Saying that because he cheated on chess.com, that they are able to say he cheated OTB isn't legally acceptable.
So, we are instructed to believe that some unnamed person said that because Niemann cheated on chess.com, some other unnamed persons (or many be the same person?) has the capability to say (doesn't that just mean having a functional tongue and vocal chords?) that he cheated OTB "isn't legally acceptable".
How about now identifying who the unnamed persons are and then showing where they claimed Niemann cheated OTB and then exhibiting the legal qualifications for the last part?
Just kidding - some posts are simply full of sloppy nonsense.
The guy has no idea what he's typing or even defending at this point. Probably mostly about his ego.
The fact is the only reason Magnus said what he said was to prevent Hans from competing. That’s the only reason. So Magnus did intentionally intend to destroy Hans career. So this lawsuit seems perfectly reasonable to me and I hope Hans wins.
That just doesn't make any sense. And it would be impossible to prove. The ONLY reason Magnus wouldn't want Hans to complete is if Hans is suspected of cheating. Hans, being an admitted cheater, is going to be open to suspicion of cheating.
You can't say it's a "fact" that your belief is a reason Magnus said what he said. Magnus has openly said he wants more anti cheating measures. If Hans finds his career in trouble it might have less to do with those who are against cheating, and more to do with Hans himself cheating.
I don't know why you even dignify such comments with response. He probably writes 'FACT' at the end of his opinion online regularly.
You are probably right. But to me it's interesting. My neighbor is currently in a lawsuit and things like intent, and facts, matter. He was outside watering his flowers. His next door neighbor (who is VERY adversarial) approached him. So he sprayed him with the garden hose. Now his neighbor is suing for damage to his eye, mental distress, ptsd, etc. What are the facts, what was the intent (by both).
In the case of Hans, to paraphrase Pawn I believe it is, I think Hans is an idiot. Everyone he is suing has deeper pockets and better lawyers. Not only does this make Hans look bad, what he's doing actually DOES have the potential to ruin his career. If would have just admitted his past mistakes, been a little more humble, he could probably move on to a good career. Now he has chess tournament organizers thinking twice about inviting someone who is sue happy.
It's in little ways like this that I am reminded how different the US is to the UK. I've always found this litigiousness bemusing.
Hans doesn't need to pursue this avenue at all, no tournaments have banned him yet, so if he's as good as he think he is we will see him crowned world champion before long. Right?
I could be wrong, but I think the document states he isn't allowed to play in Tata Steel, and some other tournaments. If this is true, it strengthens his stance that Magnus is hurting his career.
Also, if he's as good as he thinks he is, he will be playing about 2650-2700, which is what he has been playing generally.
I think he knows he isn't a consistent 2800 level player yet, as indicated by his interviews. But he does seem to confirm that he believes he's at least 2650-2700 by talking about his current record of play.