If Hans cheated once in an event for money, he should be banned from competing in chess. It's absolutely astounding to me that he has admitted to cheating multiple times and yet he's still playing in tournaments.
Even sillier is the number of people willing to completely ignore his rampant cheating just because it was "online". Hans has to carry the burden of his decisions, that's how this work.
There's a vocal minority who earnestly believe that because the internet obscures wrongdoing, it absolves all wrongdoing. Those people cheat, steal, lie, and then say "it's online, what's the big deal" to skulk away from the consequences. I think they identify with Hans Niemann, Dredd Pirate Roberts and other internet celebrities of ill repute because there's not much else for them to hide behind.
The lawsuit is alleging that he is being penalized for cheating in a game that he did not cheat.
Afaik, nobody is arguing that you can't punish somebody for breaking a rule. He even was banned in the past for cheating. However, you can't use an already punished infraction to issue a second infraction. Hans is claiming that he's been blacklisted from a bunch of tournaments as a result of a very unproven claim he cheated in the Sinquefield Cup.
First time I heard it is more widespread. In that case, I don't understand why Niemann is being targeted so hard by chess.com (no opinion about Carlsen.)
> Of the cheaters we have detected to date, 51 (10.2%) are grandmasters. 98 (19.6%) are international masters, and 160 (31.9%) are FIDE masters. More than 90% of these players are male.
From the outside perspective, Hans used Chess.com’s brand by essentially saying that Chess.com vouches for his credibility. Then Chess.com asked Hans to recant and came out with their fat report after he refused.
> Destroy someone's career and livelihood with unsubstantiated claims.
Hans admitted cheating while playing games on Chess.com. Is alleging that he cheated more than he previously admitted destroying his career and livelihood?
Which was the real blow against him. It started with unprovable not-quite-accusations from Carlsen against Niemann, but once Niemann said "I only cheated twice, back when I was young" and chess.com came out with "actually, he cheated a lot on our platform" his credibility was gone
Hans is playing in tournaments left and right. He's playing in a tournament right now. He's in sole possession of 1st place at the 3rd El Llobregat Open.
Ok so I was a bit wrong in "nearly every chess event". Hans is only claiming to be banned from the majority of FIDE-sanctioned chess tournaments.
> Despite the falsity of Defendants’ accusations, Defendants’ malicious defamation
and unlawful collusion has, by design, destroyed Niemann’s remarkable career in its prime and
ruined his life. As a result of Play Magnus and Chess.com’s collusion to blacklist him from chess,
Niemann can no longer compete in any online Chess.com or Play Magnus tournaments, and will
not receive invitations to in-person events sponsored by Chess.com or Play Magnus, which
collectively comprise the majority of FIDE-sanctioned chess tournaments.
I'm not following this story, so I don't know the details. Is the reason he's ostracized because he beat Magnus in a game he did not cheat in, or because of wider allegations of cheating? Did people say "we don't trust you" or "we're blacklisting you because you beat Magnus?". That feels relevant to the law suit.
Magnus lost to Hans playing the white pieces, something that hasn't happened in years. The next time they played, Magnus played 1 move and then instantly resigned and dropped out of the tournament. On Twitter, he posted a clip saying "If I speak, I get in big trouble". Many people saw this as an accusation of cheating, including large chess streamer Hikaru Nakamura (who is mentioned in the defamation suit). Magnus later came out to say that yes, he thinks Hans cheated. Hans says that he only cheated a few times as a kid, but never since then. Chess.com then released a report detailing games in which he most likely cheated based on statistical analysis, as well as old emails between the site and Hans where Hans admits to cheating in multiple online games. This showed that he very clearly lied when he said he only cheated a few times as a kid, and never since then.
It should be noted that there was no direct evidence of cheating in the game vs Magnus. However, Magnus is insanely good at chess, and his word carries a lot of weight when it comes to fair play (despite the obvious bias). The main reason people don't like him is because of the cheating, not because of the specific game. The game is just what brought this entire situation up, and how a lot of his past cheating started getting exposed.
"Hans beat the world champion; the world champion then accused him of cheating and forfeited from the tournament. ... No evidence of his cheating has been found. chess.com later released a report which did nothing to substantiate claims of cheating"
I think closer is:
"... Hans defended himself from accusations of cheating by admitting he has cheated online a few times, but never for money. chess.com later reported he has cheated prolifically, including for prize money. Despite this, no evidence of cheating during the tournament was found".
I think the main tension is to what extent having cheated online should affect regard treatment during over the board games. It's not really a situation of 'sore loser suspects cheating'.
Whatever extent that should be, needs to have been decided and implemented before allowing him to enter the competition, not after allowing him to play and win.
Right; protesting like that after losing does look bad. As well, forfeiting from a round-robin tournament for anything less than health reasons is (afaict) unprecedented at that level.
On the other hand, protesting to make a statement is much stronger if the action is disruptive, and if you feel the problem of "cheating in chess" hasn't otherwise been acknowledged.
How can you read the lawsuit [1] and come to any other conclusion that he's suing about a claim he cheating in the Sinquefield cup?
You don't even have to read 5 pages to see it's entirely about (2).
> Notorious for his inability to cope with defeat, Carlsen snapped. Enraged that the
young Niemann, fully 12 years his junior, dared to disrespect the “King of Chess,” and fearful that
the young prodigy would further blemish his multi-million dollar brand by beating him again,
Carlsen viciously and maliciously retaliated against Niemann by falsely accusing Niemann,
without any evidence, of somehow cheating during their in-person game and demanding that the
organizers of the Sinquefield Cup immediately disqualify Niemann from the tournament.
I'm saying that you can't sue someone who didn't defame you (I mean you can, I guess, you'll just lose), and chess.com hasn't claimed that hans cheated in the sinquefield. So if they're party to the suit, it must be for something else.
Or in other words given that the report is chess.coms only statement, unless hans is suing them about something in the report, they shouldn't be in the suit.
Like to be clear, in a legal proceedings like this, onus is on the plaintiff to show preponderance of evidence. So the question isn't for me, but for you: why is hans suing chess.com? What did they say that was defamatory?
The part where it has to do with Chess.com. Chess.com was very careful in its commentary about the Magnus event and constrained their commentary to their relationship with Hans.
From the outside perspective, Hans used Chess.com’s brand by essentially saying that Chess.com vouches for his credibility. Then Chess.com asked Hans to recant and came out with their fat report after he refused. Hans is trying to bring Chess.com into this by saying that there's a conspiracy against him.
Chess.com never said Hans cheated OTB, they just provided factual evidence of his rampant online cheating in both casual and money events... Something they probably wouldn't have done if he hadn't decided to lie about the extent of his cheating on camera at the Sinquefield Cup.
From the outside perspective, Hans used Chess.com’s brand by essentially saying that Chess.com vouches for his credibility. Then Chess.com asked Hans to recant and came out with their fat report after he refused.
Chess.com said very little about Magnus's charge of cheating and constrained their commentary to their relationship with Hans. I don't see this as Chess.com trying to punish Hans as opposed to Chess.com trying to protect their brand by (1) banning a problematic player from their own online games and (2) retorting Han's claims about further online cheating.
Note that Hans does not dispute the legality of (1) and does not dispute the factuality of (2). Hans is trying to tie Chess.com into this by saying there's a conspiracy against him when he has provided zero evidence of that.
Then don't cheat. If you are a known cheater other players have the right to be suspicious of you, especially in high stakes tournaments.
>But somehow is Niemann how is doing the public relations stunt.
What else would you call this lawsuit? Do you think Niemann, a known cheater, has an actual claim which meets the very high standards he needs to overcome to win the suite? Do you not think a professional chess player has the right to withdraw from a series and say that he does not feel comfortable playing a known cheater?
> you not think a professional chess player has the right to withdraw from a series
He may have a legal right to do that.
But if someone does that, then the international chess federation should sanction that player for unsportsmanlike conduct, and bad the withdrawer from future tournaments.
No, obviously people who are sick should not be punished for withdrawing.
Instead, I am saying that if someone engages in unsportsmanlike conduct, where you withdraw specifically in relation to, and in a way that damages your opponent, then that should be punished.
> how it is unsportsmanlike by itself
Well if you think for one second, you'd realize that I obviously was not trying to imply that sick people should be punished.
>No, obviously people who are sick should not be punished for withdrawing.
Then the rule is just pointless. Can anyone prove that you are not sick?
>where you withdraw specifically in relation to, and in a way that damages your opponent, then that should be punished.
Why should you be forced to play against a known cheater whom you suspect of having cheated against you?
You already get your punishment for withdrawing. Why should there be a rule that forces you to play against an opponent that makes you uncomfortable. What if your opponent were insulting you, withdrawing certainly would damage his reputation. Should you be forced there for 8 hours having him demean you, because doing anything else might damage his reputation? What if he is "just" trolling you while you try to think? Not okay to withdraw?
My point is where do you draw the line? Damaging your opponent certainly is not an acceptable standard.
> Then the rule is just pointless. Can anyone prove that you are not sick
No, but if someone goes into a tournament, resigns on move one, and then goes to Twitter with a tweet saying "if I speak....big trouble" then in that situation they can be punished.
Is it hypothetically possible that someone might be able to secretly pretend like they are sick?
Sure. But the point of rules like this is to prevent the highly obvious and damaging examples of unsportsmanlike conduct.
If someone is secretly resigning games in an unsportsmanlike manner, but nobody notices, then there isn't much actually damaging about those actions.
> should there be a rule that forces you to play
No, instead unsportsmanlike conduct should be punished. Such as resigning on turn one, and then going to Twitter about it with a vague accusation.
> My point is where do you draw the line?
Well what you do is you punish the really obvious stuff.
And if it is done super secretly, then it isn't that damaging anyway, and we don't have to worry about it.
Supposing minutes after Carlsen resigned it came out that Niemann had carried with him a device obviously designed to cheat, would Magnus's behaviour been justified then?
Since you did that I am going to assume that you now take back your silly arguments about the impossibility of only punishing people who are super obviously engaging in unsportsmanlike conduct.
I am glad that I am able to convince you so easily, that actually yes it is possible to punish super obvious cases without also punishing people who are dying of a debilitating disease and much engage in an emergency withdrawal!
That was a pretty funny argument you were making though! It's really entertaining that you were actually trying to claim that it is impossible to find obvious cases without punishing uhh, sick people?
>Since you did that I am going to assume that you now take back your silly arguments about the impossibility of only punishing people who are super obviously engaging in unsportsmanlike conduct.
My argument has always been that Magnus did not act unsportsmanlike. Obviously obvious offenses can and should be punished.
>am glad that I am able to convince you so easily, that actually yes it is possible to punish super obvious cases without also punishing people who are dying of a debilitating disease and much engage in an emergency withdrawal!
Good that I never made such an argument. I was just objecting to the rule as you had written it. I obviously agree that obvious misconduct can and should be punished, but not because there is some hyper specific rule you proposed.
>It's really entertaining that you were actually trying to claim that it is impossible to find obvious cases without punishing uhh, sick people?
I was refering to what you said the rule should be. Basically any sport has a general rule against bad behaviour. FIDE surely has one already, which could be applied, had any significant misconduct actually happened.
What is funny on the other hand is that you have moved the goal post from a specific action of Magnus to a nonsensical debate where you pretend I believe a rule almost any sports association has is impossible, when I was refering to your very bad proposal for a stupid additional rule.
> I obviously agree that obvious misconduct can and should be punished but not because there is some hyper specific rule
So you agree with me completely and we're just arguing against a made up argument, regarding a "hyper specific rule" that I.never made.
I clarified multiple times on this, and you continued to pretend like it is impossible to punish unsportsmanlike conduct without punishing sick people.
So great!
Yes you agree with me that unsportsmanlike conduct that is obviously unsportsmanlike conduct, can be punished, and we don't have to worry about absurd hypotheticals of punishing sick people.
> was refering to what you said the rule should be
Actually, it was you who brought up this idea of it being impossible to punish unsportsmanlike conduct without punishing sick people.
> but I was talking about the incident between Carlsen and Niemann
Indeed, and it seems pretty silly that you would claim that it is impossible to punish someone who resigned on move 1, in the way that he did, without punishing people who are deathly ill!
Surely you should understand how it is pretty easy to tell the difference between these two situations.
The fact that this was the context, is the exact reason why it is so silly to imply that punishing this behavior would also require punishing people who are very sick, and cannot play because of that.
No, actually sick people would not have to be punished.
The rule would pretty easily be able to tell the difference between someone who withdrawals from the tournament because they are sick, and someone who resigned turn 1 and then goes to Twitter about it.
Those are pretty easily distinguishable.
And it is funny that you made it seem like it is impossible to tell the difference between these two scenarios.
It was you who made it seem like this was difficult. You who brought up this sick person hypothetical, as if it was an unsolvable problem.
And now, once I've pointed out the absurdity of this supposedly unsolvable problem, according to you, you don't want to admit that this was silly to bring up in the first place.
So there can be no redemption? I can’t, off the top of my head, think of any endeavors where someone can never participate again once they’ve cheated. Certainly not in sports.
Maybe, maybe not. If it had turned out that it really had been the case that he hadn't done any cheating since childhood I would have been quite a bit more sympathetic.
Redemption is not something you are entitled to, it is something you may receive after many years of exemplary behaviour.
Personally I wouldn't want him blacklisted from the entire sport. But at the same time he is deserving of suspicicion by other players.
I also think that he didn't do himself any favors with that lawsuit and it makes it even more understandable if other professional players want to avoid playing him.
The number one chess player on the planet qualifies as someone who can express an informed, professional opinion that another individual was calmer than he should have been under certain circumstances. Many similarly qualified experts will support that contention. Such experts professing the belief that someone who admits cheating has done so more than they've admitted is similarly not going anywhere.
I’m going to guess this lawsuit will fail mostly because it looked to me like Magnus and Chess.com both made statements that were qualified and sounded like read outs. I’d surmise that a legal red team had hit this in preparation for this contingency.
This should be a reminder everyone to guard your reputation. It doesn’t matter if Hans cheated this time. He cheated in the past which tarnished his reputation so now no one knows what to believe.
Always do the right thing to the best of your ability. Additionally, and importantly, fitting in and doing the right thing are NOT the same thing, though many people conflate the former with the latter as a moral shortcut. Doing the right thing is hard and Hans is going to have to do a lot of growing to get past this moment. His lawsuit suggests he’s not there yet.
This is the boy who cried wolf. Hans lost his credibility by cheating multiple times. If he actually played that game fairly, it’s still on him for many people doubting him.
The circumstances around the OTB play are suspicious, definitely (not being able to explain his analysis, he coincidentally studied that exact position the night before, and his previous _confirmed_ cheating).
But he deserves a fair shake in this situation. And honestly, even if he's in the wrong - I don't think it should be a lifetime ban or anything.
I was an absolute moron when I was basically up to my mid-20s. I would call most 21-year-olds a kid today, and I'm only 30. There is still so much learning and growth that needs to happen. It's unfortunate our society pegs folks down as inherently bad - if that's their identity, they will forever stay that way.
No, it's that he's chosen to compete in a game that is inherently based around trust. He's admitted to breaking that trust and he's being punished for it.
If that's the issue what is this lawsuit about? Chess.com did not accuse him of cheating OTB.
Here is a quote from the report[1]:
"Despite the public speculation on these questions, in our view, there is no direct evidence that proves Hans cheated at the September 4, 2022 game with Magnus, or proves that he has cheated in other OTB games in the past."
Online chess and OTB chess are not the same. This is a mistake many people ITT are making. If they can prove that he cheated OTB (especially if they can prove he cheated during that now infamous game against Magnus Carlsen at the Sinquefield Cup, which is what set this whole thing off in the first place) then by all means he should be banned but until then let's put the pitchforks down.
"Online chess", and "online chess for money" aren't the same either.
I'd say the "for money"/not, vs "online"/not is a more significant factor.
I mean, if someone shows they're willing to cheat for prize money in online games, I'd be surprised to hear that they'd have qualms about cheating for money in an OTB game.
Why should people be set to a different competitive standard? Both are chess tournaments played for money with the expectation that everyone is playing fairly.
This is a very recent line of thinking that started last year or so when serious prize funds started happening online. Takes some time for this to disperse to everyone....if it merits it even. Definitely no FIDE rated ones but has there been a classical game played in an online tournament by GMs?
The fact that he cheated more than he previously confessed to puts enough doubt to black list him. Just about every other sport permanently disqualifies cheaters, I have no idea why Hans was allowed in spite of his own admissions plus his lies of omisson.
It's not a fact. Hans disputes this and chess.com who made the accusation provides no evidence. Even then, taking some rant he made while under the camera shouldn't be taken seriously enough to attack him like this.
IANAL but my understanding is that in a libel lawsuit the plaintiff has to prove that the defendant knew what they were saying was incorrect. That is a really high bar, and it is hard for me to imagine a scenario where Hans could do that. And $100M is a ridiculous amount, so calling it a PR stunt is spot on.
There are no winners in this. Magnus looks like a spoiled kid who throws tantrums (I think he psyched himself out in the game where he lost to Nieman), Hans looks even worse than him for bringing in lawyers.
Hans will need to prove they were malicious which I don't think he will be able to. However, I suspect he will consider losing a lawsuit because of that fact he failed to prove maliciousness as opposed to Chess.com proving he cheated (in the game vs Magnus) a win.
