Hans Niemann Is Innocent and Has Been Reinstated

Make no mistake about it. Carlsen cheated against Alexandra Kosteniuk but got called out by the seasoned veteran. Why would anyone think that is the only time he would try to cheat? We have monitors and rules in place to prevent cheating because it is human nature to be dishonest when it benefits us. I don't want to hear any nonsense about Carlsen didn't realize he did what he did. I might add that this is worse than what Nieman did because it is over the board, something no one has ever seen Nieman do.

I don't think a mistake is the same as cheating. Uder time pressure he touched two different pieces. Clearly against the rules. But also a mistake. Does anyone believe he was hoping that, before he moved, nobody would notice he touched two different pieces? Of course not. He immediately (within a second) realized his mistake and resigned. Who wouldn't be frustrated at themselves for making such a simple mistake?

The clear difference here is Carlsen immediately resigned, recognizing the mistake he made. What Hans did was quite the opposite. Did Hans immediately admit to his cheating when confronted?

Carlsen is no amateur. He knew exactly what he did. His mistake was trying to cheat against a seasoned chess player in Alexandra Kosteniuk. Quit defending an over the board cheater. Everyone admits Niemann cheated in internet chess. Admit Carlsen cheated knowing full well what he did in over the board chess. He isn't an innocent child.

Of course he knew. That's why he resigned. He isn't a machine. He's a human. We have all done things as bad or much worse. With his experience he has probably played out countless games where he shuffles all sorts of pieces back and forth. You just cant do that in a real game.

Cheating is if there is intent. Touching two different pieces was HIGHLY likely not preplanned. Hans planned what he did in advance. Wouldn't you agree that Magnus didn't start out the game thinking he was going to touch two different pieces and hope nobody would notice?

Magnus made no attempt to justify or deny his mistake did he? He didn't plan it did he? It's what, in the real world, we call a mistake.

In golf there are hundreds of pages of rules. One rule is that each player has to sign for their scorecard. If someone signs for an incorrect card they are disqualified. Because it's against the rules. But nobody is suggesting they are cheating. Its almost always because they were careless or absent minded when reviewing their card. Carelessness is not the same as cheating.

He resigned because he was called out.

It's hard to say if he was going to do it anyway, it happens so fast. But he never denied it, never questioned it. He instantly realized he made a mistake. And I would say he never planned it.

Quite the opposite of what Hans did. What Hans did was preplanned and intentional. Literally hoping to get away with it.

BTW, what is the description, the title, of that video you posted?

Computer chess in faster time controls is just junk chess. It's the McDonald's fast food version of chess. To assume one player cheated is to acknowledge that cheating is common.

Hans hasn't cheated OTB, and he has admitted to cheating online when he was HS age. I hope that everybody can move beyond Magnus' temper tantrum episode from last year's loss at the Sinquefield Cup so that they can all continue to compete and provide a positive sporting environment that we can all enjoy.

Hans has already been given many "breaks". Too many, in fact. His reputation is wholly earned...you reap what you sow.

Can all the little streamer fanbois move along at some point? Hans will have to deal with his reputation the rest of his career. If he is squeaky clean, in a few decades he will earn some respect back.

Oh the horror. I hear he microwaved a baby in between rounds!

I'm talking about his reputation with his peers. Magnus is irrelevant. The situation would have exploded at some point anyway, with some other player. Chess.com chooses to let their ever-younger-skewing userbase continue to feel that cheating with engines online is all but acceptable when young, and that they will get another chance, and another, and another. It's self-defeating ultimately, but they have only seen $$$ during the chess boom and don't want to lose any kids, morally questionable or not.

This stands to reason. Chess.com is well aware that cheating rates online are much higher then they let on, but what are they going to do, ban 10%-20% of their userbase? Nope, that's millions of dollars of revenue.

There will be eventually be some much bigger scandal than Hans, one that will have evidence/proof in amounts that will not allow things to get swept under the rug. Meanwhile, these fanbois will continue to plead for Hans to get every fresh start possible...because they know their own predilections and pasts, and they want that same fresh start later themselves.

And that's the bottom line. It takes a long time to regain the trust of people. Carlsen (and anyone else) had every right to question his play because of his past history. If it turns out Hans was not cheating, great. That's a start. He needs to keep doing that every game, every time. For many years.

My opinion is Hans cannot complain of being disinvited to anything, Nobody trusted him. And many still don't. He alone is responsible for his actions, and the consequences of those actions.

You can choose to believe that. But I'm not talking about your chances of running into a cheater in any given game. I'm talking about players that have cheated with an engine at some point even if it was one game or even one move...

If you have ever watched Naroditsky's speedruns, there's no shortage of cheaters at the 2200-2500 level online. It's a constant hazard at that range in rapid. They get caught, of course, but they can just start over...it takes weeks to detect and ban them and 15 minutes for them to be back in action with a new account. There are less in blitz and bullet, but don't fool yourself there either...bots are a lot more prevalent than people think.

What percentage of people do you think share pirated music and media offhand?

Note that I have no expertise in assessing cheating at chess, I'm not even good at chess.

But I'd suggest you actually read chess.com 's initial report (which their statment says they stand by), it answers your questions.

Basically:

-chess.com had previously banned Hans Neimann for cheating, but was reinstated after he served a time being banned and promised not to do it again. This is back in 2020. According to the report, Hans is not the only top 100 player they have done this to, but the other one is anonymous.

-After later allegations of OTB cheating and behaviour chess.com found suspicious, chess.com temporarily re-banned Hans while they investigated. This was mostly because they didn't want the controversy bleeding into an upcoming chess.com tournament.

-Based in the (preliminary) conclusions of the report, it looks like their investigation would have cleared Hans of subsequent wrongdoing and he'd have been discreetly reinstated.

-However, Hans decided to make a big song and dance about it; and in doing so in chess.com's estimation lied about the extent of his previous cheating, so they published their report to clarify things.

That's all the report has to say about it. Now, I still think, left to their own devices, chess.com would have still cleared Hans and reinstated him. However, Hans decided to sue them, so they had to keep him banned until that was resolved.

Hans didn't cheat over the board. Magnus just developed a huge ego and can't take losing. It's not that inconceivable to beat a world champion who misses mare in 3 as shown in gotham recap videos.

Cheating in 100 games out of 12,000+ isn't a big deal. And online has nothing to do with over the board. I never cheated online but when I first joined I didn't even know there were rules on that. I thought it was an obvious possibility that you don't know what someone is doing behind the screen. The theories on how he could have cheated were totally ridiculous and that sealed the deal for me that this whole thing was a hoax. The idea that a top GM would only need assistance in 3 moves of the game to guarantee a win was also absurd. Magnus just has a pathetic ego.

My recollection is that Chess.com didn't give Niemann a public ban while they investigated, but removed him from the tournament and locked him out of the account. They may very well have reinstated him after their investigation, but Niemann started declaring his victimhood and lying about the extent of his cheating on Chess.com well before he actually sued, at which point Chess.com couldn't restore his account without lending credence to Niemann's version of events, which were clearly not true.

I didn't find their report misleading at all, and in fact the settlement doesn't require that they withdraw any part of it - on the contrary, Chess.com explicitly says that they stand by it. That report agrees that there is no determinative evidence that Niemann cheated over the board, but it does point out some statistical anomalies that are unusual and potentially suspicious. That doesn't mean there's enough evidence to say for sure, just that it's suspicious.

The lawsuit was just over the top and completely ridiculous - Niemann's lawyers are of course happy to run with it, because they get paid either way. Does anyone know whether the settlement specified who paid what costs? Did everyone just pay their own legal costs?

There are prize money events on this site? Also, not sure what you are insinuating as I have over 30 chess books on my shelf.

I've no idea really, as I was mostly going off chess.com 's report

The final paragraph was pretty much guesswork.

I will say that one problem with my post (and other posts here I guess) is I was treating chess.com as if it were a single person making consistent decisions.

That's the way they like to paint it in their report, but in real life no organisation works like that.

The likely thing is, there are some people in chess.com who thought Hans did nothing wrong, and there are others who wanted him permabanned.

Much perplexing behaviour by chess.com and other organisations can be resolved by acknowledging this fact.

Different subgroups of people within the same organisation can be "winning" at different times, so the organisation can seem to make contradictory decisions.

I trust that post will be food for thought Soupsailor ...