Hans Niemann latest performance

I understand its a civil case

We tend look good against lower-rated players.

A 2700 should outplay 2500s with relative ease. Otherwise, ratings mean nothing.

A 2700 beating a 2850, though? That's a different story altogether. The stars have to align just right ...

Exactly. That's what I was trying to say about step A. Even in a civil case, all Hans has to do is show that no proof was provided for cheating.

His claims are for damages to his reputation that hinder his career. As an already admitted cheater, he will indeed have to prove that the defendants' newer allegations are false, that they were *willfully* false, and that his career will suffer a million dollars of actual, not potential, damages due to those newer, knowingly false allegations *only*...because his reputation as a past cheater is already established and will be baked into his claims of what damages his career suffered at the hands of the defendants.

How do you go about proving allegations are false when the allegations themselves cannot be proven? Makes zero sense.

You guys really need to learn the difference between criminal and civil cases.

Niemann is the "accuser" in this lawsuit. Chess.com, Magnus, and Hikaru are the defendants. To take their money away from them successfully, Niemann must prove the 4 things I laid out originally. His actual guilt or innocence is not being tried, so your question "he is now presumed guilty until proven otherwise?" is meaningless.

That's as far as I go, this was already discussed and laid all this out months ago in half a dozen forum threads. You guys are a little late to the party.

This

Ok geniuses...I'll try to earmark this thread and come back to it when the case is resolved. At that point I will probably make some allegations about you both, but you won't be able to successfully sue me for damages either ...

@DiogenesDue

By your logic, you can make any allegation about me and then the onus is on me to prove that your allegation is not true.

Good luck with that.

hans trying to act like billy from stranger things lol

False. Never said that. But if you want to sue me for damages for saying you are a dillweed, then you must show that you are not, in fact, a form of dillweed. Defamation implies false claims...otherwise it is just expounding on reality.

Niemann does not have to prove he did not cheat to establish his innocence, but he *does* have to show that the defendants made knowingly false allegations about him that damaged his livelihood. You equate the two things, but there is a discernable difference. Niemann's problem in this civil case is that it's pretty difficult to prove the latter without proving the former...

@DiogenesDue

Your first post in this thread said that Niemann has to prove 4 things --- one of which being that he didn't cheat. I was simply disagreeing with that one aspect of your statement. You seem like an intelligent, well-spoken person, and I bet there are more things about this case that we agree on than disagree. It is difficult to have a discussion like this in a forum setting without some level of misunderstanding.

There was something very suspicious to me about Niemann's keenness to "defend" his engine-perfect play against Carlsen to reach a winning position when Carlsen played a human mistake, as if he knew immediately after the game that it would look suspiciously perfect. And who feels the need to defend their very precise play when it happens by a bit of luck? You don't need to.

He claimed implausibly to have prepared the line on the computer that morning despite Carlsen having chosen a rather offbeat and unlikely variation as he sometimes does to avoid theory. But Niemann's perfect play also contrasted awkwardly with his surprisingly poor understanding of what was going on in the discussion with a commentator. The idea that he beat Carlsen by rote learning of a single line that he didn't really understand is very dubious.

Someone give this man a cookie! If everyone in the forums were like this, the chess.com community would be a wonderful place.

I agree.

This is what I said:

"The burden of proof is on Niemann, and he has to prove 4 criteria are all true, not just that he didn't cheat."

You read this as me saying that Niemann's proving he did not cheat must be one of the 4 criteria. If I had wanted to go dig up the exact language of the 4 criteria again, you would have seen that "prove he didn't cheat" was not one of them, but since I did not list the criteria, and I used the word "just", you moved "prove he didn't cheat" into a Venn diagram with the 4 criteria . But it was just shorthand summation for two separate things, previously defined months ago, that I was trying not to spend a bunch of time reiterating.

I had to look up who that was & then I looked at some Billy Hargrove memes. Yep, that's Hans alter ego.

Hi