141–150 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Note that the above defamation is the US-based one, I believe. Other countries have vastly different statues, and in some cases true statements of fact can be defamation (if they were not widely known, I believe).
But he already accused Neimann of cheating ... the slander is already there. If I were Neimann I would actually sue now.
How did Niemann cheat? Magnus uses Niemann's outplaying as evidence but is there anything concrete?
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).
Is there a good summary by a chess expert on how he may or may not have cheated? (Ideally a video).
Other than that your guess is as good as mine as _how_ he could have received said assistance, I've seen some wild theories.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's one thing to say an old man cheated when he was 12 years old, it's yet another to say a 19 year old did it just a handful of years ago. He's still a kid.
It's a third of his life ago. Were you the same person at 19 as you were at 12?
How did Niemann cheat? Magnus uses Niemann's outplaying as evidence but is there anything concrete?
Nobody knows how he was cheating. Without a strip search there's no way to be sure. It is known that it's not technologically impossible. There are ways to do it, some of them rather outlandish but not infeasible. Unfortunately, that's as far as it can go. Either you start doing something really extreme to ensure that players can't cheat (that aforementioned strip search, making them play in a Faraday cage, etc), you…
How is that even "cheating"?
In case you haven't seen it, some new evidence surfaced yesterday: https://youtu.be/jfPzUgzrOcQ
Why are known cheaters even allowed to participate in top level tournaments? It’s insulting to all the other chess players. Magnus is setting the right example by refusing to play Niemann
If someone makes a mistake at 16, is it a valid reason to ban a person for life? Ok. If someone kills a person at 16. Should the killer be in prison for life?
Your comparison with murder is ridiculous. First of all, teenage murderers are regularly sentenced to life in prison. A murderer is deprived of fundamental human liberties--Niemann is deprived of being able to compete at the highest competitive level in a tabletop board game, without suspicion.
For all the people defending Hans, he has admitted to cheating in real, official, prize money online tournaments, and chess.com believes that in his apology he still lied about the extent of his cheating. Maybe Hans did cheat OTB, maybe he didn't, but the tough part about reputation is it is very hard to build and very easy to break. And Hans had proven to the world that he would cheat. I personally don't think Hans…
So you agree that Magnus is wrong and that Hans did not cheat in the OTB game. And if you also agree with Magnus that cheating is a major problem then him singling out a single player who happened to beat him in OTB chess, as opposed to asking for wholesale changes for the past so many years to tackle cheating more seriously when he owns one of the top chess organizations and has partnerships with nearly every other…
There’s a world of difference between holding a personal opinion that X is probably true, and agreeing that X is an established fact.
> Magnus’s response has been ridiculous because it’s entirely focused on 1 individual player as opposed to the actual large scale problem of cheating in chess
From the letter: “I also believe that chess organizers and all those who care about the sanctity of the game we love should seriously consider increasing security measures and methods of cheat detection for over the board chess.”
Carlson should just challenge Niemann to a 30 game over the board televised match in their shorts (no shoes, no shirt) at Madison Square Garden. With the revenue generated from ticket sales and advertising, they could both retire and international chess can put this episode behind them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If that's a big concern, why would you even allow audiences to spectate in real-time? If the integrity of the game takes precedent over the spectacle of the match, why do we care about anything but the results? This reductive approach to looking at cheating will just end with both of these shmucks sitting naked in an empty room, surrounded by an audience of a single referee who's job is to stop them from physically a…
The extent that anti-cheating measures in Contract Bridge have gone to is hilariously insane. The players are effectively in telephone booths and cannot say or do anything except mark a bid indicator or slide a card, and at regulated intervals, too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheating_in_bridge Bridge is an imperfect information game so the opportunities are much larger, but something similar can happen in chess.
In Magnus' statement he specifically spoke of how he felt, Hans felt. This shows how much information beyond the 64 squares that chess players take in.
I'd argue the opportunities are larger in chess, because "what to do" is much more concretely correct.
Bridge has its own problems... and people will cheat as long as there are physical devices. (Fantunes / Fisher-Schwartz) Imagine if they used any simple encryption algorithm, they'd be fishy, but impossible to catch at that time.
BBO is the future for bridge IMHO.
Chess, will become an in person game with nobody else but the arbiter, players, and cameras in the room.