61–70 of 263 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? If he’s innocent, this seems like a reasonable lawsuit.
I mean we know he cheated before, he's said as much. Now, I don't know if he actually cheated in the match with Carlsen, but Carlsen had every reason to believe the man would and did. Which would make libel and slander pretty untenable by my limited understanding.
It's going to be interesting to watch someone with a documented history of cheating try to claim they were damaged by being called a cheater.
I think him being damaged by being called a cheater is incredibly obvious, it has materially impacted his future earnings directly, and it has also had a significantly impacted his reputation beyond what the prior cheating allegations did. Magnus and Hikaru are two of the biggest chess celebrities on the planet, and Chess.com (According to Hans himself) has the best anti-cheat team in the chess world. Being accused o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He insinuates that by merging Chess.com and PlayMagnus, Chess is basically all owned by the same entity.
what about lichess though? that's independent and quite popular.
> 69. Upon announcing the Merger, it was reported that “With this, there is no other realistic chess competitor in sight (apart from the open-source and free Lichess platform), raising questions about monopolistic issues in the space and the reasons behind Chess.com’s recent price hike.”
> 70. Once completed, the Merger will further solidify Chess.com’s monopoly over the chess industry by, among other things, providing it total control over Chess24, one of the last few alternatives to Chess.com for online chess, and purchasing the Play Magnus brand, which has become virtually synonymous with chess.
Seems like a "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" kind of argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean we know he cheated before, he's said as much. Now, I don't know if he actually cheated in the match with Carlsen, but Carlsen had every reason to believe the man would and did. Which would make libel and slander pretty untenable by my limited understanding.
Very much not legal advice here, but… believing that you’re telling the truth doesn’t automatically make it not slander.
I don't know what the right way for him to fight back is, but this is a teenager who's made a few mistakes and in disproportionate response has been steamrolled by some of the biggest forces in chess - which could have had quite terrible mental health consequences for some - so I'm glad he has found an avenue for redress, however it pans out. He's owed a massive apology by them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(Excellent username, btw.) Why wouldn't he win? As you mentioned, nothing has been proven, and yet in the "court of public opinion" he's already guilty and is the butt (in the literal sense) of jokes all due to the insinuations and accusations from Mr. Carlsen, the chess tournament hosts, etc. This guy's reputation is in shambles and yet hasn't been formally charged with anything and there's no hard proof anywhere (A…
In the U.S. you don't have to prove everything you say. It's pretty hard to demonstrate defamation, UK is much looser about what classifies as defamation. Hans would pretty much have to demonstrate someone else knowingly lied or was extremely negligent with regard to the truth . Which will be very difficult.
Actual malice:
> The constitutional guarantees require, we think, a Federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with 'actual malice'—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.
Sets the bar pretty high for him.
Can someone explain something - Assume for a moment Hans did not cheat (aside from the times he admitted to cheating). In the scenario where he did not cheat - how amazing is his performance? I.e. beating Magnus, Elo rating, etc. I know chess.com did an analysis, which I've read, but I'm hoping someone more impartial could explain it. In the scenario where he did not cheat, is he really on a Bobby Fischer-like ascend…
His rate of improvement, assuming no cheating since his ban in 2020, is a faster ascendance than any other player in history, including Bobby Fischer. So yes, assuming he suddenly quit cheating cold turkey, his performance would indicate he is a once in a generation talent and could easily become the best in the world, according to the Chess.com report.
He might have still cheated to beat Magnus but there's no proof.
Can someone explain something - Assume for a moment Hans did not cheat (aside from the times he admitted to cheating). In the scenario where he did not cheat - how amazing is his performance? I.e. beating Magnus, Elo rating, etc. I know chess.com did an analysis, which I've read, but I'm hoping someone more impartial could explain it. In the scenario where he did not cheat, is he really on a Bobby Fischer-like ascend…
His rate of improvement, assuming no cheating since his ban in 2020, is a faster ascendance than any other player in history, including Bobby Fischer. So yes, assuming he suddenly quit cheating cold turkey, his performance would indicate he is a once in a generation talent and could easily become the best in the world, according to the Chess.com report.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? If he’s innocent, this seems like a reasonable lawsuit.
Even if he's not innocent, proving that he cheated in a way that will hold up in court might be very difficult...