@VTWood you are not a lawyer but you really like to present yourself like one. You do not know anything, your opinions on how this is going to shake out are worth just as much as anyone else on this forum. Yet you keep making endless posts about this. All this speculation is worthless, why keep cluttering the forum with it? I read some of your posts at the very start of this drama, and your excessive namedropping of legalese was frankly embarrassing.
@WO_Schrodinger
I don't think he understands that it's best to stay silent when there is an ongoing case against you. I honestly have no idea how he teaches law.
I don't think he understands that it's best to stay silent when there is an ongoing case against you. I honestly have no idea how he teaches law.
@WO_Schrodinger said in #11:
> @VTWood you are not a lawyer but you really like to present yourself like one. You do not know anything, your opinions on how this is going to shake out are worth just as much as anyone else on this forum. Yet you keep making endless posts about this. All this speculation is worthless, why keep cluttering the forum with it? I read some of your posts at the very start of this drama, and your excessive namedropping of legalese was frankly embarrassing.
Actually, I am an attorney and a member of both a state and Federal bar. Where do you practice law?
> @VTWood you are not a lawyer but you really like to present yourself like one. You do not know anything, your opinions on how this is going to shake out are worth just as much as anyone else on this forum. Yet you keep making endless posts about this. All this speculation is worthless, why keep cluttering the forum with it? I read some of your posts at the very start of this drama, and your excessive namedropping of legalese was frankly embarrassing.
Actually, I am an attorney and a member of both a state and Federal bar. Where do you practice law?
@manavein said in #8:
> There is still very little we know. The two main parties have not said everything they would like, the investigation is ongoing and the suit is still in its infancy.
>
> I know it is very difficult for the plaintiff to win defamation suits in the US especially.
>
> Hans has a small, but possible chance - however the suit against Hikaru seems completely without merit and he should be the first to get off easily. Even the others should be okay but it all depends on discovery.
>
> Hans has to show *all* 3 of the following conditions are met (there is a fourth, but that's just that a communication was published to a third person):
>
> 1. A false statement was made purporting to be fact. From a cursory examination no one looks to fall under this but IANAL.
>
> 2. Fault amounting to at least negligence. Note, this is not the conventional sense, but the legal, prima facie definition.
>
> 3. Damages or some harmed caused to the plaintiff's reputation who is the subject of such statement.
>
> Hikaru is also listed for slander, which has a higher bar to prove for damages.
>
> He has to prove all that, and given he is at least a limited purpose public figure (he is known in chess and even outside the chess world for his streaming, such as refusing the charity portion of a chess event's entry fee), there are other circumstances where he would have to show that someone like Magnus intended to cause harm or made a statement knowing it was false - rather than unconfirmed.
>
> Take this with the charges for illegal boycott under the Sherman Act, tortious interference and conspiracy, he has little hope.
Can't blame him for suing Hikaru. Hikaru is the whole reason he had to give the speech to alejandro in st louis. Hikaru is the first one who was calling him a cheater online and insinuated so for over a month. I found it cringeworthy and irresponsible. Its also pretty sad because Hans never cheated against Hikaru probably out of respect for his favorite chess player. And Hikaru is a guy who literally cheats for a living on his stream leading by example and is still pretending to be a professional chess player. I don't know how in the world he thinks in his mind online chess should be respected, when he is the face of it.
> There is still very little we know. The two main parties have not said everything they would like, the investigation is ongoing and the suit is still in its infancy.
>
> I know it is very difficult for the plaintiff to win defamation suits in the US especially.
>
> Hans has a small, but possible chance - however the suit against Hikaru seems completely without merit and he should be the first to get off easily. Even the others should be okay but it all depends on discovery.
>
> Hans has to show *all* 3 of the following conditions are met (there is a fourth, but that's just that a communication was published to a third person):
>
> 1. A false statement was made purporting to be fact. From a cursory examination no one looks to fall under this but IANAL.
>
> 2. Fault amounting to at least negligence. Note, this is not the conventional sense, but the legal, prima facie definition.
>
> 3. Damages or some harmed caused to the plaintiff's reputation who is the subject of such statement.
>
> Hikaru is also listed for slander, which has a higher bar to prove for damages.
>
> He has to prove all that, and given he is at least a limited purpose public figure (he is known in chess and even outside the chess world for his streaming, such as refusing the charity portion of a chess event's entry fee), there are other circumstances where he would have to show that someone like Magnus intended to cause harm or made a statement knowing it was false - rather than unconfirmed.
>
> Take this with the charges for illegal boycott under the Sherman Act, tortious interference and conspiracy, he has little hope.
Can't blame him for suing Hikaru. Hikaru is the whole reason he had to give the speech to alejandro in st louis. Hikaru is the first one who was calling him a cheater online and insinuated so for over a month. I found it cringeworthy and irresponsible. Its also pretty sad because Hans never cheated against Hikaru probably out of respect for his favorite chess player. And Hikaru is a guy who literally cheats for a living on his stream leading by example and is still pretending to be a professional chess player. I don't know how in the world he thinks in his mind online chess should be respected, when he is the face of it.
Gotta say though Hans is already winning since he zipped lips and got himself famous. If he gets his account unbanned, and the defendant lawyers get organizers to say they'll invite him to tournaments, which would be wise since the kid will just reign cash down from the sky for them, its a huge win for him. Even if he doesn't get any money in the settlement. Any money is simply a bonus. Hes' already burning a hole in their pockets.
@FryderykFranciszek said in #10:
> Such a scenario won't ever happen. Perhaps Carlsen holds 8,5% of the total shares, but his surname is on that company 100%.
Never say never. If Play Magnus were to settle to save the Chesscom buyout of Play Magnus for their investors, Magnus Carlsen's name would likely still be on their company. If Carlson is unreasonable, money will potentially speak much louder than Carlsen's fact challenged otb cheating allegation against Niemann.
> Such a scenario won't ever happen. Perhaps Carlsen holds 8,5% of the total shares, but his surname is on that company 100%.
Never say never. If Play Magnus were to settle to save the Chesscom buyout of Play Magnus for their investors, Magnus Carlsen's name would likely still be on their company. If Carlson is unreasonable, money will potentially speak much louder than Carlsen's fact challenged otb cheating allegation against Niemann.
@KingRod said in #12:
> @WO_Schrodinger
> I don't think he understands that it's best to stay silent when there is an ongoing case against you. I honestly have no idea how he teaches law.
LOL! I understand completely why Carlsen is now so quiet. He's listening to counsel's advice. It's sadly amusing that he didn't listen to counsel while digging his defamation hole that could make it difficult for the investors in Play Magnus and Chesscom to close their deal. Carlsen has a lengthy history of acting out when losing otb games. This time his anger just went a wee bit too far for his own good. He's created a rather embarrassing situation for his business partners and their investment capital people. And it hurts chess world-wide which is most unfortunate.
> @WO_Schrodinger
> I don't think he understands that it's best to stay silent when there is an ongoing case against you. I honestly have no idea how he teaches law.
LOL! I understand completely why Carlsen is now so quiet. He's listening to counsel's advice. It's sadly amusing that he didn't listen to counsel while digging his defamation hole that could make it difficult for the investors in Play Magnus and Chesscom to close their deal. Carlsen has a lengthy history of acting out when losing otb games. This time his anger just went a wee bit too far for his own good. He's created a rather embarrassing situation for his business partners and their investment capital people. And it hurts chess world-wide which is most unfortunate.
@VTWood said in #13:
> Actually, I am an attorney and a member of both a state and Federal bar. Where do you practice law?
Everyone on the internet is a lawyer/doctor/soldier/certified badass yes.
Putting that aside, not all lawyers are created equal, and you seem to be far more emotionally invested in this than a typical lawyer would be. You don't give an aura of providing unbiased rational analysis, so even if you are a lawyer perhaps you aren't one to be especially trusted. No shortage of those around sadly!
> Actually, I am an attorney and a member of both a state and Federal bar. Where do you practice law?
Everyone on the internet is a lawyer/doctor/soldier/certified badass yes.
Putting that aside, not all lawyers are created equal, and you seem to be far more emotionally invested in this than a typical lawyer would be. You don't give an aura of providing unbiased rational analysis, so even if you are a lawyer perhaps you aren't one to be especially trusted. No shortage of those around sadly!
@WO_Schrodinger said in #18:
> Everyone on the internet is a lawyer/doctor/soldier/certified badass yes.
>
> Putting that aside, not all lawyers are created equal, and you seem to be far more emotionally invested in this than a typical lawyer would be. You don't give an aura of providing unbiased rational analysis, so even if you are a lawyer perhaps you aren't one to be especially trusted. No shortage of those around sadly!
Clearly you haven't read my posts on other threads about the Carlsen mess. I've stated specifically that if Niemann cheated otb against Carlsen and Carlsen has the evidence to prove a charge of otb cheating, he should produce the evidence and let Niemann deal with the consequences. It now appears that Carlsen has nothing factually to show that Niemann cheated against him otb in St. Louis. Carlsen and Rensch also appear more and more to be the unreasonable heavies in this mess which could have been so easily avoided in September.
If you or anyone else wants to critique any of my analysis or speculation as to possible litigation/settlement outcomes via a rational discussion, please do so. :-)
> Everyone on the internet is a lawyer/doctor/soldier/certified badass yes.
>
> Putting that aside, not all lawyers are created equal, and you seem to be far more emotionally invested in this than a typical lawyer would be. You don't give an aura of providing unbiased rational analysis, so even if you are a lawyer perhaps you aren't one to be especially trusted. No shortage of those around sadly!
Clearly you haven't read my posts on other threads about the Carlsen mess. I've stated specifically that if Niemann cheated otb against Carlsen and Carlsen has the evidence to prove a charge of otb cheating, he should produce the evidence and let Niemann deal with the consequences. It now appears that Carlsen has nothing factually to show that Niemann cheated against him otb in St. Louis. Carlsen and Rensch also appear more and more to be the unreasonable heavies in this mess which could have been so easily avoided in September.
If you or anyone else wants to critique any of my analysis or speculation as to possible litigation/settlement outcomes via a rational discussion, please do so. :-)
@VTWood said in #19:
> Clearly you haven't read my posts on other threads about the Carlsen mess. I've stated specifically that if Niemann cheated otb against Carlsen and Carlsen has the evidence to prove a charge of otb cheating, he should produce the evidence and let Niemann deal with the consequences. It now appears that Carlsen has nothing factually to show that Niemann cheated against him otb in St. Louis. Carlsen and Rensch also appear more and more to be the unreasonable heavies in this mess which could have been so easily avoided in September.
>
> If you or anyone else wants to critique any of my analysis or speculation as to possible litigation/settlement outcomes via a rational discussion, please do so. :-)
I did read your posts, and you seem out to lunch. The consensus right now is this lawsuit could charitably be described as spurious. I don't put too much stock in these things since it is so early and we have incomplete information, but when the consensus leans more towards that, and you are in here preaching the opposite and claiming frankly sensational things about conspiracies and underhanded tactics, well I'm afraid my BS detector leads me to believe you are full of it.
> Clearly you haven't read my posts on other threads about the Carlsen mess. I've stated specifically that if Niemann cheated otb against Carlsen and Carlsen has the evidence to prove a charge of otb cheating, he should produce the evidence and let Niemann deal with the consequences. It now appears that Carlsen has nothing factually to show that Niemann cheated against him otb in St. Louis. Carlsen and Rensch also appear more and more to be the unreasonable heavies in this mess which could have been so easily avoided in September.
>
> If you or anyone else wants to critique any of my analysis or speculation as to possible litigation/settlement outcomes via a rational discussion, please do so. :-)
I did read your posts, and you seem out to lunch. The consensus right now is this lawsuit could charitably be described as spurious. I don't put too much stock in these things since it is so early and we have incomplete information, but when the consensus leans more towards that, and you are in here preaching the opposite and claiming frankly sensational things about conspiracies and underhanded tactics, well I'm afraid my BS detector leads me to believe you are full of it.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.