Forums

Chess.com releasing private emails.

Sort:
SpiciestRamenNoodles

I wonder if Danny has a place where he stores all this stuff.

btickler
PawnTsunami wrote:
btickler wrote:

I still don't see any link here, which was my point...if you are going to spread this further than it is already going, then you need to link back to your source and not play a virtual game of "telephone" and make it even more vague and less informative.  It's irresponsible.

https://googlethatforyou.com?q=vice%20maxim%20dlugy

Missing the point wink.png.

PawnTsunami
btickler wrote:
 

Missing the point .

Given that this was all over the news yesterday, putting a link into his question today is not all that important.  If he had been asking as it broke yesterday, that would be a different story.  Once something is old news, putting the easily found link to it is redundant.  This isn't a research paper, after all ...

btickler
PawnTsunami wrote:

Given that this was all over the news yesterday, putting a link into his question today is not all that important.  If he had been asking as it broke yesterday, that would be a different story.  Once something is old news, putting the easily found link to it is redundant.  This isn't a research paper, after all ...

We can agree to disagree.  I don't think it's old news, and the implication that chess.com has (a) done something wrong and (b) will do it to him also seems to call for more rigor.

CraigIreland

Damn. I've just read the emails. Looks like I've chosen a great time to take start taking an interest in the upper echelons of Chess. This saga is gripping. I'm looking forward to the next installment in this story!

PawnTsunami
SaturnianMan wrote:

Hard to say, but sounds like something a good lawyer cooked up, knowing full well his students are minors, so no names and no liability, plus it makes Dlugy look like he was trying to benefit the minds of young children and not act maliciously by cheating and stealing money from his colleagues. Or he's telling the truth. I just find all the nonsensical extenuating circumstances way too convenient. 

Here's the thing:  A good coach, if he was doing that, would not throw his kids under the bus.  Rather, he would simply say, "I screwed up, it will not happen again" (and then make sure it doesn't happen again!).  So, the fact that he cooked up some story about his students cheating for him (trying to make it look like he is the victim) doesn't show what he wants it to.  The fact that it happened again almost as soon as he was allowed to compete in cash events again, demonstrates that it is a habitual problem.

Now, the problem for Hans:  If Hans is as close to Dlugy as the insinuations, Dlugy's habits would rub off on Hans.  Just like with parents, coaches with good habits will help kids develop good habits; those with bad habits will pass them on to their students.  That will not look good for Hans.  If Hans is not cheating OTB, the best thing he can do right now is to publicly distance himself from Dlugy.

PawnTsunami
btickler wrote:

We can agree to disagree.  I don't think it's old news, and the implication that chess.com has (a) done something wrong and (b) will do it to him also seems to call for more rigor.

The fact that they released emails that were meant to be private (as stated in said emails) for anyone means they could do it for anyone else.  Given that their fair play policy is "guilty until admitted guilty", I'm sure they have thousands of "admissions of guilt" from Titled players under duress sitting in their email archives.

btickler
PawnTsunami wrote:

The fact that they released emails that were meant to be private (as stated in said emails) for anyone means they could do it for anyone else.  Given that their fair play policy is "guilty until admitted guilty", I'm sure they have thousands of "admissions of guilt" from Titled players under duress sitting in their email archives.

The easy remedy to that is not to cheat.  False positives at that level are almost unheard of, because chess.com would not ban a GM without a thorough review by their cheat detection methods *and* a human team review as well.  In this particular case, it's guaranteed that they have gone well beyond even that level of scrutiny and probably are giving this situation more scrutiny than any cheating detection incident in their history.

If chess.com does have reason to believe Dlugy is working with Niemann, then I would consider it a new instance of cheating...clearly voiding any privacy promises.  I mean, chess.com also "voided" Niemann's *3rd* chance account after they reviewed his online games.

Promises to protect the privacy of cheaters when there is some sliver of doubt or even just a desire to be nice, as chess.com seems to have been here (far *too* nice, to Dlugy *and* Niemann, which actually is hurting chess.com now) are clearly null and void if new cheating emerges.

JeremyCrowhurst

The parts I find disturbing are:

1. They release these things "for the public good" every time Magnus opens his mouth, but not anybody else;

2. They are very quick to post their accusation, but never comment on the explanation.  Is it true that Dlugy cheated one time in 2017 and one time in 2020?  Is it true that Niemann cheated "twice" - whether that means two games, one in 2012 and one in 2017?  Or does it mean games on one day in 2012, and one in 2017?  

3. They'll give us the dirt but not the broom, like saying Niemann cheated "more than previously stated".  What does that mean?  He cheated in three days?

I've read this stuff before, and as a lawyer, I've written this stuff before.  Every word is technically true, but phrased in a way that suggests "mountain" when the truth is "molehill".  It's kind of like when a sports reporter says the Dodgers have lost their last 9 games.  What happened 10 games ago?  They won, or they would have said the lost their last 10.

I think we have to assume in these cases that if they had one additional shred of damaging information, they would have shared that, too.  

Because of the nature of the site, they come with a certain degree of credibility that they get when people think they are behaving responsibly, as they should.  But I guess there's a reason why it's a .com and not an .org.

btickler

The "lawyers are gearing up on both sides" narrative is a little silly.  The only lawyers Niemann would be able to get are ambulance chasers looking for a quick payday.  Ditto Dlugy.  People here watch too much Netflix wink.png.  He's a 19 year old kid who has already admitted cheating twice, his latest banning is his 3rd transgression.  Not at all a good bet for a high priced lawyer.  Chess.com is not at much risk here. 

Carlsen personally is at more risk, but let's say it goes to court and Niemann somehow wins everything.  Now it's time to award damages.  As a sub 2700 player at present his career earnings estimate stands to be...?  They will not grant damages based on him possibly improving further.  They will award a portion of what he might have made going forward at his current level of play.  That's a giant if, because Carlsen has not said that much and what he has said is that he thinks that an admitted cheater is still cheating.  A judge is not going to award Niemann damages as if he had a pristine reputation, the already damaged reputation would be evaluated, minor or no.  To think otherwise is just fantasy.

Chess.com wants to keep the lid on the ugliness here, but they would not have travelled down this road without having all the goods in their back pocket.

GBTGBA

On Netflix
If I search Hans I get these videos

GBTGBA

If i search for carlsen :

GBTGBA

Well do u see elon musk video appeared under carlsen ? That’s proof the beads belong to Magnus Carlsen.

btickler
GBTGBA wrote:

Well do u see elon musk video appeared under carlsen ? That’s proof the beads belong to Magnus Carlsen.

Stop spamming.

MorningGlory84

Maxim Dlugy and Hans Niemann both seem rather keen on theatrical blustering language which they think sounds clever. Both seem like people who lack self-awareness (which is more forgivable with a 19 year old).