Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dear Chess World

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 1001 posts

Re: Dear Chess World

#131

Post by armchairhacker »

What i think should happen is, Hans should play in tournaments which have much more security, and play against Magnus. If he did cheat it should be really obvious because his performance will suddenly drop. If he didn’t than he will play the same, but now with the added security he won’t have to face unbacked accusations, and there is no excuse for Magnus to refuse to play with Hans like he has been doing now.

Even if Hans really did cheat, if there is no credible evidence you can’t fault him. And IMO it’s not enough that he cheated many years ago. Right now all the criticism he’s getting is unfair because it’s based on speculation.

Re: Dear Chess World

#132

Post by chongli »

shawabawa3 wrote: post #62
neaden wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair to Hans, his claim is he cheated in a prize money tournament when he was 12. If he cheated in prize money games besides that it would be different, but I think most people are willing to forgive a 12 year old.

He's admitted to cheating at 12 years old and at 16 years old (just 3 years ago)

And the worst part is that Chess.com released a statement saying they've suspended Niemann's account because they have evidence that his cheating was not limited to these two instances. They've invited him to look at the evidence and respond privately to their concerns but it is not publicly known if he has done so.

Re: Dear Chess World

#133

Post by naasking »

alasr wrote: post #9
joemazerino wrote: post #2

How did Niemann cheat? Magnus uses Niemann's outplaying as evidence but is there anything concrete?

From the horse's mouth: "I had the impression that he wasn't tense or even fully concentrating on the game in critical positions, while outplaying me as black in a way I think only a handful of players can do. This game contributed to changing my perspective." --- Personally I don't think that's strong enough reason to convince me that Niemann is a cheat. However, I would love to see more evidence before I change my…

> Personally I don't think that's strong enough reason to convince me that Niemann is a cheat.

Given he has admitted to cheating before, the "is a cheat" test is arguably satisfied. Whether he also cheated here is a different question.

Re: Dear Chess World

#134

Post by Y_Y »

bombcar wrote: post #66
Victerius wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I'm not saying Hans Niemann cheated in this very specific instance against me. I'm just saying he's a professional cheater, and that fact may or may not be related to my withdrawal in a game against him after just one move." Carlsen is all but accusing Niemann of having cheated against him. Why can't he go the extra step? Is this something his lawyers have advised him to do? (I don't have a dog in this fight)

In a carefully worded statement like this (clearly it has been reviewed by legal council) you will say things that cannot be charged as defamation in the appropriate courts. It's also a gambit to get Hans to say something like "sure, Carlsen, say whatever you want" which could be used as a defense in a defamation case. There's even a hint that Carlsen has evidence of cheating that has yet to be revealed (but not this…

The aforementioned Twitter Gambit first having been developed by Capablanca.

Re: Dear Chess World

#135

Post by stephc_int13 »

Magnus is not doing this in the best possible way.

If Hans is cheating (possible, especially given his past) Magnus should act and use his connections in the Chess world to catch him cheating.

Suspicion is not proof.

Using his reputation as leverage can work to destroy Hans's reputation, but there is a high risk of collateral damages.

He should be smarter than that.

Re: Dear Chess World

#136

Post by gkoberger »

honkdaddy wrote: post #17

What’s the split in the chess community like here? Do most people agree with Magnus?

My read is that people believe it's very possible (even likely) he cheated, but are also frustrated that Magnus has brought a lot of other players into this without making (prior to this) any actual statement. Even with this statement, he hasn't formally accused him or presented any proof.

I'd say the vibe of the community seems to be a general distaste for drama, rather than taking a particular side.

Re: Dear Chess World

#137

Post by kjerkegor »

shawabawa3 wrote: post #62
neaden wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair to Hans, his claim is he cheated in a prize money tournament when he was 12. If he cheated in prize money games besides that it would be different, but I think most people are willing to forgive a 12 year old.

He's admitted to cheating at 12 years old and at 16 years old (just 3 years ago)

Just 3 years ago in that age is a lot. Also he said that he didn't cheat in prize money tournaments or tournaments at all at 16, he cheated because he wanted to boost his rating and play better players, not saying that is okay. I don't know if he cheated against Magnus or not, but to say that he cheated because something he did at twelve is stupid. Magnus saying that Hans wasn't tense and concentrated is far more important than this other stuff.

Re: Dear Chess World

#138

Post by bergenty »

jdoliner wrote: post #82

It seems like if Nieman wants to clear his name he should offer Carlsen explicit permission to say whatever it is he can't. If Magnus is bluffing and that information doesn't amount to much he'd wind up looking a lot better.

So give him a carte blanche to say whatever he wants and ruin his reputation- warranted or not? Why would someone do this? It’s akin to talking to the cops without a lawyer.

Re: Dear Chess World

#139

Post by bombcar »

ilc wrote: post #55
perihelions wrote: post #15

It's very remarkable that Carlsen is suspicious of Niemann's game against him in Sinquefield, since there's a clear consensus among other top chess players that there was absolutely nothing unusual about it (or at least about the moves played).

Not really. If you think about it: Magnus, is Magnus. He has an aura about him. People make blunders playing against him they wouldn't against others. This is known. Magnus is ALSO very good. But that "aura"... doesn't hurt him. If for whatever reason, Hans saw far enough ahead, to not be worried... and Magnus hadn't, what does that say about Magnus? He mentioned Hans wasn't nervous, in comparison to Magnus he had no…

Bridge cheating is a bit different, because you can find the smoking gun from video reviews, etc.

I wonder if "bridge supercomputers" as a cheating method has been tried. I assume the percentages on finesses working, etc, are easy enough for the experts to learn that they're not very worthwhile.

Re: Dear Chess World

#140

Post by jfengel »

ouid wrote: post #68
joemazerino wrote: post #2

How did Niemann cheat? Magnus uses Niemann's outplaying as evidence but is there anything concrete?

I am very sorry to see this position being posted. Niemann has been caught cheating in chess twice before, less than three years ago. He should never have been allowed to play in the cup. It was FIDE's decision not to collect the concrete evidence that would have caught him in the first place, and we must make do with the circumstantial evidence. As it stands, Niemann is a demonstrated cheater, and has more to gain b…

Niemann has admitted cheating, but only in online chess, not over the board.

That's not to say he should be allowed to play, but only to note that live play is kind of a different ball game compared to doing it online. Online, it's you alone in a room (with a second computer). Similar cheating over the board would require some kind of hidden communications device, and probably an assistant.

Post reply on HN