Some evidence supporting his claim would be nice.
Dear Chess World
61–70 of 1001 posts
Re: Dear Chess World
#62For 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…
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)
Re: Dear Chess World
#63It reminds me of the outcry from Trevor Bauer over the MLB not enforcing the illegal substance rule for pitchers. He had to take matters into his own hands until the league decided to enforce the rules.
Re: Dear Chess World
#64No post body was provided.
Re: Dear Chess World
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
The second best player in the world would be best positioned to cheat; they'd need a small advantage to become best. And the best player in the world could cheat, too, reducing their mental load and taking it easy. Both cases would likely be exposed by the cheaters getting lazy.
I don't think you become the best or second best player through a mindset that includes "I'll cheat if that's what it takes to reach the top".
All the history of doping in the Olympics would disagree.
It is possible that some people can reach quite a high level but top out in their natural abilities well below the absolute top of the game and be incentivized to cheat to break through their personal, natural ceiling.
Re: Dear Chess World
#66Dear Chess World, At the 2022 Sinquefield Cup, I made the unprecedented professional decision to withdraw from the tournament after my round three game against Hans Niemann. A week later during the Champions Chess Tour, I resigned against Hans Niemann after playing only one move. I know that my actions have frustrated many in the chess community. I'm frustrated. I want to play chess. I want to continue to play chess…
"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 game).
Re: Dear Chess World
#67For 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 chess organization, seems like him just being a sore loser.
I don’t need to defend Hans’s cheating to point out that 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. A guy who happened to beat him OTB in a game where he likely did not cheat at all.
Re: Dear Chess World
#68How 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 by cheating in a game against the world champion than at any other time. It is very unlikey that Hans only cheated exactly the two times he was caught, and his failure to produce other instances than the times when he was caught are a mark against him.
Remember that we are not giving him the death penalty, we are just trying to establish which scenario is more likely. It is important to be able to render most likely judgments based on incomplete information. Its not a courtroom.
Re: Dear Chess World
#69It'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…
[deleted]
Re: Dear Chess World
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
If he didn't want to play against him, he shouldn't have already done it weeks ago and then proceed to agree to a rematch, which he doesn't cancel until the last minute. I find it very hard to believe that Magnus only found out about Hans' history after the first move... unless he had someone assisting him in realtime.
it was just part of the rules you can't resign until you play 1 move
Withdrawing attendance is also an option, which Carlsen himself says is a possibility he acknowledged.
If he wants to follow through on this, we better see some damning evidence. If this entire hubbub was for nothing, the chess community as a whole is going to have egg on their face.