Chess.com on Niemann ban

Honestly I haven't been this upset about a non personal thing in a long time.  The "response" by chess.com is disgusting and makes them look even worse.  It reads like " hey chess.com what's with the TIMING of this ban?" Chess.com ignores the question and throws more mud exactly the kind of corporate BS we should have expected I guess.  The worst part is magnus and chess.com are acting so out of line they have me passionately defending a damn cheater Let that sink in chess.com I see how your handling this as worse than being a cheater.  You let him play you tell him your excited for him to play then when magnus throw's a fit you blackmail him publicly because you just hopped in bed with him? Sorry the vague slander doesn't cut it as someone who almost never actually lets his wallet speak and as someone who loves your boards and interface and app I'm seriously tempted to remove mine and my children's memberships to your website and move elsewhere I'm sure you don't care magnus is certainly worth more than a few subs but here is me letting you know your strong arm bs makes me rage.  Care to let us know if magnus account would flag these same things in your system or do certain people get a pass? I'm done playing  on chess.com until this is resolved disgusting.

I'm canceling my membership to chess.com, not because I am support Hans, but because I can't endorse a witch hunt. If chess.com or anyone has evidence, present it. Until then, I'll be on Lichess.

What worries me the most is the fact that I had to learn the official statement of Chess.com (the site where I pay a Diamond membership) about Hans Niemann - on Twitter. That is completely inappropriate for me and proof of gross mishandling of this delicate situation!

I have a cat that can look at you and tell if you're cheating. Just because they say their cheat detection can detect cheating in over the board games, it really couldn't be validated. As for Magnus making a statement, all that would clear up is whether he felt that Hans was cheating but I think that by him quitting, that's pretty much assumed by everyone.

Here are the only FACTS:

1. Hans admitted to cheating on two ocassions online, on chess dot com specifically. Once when e was 12 years old and a bunch of times in unrated games (his words in the interview given to STLCC) when he was 16. Apparently his cheating then was detected by chess dot com and he was banned and then reinstated after promising not to cheat any more.

2. Magnus withdrew for reasons still not made PUBLICLY clear. Only vague hints from his side.

3. Naka and the rest of the streaming gang more or less soft lynched Hans based on Magnus's vague allusions.

4. Hans continues playing at Sinqfield and AFTER ALL THIS, chess dot com again soft blocks his account. Hans makes that public, prompting a defence from Danny that they found more occasions where they allege he may have cheated & need his response.

5. This amid their much publicised acquisition of PlayMagnus and Magnus's expected participation on chess dot com after forever.

IMO the online cheating & Hans's OTB games should be treated totally separately, since cheating in high security OTB events like Sinqfield is MUCH harder than online. So the burden of proof here certainly rests with Magnus/FIDE/STLCC to PROVE Hans cheated OTB or tender him an apology.

Chess dot com is within their rights to ban Hans although the timing of their latest action is suspicious and it seems like they have JUST NOW dug up his past online games and suddenly "discovered" that he has cheated even after the earlier ban was lifted. At least that seems to be the implication being Danny's corporate speak. If that is the case, WHY are they only now reviewing his games? Aren't everyone's games auto reviewed by their anti-cheat system? Was it sleeping all this time and only after Magnus throws a tantrum that they went back & retroactively scanned Hans' past games to dig up more shade on him?

Either way chess dot com don't come off this looking as squeaky clean as they might want. To the outside observer, their actions look like hitting a man who is already down, just to finish him off.

OTOH if STLCC/FIDE fail to find concrete evidence of OTB cheating by Hans, I really think Magnus in particular and perhaps Naka and the streaming gang need to publicly apologise to Hans. That's the least they can do. Just because he cheated online doesn't mean that if he is proven clean OTB he can still be treated like a pariah by the super GM cliche.

That is a good summary and at the end of the day chess.com is gonna do whatever the lawyers tell them too at this point.  They have made me so mad with this response I legit want to play on worse websites with lower quality interfaces just because its so gross.  So they may be within legal rights but in the court of this one mans public opinion I find chess.com guilty of being  bunch of corporate aholes. 

Chess dot com and Magnus need to present whatever evidence they have otherwise these public declarations and insinuations are wholly inappropriate.

They don't "need" to do anything for you (or the rest of us), because it is quite literally none of your/our business. (At least, that is, until a legal system gets involved, and even then it's still none of our business.)

My impression is that they know way more than they're letting on right now (with their newly-updated rules for OTB tournaments being a dead tip-off that RFID shenanigans are an emergent concern), and are toying with Hans as a cat does a mouse, seeing how far he'll go double-downing before springing their trap.

Honestly I haven't been this upset about a non personal thing in a long time. ...I'm done playing  on chess.com until this is resolved disgusting.

But are you "literally shaking"?

(Google know-your-meme.)

bezzlebedibiled, my statement was what they need to do in order for me,a long time paying member of their platform, to think their actions and statements are appropriate. I was not referring to their legal obligations.

What worries me the most is the fact that I had to learn the official statement of Chess.com - on Twitter. That is completely inappropriate for me and proof of gross mishandling of this delicate situation!

You can blame your politicians for establishing the precedent of Twitter being the general-consensus clearinghouse for news-dumps.

I like to think I keep up with some of the memes but I don't know that one sadly sorry. 

Chess.com has the "right" to ban anyone for any reason. BUT, they have the responsibility to explain themselves when they choose to ban a top 40 player in the world, during one of the most prestigious competitions in the world, after a business deal with the player who lost to the banned player.

bezzlebedibiled, my statement was what they need to do in order for me,a long time paying member of their platform, to think their actions and statements are appropriate. I was not referring to their legal obligations.

 
I am frankly bemused by this whole ordeal. Suffice to say that Chess.com knows what it knows, and, for the moment, they're playing close-to-the-vest. I would even speculate that they've known for some time, and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if this wasn't an elaborate "sting" operation. (The game in question felt weird, and Carlson's withdrawal tweet oozed Chershire Cat playfulness and foreknowledge while otherwise remaining pokerfaced. Note that it was Nakamura who leveled the cheating hypothesis publicly.) 

Occam's Razor suggests the truth will far more prosaic.

Im not here to argue about wether or not the dude cheated, as many people pointed out Magnus didnt play a particularky great game, and i really have no horse in the rave, not to mention even tho im not overly firmiliar with chess events security, id assume if one were to be able to show up to one of the most prestigious events snd play filmed. Against the most popular player where nost of thee focus woukd be, he either didnt cheat, or has come up with some idk how to say, rather  "advanced" means of cheating if no1 whos speculating he cheated can come up with a single scenario of how he did it. What id really like to discuss, is more of chess.coms stance 9n cheating and their fair play rules. So aside from this whole magnus match, hes been banned twice for chesting and has openly admitted it. Now ots clear as day on the fair play rules that if your caught cheating and your account is closed, you get ONE chance to fill out a form requesting a second chance. So firstly, i would like to know why this person(for arguements sake he could be joe schmo, like i said im not interested in debating the whole hans magbus game and all the fallout, im here because im having a VERY hard time with chess.coms stance on this issue. If your allowed a one time closure of tour account, how was he banned twice(again he admitted , in his words to cheating t2ice, once when he was 12 and once at 16) and chess.com JUST put out their monthly or semi annually statementt about improvments in all areas including fairplay, they put out their statistics they love to flaunt(6 titked players had their accounts closed) along with 25k others for fairplay violations, i believe this was in a months span, that not the main point. So they love to say how their st the forefront of cheating detection etc and again, clearly states that "all players are treated equal, INCLUDING TITLED PLAYERS AND GRANDMASTERS" so my issue is if your gonna stabd by your statements about keeping the integrity of the game a major priority, why was he allowed to comeback after 2 accoubt closures for fair play. Regular nobodys are not allowed to do that, and as they state "everyone is and should be treated equally" which i couldnt agree with more. So again, question begs is why was he allowed and INVITED back to play on chess.com (only for them to rescind this after the magnus scandal) this is blatant hypocrisy. And then they released the statement which they alluded that hans has severely downplayed the severity and the time frame of his cheating, which alot of people are taking issues with as another shot towards him, but in the same statement they said they are open to his response so that he could be back on chess.com playing in its events etc. So that yet another hypocritical statement and blatant proof that chess.com is not even following its rules and regulations which they amways like to tout they take so ...severely/important that when they close an account they are essentially saying we have enough "proof" that we are willing to take the issue to court if they were sued over the closure by a player. This is all nonsensical, and again before people start jumping down my throat this isnt about hans specifically for me, this is just the only example i know of where both sides have essentially agreed that someone has cheated, had their account closed, was allowed to open another one, cheated again, had that accoubt closed, and was not only let back but invited back, then officiially taken off the platform for a third time, and in the same statment said they were more than open to resolving the issue so that said player. Ould return and be a part of the chess.com family again, that would easentially be his 4th chance. This is absolutely absurd. Id have the same opinion if it was leanardo dicaprio magnus hans or my cousin. Thats absurd. It completely negates all they have to say about keeping the integrity of the game and keeping all players on an even playing field. If he is allowed what potentially a 4th time, why arent regular everyday 1000 elo players who do the same thing afforded the same oppourtunities? This is the issue i take a huge moral stance on. Does anyone else agree? And again, one morre time, this isnt because of who it is, im not on either side in all of this drama, quite frankly i dont see how he coukd have cheated unless like i stated earlier he has comee up with some scheme thats so advanced absolutely no1 has a clue as to what it is. And in regards to people attacking the statement chess.com put out, AGAIN, my issue is with chess.com itself, but from what i know, or have read on their sote(which clearly means nothing based on what ive laod out) according to their site regulations, they cannot discuss ANY players specifics behind a ban, for instance they cannot break whatever their disclosure says when you sign up and go to play your firdt game and click the button that says i agree to play fair, i read something in their that even if your caught cheating your still entitled to your privacy, however in this case with all the accusations hand was the one who went to take ownership of his past mistskes and openly admitted to cheating twice, but i believe chess.com still cannot comeout with a statement saying you cheated on such and such a date in such a such game etc, so thats why their(in my eyes ridiculous statement) sounds like another. "baseless accusation" atleast from my understanding, but for the 4th or 5th tome thats not what my post is about, its about chess.com not following their own rules and essentially letting people who they can potentially profit from be exempt from rules which they state "All players must obide". Does anyone else see the blatent hypocrisy for reasons i can only see as potential monetary gain forr their site/company...????

MorningGlory84 wrote: bezzlebedeviled wrote: MikeSexton21 wrote:

bezzlebedibiled, my statement was what they need to do in order for me,a long time paying member of their platform, to think their actions and statements are appropriate. I was not referring to their legal obligations.

 
I am frankly bemused by this whole ordeal. Suffice to say that Chess.com knows what it knows, and, for the moment, they're playing close-to-the-vest. I would even speculate that they've known for some time, and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if this wasn't an elaborate "sting" operation. (The game in question felt weird, and Carlson's withdrawal tweet oozed Chershire Cat playfulness and foreknowledge while otherwise remaining pokerfaced. Note that it was Nakamura who leveled the cheating hypothesis publicly.) 

> Occam's Razor suggests the truth will far more prosaic.

Like most "popular wisdom" aphorisms, Occam's Razor is an expedient and illogical shortcut employed to avoid analysis, overindulgence of which will leave you at the mercy of anyone skilled in subterfuge. (At least it's not as bad as the detestable Hanlon's Razor, which should almost always be inverted.)

In my experience the main people who object to Occam's Razor are conspiracy theorists, their theories being highly illogical. I expect you'll object to the term "conspiracy theorist" too.

MorningGlory84 wrote:

In my experience the main people who object to Occam's Razor are conspiracy theorists, their theories being highly illogical. I expect you'll object to the term "conspiracy theorist" too.

--Within the context of the discussion's subject (we should endeavor to keep these streams-of-consciousness glued together), you must be then prepared to, in order to maintain logical consistency, dismiss the ongoing peanut-gallery theory (which you are indulging in) that chess.com and Magnus Carlson are conspiring against Hans Niemann.