@Eyon-chess said in #8:
> I don't know what to believe, just very curious about the whole saga.
>
> Cheers
The real question chess.com have to answer is when and why they acted to ban for a third time and what communications have taken place with Carlsen on the matter, if any?
To my mind chess.com should not have acted during a tournament as it makes them part-of-the-story and subject to speculation. Delaying till the end of the tournament - a week at most - would have made no difference whatsoever to chess.com customers and the integrity of chess play on chess.com - Hans Nieman isn't going to be playing chess on chess.com during the tournament. The subtle implication of chess.com actions and statement are that they see themselves of upholders of the integrity of chess as a whole - i.e. they are doing the job of FIDE - and by their growing monopoly of on-line chess they now consider policing of OTB tournaments to be within their remit. Aside for considerations of the human consequences of chess.com actions, clearly there are a few red flags if this speculation is correct.
However here is my theory:-
When Rapport dropped out of the tournament at short notice because of Covid travel restrictions, a replacement had to be chosen. There are at least half a dozen USA players other than Niemann who could have been chosen. Giving Niemann's character and (un)popularity, previous doubts/history regarding cheating AND the lost of revenue to what some would consider more 'deserving' players, a number of people took exception to the choice of Niemann by the tournament organisers. Carlsen may have seen his status as World Champion (WC) to take a stand - perhaps with a mind he would be losing it soon - and be supportive of the Super GM player base - he would not have been the first WC to think and act in this way. Chess.com then saw this as an opportunity, giving the disquiet and possibly Carlsens actions, to enhance their status in the chess community by being supportive of the Super-GM players (in particular Carlsen) and of course to punt their unproven 'World Class' anti-cheating system with an eye on future financial gain.
My theory is of course entirely speculation giving what isn't being said in public. However, I have looked in great detail at what is available to the public and currently this is the line that best fits the curve, imho. The tournament organiser is the real target here, and other organisers will be taking notes. Chess history is full of conflict between WC and Candidates and tournament organisers, especially FIDE, almost to the extent if it wasn't happening it wouldn't be top-level chess.
The sad fact is chess can only financially support a tiny minority of chess players and getting into top tournaments is the key to making a living as a professional chess player. As such, the inclusion in these top tournaments can have a significant subjective factor - and hence why all the top players are 'nice' people and speak of others in the 'club' as being 'nice'.
> I don't know what to believe, just very curious about the whole saga.
>
> Cheers
The real question chess.com have to answer is when and why they acted to ban for a third time and what communications have taken place with Carlsen on the matter, if any?
To my mind chess.com should not have acted during a tournament as it makes them part-of-the-story and subject to speculation. Delaying till the end of the tournament - a week at most - would have made no difference whatsoever to chess.com customers and the integrity of chess play on chess.com - Hans Nieman isn't going to be playing chess on chess.com during the tournament. The subtle implication of chess.com actions and statement are that they see themselves of upholders of the integrity of chess as a whole - i.e. they are doing the job of FIDE - and by their growing monopoly of on-line chess they now consider policing of OTB tournaments to be within their remit. Aside for considerations of the human consequences of chess.com actions, clearly there are a few red flags if this speculation is correct.
However here is my theory:-
When Rapport dropped out of the tournament at short notice because of Covid travel restrictions, a replacement had to be chosen. There are at least half a dozen USA players other than Niemann who could have been chosen. Giving Niemann's character and (un)popularity, previous doubts/history regarding cheating AND the lost of revenue to what some would consider more 'deserving' players, a number of people took exception to the choice of Niemann by the tournament organisers. Carlsen may have seen his status as World Champion (WC) to take a stand - perhaps with a mind he would be losing it soon - and be supportive of the Super GM player base - he would not have been the first WC to think and act in this way. Chess.com then saw this as an opportunity, giving the disquiet and possibly Carlsens actions, to enhance their status in the chess community by being supportive of the Super-GM players (in particular Carlsen) and of course to punt their unproven 'World Class' anti-cheating system with an eye on future financial gain.
My theory is of course entirely speculation giving what isn't being said in public. However, I have looked in great detail at what is available to the public and currently this is the line that best fits the curve, imho. The tournament organiser is the real target here, and other organisers will be taking notes. Chess history is full of conflict between WC and Candidates and tournament organisers, especially FIDE, almost to the extent if it wasn't happening it wouldn't be top-level chess.
The sad fact is chess can only financially support a tiny minority of chess players and getting into top tournaments is the key to making a living as a professional chess player. As such, the inclusion in these top tournaments can have a significant subjective factor - and hence why all the top players are 'nice' people and speak of others in the 'club' as being 'nice'.
Regardless of the timing, it's hard to believe that Chess(dot)com would do something as risky as ban someone influential without having detailed evidence supporting such a decision, especially since Rensch himself has put his reputation on the table releasing the statement. So I believe that most likely Niemann cheated online to a larger degree than what he admitted, as Rensch said. That does not necessarily imply that he cheated OTB as well but it surely does not help him.
"I only ever cheated online, never OTB" isn't really the kind of defense anyone would want to be forced to rely on.
"I only ever cheated online, never OTB" isn't really the kind of defense anyone would want to be forced to rely on.
@valjr92 said in #13:
> @Nomoreusernames @ninehundredsixty @AlexiHarvey @MentalFugues @Aighearach @coledavis @MentalFugues @kassanen @WassimBerbar so you guys ...
> You have to admit this all history is at least very weird. And you're defending this guy like he never cheated before. I'm buffled that some of you are even angry at GMs like Magnus and Hikaru for being suspicious about this guy because he has cheated before
I have no view on whether anyone is cheating, my concerns lie elsewhere. Should unequivocable physical evidence be discovered my view would change. I have looked at the methods of on-line cheating detention and although I consider these fit and proper and more importantly practical for on-line chess they can't and shouldn't be used for OTB games.
Regarding Magus Carlsen, he could have done what the vast majority of chess players do, privately reported their concern and moved-on. I don't like Carlsen's s***-on-the-carpet-and-runaway behaviour, so yeah, I am likely to be a bit subjective there.
> @Nomoreusernames @ninehundredsixty @AlexiHarvey @MentalFugues @Aighearach @coledavis @MentalFugues @kassanen @WassimBerbar so you guys ...
> You have to admit this all history is at least very weird. And you're defending this guy like he never cheated before. I'm buffled that some of you are even angry at GMs like Magnus and Hikaru for being suspicious about this guy because he has cheated before
I have no view on whether anyone is cheating, my concerns lie elsewhere. Should unequivocable physical evidence be discovered my view would change. I have looked at the methods of on-line cheating detention and although I consider these fit and proper and more importantly practical for on-line chess they can't and shouldn't be used for OTB games.
Regarding Magus Carlsen, he could have done what the vast majority of chess players do, privately reported their concern and moved-on. I don't like Carlsen's s***-on-the-carpet-and-runaway behaviour, so yeah, I am likely to be a bit subjective there.
@sheckley666 said in #18:
> @valjr92 Okay, but then he should have been able to give a proper after game analysis. And if we assume, that a 24xx player can fail to give such an analysis, then we must also assume that a 27xx player can fail with it. And this makes the whole argument fall apart.
The quality of a person's abstract thought processes need not match the quality of their verbal abilities to express those processes - there are plenty of examples outside chess. Aside from this, there is no ELO system for game analysis
> @valjr92 Okay, but then he should have been able to give a proper after game analysis. And if we assume, that a 24xx player can fail to give such an analysis, then we must also assume that a 27xx player can fail with it. And this makes the whole argument fall apart.
The quality of a person's abstract thought processes need not match the quality of their verbal abilities to express those processes - there are plenty of examples outside chess. Aside from this, there is no ELO system for game analysis
@valjr92 said in #13:
> @Nomoreusernames @ninehundredsixty @AlexiHarvey @MentalFugues @Aighearach @coledavis @MentalFugues @kassanen @WassimBerbar so you guys really think that he simply improved even tho he can't explain the moves he makes or even show what he calculated? Even a 1200 can explain why he made a move. When he was asked to explain his moves he simply said "I don't have to" and "It was a psychological move". And why he tried to calculate the line he even lost a piece and got a losing position for white lol You guys really think this man see brilliant moves in his mind and make them without knowing the lines? Are you really that naive? Even we're talking about a guy with a clean history then fine. But we're talking about a guy that has cheated before and not so long ago. And again, it's possible to any player to cheat OTB if he gets inside help.
>
> Also, he said he studied the opening Carlsen used by accident the night before the game. And when asked about which game was it he answered a game that doesn't exist. So you guys really believe that he can remember all the 20 moves of a opening that he studied 1 day before but he can't remember which game was it? Do you really think his explanation makes
>
> You have to admit this all history is at least very weird. And you're defending this guy like he never cheated before. I'm buffled that some of you are even angry at GMs like Magnus and Hikaru for being suspicious about this guy because he has cheated before
u have to realize at this point that we dont take sides here,just express our opinion depending on the given facts.Being naive for the last week means u chose to ignoring the above things 1) chesscom streamers have increased popularity in the last days by killing Hans as a character based in no physical evidence.
2) As of Hikaru specifically I'm gonna tell you this. The guy is well known that he's a trash talker. He trash talked Howell in a serious blitz tourno calling him ignorant and lucky when he lost to him. In online games when he loses to someone he tries to belittle him.Hikaru would do anything to increase his stream market and by say anything killing a character online is not a big deal for Hikaru also. Now check what means to be a sheep in Hikaru stream. The guy says online that he knows a GM who has the same opinion with him about Hans but when the chat asks him to reveal who is this GM Hikaru says he is not a traitor to do such thing.Now imagine a chat surrounded by agony,enthousiasm etc totally convinced that Hikaru has serious evidence which are also been confirmed by another GM. Total success for Hikaru and Chesscom. As of the truth,the other GM is Nepo who implies,again implies, that Hans is a cheater in an online match(there is a vid in youtube). So whats the deal if Hikaru had said online the name of Nepo when both were implying something? The answer is that without the mystery u cant increase the popularity in ur stream. As of Nepo he says that Hans plays better when he doesnt stream.When Hans streams he plays like Hans. Of course Nepo doesnt realize that a chess streamer could easily lose his concentration by looking at the chat
3) Finally from the famous toiletgate in WCH 2006 between topalov and kramnik
"Danailov continued to lob accusations at Kramnik, stating that he had statistics showing that the moves the Russian had made after leaving the bathroom clearly matched up with moves recommended by the top chess engine of the day. Kramnik fired back by pointing out major blunders that he had made in the prior games to show that clearly he wasn't getting those from an engine, and also showed some of Topalov's past games that had an even higher level of accuracy. Nonetheless the match resumed, and Kramnik went on to win despite the one point handicap because, and I can't stress this enough, the guy is really really good at chess. Like, arguably one of the greatest of all time. Absent everything else his popularization of the now-ubiquitous Berlin defense alone would assure him a place in chess history even without taking into account all his incredible achievements over the board. The guy who took out Kasparov didn't need an engine to win the world championship"
as u see there were strong accusations from both sides. Imagine if Topalov suddenly withdrew by posting a Mourinho gif and Antoaneta Stefanova raid on twitter that Kramnik is a cheater
> @Nomoreusernames @ninehundredsixty @AlexiHarvey @MentalFugues @Aighearach @coledavis @MentalFugues @kassanen @WassimBerbar so you guys really think that he simply improved even tho he can't explain the moves he makes or even show what he calculated? Even a 1200 can explain why he made a move. When he was asked to explain his moves he simply said "I don't have to" and "It was a psychological move". And why he tried to calculate the line he even lost a piece and got a losing position for white lol You guys really think this man see brilliant moves in his mind and make them without knowing the lines? Are you really that naive? Even we're talking about a guy with a clean history then fine. But we're talking about a guy that has cheated before and not so long ago. And again, it's possible to any player to cheat OTB if he gets inside help.
>
> Also, he said he studied the opening Carlsen used by accident the night before the game. And when asked about which game was it he answered a game that doesn't exist. So you guys really believe that he can remember all the 20 moves of a opening that he studied 1 day before but he can't remember which game was it? Do you really think his explanation makes
>
> You have to admit this all history is at least very weird. And you're defending this guy like he never cheated before. I'm buffled that some of you are even angry at GMs like Magnus and Hikaru for being suspicious about this guy because he has cheated before
u have to realize at this point that we dont take sides here,just express our opinion depending on the given facts.Being naive for the last week means u chose to ignoring the above things 1) chesscom streamers have increased popularity in the last days by killing Hans as a character based in no physical evidence.
2) As of Hikaru specifically I'm gonna tell you this. The guy is well known that he's a trash talker. He trash talked Howell in a serious blitz tourno calling him ignorant and lucky when he lost to him. In online games when he loses to someone he tries to belittle him.Hikaru would do anything to increase his stream market and by say anything killing a character online is not a big deal for Hikaru also. Now check what means to be a sheep in Hikaru stream. The guy says online that he knows a GM who has the same opinion with him about Hans but when the chat asks him to reveal who is this GM Hikaru says he is not a traitor to do such thing.Now imagine a chat surrounded by agony,enthousiasm etc totally convinced that Hikaru has serious evidence which are also been confirmed by another GM. Total success for Hikaru and Chesscom. As of the truth,the other GM is Nepo who implies,again implies, that Hans is a cheater in an online match(there is a vid in youtube). So whats the deal if Hikaru had said online the name of Nepo when both were implying something? The answer is that without the mystery u cant increase the popularity in ur stream. As of Nepo he says that Hans plays better when he doesnt stream.When Hans streams he plays like Hans. Of course Nepo doesnt realize that a chess streamer could easily lose his concentration by looking at the chat
3) Finally from the famous toiletgate in WCH 2006 between topalov and kramnik
"Danailov continued to lob accusations at Kramnik, stating that he had statistics showing that the moves the Russian had made after leaving the bathroom clearly matched up with moves recommended by the top chess engine of the day. Kramnik fired back by pointing out major blunders that he had made in the prior games to show that clearly he wasn't getting those from an engine, and also showed some of Topalov's past games that had an even higher level of accuracy. Nonetheless the match resumed, and Kramnik went on to win despite the one point handicap because, and I can't stress this enough, the guy is really really good at chess. Like, arguably one of the greatest of all time. Absent everything else his popularization of the now-ubiquitous Berlin defense alone would assure him a place in chess history even without taking into account all his incredible achievements over the board. The guy who took out Kasparov didn't need an engine to win the world championship"
as u see there were strong accusations from both sides. Imagine if Topalov suddenly withdrew by posting a Mourinho gif and Antoaneta Stefanova raid on twitter that Kramnik is a cheater
@esmiro said in #33:
> Regardless of the timing, it's hard to believe that Chess(dot)com would do something as risky as ban someone influential without having detailed evidence supporting such a decision, especially since Rensch himself has put his reputation on the table releasing the statement. So I believe that most likely Niemann cheated online to a larger degree than what he admitted, as Rensch said. That does not necessarily imply that he cheated OTB as well but it surely does not help him.
>
> "I only ever cheated online, never OTB" isn't really the kind of defense anyone would want to be forced to rely on.
Timing is extremely important and neither Niemann or Rensch have clarified this.
Regards Rensch statement, what is being factually stated adds very little - that Niemann has underplayed the degree of cheating - but the implicit implication is very large - that he is still likely to be cheating during the tournament. We neither know if the 'evidence' is related to the previous two bans or an entirely new one, nor what caused a third assessment if this is the case. Also consider the difference between cheating on-line for peanuts at best and cheating OTB for up to 100K. Rensch is being very coy compared to what he could have said, he's leaving people's assumptions to do the real damage - as is Carlsen. Also, if this is a third completely independent ban how does this sit with chess.com existing customers and for that matter existing policy statements - no qualification here either.
When Niemann stated in his interview that he cheated in two games and was subsequently banned twice, he was clearly being very coy as well- at least that is what I thought at the time, prior to Rensch's statement. The methods deployed by anti-cheat systems will never trigger a ban based on a single game. You may see streamers playing cheats on Youtube etc, and the cheater being banned immediately or very soon after game completion, that only happens with human intervention and more than likely based on the implicit authority of the youtuber and as such undermining the platforms' stated policies. I believe this practice has been discontinued for the latter reason.
Until physical evidence is found there is no reason to think anyone is cheating during this tournament. Although I suspect Han Niemann isn't going to find it easy to get invites to big money tournaments in the future, irrespective of guilt.
Frankly chess.com could have stayed completely out of this - as Lichess has. Why didn't they? The stated reason is chess.com wants to uphold the integrity of chess but this is no business of chess.com outside it's own platform and tournaments, this is FIDE and the tournament organiser's concern. To me, as described above in 'My Theory' etc, there is a hustle going on and Niemann is just a pawn.
There could be another explanation for chess.com involvement - other than stupidity - the attempted implication may be that if you get banned by chess.com - at whatever date in the past - you will be implicitly banned from all big money earning tournaments in the future. This would make sound business sense but not so sure it would be good for chess. For now, I will stick to my 'Hustle Theory' as there has been plenty of this sort of thing in the past.
> Regardless of the timing, it's hard to believe that Chess(dot)com would do something as risky as ban someone influential without having detailed evidence supporting such a decision, especially since Rensch himself has put his reputation on the table releasing the statement. So I believe that most likely Niemann cheated online to a larger degree than what he admitted, as Rensch said. That does not necessarily imply that he cheated OTB as well but it surely does not help him.
>
> "I only ever cheated online, never OTB" isn't really the kind of defense anyone would want to be forced to rely on.
Timing is extremely important and neither Niemann or Rensch have clarified this.
Regards Rensch statement, what is being factually stated adds very little - that Niemann has underplayed the degree of cheating - but the implicit implication is very large - that he is still likely to be cheating during the tournament. We neither know if the 'evidence' is related to the previous two bans or an entirely new one, nor what caused a third assessment if this is the case. Also consider the difference between cheating on-line for peanuts at best and cheating OTB for up to 100K. Rensch is being very coy compared to what he could have said, he's leaving people's assumptions to do the real damage - as is Carlsen. Also, if this is a third completely independent ban how does this sit with chess.com existing customers and for that matter existing policy statements - no qualification here either.
When Niemann stated in his interview that he cheated in two games and was subsequently banned twice, he was clearly being very coy as well- at least that is what I thought at the time, prior to Rensch's statement. The methods deployed by anti-cheat systems will never trigger a ban based on a single game. You may see streamers playing cheats on Youtube etc, and the cheater being banned immediately or very soon after game completion, that only happens with human intervention and more than likely based on the implicit authority of the youtuber and as such undermining the platforms' stated policies. I believe this practice has been discontinued for the latter reason.
Until physical evidence is found there is no reason to think anyone is cheating during this tournament. Although I suspect Han Niemann isn't going to find it easy to get invites to big money tournaments in the future, irrespective of guilt.
Frankly chess.com could have stayed completely out of this - as Lichess has. Why didn't they? The stated reason is chess.com wants to uphold the integrity of chess but this is no business of chess.com outside it's own platform and tournaments, this is FIDE and the tournament organiser's concern. To me, as described above in 'My Theory' etc, there is a hustle going on and Niemann is just a pawn.
There could be another explanation for chess.com involvement - other than stupidity - the attempted implication may be that if you get banned by chess.com - at whatever date in the past - you will be implicitly banned from all big money earning tournaments in the future. This would make sound business sense but not so sure it would be good for chess. For now, I will stick to my 'Hustle Theory' as there has been plenty of this sort of thing in the past.
...
> as u see there were strong accusations from both sides. Imagine if Topalov suddenly withdrew by posting a Mourinho gif and Antoaneta Stefanova raid on twitter that Kramnik is a cheater
Exactly.
Compare this to Viktor Korchnoi, who in this autobiography confessed to obtaining his first GM Norm by cheating - he was aware that other players were throwing games so he could obtain the GM Norm, but did nothing about it.
Popularity can matter a great deal at the highest levels in chess.
> as u see there were strong accusations from both sides. Imagine if Topalov suddenly withdrew by posting a Mourinho gif and Antoaneta Stefanova raid on twitter that Kramnik is a cheater
Exactly.
Compare this to Viktor Korchnoi, who in this autobiography confessed to obtaining his first GM Norm by cheating - he was aware that other players were throwing games so he could obtain the GM Norm, but did nothing about it.
Popularity can matter a great deal at the highest levels in chess.
is it possible that magnus ever cheated?
No, what the c.com statement says is that Niemann was lying even during his admission of cheating. He's really not helping his cause.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.