann might already have communicated to Magnus Carlsen's team that Carlsen and his business concerns risk a high-dollar defamation lawsuit if Carlsen makes any overt accusation against Niemann. (Again, even if Niemann would almost certainly lose such a case, it could be costly for Carlsen to defend.)
>
> In U.S. law at least, truth is a defense to a tort claim of defamation. Niemann has already admitted to having cheated online, and
chess.com has privately given Niemann evidence showing that Niemann's public admission to having cheated misrepresented and significantly downplayed the extent and seriousness of his demonstrable cheating. If Niemann were to bring a lawsuit in a U.S. court, it would be difficult for his lawyers to allege (let alone prove) that anything Carlson said was false and defamatory and injured Niemann's reputation. Assuming that Carlsen can be shown to have implied that Niemann has been involved in past cheating, Niemann would not be able to deny this because it is an admitted fact; as noted above, truth is a complete defense to a defamation claim. If Niemann were to bring a lawsuit, Carlsen's lawyers would then have an opportunity to take lengthy, detailed, and highly embarrassing depositions of Niemann and his associates, his reliance on human assistance and his reliance on engines even during training, etc., all under oath and under penalty of perjury, inquiring deeply into Niemann's past cheating and further grilling Niemann about his candour (or lack of candour) in recent public statements. If Niemann were to refuse to answer those questions, his hypothetical lawsuit would almost surely be dismissed and he might even be held liable for at least some portion of the defendant's legal fees.
>
> Let's hope the recent suspicions of cheating get sorted out soon. Levon Aronian made an interesting clarification today (Wednesday). Yesterday (Tuesday) Levon had mentioned that Hans Niemann had made some "strange moves" in their game. Today Levon clarified that he did not mean to accuse Hans of using engine assistance during that game, but Levon did say that, regardless of whether there was any actual cheating by Hans in Tuesday's game, the suspicion in the back of Levon's mind (based on Niemann's not being the cleanest player in the past) put Levon in a frame of mind to worry and overthink the game, which Levon felt led to his blundering. Is anyone who reads this familiar with the baseball pitcher Gaylord Perry? Perry was reputed to make use of an illegal "spitball" pitch that was almost impossible to hit. After his career was over, Perry explained that he did not discourage opposing batters from worrying that they might see the spitter, because this gave him an advantage, even if he never actually used the dirty pitch. It would be funny in a way if Hans Niemann is to some extent benefiting from the suspicion that he is illegally using an engine during games (even if he is not actually cheating).
>
> Although the "scandal" is perhaps raising the profile of chess, the animosity engendered by the scandal does not seem good for our game.
Truth is indeed an absolute defense to a charge of defamation. Here, the ONLY truth that will save Carlsen is proof of cheating by Niemann otb in St. Louis. Past cheating by Niemann in any other venue or forum is legally irrelevant to whether Niemann cheated otb in St. Louis. (Evidence of prior bad acts will likely not be admissible where done online and years prior to alleged otb cheating) Whether or not Dlugy cheated or coached Niemann is likely also irrelevant as to Niemann cheating over the board in St. Louis unless Carlsen can factually demonstrate that Dlugy taught Niemann how to cheat over the board AND that the method so taught to Niemann was used by him to cheat in St. Louis. That's my legal analysis as an attorney with over forty years of litigation experience and as a retired NYC judge.
I must say that it is truly fascinating to watch Carlsen digging his defamation hole.....