Chess.com on Niemann ban

Sort:
DeconanLeBarbaresque
justingaethje69 wrote:

Where the LOGIC behind any of this?

You don't see the logic.

There are countless threads on reddit, youtube and elsewhere that question the ban timing.

chess.com could have banned Hans permanently long before, since they seemingly know "a lot" about his online cheating activities.
They banned him after some (a few, really) big actors on this site supported directly or  indirectly the OTB cheating accusations (most top GMs didn't) through passionate videos .
Then, following numerous reactions to the ban,  chess.com had to give some brief explanations (that look more like excuses to me).

As of today, still no evidence of any OTB cheating. Many GMs analyzed Hans games at the STL tournament and did not find any evidence of a comp-move. 

 

The chess.com ban sounds more like a hasty move to please some high-level members.
On the other hand, the young Hans Niemann had to cope with the added stress of these OTB cheating accusations enhanced by the chess.com ban, while still playing the tournament.

chess.com should have stayed out of this until at least after the tournament, or if some OTB cheating evidence had come to light.

 

So, yes, I'm cancelling my chess.com paid membership.

 

MorningGlory84
DeconanLeBarbaresque wrote:
justingaethje69 wrote:

Where the LOGIC behind any of this?

You don't see the logic.

There are countless threads on reddit, youtube and elsewhere that question the ban timing.

chess.com could have banned Hans permanently long before, since they seemingly know "a lot" about his online cheating activities.
They banned him after some (a few, really) big actors on this site supported directly or  indirectly the OTB cheating accusations (most top GMs didn't) through passionate videos .
Then, following numerous reactions to the ban,  chess.com had to give some brief explanations (that look more like excuses to me).

As of today, still no evidence of any OTB cheating. Many GMs analyzed Hans games at the STL tournament and did not find any evidence of a comp-move. 

 

The chess.com ban sounds more like a hasty move to please some high-level members.
On the other hand, the young Hans Niemann had to cope with the added stress of these OTB cheating accusations enhanced by the chess.com ban, while still playing the tournament.

chess.com should have stayed out of this until at least after the tournament, or if some OTB cheating evidence had come to light.

 

So, yes, I'm cancelling my chess.com paid membership.

 

I thought the ban was prompted by Niemann giving a misleading account of his cheating hence this was alluded to in Chess.com's email to him.

idilis
Bryan-HallWS wrote:

Do you have some data to back this up? 

were you homeschooled?

MorningGlory84
robinweigold wrote:

I believe that they should ban andrew tate on chess.com. His dad was a chess player so we can assume tate plays chess too, he must be banned NOWW

I didn't expect to see that degenerate mentioned on here. The guy is an attention seeker who thrives on controversy. If we lived in a rational world people would just ignore him. It's been proven he buys followings and is a faker.

GrandPatzerDave-taken
MorningGlory84 wrote:
DeconanLeBarbaresque wrote:
justingaethje69 wrote:

Where the LOGIC behind any of this?

You don't see the logic.

There are countless threads on reddit, youtube and elsewhere that question the ban timing.

chess.com could have banned Hans permanently long before, since they seemingly know "a lot" about his online cheating activities.
They banned him after some (a few, really) big actors on this site supported directly or  indirectly the OTB cheating accusations (most top GMs didn't) through passionate videos .
Then, following numerous reactions to the ban,  chess.com had to give some brief explanations (that look more like excuses to me).

As of today, still no evidence of any OTB cheating. Many GMs analyzed Hans games at the STL tournament and did not find any evidence of a comp-move. 

 

The chess.com ban sounds more like a hasty move to please some high-level members.
On the other hand, the young Hans Niemann had to cope with the added stress of these OTB cheating accusations enhanced by the chess.com ban, while still playing the tournament.

chess.com should have stayed out of this until at least after the tournament, or if some OTB cheating evidence had come to light.

 

So, yes, I'm cancelling my chess.com paid membership.

 

I thought the ban was prompted by Niemann giving a misleading account of his cheating hence this was alluded to in Chess.com's email to him.

Timing is very important here.  As recently as the Miami event chess.com was all welcoming and encouraging and supportive of Hans.  But when the Whirled Chump acted a crybaby they ran their portion of the pile-on and then doubled down with their most-recent "but wait, there's more!" CYA announcement.

Curious that Hans got waxed in Miami, too.  If you're getting plowed wouldn't that be encouragement to cheat a little?  And yet not a whisper.  Everything about chess.com's actions just stinks to high heaven.

Now that the GCT has issue a statement that there was no evidence of cheating in St. Louis it'll be interesting to see how the backpedaling goes.

MorningGlory84
GrandPatzerDave wrote:
MorningGlory84 wrote:
DeconanLeBarbaresque wrote:
justingaethje69 wrote:

Where the LOGIC behind any of this?

You don't see the logic.

There are countless threads on reddit, youtube and elsewhere that question the ban timing.

chess.com could have banned Hans permanently long before, since they seemingly know "a lot" about his online cheating activities.
They banned him after some (a few, really) big actors on this site supported directly or  indirectly the OTB cheating accusations (most top GMs didn't) through passionate videos .
Then, following numerous reactions to the ban,  chess.com had to give some brief explanations (that look more like excuses to me).

As of today, still no evidence of any OTB cheating. Many GMs analyzed Hans games at the STL tournament and did not find any evidence of a comp-move. 

 

The chess.com ban sounds more like a hasty move to please some high-level members.
On the other hand, the young Hans Niemann had to cope with the added stress of these OTB cheating accusations enhanced by the chess.com ban, while still playing the tournament.

chess.com should have stayed out of this until at least after the tournament, or if some OTB cheating evidence had come to light.

 

So, yes, I'm cancelling my chess.com paid membership.

 

I thought the ban was prompted by Niemann giving a misleading account of his cheating hence this was alluded to in Chess.com's email to him.

Timing is very important here.  As recently as the Miami event chess.com was all welcoming and encouraging and supportive of Hans.  But when the Whirled Chump acted a crybaby they ran their portion of the pile-on and then doubled down with their most-recent "but wait, there's more!" CYA announcement.

Curious that Hans got waxed in Miami, too.  If you're getting plowed wouldn't that be encouragement to cheat a little?  And yet not a whisper.  Everything about chess.com's actions just stinks to high heaven.

Now that the GCT has issue a statement that there was no evidence of cheating in St. Louis it'll be interesting to see how the backpedaling goes.

You seem a little too emotionally involved. The "timing" coincided with Niemann giving a contradictory account of his cheating publicly. Had he not done that (he didn't need to speak on his past cheating at all) he likely wouldn't have been banned.

AlexiZalman
MorningGlory84 wrote

You seem a little too emotionally involved. The "timing" coincided with Niemann giving a contradictory account of his cheating publicly. Had he not done that (he didn't need to speak on his past cheating at all) he likely wouldn't have been banned.

The third ban occurred BEFORE the Nieman interview as he refers to it during the interview.

hawkspirit44

CraigIreland wrote:

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

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

Most of us have no idea how much personal information is collected by websites and apps like chesscom. They most likely have all the evidence they need.

I have worked in this area in the past and believe me, there are many kinds of digital fingerprinting mechanisms available which would surprise most users. Much more than just browser cookie data. They know if you have alternate accounts, and when you're logging in and out, if you're saving game files, and much more. They know your operating system, IP address, if you're on phone, pc or mac, timezone, language information, if you're using browser extensions, and much more meta data than most of us have any awareness of. (We agree to it in the Terms of Service so it's legal for them to collect this information).

So when they say they have evidence, they most likely have it. I don't think they are just frivolously making it all up.

Wits-end

All this technology nonsense makes me long for the “good old days” of post card chess. Damn the Borg! Luddittes rise up and unite. Our day is approaching, indeed it may have arrived. “Enough.”

Bryan-HallWS
idilis wrote:
Bryan-HallWS wrote:

Do you have some data to back this up? 

were you homeschooled?

So your answer is no?

You need data to be able to back up that level of cheating and social disfunction on a global scale. Just because you possibly cheated, or knew people who cheat, doesn't mean the entire world and all of society is operating in the same way. That's just silly to even think so. 

MorningGlory84
AlexiZalman wrote:
MorningGlory84 wrote

You seem a little too emotionally involved. The "timing" coincided with Niemann giving a contradictory account of his cheating publicly. Had he not done that (he didn't need to speak on his past cheating at all) he likely wouldn't have been banned.

The third ban occurred BEFORE the Nieman interview as he refers to it during the interview.

Which interview and at what time?

idilis
Bryan-HallWS wrote:
idilis wrote:
Bryan-HallWS wrote:

Do you have some data to back this up? 

were you homeschooled?

So your answer is no?

You need data to be able to back up that level of cheating and social disfunction on a global scale. Just because you possibly cheated, or knew people who cheat, doesn't mean the entire world and all of society is operating in the same way. That's just silly to even think so. 

You just need to have travelled a lot and observed people and yourself honestly.  There are many everyday things we don't rely on stats for.  I don't think that's silly at all - that's what real world experience is all about.

Typically here you go to 4-5 schools to get your degree.  That does provide quite some exposure in itself. Which is why I asked whether you were homeschooled.

A quick web search shows this:

https://web.stanford.edu/class/engr110/cheating.html

Sometimes the truth is not just out there.

Bryan-HallWS
idilis wrote:
Bryan-HallWS wrote:
idilis wrote:
Bryan-HallWS wrote:

Do you have some data to back this up? 

were you homeschooled?

So your answer is no?

You need data to be able to back up that level of cheating and social disfunction on a global scale. Just because you possibly cheated, or knew people who cheat, doesn't mean the entire world and all of society is operating in the same way. That's just silly to even think so. 

You just need to have travelled a lot and observed people and yourself honestly.  There are many everyday things we don't rely on stats for.  I don't think that's silly at all - that's what real world experience is all about.

Typically here you go to 4-5 schools to get your degree.  That does provide quite some exposure in itself. Which is why I asked whether you were homeschooled.

A quick web search shows this:

https://web.stanford.edu/class/engr110/cheating.html

There's roughly 8 billion people in the world. Doesn't matter how much you travel or how many schools you attend. You can never observe enough to get a statistically viable position on that. 

As far as the link goes, it doesn't show any substantial data or reference any actual research papers. If you dig a little bit there is some discussion about American high school students being polled, but there is no reference to how the question was posed, where the students were based out of, economic background, etc. It's a deeply flawed paper and seems posted more for shock value than actual research. We have to do better than that to draw conclusions, even on a small scale.

idilis
Bryan-HallWS wrote:

There's roughly 8 billion people in the world. Doesn't matter how much you travel or how many schools you attend. You can never observe enough to get a statistically viable position on that. 

As far as the link goes, it doesn't show any substantial data or reference any actual research papers. If you dig a little bit there is some discussion about American high school students being polled, but there is no reference to how the question was posed, where the students were based out of, economic background, etc. It's a deeply flawed paper and seems posted more for shock value than actual research. We have to do better than that to draw conclusions, even on a small scale.

https://academicintegrity.org/resources/facts-and-statistics

There are organisations that study this. Their studies correlate with my experience. Many of us are in positions where we have to protect the integrity of our organizations no matter how small - this may be through hiring interviews, tests or performance evaluations. That most won't cheat is not a viable assumption.

Do you have data or experience otherwise?

Elroch
DeconanLeBarbaresque wrote:
justingaethje69 wrote:

Where the LOGIC behind any of this?

You don't see the logic.

There are countless threads on reddit, youtube and elsewhere that question the ban timing.

chess.com could have banned Hans permanently long before, since they seemingly know "a lot" about his online cheating activities.
They banned him after some (a few, really) big actors on this site supported directly or  indirectly the OTB cheating accusations (most top GMs didn't) through passionate videos .
Then, following numerous reactions to the ban,  chess.com had to give some brief explanations (that look more like excuses to me).

As of today, still no evidence of any OTB cheating. Many GMs analyzed Hans games at the STL tournament and did not find any evidence of a comp-move. 

 

The chess.com ban sounds more like a hasty move to please some high-level members.
On the other hand, the young Hans Niemann had to cope with the added stress of these OTB cheating accusations enhanced by the chess.com ban, while still playing the tournament.

chess.com should have stayed out of this until at least after the tournament, or if some OTB cheating evidence had come to light.

 

So, yes, I'm cancelling my chess.com paid membership.

While of course everyone has the right to make foolish decisions to spite themselves, bear in mind that Niemann cheated more than once on chess.com (including by his own admission, if you have any doubt), then lied about the extent of his cheating. To die on the hill of protecting his honour is daft. Especially since the evidence of OTB cheating is reported to be convincing, making it almost certain in the context of the other facts.

Bryan-HallWS
idilis wrote:
Bryan-HallWS wrote:

There's roughly 8 billion people in the world. Doesn't matter how much you travel or how many schools you attend. You can never observe enough to get a statistically viable position on that. 

As far as the link goes, it doesn't show any substantial data or reference any actual research papers. If you dig a little bit there is some discussion about American high school students being polled, but there is no reference to how the question was posed, where the students were based out of, economic background, etc. It's a deeply flawed paper and seems posted more for shock value than actual research. We have to do better than that to draw conclusions, even on a small scale.

https://academicintegrity.org/resources/facts-and-statistics

There are organisations that study this. Their studies correlate with my experience. Many of us are in positions where we have to protect the integrity of our organizations no matter how small - this may be through hiring interviews, tests or performance evaluations. That most won't cheat is not a viable assumption.

Do you have data or experience otherwise?

Yes, people cheat, I understand that. That link asked 840 college students from 5 universities and 7,000 high school students from 24 high schools. 

There are over 19 million college students at at 4000 institutions. 

There are also over 15 million students at 23,500 high schools. 

That means your data asked .023% of students about cheating. They were all U.S. Based so it's not a good international gauge either. 

However, your original post spoke to people not participating in cheating being treated as freaks, and then cheaters growing up and being super judgmental. None of the links you shared commented on that at all, at least not from what I saw. 

My experience was different. I went to k-12 public schools, achieved bachelors and masters degrees, and didn't cheat or see a profound amount of cheating. The only time I have cheated in my life was when I was in the military. We were instructed, to cheat, because we were expected to go to war. Morals and ethics had to be altered in order to do that. They wanted us thinking outside the box. So in a sense, was it really cheating? It's almost like we were being trained to enter a world with different rules. It never really struck me as something that would overlap into the rest of my life though. Things that are done in the military were for specific reasons and I understood that. Civilian life is different. 

What was the target/goal of your original post though? Maybe that would help me better understand what you're getting at. 

idilis
Bryan-HallWS wrote:

*Snip*

That means your data asked .023% of students about cheating. They were all U.S. Based so it's not a good international gauge either. 

However, your original post spoke to people not participating in cheating being treated as freaks, and then cheaters growing up and being super judgmental. None of the links you shared commented on that at all, at least not from what I saw. 

My experience was different. I went to k-12 public schools, achieved bachelors and masters degrees, and didn't cheat or see a profound amount of cheating. The only time I have cheated in my life was when I was in the military. We were instructed, to cheat, because we were expected to go to war. Morals and ethics had to be altered in order to do that. They wanted us thinking outside the box. So in a sense, was it really cheating? It's almost like we were being trained to enter a world with different rules. It never really struck me as something that would overlap into the rest of my life though. Things that are done in the military were for specific reasons and I understood that. Civilian life is different. 

What was the target/goal of your original post though? Maybe that would help me better understand what you're getting at. 

Not my data and I'm not in the US.

Beyond my observation and experience, I don't have data to support that kids who cheat isolate those who don't and grow up to be judgemental adults and parents.  That would have to be some seriously specialized study for such data to be produced. I would expect none.

I'm surprised your experience is different although the environment that you stated seems quite similar to mine. Also what is your bar for a profound amount of cheating?

My point which I thought was clear enough was that false pretense was the root of most evil .

Bryan-HallWS
idilis wrote:

Not my data and I'm not in the US.

Beyond my observation and experience, I don't have data to support that kids who cheat isolate those who don't and grow up to be judgemental adults and parents.  That would have to be some seriously specialized study for such data to be produced. I would expect none.

I'm surprised your experience is different although the environment that you stated seems quite similar to mine. Also what is your bar for a profound amount of cheating?

My point which I thought was clear enough was that false pretense was the root of most evil .

* the data you presented to support your position. 

I wouldn't expect data to support that claim either. 

As far as what I would consider to be a profound amount of cheating, I don't know that I have a personal definition for that. I think everyone would probably have a different definition based on their moral compass. 

Applying it to this situation:

Hans stated that he has cheated online in order to raise his rating and gain access to higher caliber matches. Consequently, this takes opportunity away from other players who would have gotten the opportunity to play those matches. If his cheating online resulted in favorable performances that then provide opportunities OTB then this is also taking away from others. If he cheated OTB at any point, it most definitely altered his access to better opportunities. Thus, the amount of cheating and it's impact on surrounding players that form an exceptionally small community would be considered quite profound, even if it was only measured in a handful of moves and rating points. 

If we place cheating in the realm of education, I see it as far less easy to define. Did someone cheat to get a C on their test so their parents wouldn't ground them? Or did they cheat across all classes and the SATs in order to achieve a 4.0 GPA and access to scholarships and opportunities in college? Did they cheat in order to simply pass a class, and move on to the rest of their degree? Was it a gen ed class or core curriculum? How did it impact their ability to obtain employment after college? My masters has a focus on education reform, so I have a lot of deep complex ideas on the subject which makes it harder for me to define. 

I do think that once you crack the seal and start cheating, it's likely easier to continue cheating, and to increase the severity of the cheating over time. 

idilis

and i believe most people are not even consciously aware they are cheating in little things everyday.  the moral compass is always for others.

Bryan-HallWS
idilis wrote:

and i believe most people are not even consciously aware they are cheating in little things everyday.  the moral compass is always for others.

That would be better as an idea than a belief.