"Take this job and shove it, I ain't work'n here no more." Who makes up the rule that someone who quit has any explaining to do? Leave it to a Russian who thinks he's the Putin of chess to demand explanations. This tournament was held in St. Louis, Mo., USA. In America you can quit anytime you want, for whatever reason, no questions asked.
There was no reason to withdraw even if he was 99% sure that Niemann was cheating.
I don't agree with this at all. Carlsen had gone 53 straight classical games without giving up a full point to anyone. If Carlsen was, indeed, "99% sure" that Neimann had gained a full point by cheating against him, then Neimann was almost certainly receiving a significant and unearned benefit in the tournament standings that others were unlikely to receive if Magnus continued in the tournament, and simply staying silent would also have allowed Niemann more opportunities to cheat during later rounds without being sufficiently searched and scrutinized. By withdrawing in a manner that suggested something suspicious that could not yet be discussed openly, Carlsen forced the tournament director to nullify all results (for purposes of tournament standings, not ratings) in Carlsen's first three games and give no additional forfeiture points to players who had yet to play Carlsen, while at the same time encouraging greater scrutiny of Niemann during the rest of the tournament and opening up a discussion about Niemann's bizarre history in the game, including but not limited to Niemann's extensive history of cheating (which had been kept secret by chess.com and had never been publicly admitted by Niemann).
This last point, concerning Niemann's previously undisclosed history of cheating (which knowledgeable individuals have suggested, or outright stated, has been far more serious and extensive than what Niemann has finally admitted to, which was nothing more than one cheating incident at age twelve and further cheating in a few "random" online games two to three years ago), raises a point that I've touched upon before, but in my view hasn't been discussed enough yet. Niemann was a last-minute replacement for Richard Rapport, a vastly more accomplished (and still quite young) player who was apparently unable to secure travel rights to the U.S. for this tournament. This last-minute substitution placed other players, who had already committed to the tournament but were also at least familiar with rumors about Niemann's cheating, in an uncomfortable position. I do not believe that Carlsen's decision to withdraw was based on Niemann's play in a single game; I believe it reflected information that Carlsen had about Niemann's extensive history of cheating, combined with his recognition that Niemann did not appear to have stopped cheating.
There's so much more to say about this case, and I understand that some readers of this thread are considerably less familiar with these matters than others. I want to add or emphasize three points. First, OTB (over the board) cheating, while certainly more difficult and generally riskier than online cheating, is also much easier to carry out than some here realize. A reputation for OTB cheating at a high level typically develops long before the precise method is determined and the cheater is caught red-handed. Second, although unusual rises in rating are not generally regarded as determinative of cheating, extreme outliers, particularly strong and experienced players who gain massive rating points at an unusual age in an especially short time, provide a pretty solid basis for suspicions. (Nakamura, who at one time named Niemann as perhaps the most promising young player in the world (other than Firouzja) in light of his rapid rise in rating at a relatively late age, now sees Niemann's rise of about 230 rating points from age 17 to age 19 as a reason for suspicion.) A good example of that was Igors Rausis, a grandmaster whose rise from under 2650 to almost 2700 over several years in his 50s caused many top players to assume that he was cheating. When Raises was finally caught on video using a cellphone in a restroom during a game, his cheating was no surprise; rather, there was merely a general sense that it was about time that he was finally caught. Third, if Niemann really wants the truth to come out, he can waive any right to privacy regarding chess.com's findings and conclusions about evidence of his cheating. Niemann has previously recognized that chess.com has an exceptionally strong and reliable algorithm for detecting cheating, particularly over a large number of games and an extensive period of time.
"Take this job and shove it, I ain't work'n here no more." Who makes up the rule that someone who quit has any explaining to do? Leave it to a Russian who thinks he's the Putin of chess to demand explanations. This tournament was held in St. Louis, Mo., USA. In America you can quit anytime you want, for whatever reason, no questions asked.
Although I give Kasparov great credit for speaking his mind on many matters, even risking imprisonment and death by doing so, I don't believe Carlsen has a duty to provide an express statement setting forth the reasons for his withdrawal, especially if he would expose himself to legal claims of defamation or FIDE sanctions for insufficiently supported accusations.
"Take this job and shove it, I ain't work'n here no more." Who makes up the rule that someone who quit has any explaining to do? Leave it to a Russian who thinks he's the Putin of chess to demand explanations. This tournament was held in St. Louis, Mo., USA. In America you can quit anytime you want, for whatever reason, no questions asked.
Although I give Kasparov great credit for speaking his mind on many matters, even risking imprisonment and death by doing so, I don't believe Carlsen has a duty to provide an express statement setting forth the reasons for his withdrawal, especially if he would expose himself to legal claims of defamation or FIDE sanctions for insufficiently supported accusations.
I'm envious of people like you. You said what I tried to say only you said it a bizillion times better.
Chess.com released a statement basically stating that Niemanns cheating on their platform is much more widespread than he is admitting. Also, the round after his game against Magnus, St Louis radically increased security and broadcast the game with a 15 minute delay, a measure against cheating. This isn’t just a few chess streamers creating drama for views.
To make a running analogy, imagine a runner of an Olympic trials finalist caliber, but not a factor on the world stage. Picture a 1:46.0 college senior. They have actually admitted to doping in high school, and received a slap on the wrist. There is strong evidence that they were doping in college, but due to the basically non existent testing in the NCAA, he’s squeaked his way through the system. After graduating, he suddenly makes a huge jump and become a contender at the world level, even beating Brazier with a 1:42 in a diamond league meet. Brazier withdraws from the circuit and cryptically insinuates that he doesnt think WADA is doing it’s job. At the next DL meet our character is in, the meet directors increase testing in a very public way, and collect extra piss samples from him in particular. They are unable to comment at this time on details, but other professional runners come out and raise suspicions about his prodigal recent improvement.
There are suspicious people on the world stage every year in running. That doesn't make world championship competitors drop out of races/meets. And if they did, they would be hounded for an explanation. Do you think Tom Brady could quit the super bowl and not have to make a statement?
Most of the chess world is shaken by the actions of one man and his lack of an explanation. Maybe behind closed doors he's disclosed his reasoning, but that does very little to end the controversy.
Maybe there will be greater scrutiny on Hans and he fades into obscurity because he can no longer cheat. Does any of this become known fact or will the public and players just assume the insinuations we're true?
There are suspicious people on the world stage every year in running. That doesn't make world championship competitors drop out of races/meets. And if they did, they would be hounded for an explanation. Do you think Tom Brady could quit the super bowl and not have to make a statement?
Most of the chess world is shaken by the actions of one man and his lack of an explanation. Maybe behind closed doors he's disclosed his reasoning, but that does very little to end the controversy.
Maybe there will be greater scrutiny on Hans and he fades into obscurity because he can no longer cheat. Does any of this become known fact or will the public and players just assume the insinuations we're true?
Maybe a better analogy would have been to the marlins stealing signs in baseball. In track, a cheating competitor doesn’t slow you down. In head to head competitions, the implications are much more direct.
I completely agree that magnus should be more transparent. Ever since he decided not to defend his world title, I have been slowly shifting my attitude toward him, and this doesn’t help.
"Take this job and shove it, I ain't work'n here no more." Who makes up the rule that someone who quit has any explaining to do? Leave it to a Russian who thinks he's the Putin of chess to demand explanations. This tournament was held in St. Louis, Mo., USA. In America you can quit anytime you want, for whatever reason, no questions asked.
Come on, it doesn’t work like that for sports celebrities. Naomi Osaka couldn’t refuse interviews in part because of her contract but also simply because fans want to hear post match interviews. Remember how the brojos went wild on here after Athing Mu didn’t explain why she wasn’t participating for a couple days before she finally came out and said she tested positive for covid? That LR article went overboard then on speculating that something was suspicious, but it reflects how sports celebrity expectations work. Magnus disappointed a lot of people as well as sponsors by withdrawing and pouring cold water over the excitement expected, so the community expects an explanation.
More importantly, given everyone is accusing a young talent of cheating based on Magnus’ cryptic tweet, the onus is on him to either put up by providing more evidence of cheating or clarify that that is not what he meant in the interest of protecting a young talent’s career that’s being threatened. He has looked like a d1ck sitting silent and letting social media speculate.
More importantly, given everyone is accusing a young talent of cheating based on Magnus’ cryptic tweet, the onus is on him to either put up by providing more evidence of cheating or clarify that that is not what he meant in the interest of protecting a young talent’s career that’s being threatened. He has looked like a d1ck sitting silent and letting social media speculate.
I completely agree.
An important point way too often overlooked on this website is that falsely accusing someone of cheating, is cheating, which is what Carlsen has done in this tournament.
Personally I feel Carlsen should be banned for a period of time for what he has done, including until completely reparations to the person he has falsely accused have been made.
Additionally, anyone else who supports and indulges in such behavior is also a cheat and is cheating.
Chess.com released a statement basically stating that Niemanns cheating on their platform is much more widespread than he is admitting. Also, the round after his game against Magnus, St Louis radically increased security and broadcast the game with a 15 minute delay, a measure against cheating. This isn’t just a few chess streamers creating drama for views.
To make a running analogy, imagine a runner of an Olympic trials finalist caliber, but not a factor on the world stage. Picture a 1:46.0 college senior. They have actually admitted to doping in high school, and received a slap on the wrist. There is strong evidence that they were doping in college, but due to the basically non existent testing in the NCAA, he’s squeaked his way through the system. After graduating, he suddenly makes a huge jump and become a contender at the world level, even beating Brazier with a 1:42 in a diamond league meet. Brazier withdraws from the circuit and cryptically insinuates that he doesnt think WADA is doing it’s job. At the next DL meet our character is in, the meet directors increase testing in a very public way, and collect extra piss samples from him in particular. They are unable to comment at this time on details, but other professional runners come out and raise suspicions about his prodigal recent improvement.
I would be more suspicious of the 1:46 guy with no history. A lot easy to get on the drugs everyone knows about than to find some new drug regime. If you needed drugs to rub 146 , what are taking to get down to 142?
Hans scored a brilliant 0/7 at the FTX Cup, rapid format.
His slow chess rating rise show very little variability across the last 2 years which is extraordinary.
His inability to give variations, his tactical oversights given during interviews are glaring.
His past cheating on 2 accounts is verified.
These are his liabilities.
He also show decent blitz abilities, albeit at much lower level, which is uncommon for intuitive players.
I think he definitely is 2500+ and smells fishy.
I am however not convinced about anything because chess genius can take many forms, including seemingly impossible ones, like Morphy or Fisher in the US alone.
I've always been a Magnus fan and never cared too much for Hans, I was actually at the FTX cup in person and was kind of annoyed how he was brushing off interviews, it's not a good look (as a side note, Tania approached me and asked if I wanted to do a short interview for the camera, but I wasn't really sure what I would have had to say other than the fact that Magnus appeared high which probably wouldn't have been appropriate haha). But despite that, Hans is young and has shown pretty steady improvement, I'm not sure how "very little variability" means anything suspicious. While Magnus hasn't stated anything, it's clear what the insinuation is - that's not fair to Hans without anything resembling proof or at least evidence, and coming from someone of Magnus' stature makes it all more damaging to Hans. In the long run, this will probably hurt Magnus' reputation at least among his fellow players, especially if there turns out to be no evidence of cheating.
This take is actually so uninformed. In Hans’ last 50 or so OTB matches he’s currently running around 2750 rating against some of the best players in the world. A “2500+ player” would not be able to do that in any circumstance, and he’s progressed to 2700 within the confines of the rating system.
To believe what you wrote above you would need to believe that he’s somehow managed to gain an unfair advantage in the majority of his recent OTB matches, as well as consistent online cheating to maintain 2650+
Or, he’s a controversial player playing really damn good chess right now.
More importantly, given everyone is accusing a young talent of cheating based on Magnus’ cryptic tweet, the onus is on him to either put up by providing more evidence of cheating or clarify that that is not what he meant in the interest of protecting a young talent’s career that’s being threatened. He has looked like a d1ck sitting silent and letting social media speculate.
To add, Magnus’ accusation really begs the question of how. The days of cheating using your phone in the restroom are long past. I see speculations online about him hiding a receiver on or in his body, which if so, should no longer be possible with the extra stringent security for the rest of the tournament, and it stretches credulity that Hans managed to pull that off in the first three games while being careful enough to make “human” suboptimal moves to hide the engine assistance he was somehow getting.
Ben Feingold in his YT channel makes the legitimate point as to why one would take the risk of accepting a leak of an opponent’s prep or why a mole in Magnus’ team would leak in the first place or even if there were such a mole, it would make no sense to leak it to Hans with black instead of Fabi or Nepo or Ali with white.
A prep leak or a device on/in his body, those are pretty much the only cheating possibilities for on the board games.
I find it difficult to believe the claim that Magnus withdrew in the interest of forcing the organizers to beef up security because with his clout, he could’ve gotten them to agree to do that behind the scenes anyway.
Interesting. Hope the full truth comes out. The Queen's Gambit on Netflix was fiction, btw. Apparently quite a few people think it was some kind of documentary.
vindicated at least in this sense. Chess.com is a completely different story
Glad they put this out. Hans is who he is, not the most talented nor the most mature and classy like some other teen GMs in this tournament and in chess in general, but he deserves this vindication in the light of all the accusations without evidence.
Congratulations to Alireza for winning the tournament. He looks and talks like the prodigious kid that makes mothers proud. :)
Obligatory NYT article that doesn’t add much to what’s been said already but I learned that he’s been invited back to St Louis for their fall classic and has accepted the invitation.
Obligatory NYT article that doesn’t add much to what’s been said already but I learned that he’s been invited back to St Louis for their fall classic and has accepted the invitation.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.