Suddenly, They Have So Little To Say

@Nomoreusernames said in #30:
> Wesly So: "Carlsen saw at the Sinquefield Cup that something was wrong and withdrew from the tournament. I have a lot of respect for that."
> Gretarsson: "For a lawyer, it's not fair to accuse someone of cheating without evidence."
> I'm sure most people are thinking, why disagree with Wesley So, he is such a good chess player, but in Gretarsson's defence, it's not just law, it's central to science, maths, religion, medicine, and all those other endeavours which have brought us out of the dark ages.

It seems that Hans is not part of the good ol boys club, the "in" crowd. There has always been a stereotype regarding the extreme exclusiveness and snobbiness of chess. It seems Magnus pulling back the veil has proved it all true. Finegold eluded to the fact that these super GM's simply don't want to play lower rated players because it affects their ratings too much so always try to get them uninvited. I mean what we saw happening at the olympics, with players destroying opponents as much as 600 points higher rated than them, and all across the tournament, shows just how exclusive chess has become in recent years at the highest levels. Its almost like they really are going backwards towards the dark ages. Politics and Money talks, and you know what walks unfortunately.

@WO_Schrodinger said in #20:
> The consensus right now is this lawsuit could charitably be described as spurious.

The consensus on social media is worth less than zero.

@Nomoreusernames said in #28:
> Actually, I am an attorney and a member of both a state and Federal bar. Where do you practice law?
>
> @WO_Schrodinger blah blah:
>
> You didn't answer the question, you called out @VTWood, he responded and asked you in kind. For all we know you are a coward who wants chess.corn's Hikaru's flaunted anal device theory to stand uncontested, with all due respect. So what kind of person are you?

I shared my opinion that @VTWood seems more like a bogstandard internet blowhard than a serious lawyer, but even if he is a lawyer his posts in this forum do not inspire confidence in an ability to offer an objective opinion. If he wants to claim to be a lawyer that is fine, of course this is the internet where nobody ever lies or misrepresents themselves. If I was a lawyer I wouldn't be foolish enough to start offering legal opinions to strangers on a chess forum while saying I am a lawyer. That seems like a very foolish and unlawyerlike thing for someone to be doing.

@FlyAngler said in #32:
> The consensus on social media is worth less than zero.
I never said anything about social media. I acknowledged that making statements right now one way or another is pretty foolish since it is early and we do not have complete information. However, what consensus there is does seem to lean more to one side than the other, and is very much at odds with some of the ridiculous things @VTWood has posted about on here. He clearly has a side which is fine, but to try and pass off his emotional judgments on the situation as an accurate legal opinion is laughable.

@VTWood said in #7:
> perhaps what Carlsen really lacks and needs is a significant other in his life
Absurd. Carlsen is married.

@WO_Schrodinger said in #11:
>@VTWood you are not a lawyer but you really like to present yourself like one.

@VTWood said in #13:
>Actually, I am an attorney and a member of both a state and Federal bar. Where do you practice law?

@Nomoreusernames said in #28:
>You didn't answer the question, you called out @VTWood, he responded and asked you in kind...So what kind of person are you?

>@WO_Schrodinger :#33
> I shared my opinion that @VTWood seems more like a bogstandard internet blowhard than a serious lawyer,

Schrottdinger, you said VTWood wasn't a lawyer, but he is. Instead of taking account of your mistake, reassessing your opinion and apologising, you thought that calling VTWood names would help make it true, but it doesn't and it can't, facts are facts, and you have lied to everyone. Now say sorry to VTWood like a big boy.

@TeddyTheTurkey said in #35:
> Absurd. Carlsen is married.
He was living with Elisabet Lorentezen Djnee, but they are not married, AFAIK. They also have not been seen together in public for a while which might mean nothing given pandemic times.

@VTWood said in #37:
> He was living with Elisabet Lorentezen Djnee, but they are not married, AFAIK. They also have not been seen together in public for a while which might mean nothing given pandemic times.
I don't believe the lies that Magnus' girlfriend took a fancy to Niemann at the beach in Miami. Niemann didn't go to the beach, he said himself that he didn't leave his studying room, and was even ordering in Uber Eats. It could even be her friends that just don't like Magnus, there is no proof. There was no bet, the game Niemann beat Magnus was just a normal, over the board game.

@VTWood said in #21:
> I think the case against Nakamura is not all that strong as to defamation (pleaded as libel and slander). It may be stronger in relation to the anti-trust/restraint of trade cause of action. Time will likely tell as the case proceeds. I'm interested to see who represents Nakamura in this litigation.

I saw a video www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNgNEiv6w0g that naka should be able to get his case thrown out because the court has no personal jurisdiction. i have no idea whether that's true or not, I'm just repeating what I saw.

@VTWood said in #1:
> ROTFLMAO!
> en.chessbase.com/post/carlsen-about-niemann-s-lawsuit-i-focus-on-chess
>
> The potential game changer is the anti-trust/restraint of trade cause of action. We'll see what initial motions the defendants come up with, but the pressure from Chesscom and Play Magnus' investors may be what gets this case resolved sooner, rather than later. I would also think that plaintiff's counsel may have provided at courtesy copy of the complaint to the anti-trust division of the US Dept. of Justice....

As ever, thanks for your posts. Not surprisingly, the one person who is by far the most intelligent, informative and insightful, what to speak of well-written and clear in understanding, gets formed up upon.

I admire how little effect the insults they levied at you had. It's pretty standard it would seem. The main thing it shows to me is the wrongness of the side they are defending.

For 1) the side of Carlsen is very specifically several things which are quite wrong..
a) Carlsen's position is that it's okay when Carlsen cheats.
2) there is an unequalled force of ignorance in this case when you get false, nonsensical, or hysterical statements from a person like Naka, magnified by streamers like Moist Critical.

For instance when, in a heightened pitch of emotion, he wildly goes off the rails with "He's completely crazy!"

The obscenity of this is quite worse if it was Naka who pretty much forced this interview to happen.

3) Naka's horribly false sense of situations and people can be seen in both his long-standing and frequent mishaps with Hansen and other GMs, but in terms of his evaluation of truth or likelihood of events, it's a ridiculously low percentage.

For instance he thought Carlsen's choice to play or not to play depended on him. And he repeated it about 10 times or 20 times.

Again, as with other things, in amped up emotion.

3)
In any case, all of this horror show is based on one insanely false premise: there should be hostility and toxicity surrounding chess battles. This is by far the worst and stupidest idea that ever existed but it's there, right at the heart and root of things.

Hate is always senseless, and we see that here in the pitchfork-and-mob mentality. In the brutality and ignorant brutality of statements made, in the poor and unimaginable misunderstandings of the situation.

What happens when you're in a movie theatre, you stand up and yell, "Everyone, look at me! There may be a fire! Do I have your attention yet? There's a fire! Or there may be! I don't have any information! But I think there may be!"

Fortunately, you didn't say anything definitive did you?

"I'm like 100% sure there's a fire you guys!"

(Walks away with a fistful of matches.)

Sigh.