Magnus Carlsen on Hans Niemann (FULL INTERVIEW)

@Molurus said in #28:
> Personally, I thought that Bobby Fischer's actions were a LOT more damaging to chess. But for some mysterious reason people still consider him the greatest chess player of all time.
>
> But then again, it's hard to objectify damage. I mean.. in practice this scandal (and Fischer's) generates a lot of publicity for the sport. In the end this may even be good for the sport. (That too would be hard to objectify in numbers. It's hard to isolate such factors.)
>
> And technically Carlsen didn't accuse anyone of anything. His statements might be interpreted as suggestions in that direction, but that really is the best you have. And that's just not good enough to suspend him or file legal actions against him.
>
> For now we just have... a juicy scandal. We don't have actual damage to the sport, we don't have an actual accusation of cheating, we don't have a suspension of anyone, and we have no law suit of any kind.

Fischer, during his playing career, was erratic and obnoxious. The only time I recall him accusing anyone of cheating was when he accused Soviet players of making pre-arranged draws which it turns out was true. Even at the time Fischer made that accusation, there was colorable reason to believe it true. Here, there has been no colorable fact(s) presented by Carlsen to support what is now, post-Dlugy comment, a clear accusation of cheating by Niemann otb in St. Louis.

@VTWood said in #31:
> Fischer, during his playing career, was erratic and obnoxious. The only time I recall him accusing anyone of cheating was when he accused Soviet players of making pre-arranged draws which it turns out was true. Even at the time Fischer made that accusation, there was colorable reason to believe it true. Here, there has been no colorable fact(s) presented by Carlsen to support what is now, post-Dlugy comment, a clear accusation of cheating by Niemann otb in St. Louis.

Exactly!

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.

@VTWood said in #31:
> Fischer, during his playing career, was erratic and obnoxious. The only time I recall him accusing anyone of cheating was when he accused Soviet players of making pre-arranged draws which it turns out was true. Even at the time Fischer made that accusation, there was colorable reason to believe it true. Here, there has been no colorable fact(s) presented by Carlsen to support what is now, post-Dlugy comment, a clear accusation of cheating by Niemann otb in St. Louis.

I am thrilled to see the preeminent legal minds of lichess.org weighing in, truly you and your "litigator" friends have your fingers on the pulse in this matter.

i think magnus left the match because he knew hans was cheating

@jadubovic said in #33:
> Although the "scandal" is perhaps raising the profile of chess, the animosity engendered by the scandal does not seem good for our game.

Is there such a thing as "bad publicity"? Personally, I would rather see fights in terms of quality chess games. But this kind of soap may well yield a lot of extra interest in the game that would otherwise not have existed.

I had a similar question about the Pogchamps Chess Tournament. In my perception it was just complete and utter garbage, and masters training complete beginners (and pretending they did well) was more than a little silly. To me it felt like it was degrading the game. Yet, it is hard to deny: this tournament generated a lot of publicity, especially among people who would otherwise not have any interest in the game.

It feels wrong... but it's probably not all bad, potentially even good. And we all know chess is in desperate need of more publicity.

@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.....

"“We just can’t continue like this,” U.S.-based grandmaster Maurice Ashley told NPR.

With respect, yeah, you can. All of you should want this to continue for as long as possible. When was the last time you had so many people so interested in chess?

The likeliest possibility is the least interesting – that Carlsen had a bad day. That an imperfect opponent played a perfect match against him.

Another possibility – that Carlsen doesn’t know exactly why he reacted the way he did. Now he can’t figure out a way to withdraw with his dignity intact.

We have all been this person at some point – freaking out over something that was not freakout-worthy, then feeling like a doofus afterward. Except we don’t do it on the world stage.

If all Carlsen has is a vague suspicion about Niemann, whatever explanation he comes up with is going to seem very petty. After so many glorious headlines, what a damp squib that would be.

The honourable thing is transparency. But professional sport has never figured out a way to make money off honour."
www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/article-carlsen-vs-niemann-chess-cheating-scandal-leaves-conspiring-minds/

@VTWood said in #37:
> 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.....
In Scandinavia truth is not an absolute defense to a charge of defamation. You can be convicted even if what you’re saying is true. Niemann should perhaps sue in a court in Oslo.