<Comment deleted by user>
He Hans should file a lawsuit as a chess retirement plan
@celinofj said in #30:
> And Carlsen just said he "couldn't say anything".
I can't say anything about your mom because if I talk about yesterday night I would be in big trouble with the mods and I don't like to be in big trouble.
> And Carlsen just said he "couldn't say anything".
I can't say anything about your mom because if I talk about yesterday night I would be in big trouble with the mods and I don't like to be in big trouble.
@MidiChlorianCount said in #4:
>Chess.com has confirmed it has evidence against at least 25 (?) GMs. It has released nothing publicly about who they are, yet has banned Hans from playing further on their platform without providing any additional evidence supporting this. Theirs is a targeted campaign.
>
Actually, they gave Niemann the same sort of "soft ban" that they give those other GMs, where they lock them out of their account and communicate them privately the reason why. It was Niemann who chose to publicise the fact that Chess.com had banned him, and to publicly minimise the amount and extent of his cheating on Chess.com. You can read it in their report at www.chess.com/blog/CHESScom/hans-niemann-report
>Chess.com has confirmed it has evidence against at least 25 (?) GMs. It has released nothing publicly about who they are, yet has banned Hans from playing further on their platform without providing any additional evidence supporting this. Theirs is a targeted campaign.
>
Actually, they gave Niemann the same sort of "soft ban" that they give those other GMs, where they lock them out of their account and communicate them privately the reason why. It was Niemann who chose to publicise the fact that Chess.com had banned him, and to publicly minimise the amount and extent of his cheating on Chess.com. You can read it in their report at www.chess.com/blog/CHESScom/hans-niemann-report
@Talezassian said in #36:
> Actually, they gave Niemann the same sort of "soft ban" that they give those other GMs, where they lock them out of their account and communicate them privately the reason why.
Yes but the problem is that they did this after over two years on from already giving him a ban for the exact same offences!
He served his ban and they then chose to re-ban him for absolutely nothing other than Magnus Carlsen making a baseless insinuation following their OTB game.
Chess.com provided no subsequent evidence of Hans cheating in the period following his ban. You can read about that in the link that you provided...
> Actually, they gave Niemann the same sort of "soft ban" that they give those other GMs, where they lock them out of their account and communicate them privately the reason why.
Yes but the problem is that they did this after over two years on from already giving him a ban for the exact same offences!
He served his ban and they then chose to re-ban him for absolutely nothing other than Magnus Carlsen making a baseless insinuation following their OTB game.
Chess.com provided no subsequent evidence of Hans cheating in the period following his ban. You can read about that in the link that you provided...
@MidiChlorianCount said in #37:
> Yes but the problem is that they did this after over two years on from already giving him a ban for the exact same offences!
>
> He served his ban and they then chose to re-ban him for absolutely nothing other than Magnus Carlsen making a baseless insinuation following their OTB game.
It's hardly baseless - many players have been concerned with Niemann's play for some time, and in light of those, Chess.com chose to uninvite him from their cash prize tournament and ban his account while they investigated - see page 3.
> Chess.com provided no subsequent evidence of Hans cheating in the period following his ban. You can read about that in the link that you provided...
While the report doesn't find conclusive evidence of cheating by Niemann post 2020, it does identify a number of anomalous features of his performance that are of concern. And given that Niemann chose to publicise Chess.com's actions while also lying about the extent and amount of the cheating that got him banned the first time around, that's not a good sign for him.
> Yes but the problem is that they did this after over two years on from already giving him a ban for the exact same offences!
>
> He served his ban and they then chose to re-ban him for absolutely nothing other than Magnus Carlsen making a baseless insinuation following their OTB game.
It's hardly baseless - many players have been concerned with Niemann's play for some time, and in light of those, Chess.com chose to uninvite him from their cash prize tournament and ban his account while they investigated - see page 3.
> Chess.com provided no subsequent evidence of Hans cheating in the period following his ban. You can read about that in the link that you provided...
While the report doesn't find conclusive evidence of cheating by Niemann post 2020, it does identify a number of anomalous features of his performance that are of concern. And given that Niemann chose to publicise Chess.com's actions while also lying about the extent and amount of the cheating that got him banned the first time around, that's not a good sign for him.
@Talezassian said in #38:
> It's hardly baseless
Sorry, I should have specified - I meant baseless in terms of Carlsen making insinuations without there being any concrete evidence whatsoever of OTB cheating.
> ... given that Niemann chose to publicise Chess.com's actions while also lying about the extent and amount of the cheating that got him banned the first time around, that's not a good sign for him.
The problem is that chess.com's actions came first. As per my previous post, they elected to re-ban him based upon nothing in terms of cold hard logic. The re-banned him purely as a result of Magnus' actions.
Just to be clear - I'm not saying this as some Hans fan. As I stated on another thread I'd literally never heard of him before this blew up. However there is a very clear injustice at play here. The fact that he had served his ban with chess.com from the "crimes" commited is undeniable. As it the fact the they provided zero evidence of him cheating post his ban.
> It's hardly baseless
Sorry, I should have specified - I meant baseless in terms of Carlsen making insinuations without there being any concrete evidence whatsoever of OTB cheating.
> ... given that Niemann chose to publicise Chess.com's actions while also lying about the extent and amount of the cheating that got him banned the first time around, that's not a good sign for him.
The problem is that chess.com's actions came first. As per my previous post, they elected to re-ban him based upon nothing in terms of cold hard logic. The re-banned him purely as a result of Magnus' actions.
Just to be clear - I'm not saying this as some Hans fan. As I stated on another thread I'd literally never heard of him before this blew up. However there is a very clear injustice at play here. The fact that he had served his ban with chess.com from the "crimes" commited is undeniable. As it the fact the they provided zero evidence of him cheating post his ban.
A thing that did seem a bit off, with the chess. report.
Why did they even bother to comment on Hans' over the board games?
They had nothing to do with those games.
Imo they should have just stuck to what happened when Hans played on their site.
Why did they even bother to comment on Hans' over the board games?
They had nothing to do with those games.
Imo they should have just stuck to what happened when Hans played on their site.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.