Chess.com on Niemann ban

There seems to be evidence that Niemann isn't telling the truth.

https://twitter.com/chesscom/status/1568010971616100352/photo/1

This is getting out of hand. Magnus loses a game where he had one blunder, five inaccuracies and a bunch of mistakes, and we're supposed to believe his opponent was cheating. And the more chess.com beats on that drum, the more we are supposed to accept their findings without question. Maybe 10 more meaningless tweets will convince the remainder of us but I don't think so.

改名卡

It's not clear from Danny's statement whether the data provided relates to the previous two bans or an entirely new third dataset, i.e. no double jeopardy involved.

I still think there needs to be a public explanation - of some sort - for the timing of the third ban. Before the Carslen-Hans match or after, might have been sufficient, currently the implication is after as the statement fails to mention this.

I think it's the decent approach, that Hans is given the opportunity to respond privately before more details are released publicly. Hans has admitted to cheating in the past, but it seems that he hasn't been completely honest about it yet. Part of restoring faith in the game will have to include full disclosure. This story has further to run.

I see the point in «information, that contradicts his statement». I also respect the wish to clear things first directly with the people affected. But IMHO security by obscurity rarely worked in IT business. And in case Hans Niemann received the e-mail during the mess in SinquefieldCup the time management couldn't be worse.

I think Chess.com is doing the right thing. They clearly stated what their decision is about and are reaching out to Hans privately (with clear evidence backing them up) so that Hans gets a chance to explain whatever happened. Chess.com has always been careful with their accusations to prevent any lawsuits, and especially flexible/lenient when it has to do with titled players, so I don't think they are trying to fuel the conflict in any way. 

We will see whether Hans will say online cheating chess.com staff was talking about here. From what I have heard, he cheated in Eric Hansen tournament, maybe that's what he ommitted. 

I dont think the timing is strange at all. Magnus withdrawal put the spotlight on Hans performance and chess.com have probably scrutinized his games since then. It seems they found something or else they are flat out lying, which I find hard to believe, even with regards to the financial bonds the site has to Magnus.

If they have enough evidence then why are they hoping to find a resolution where Hans can again participate on chess.com?  There should be no leeway for cheaters. And Hikaru is now backpedalling in his latest video.  Looks to me like they're scared of an expensive lawsuit.  LOL.  You reap what you sow!

You're not owed an apology at all.

Collectively I believe that we are. 

Most of the "chess community" are just passive consumers of free content, I don't see how they're owed an apology for an incident that hasn't even had a complete explanation yet. If Magnus (or anyone) wants to quit tournaments without explanation that's up to them. I know in the age of social media, 24-hour news cycles and short attention spans people demand immediate answers to everything, but that's not the way everything works.

I feel that the only reason we are offered any explanation, partial as it may be, from chess.com is because on this forum we have persisted in drawing attention to it. I feel that if it was solely up to them this whole incident would have been swept away without even cursory acknowledgement.  

I agree with some of what you say, and feel that chess.com have done some things correctly, like reaching out to him privately. I think if you are going to suspend an account, you should policy to either wait until the user has stated their argument, or shut the account at the first sign of cheating. What I ponder is the timing of the suspension.

In other matters, like running an article quoting the speculators and excluding the players with a balanced view; stating that you will not comment on cheating or a tournament on an article specifically about cheating at the tournament. Chess.com may have principles, but in this drama they definitely need to wipe their nose.

Well at least, because he's a public chess figure & now in the center of this controversy, also gets chess dot com stepping all over eggshells for him, privately suspending his a/c, providing detailed evidence (ostensibly), waiting for his own response/refutation, before taking a final decision, and also airing all this publicly. For ordinary chess dot com users, none of this exists. An algorithm (as opposed to actual humans) randomly flags your a/c and poof, its gone. No evidence is presented, no chance to defend yourself, nothing.

So I have no criticisms of the procedures here, but the timing in light of the PlayMagnus acquisition & immediately after Magnus's withdrawal is just bad look for chess dot com. They could've waited for this controversy to die down and THEN lock his a/c and serve him with the accusations plus evidence. This will inevitably feel to the general audience like hitting a man when he's already down.

A USA commercial business should take all steps necessary to avoid giving any impression they could be unduly influencing the outcome of a concurrent sporting contest.

Chess dot com and Magnus need to present whatever evidence they have otherwise these public declarations and insinuations are wholly inappropriate. Sending out a tweet to millions is not reaching out to Hans privately. Between this and the ban on a certain country's flag my feelings for this platform continue to sour.