Carlsen withdrawal after loss to Niemann

[M ANSARI]

Sorry but you are being utterly ridiculous. Hold on to that straw! Man you guys are funny . God this is so much Deja Vu ... go back to the old thread I posted with regards to Ivanov. Now I understand how murderers and rapists can get away with stuff. OJ Simpson anyone?

[CornfedForever]

Sorry but you are being utterly ridiculous. Hold on to that straw! Man you guys are funny . God this is so much Deja Vu ... go back to the old thread I posted with regards to Ivanov. Now I understand how murderers and rapists can get away with stuff. OJ Simpson anyone?

No...and maybe you should not be going back there either...looks like you are wallowing in this whole thing a bit too much. Not my playground, sorry.

I may be wrong, but I just see people pointing out the obvious, and that is entirely fair. You, however, seem to feel the need to assign and push people towards false equivalencies and imply they are just 'trying to get away with stuff'. Just...give it a rest. A recommendation, not an admonition. It's getting tiresome.

[M ANSARI]

Sorry but you are being utterly ridiculous. Hold on to that straw! Man you guys are funny . God this is so much Deja Vu ... go back to the old thread I posted with regards to Ivanov. Now I understand how murderers and rapists can get away with stuff. OJ Simpson anyone?

No...and maybe you should not be going back there either...looks like you are wallowing in this whole thing a bit too much. Not my playground, sorry.

I may be wrong, but I just see people pointing out the obvious, and that is entirely fair. You, however, seem to feel the need to assign and push people towards false equivalencies and imply they are just 'trying to get away with stuff'. Just...give it a rest. A recommendation, not an admonition. It's getting tiresome.

Yes if I see some creep try and sully Chess I tend to get quite motivated to expose that creep. IMHO Ivano was a creep and I see Hans Neiman as the same. I enjoy chess and feel cheating is a huge problem. You obviously do not and thus that is why you find it "tiresome". Tiresome to you maybe but not to me ... so sorry you will have to put up with me just like many had to before. Some people will hold an initial point of view and will not change it no matter what evidence comes up. I think if Hans was caught with wires sticking out of his assand miniature speaker inside his ear you would still come up with an excuse ... maybe he was a misunderstood child that had a terrible upbringing so it is ok. Go back to that damn thread and see if you don't feel you fit in the profile of some of the people that were doggedly defending Ivanov. Understand why some people have more motivation to weed out a cheater than you do. Ivanov was not the first cheater and Hans will not be the last. This is a fact and I am sure this entire episode will come up again in the future.

[CornfedForever]

Sorry but you are being utterly ridiculous. Hold on to that straw! Man you guys are funny . God this is so much Deja Vu ... go back to the old thread I posted with regards to Ivanov. Now I understand how murderers and rapists can get away with stuff. OJ Simpson anyone?

No...and maybe you should not be going back there either...looks like you are wallowing in this whole thing a bit too much. Not my playground, sorry.

I may be wrong, but I just see people pointing out the obvious, and that is entirely fair. You, however, seem to feel the need to assign and push people towards false equivalencies and imply they are just 'trying to get away with stuff'. Just...give it a rest. A recommendation, not an admonition. It's getting tiresome.

Yes if I see some creep try and sully Chess I tend to get quite motivated to expose that creep. IMHO Ivano was a creep and I see Hans Neiman as the same. I enjoy chess and feel cheating is a huge problem. You obviously do not and thus that is why you find it "tiresome". Tiresome to you maybe but not to me ... so sorry you will have to put up with me just like many had to before. Some people will hold an initial point of view and will not change it no matter what evidence comes up. I think if Hans was caught with wires sticking out of his assand miniature speaker inside his ear you would still come up with an excuse ... maybe he was a misunderstood child that had a terrible upbringing so it is ok. Go back to that damn thread and see if you don't feel you fit in the profile of some of the people that were doggedly defending Ivanov. Understand why some people have more motivation to weed out a cheater than you do. Ivanov was not the first cheater and Hans will not be the last. This is a fact and I am sure this entire episode will come up again in the future.

No.

Sorry, you do not 'get it', I see that in other threads as well. I hate to see you keep hanging yourself so, I've no more to say on it (to you). But... as you don't '"see with your eye, you perceive with your mind", a little Clint Eastwood by Gorillas might do you good:

[Alexander Schmidt]

Don't forget that Carlsen would appear to have cheated as well.

That's just ridiculous. Getting unasked help is not cheating. There was no intention, there was no effort in hiding something.

But this thread shows one thing quite well. If someone does sophisticated OTB cheating, people will not accept any kind of evidence until the guy gets catched red handed.

Like Carlsen or don't like him. But accept that he is a genius at the board, and he is able to judge such an issue much better than we can do. And he is not the only one. Caruna says to some of Niemanns moves "This is way above my League" - And this just don't fit to what Niemman is spluttering in the post game analysis. Together with the analysis of his games there is only one conclusion: Niemann is cheating, and hopefully he will get caught soon, otherwise chess will be like Cycling where not the best cyclist is winning, but the cyclist with the best medics...

[dkappe]

Don't forget that Carlsen would appear to have cheated as well.

That's just ridiculous. Getting unasked help is not cheating. There was no intention, there was no effort in hiding something.

Getting unasked help is one thing, accepting it is another. It was cheating, even if the cheaters chuckled about it afterwards.

[CornfedForever]

Don't forget that Carlsen would appear to have cheated as well.

That's just ridiculous. Getting unasked help is not cheating. There was no intention, there was no effort in hiding something.

Getting unasked help is one thing, accepting it is another. It was cheating, even if the cheaters chuckled about it afterwards.

+1

One does not have to 'hide' their cheating for it to be 'cheating'.

Magnus was a bit confused...indicated as much, Howell blurted something out about 'winning it', Magnus realized 'something' was there, but did not see it and asked "How?". Howell...kind of bit his tongue at that point, Magnus takes a sec, realizes David was indicating he would win Naroditsky's Queen...and played the move to do so.

There WERE other moves available and really he should have at the very least made a different move. And of course, told David to keep his mouth shut.

[Graham Banks]

Firouzja was banned from chess.com for cheating aged 11, then allowed back. Difference between Firouzja and Hans is that the former managed to become identified with the in-group, whereas Hans remained an outsider.

No, difference was Firouzja had not actually cheated whereas Hans did cheat.
But who cares about facts nowadays.

Don't forget that Carlsen would appear to have cheated as well.

Here is the full stream. The events in question are at 1:44:00. Lots of talk of cheating and banning.

Logical connection? You want to legalise cheating?

Of course not.
Just pointing out that what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Graham ... really ... come on. I cannot for the life of me believe that you are saying that! You are comparing cheaters like Hans Nieman and Dlugy to Magnus Carlsen. They cheated and he cheated so they are the same and so we should stop talking about all this??? What's good for the goose is good for the gander! Really.

Let's put something in perspective as I find one of the most entertaining things on the internet is to watch MC stream live when he goes online to play the bullet tournaments. These are 1 0 tourneys with no increment and this tournament has a set time limit ... so say 2 hours then the games and challenges are over. You make a speed run and the person who has the highest points wins. MC sometimes enters these tournaments when they are halfway through, and he tries to catch up. Some tournaments he plays where he does not allow himself to castle ... so he handicaps himself and sees how well he can do. On other tournaments he plays the entire tournament playing the Bong Cloud opening and sees how his opponents deal with it. Many of the streams he is obviously drunk and so are many of the guys around him ... maybe you could say that alcohol is equivalent to a stimulant but not sure it is considered cheating. He plays with a laptop and touchpad (a huge handicap in bullet). Furthermore, every tournament MC wins, he asks that the winnings to get added to the next tournament so that the prize can be more interesting and attract more people to join. In this video that was being streamed live ... Howell blurted out that the queen could be trapped ... MC was outplaying his opponent and was probably winning pretty easily. Howell is a very honest person and I am sure if he was not drunk he would have thought twice about his actions. But it was not premeditated action to cheat and MC was not the one cheating. Howell is about 400 ELO points weaker than MC in bullet and if MC wanted to cheat I am sure there would be better ways ... and that maybe streaming it live is also not the best to avoid being caught. I play a lot of bullet mostly because it removes any handicap I might have if someone is cheating ... at 1 0 even if someone is playing with SF 15 and you feel he is cheating ... you just play quickly and close the position and generally you can flag him. For the life of me I cannot believe that someone is making a case about this episode with Howell as being equivalent to the premeditated cheating online (and most likely OTB) by Hans Nieman or Maxim Dlugy! That is like considering being a passenger in a car that got a parking ticket equivalent to someone who is a convicted serial murder and serial rapists! I know the saying that the "devil mixes some truth with lies to obfuscate" ... but really this is just ridiculous!

With regards to Firouzja, he did NOT get banned. He was autoflagged by Chess.com and his account was temporarily suspended until further review. This can happen if the software detects cheating .. OR if multiple titled players complain about a non-titled player. Firouzja was an untitled 11 year old kid that was crushing titled players ... and several titled players made multiple complaints about him. He was temporarily suspended, and his account was manually checked . No cheating was detected, and he was reinstated with an apology! I mean really ... to even equate that to Hans Nieman who was banned for cheating multiple times and was reinstated after he promised he would not cheat again ... then cheated again and banned again! I am not religious at all but ... mixing some truths with lies does come up.

On another note ... I saw this yesterday and thought it was interesting. I went to the Talisman website and it seems this cheating device is no longer available. Not sure if it is a scam or something that came up after the cheating scandal ... it does look fishy, but I do think it is not too difficult from a technical standpoint to create a device that would work if there is enough motivation. With prize funds reaching in the million mark, you could say that there could be more and more incentive to cheat.

My comment was mainly in response to whoever posted that anybody caught cheating should face a ban.
Cheating is cheating, no matter who does it.

[Alexander Schmidt]

Getting unasked help is one thing, accepting it is another. It was cheating, even if the cheaters chuckled about it afterwards.

He made a mistake, that's right. Comparing this with intentional cheating is still ridiculous.

[syzygy]

Firouzja was banned from chess.com for cheating aged 11, then allowed back. Difference between Firouzja and Hans is that the former managed to become identified with the in-group, whereas Hans remained an outsider.

No, difference was Firouzja had not actually cheated whereas Hans did cheat.
But who cares about facts nowadays.

Don't forget that Carlsen would appear to have cheated as well.

Here is the full stream. The events in question are at 1:44:00. Lots of talk of cheating and banning.

Logical connection? You want to legalise cheating?

Of course not.
Just pointing out that what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

So indeed no connection to this discussion.