Hans Niemann latest performance

Chess speaks for itself

“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.”



According to you, this would be true.

If you were a public figure, I could spread baseless lies that you embezzled money from people and spent it on prostitutes and drugs. I can do this with specific intent to defame you. Now, in order for you to beat me in a defamation case, you would have to prove that you did not, in fact, do these things. That would be nearly impossible.

Am I missing something? Please explain.

“As an already admitted cheater,”






How is this relevant?

Yes, you are missing something. You just described half the political ads on online and on TV. Do you see SuperPACs paying gazillions of dollars in judgments and being forced to cease and desist? Why not?

Proving the *additional* damage to someone's already sketchy reputation is, of course, relevant when seeking damages.

P.S. What is *does* take to win such a case is proven today in the Dominion vs. Fox News case. Dominion proved that Fox News knew that their claims were false, and went on making them anyway. Fox News knew what was coming, and settled for $787M dollars. That buys a lot of bowties.

I bought his Jobava London course from chessable. It’s great!

Hans Niemann's case would be more like Fox News suing Dominion for suggesting they had lied.

You've made up your mind and no lack of evidence in support of the contention will deter you.

In my opinion he has already proved that he doesn't need to cheat. Because in his latest showing he beat 4 Grandmaster's and out of a possible 9 points he tied for 1st place with 7 or 7 and 1/2 points. I can't remember for certain. However to me ; that shows he doesn't need to. Now as to whether he did cheat playing Magnus ; that's a different point. I don't know if there's any way he can prove beyond any doubt that he didn't cheat in the particular game. I just can't understand how the burden is on the accused. Now I realize he accused them of premeditated defamation of character. And if they do not have a way to prove he did what he was accused of ; or suspected of publicly. Then they knew then ; that they had no proof when it was first brought up. And without proof he did cheat ; then anyone laying public claims that he cheats is somewhat guilty of character assassination/ defamation. One thing I think hurts his case is that it seems he will have no way to prove it has defamed him because he is clearly still operating in the professional chess world with little to no obstruction by the unproven claims of cheating. So I think if he has anything he needs to prove. It will be that he received some type of financial harm or some other kind of damage from all this drama.

P.S. What is *does* take to win such a case is proven today in the Dominion vs. Fox News case. Dominion proved that Fox News knew that their claims were false, and went on making them anyway. Fox News knew what was coming, and settled for $787M dollars. That buys a lot of bowties.





There is a huge distinction that you are clearly ignorant of. Dominion is a public company, therefore the standards for defamation are WAY higher. (Actual malice must be proven, etc.) This is NOT a comparable case whatsoever.

Proving the *additional* damage to someone's already sketchy reputation is, of course, relevant when seeking damages.




Say that in court, you’ll get hit with an objection within 5 seconds.

It is, by definition, a comparable case...since we are comparing it.

I did not say the cases were the same. I said that the case showed what it takes to show defamation, and I was right. You can claim what you like, but having conviction about what seems more just to you does not equate to reality.

...in your Hollywood-driven view of the reality of courts of law, yes. Note that an objection is also not conclusive of anything. The only thing that can be objected to in that sentence is the word "sketchy", which obviously would not be used in court as it is too vague.

I could have written a legal-ese friendly version for you, but it would have been longer, and honestly, you're not worth the time being the last of the Mohicans here.

Hans didn't cheat against Magnus. He just played well and Magnus wasn't playing his normal level. There's only 160 points between them, EVERYBODY has beat players way higher rated and lost to players way lower rated. In serious games for those of us that have played real rated otb tournaments. Magnus had a blow to his ego because just before this he was beating Hans easily in casual games and he knows he's way better, he just had an off game.

I said that the case showed what it takes to show defamation, and I was right.



But it doesn’t show what it takes. It shows what it takes for a public, not private case.

...in your Hollywood-driven view of the reality of courts of law, yes. Note that an objection is also not conclusive of anything. The only thing that can be objected to in that sentence is the word "sketchy", which obviously would not be used in court as it is too vague.




You cannot use a previous offense in court as evidence for a later offense. This is as obvious as it gets. An objection means it cannot be used in court.

It is, by definition, a comparable case...since we are comparing it.

I did not say the cases were the same. I said that the case showed what it takes to show defamation, and I was right. You can claim what you like, but having conviction about what seems more just to you does not equate to reality.




Furthermore, Dominion was a settlement. There wasn’t even a trial involved.

- "It shows what it takes for a public, not private case."

"Public" vs. "private" is not a valid distinction here. Company vs. individual could be. There's no such thing as a "private case" in this context.

- "You cannot use a previous offense in court as evidence for a later offense. This is as obvious as it gets. An objection means it cannot be used in court."

An objection means exactly nothing unless it is upheld, plus, you can absolutely use prior behavior in a civil case. Your use of the worse "offense" tips your hand in terms of how you misunderstand the difference between criminal and civil cases. Two-fer.

- "Furthermore, Dominion was a settlement. There wasn’t even a trial involved."

This was your statement about why the two cases are not comparable. First, The Niemann lawsuit is not a trial yet either. Second, it's disingenuous to say this about a case that has been tying up public resources for 2 years now. Third, it is arguable whether a trial has "started" at the point of jury selection (complete as in this case, or just underway), or when the first testimony is given.

'My point is that Hans does not have to prove that he was falsely accused " No one is suing Hans. Hans is suing a bunch of people for defamation. Hans is the one who has to prove, by preponderance of evidence, that Magnus& Company Falsely accused him AND knew, or should have know that their accusations were false but made them anyway, AND that Hans suffered actual monetary damages, not just hurt feelings. I think Hans has almost no chance of winning this suit

Hi

Who knew there were so many lawyers on Chess.com?