Niemann has ensured that he is known as a chess cheat for the rest of his life. He is just making sure every non-chess player knows that as well now.
Niemann didn’t ensure this. Carlsen and chessdotcom did. Hence the lawsuit.
The murderer did not ensure he would be known as a murderer, the police who caught him and those that witnessed it did ...
Niemann has ensured that he is known as a chess cheat for the rest of his life. He is just making sure every non-chess player knows that as well now.
Niemann didn’t ensure this. Carlsen and chessdotcom did. Hence the lawsuit.
The murderer did not ensure he would be known as a murderer, the police who caught him and those that witnessed it did ...
Well I mean, that’s true. Same for the falsely accused. That’s my point.
Well I mean, that’s true. Same for the falsely accused. That’s my point.
Is it falsely accused when you admit to doing the action?
Well I mean, that’s true. Same for the falsely accused. That’s my point.
Is it falsely accused when you admit to doing the action?
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. OTB cheating is practically incomparable to cheating online.
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. OTB cheating is practically incomparable to cheating online.
So, cheating in a prize money event that takes place on a computer is somehow different than cheating in a prize money event with a physical board? And what if, for the sake of argument, it can be proven that Hans cheated in very recent games online in prize-money events? Would that change your opinion at all, or do you simply dismiss it entirely because it is "online" instead of "OTB"? And if it is shown that he had cheated OTB? Would your opinion still be "justice for Hans"?
Well I think you nailed it when you said “and if it is shown that he had cheated OTB…” that’s the point. It hasn’t been shown. And everyone, including Magnus, knows that cheating online is very very easy, while cheating OTB is incredibly difficult and is vanishingly rare. It’s illogical to assume cheating online proves cheating OTB.
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. OTB cheating is practically incomparable to cheating online.
So, cheating in a prize money event that takes place on a computer is somehow different than cheating in a prize money event with a physical board? And what if, for the sake of argument, it can be proven that Hans cheated in very recent games online in prize-money events? Would that change your opinion at all, or do you simply dismiss it entirely because it is "online" instead of "OTB"? And if it is shown that he had cheated OTB? Would your opinion still be "justice for Hans"?
… but yes, if hard evidence was presented of cheating OTB my opinion would change.
Well I think you nailed it when you said “and if it is shown that he had cheated OTB…” that’s the point. It hasn’t been shown. And everyone, including Magnus, knows that cheating online is very very easy, while cheating OTB is incredibly difficult and is vanishingly rare. It’s illogical to assume cheating online proves cheating OTB.
A couple points here:
First, I agree that cheating online is much easier. And cheating in many of these eSports-style events is also much easier.
Second, I do not think anyone is claiming that cheating online proves he cheated OTB.
Third, cheating OTB is not as rare as you think. Rausis cheated OTB for 4 years before he was finally caught (and for the record, it took 2 years before he even got on Regan's radar!) There have been several cases just in the US, recently (some in events Hans played in like the World Open and Phili Open).
Forth, I'm not someone who thinks it is "proven" that Hans cheated OTB. I think it is likely he has cheated in some specific events/games, but that is just suspicion based on looking at the games (I literally had Chessbase analyzing all of his games for the last 5 years for the last 2 weeks - there were some very odd trends I noticed). I do not find that to be "proof", but I do think he is someone worth keeping an eye on. As I have said, his past online cheating, combined with his sudden OTB rating surge (almost immediately after being banned online), combined with some very strange games against very strong opposition leads me to the conclusion that he is either cheating, or he is a future world championship contender. I'm just curious which. The lawsuit has me leaning a specific way on that, but again, none of that is proven.
My problem is all the people who are shouting "leave him alone, he didn't cheat!" - are you so sure? Really?
The Hans disciples seem to be disingenuously conflating two distinct issues here:
I don't think cheating OTB is a more severe offence. Not morally, and not from a rules perspective either.
The Hans disciples seem to be disingenuously conflating two distinct issues here:
I don't think cheating OTB is a more severe offence. Not morally, and not from a rules perspective either.
That is where I am too. I understand one is easier than the other. But I don't understand why that matters.
I'm trying to think of an example we might all relate to. So I'll say driving too fast. In one instance it's on a well-travelled city freeway. It's 1am. You are doing 90mph in a 55 on a vacant freeway. It's well patrolled so it's very likely you'll get caught.
The other instance is a remote two-lane highway between towns. The road is long, straight, and flat. You are doing 90mph in a 55 on a vacant road. It's sparsely (if at all) patrolled. It's highly unlikely you'll get caught.
So my way of thinking is yes, there is a difference in how easy it is to get away with it with one versus the other. But other than that, what's the difference? Both serve the same purpose and have the same rules. They are different venues. But they both exist to do the exact same thing.
The Hans disciples seem to be disingenuously conflating two distinct issues here:
I don't think cheating OTB is a more severe offence. Not morally, and not from a rules perspective either.
That is where I am too. I understand one is easier than the other. But I don't understand why that matters.
I'm trying to think of an example we might all relate to. So I'll say driving too fast. In one instance it's on a well-travelled city freeway. It's 1am. You are doing 90mph in a 55 on a vacant freeway. It's well patrolled so it's very likely you'll get caught.
The other instance is a remote two-lane highway between towns. The road is long, straight, and flat. You are doing 90mph in a 55 on a vacant road. It's sparsely (if at all) patrolled. It's highly unlikely you'll get caught.
So my way of thinking is yes, there is a difference in how easy it is to get away with it with one versus the other. But other than that, what's the difference? Both serve the same purpose and have the same rules. They are different venues. But they both exist to do the exact same thing.
Good analogy.
I think the Hans True Believers understand this but they will not concede the point due to pride and the emotional attachment they have developed. It's a strange but interesting phenomenon, this worship of public figures.
I think the Hans True Believers understand this but they will not concede the point due to pride and the emotional attachment they have developed. It's a strange but interesting phenomenon, this worship of public figures.
People do love their heroes and villains.
The funny thing is when you ignore the low rated players' take on it and just look at what GMs are saying, it becomes clear that there are 3 main campus:
1) Those loyal to Hans' because they have worked with him (Greg Shahade, Max Dlugy, Jacob Aagaard). They will not condemn him without catching him in the bathroom with an iPhone.
2) Those that think Hans definitely cheated on some games over the last 18 months (Magnus and Nepo seem to be among these)
3) Those that think he likely cheated in at least some OTB games over the last 18 months (Ramirez, Fabi, Christian, Finegold, Neilsen, Gustafsson, Shirov all seem to be in this camp).
In fact, possibly an identical range to the range of opinions of non GMs?
Possibly, except that the non-GMs in #1 likely have never met Hans, much less worked with him.
My problem is all the people who are shouting "leave him alone, he didn't cheat!" - are you so sure? Really?
My position is not so much that Hans didn't cheat, but rather there isn't enough evidence to accuse him of cheating (especially by the world champion), an accusation which could very easily destroy his career. Hans could be cheating, so could Fabi, Nakamura, or even Magnus. I imagine all of whom would be incredibly angry if someone made that accusation about them.
I also think cheating online and OTB are so drastically different that Hans past online cheating can't really be logically factored into his OTB games. For me the simple answer is Hans practiced and improved, and maybe got a bit lucky, and beat the world champion.
In my engine analysis Magnus had 87% accuracy and Hans had 92% accuracy. So that leaves just a 5% difference in quality of play. So really, Magnus could have won, and none of this would have happened. But neither player played impossibly well.
My problem is all the people who are shouting "leave him alone, he didn't cheat!" - are you so sure? Really?
My position is not so much that Hans didn't cheat, but rather there isn't enough evidence to accuse him of cheating (especially by the world champion), an accusation which could very easily destroy his career. Hans could be cheating, so could Fabi, Nakamura, or even Magnus. I imagine all of whom would be incredibly angry if someone made that accusation about them.
I also think cheating online and OTB are so drastically different that Hans past online cheating can't really be logically factored into his OTB games. For me the simple answer is Hans practiced and improved, and maybe got a bit lucky, and beat the world champion.
In my engine analysis Magnus had 87% accuracy and Hans had 92% accuracy. So that leaves just a 5% difference in quality of play. So really, Magnus could have won, and none of this would have happened. But neither player played impossibly well.
What, specifically, makes cheating online and cheating otb drastically different? Other than one is easier than the other.
My problem is all the people who are shouting "leave him alone, he didn't cheat!" - are you so sure? Really?
My position is not so much that Hans didn't cheat, but rather there isn't enough evidence to accuse him of cheating (especially by the world champion), an accusation which could very easily destroy his career. Hans could be cheating, so could Fabi, Nakamura, or even Magnus. I imagine all of whom would be incredibly angry if someone made that accusation about them.
I also think cheating online and OTB are so drastically different that Hans past online cheating can't really be logically factored into his OTB games. For me the simple answer is Hans practiced and improved, and maybe got a bit lucky, and beat the world champion.
In my engine analysis Magnus had 87% accuracy and Hans had 92% accuracy. So that leaves just a 5% difference in quality of play. So really, Magnus could have won, and none of this would have happened. But neither player played impossibly well.
You're being reductive and disingenuous. There were suspicions about Hans by Carlsen and others before that game. He is a known and confessed cheater, unlike the others you are mentioning. That informed the accusation in conjunction with his win with Black, not on its own.
If you're going to persist with this confrontation, at least argue against what people are saying rather than selectively against what is most convenient. I don't understand the motivation or determination to die on this Niemann hill. Are you able to explain this? Do you find him relatable in some way?
Barely anyone even knew who this guy was before this asinine drama. If he's any good, time will show this. If he's not, then it won't.
My problem is all the people who are shouting "leave him alone, he didn't cheat!" - are you so sure? Really?
My position is not so much that Hans didn't cheat, but rather there isn't enough evidence to accuse him of cheating (especially by the world champion), an accusation which could very easily destroy his career. Hans could be cheating, so could Fabi, Nakamura, or even Magnus. I imagine all of whom would be incredibly angry if someone made that accusation about them.
I also think cheating online and OTB are so drastically different that Hans past online cheating can't really be logically factored into his OTB games. For me the simple answer is Hans practiced and improved, and maybe got a bit lucky, and beat the world champion.
In my engine analysis Magnus had 87% accuracy and Hans had 92% accuracy. So that leaves just a 5% difference in quality of play. So really, Magnus could have won, and none of this would have happened. But neither player played impossibly well.
What, specifically, makes cheating online and cheating otb drastically different? Other than one is easier than the other.
I can only speculate that it creates a little space for them to keep up this bizarre campaign of championing a perceived (to them) downtrodden outsider. I know they resent the accusation, but he's definitely tapped into that strange component of the human mind which compels to deification. I've seen fans do this with boxers too. Tyson Fury - a big strong, supposedly relatable man - is a godly, fatherly figure to many young men.
My problem is all the people who are shouting "leave him alone, he didn't cheat!" - are you so sure? Really?
My position is not so much that Hans didn't cheat, but rather there isn't enough evidence to accuse him of cheating (especially by the world champion), an accusation which could very easily destroy his career. Hans could be cheating, so could Fabi, Nakamura, or even Magnus. I imagine all of whom would be incredibly angry if someone made that accusation about them.
I also think cheating online and OTB are so drastically different that Hans past online cheating can't really be logically factored into his OTB games. For me the simple answer is Hans practiced and improved, and maybe got a bit lucky, and beat the world champion.
In my engine analysis Magnus had 87% accuracy and Hans had 92% accuracy. So that leaves just a 5% difference in quality of play. So really, Magnus could have won, and none of this would have happened. But neither player played impossibly well.
You're being reductive and disingenuous. There were suspicions about Hans by Carlsen and others before that game. He is a known and confessed cheater, unlike the others you are mentioning. That informed the accusation in conjunction with his win with Black, not on its own.
If you're going to persist with this confrontation, at least argue against what people are saying rather than selectively against what is most convenient. I don't understand the motivation or determination to die on this Niemann hill. Are you able to explain this? Do you find him relatable in some way?
Barely anyone even knew who this guy was before this asinine drama. If he's any good, time will show this. If he's not, then it won't.
Are you getting too many notifications of forum posts or something? I mean, I agree, we're all sort of beating a dead horse at this point. I've said everything I think on the matter multiple times. It's really just a conversation to the pass the time.
But I think my argument is sound and logical.
Niemann has ensured that he is known as a chess cheat for the rest of his life. He is just making sure every non-chess player knows that as well now.
Niemann didn’t ensure this. Carlsen and chessdotcom did. Hence the lawsuit.