Carlsen withdrawal after loss to Niemann

[Chessqueen]

Niemann doesn't have it easy. Everywhere you click on the Internet (also on many German sites, not just chess), topic number 1 is Niemann.

And lurid get-ups like this:
https://chessarena.com/



I'm disappointed in Niemann. He's always all or nothing, and he always thinks he's better than his opponent. There is no middle ground for him. That's why he rightly lost the last two games. He overestimates himself. I read that he is a good bullet player. Unfortunately, he also plays classic time controls in this style, and that's not wise. More respect for the quality of his opponents would be appropriate. He supposedly wants to be world champion, or at least a top 10 player (by his own admission). It won't work!

Why we do NOT question other players about cheating GM Robson played this game almost perfect according to engines
[Event "USA Championship 2022"]
[White "Niemann,Hans Moke"]
[Black "Robson,Ray"]
[Site "Saint Louis"]
[Round "6.4"]
[Annotator ""]
[Result "0-1"]
[Date "2022.10.11"]
[WhiteElo "2699"]
[BlackElo "2690"]
[PlyCount "70"]

1. d4 {[%emt 0:4:14]} Nf6 {[%emt 0:0:18]} 2. c4 {[%emt 0:1:21]} e6 {[%emt 0:0:17]} 3. Bf4 {[%emt 0:0:6]} d5 {[%emt 0:5:28]} 4. cxd5 {[%emt 0:0:13]} Nxd5 {[%emt 0:0:53]} 5. Bg3 {[%emt 0:0:8]} c5 {[%emt 0:1:57]} 6. e4 {[%emt 0:0:7] A50: Queen's Fianchetto Defence (1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 b6).} Nf6 {[%emt 0:2:1]} 7. Nd2 {[%emt 0:0:19]} Nc6 {[%emt 0:12:24][#]} (7... Qxd4 $0 $15 8. Ngf3 Qd8 )8. dxc5 $0 $146 {[%emt 0:0:9]The position is equal.} ({Predecessor:} 8. e5 Nd7 9. Ngf3 cxd4 10. Bc4 Be7 11. O-O O-O 12. Rc1 Nc5 13. a3 a5 14. Nb3 {1-0 (55) Carlsen,M (2847)-So,W (2772) chess24.com INT 2021} )Bxc5 {[%emt 0:1:4]} 9. e5 {[%emt 0:0:17]} Nd5 {[%emt 0:9:26]} 10. Ngf3 {[%emt 0:0:9]} O-O {[%emt 0:3:3]} 11. a3 {[%emt 0:0:43]} b6 {[%emt 0:5:54]} 12. Ne4 {[%emt 0:5:55]} a5 {[%emt 0:14:4]} 13. Rc1 {[%emt 0:13:28]} Nce7 {[%emt 0:3:9]} 14. Bd3 {[%emt 0:7:33]} Ba6 {[%emt 0:2:14]} 15. Bxa6 {[%emt 0:4:23]} Rxa6 {[%emt 0:0:7]} 16. O-O {[%emt 0:0:28]} Qa8 {[%emt 0:10:26]} 17. Re1 {[%emt 0:8:12] Prevents Ne3.} Nf5 {[%emt 0:2:3]} 18. Nh4 {[%emt 0:4:11]} Nxg3 {[%emt 0:9:23]} 19. hxg3 {[%emt 0:0:28]} Be7 {[%emt 0:1:19]} 20. Qh5 {[%emt 0:0:58]} b5 {[%emt 0:2:13]} 21. Nf3 {[%emt 0:11:19]} Rc6 {[%emt 0:0:18]} 22. Rcd1 {[%emt 0:2:13]} (22. Nd4 $0 $11 Rxc1 23. Rxc1 )Rc2 $0 $15 {[%emt 0:1:8]} 23. b3 {[%emt 0:2:44]} (23. Nfg5 h6 24. Nh3 Rxb2 $0 $17 )Ra2 {[%emt 0:1:1]} 24. Nd4 {[%emt 0:3:21]} (24. Nfg5 h6 25. Nf3 Rxa3 $0 $17 )Rxa3 {[%emt 0:0:24]} 25. f4 {[%emt 0:0:26]} (25. Qg4 $0 $15 Qc8 26. Nd6 Bxd6 27. exd6 )Ra2 {[%emt 0:2:14]} (25... Bb4 $0 $17 26. Re2 (26. Nxb5 $2 Rxb3 27. Re2 a4 $0 $19 )a4 )26. f5 {[%emt 0:0:57] This costs White the game.} ({ White should try} 26. Nxb5 $0 $15 Qa6 27. Nd4 )Nc3 $1 $19 {[%emt 0:5:21]} 27. f6 {[%emt 0:1:8]} (27. Qf3 { was necessary.} Nxd1 28. Rxd1 )Bxf6 $1 {[%emt 0:0:22] Chess con chili.} ({ Much less strong is} 27... Nxe4 28. fxe7 Re8 29. Qf3 $0 $18 )(27... Nxd1 { is a self mate.} 28. Qg5 (28. fxe7 Re8 $0 $16 )g6 29. Qh6 )28. Nxf6+ {[%emt 0:8:45]} (28. exf6 Nxe4 29. fxg7 )gxf6 {[%emt 0:0:1]Black is clearly winning.} 29. Nf3 {[%emt 0:0:10]} Nxd1 {[%emt 0:0:23]} 30. exf6 {[%emt 0:2:41][#] Intending Qg5+ and mate.} Kh8 $1 {[%emt 0:0:16] Threatens to win with ...Qa7+.} 31. Rxd1 {[%emt 0:0:18][#] Rd4 is the strong threat.} Rg8 $1 {[%emt 0:2:39]} 32. Kh2 {[%emt 0:0:47]} Qe4 {[%emt 0:0:46] ( -> ...Rxg2+!)} 33. Rd7 {[%emt 0:0:58]} Qe2 {[%emt 0:0:37]} 34. Qh3 {[%emt 0:0:29]} Qxf3 $1 {[%emt 0:0:8]} 35. Rxf7 {[%emt 0:0:2][#]} Rxg2+ $3 {[%emt 0:0:22]

Weighted Error Value: White=0.57/Black=0.05 (flawless) } 0-1

[Alexander Schmidt]

Why we do NOT question other players about cheating GM Robson played this game almost perfect according to engines

A few reasons:

-Because it's one game. Nobody seriously accuses a player of cheating because of one game.
-Because Robson is not a known online cheater.
-Because Robson doesn't have outstanding jumps in his strength history.
-Because his mentor isn't a known cheater.
-Because he can explain his moves in the after game analysis.
-Because no one of the top GMs suspects him as far as we know.
-Because nobody collected data that are completely different to other players of his level.
-Because he is obviously focused in his games.

What you do is really silly. You don't accept accusations of Niemann as long as he is not caught red handed. And that's fine. But what you do is even worse, you accuse repeatedly other players without any reason.

And it seems that you don't even look at the points against Niemann. Because it is not about playing a perfect game, rather about his history, his behaviour and his sometimes outstanding moves, which a GM hardly finds, followed by positional blunders like 22. Rcd1in yesterdays game. Or can anyone explain this move? Why would anyone give away the c file for nothing?

[Eduard]

Why we do NOT question other players about cheating GM Robson played this game almost perfect according to engines.

I agree with you that it was a perfect game.

100% perfect computer chess. If Niemann had played it with black, the community would be screaming cheater, cheater!

Niemann has no chance. If he wins, it's called "cheater". And if he loses then it means "we know he can't play well without a computer. That's the evidence".

[CornfedForever]

It seems that Niemann is not a good player. Comparing him to Bobby Fischer is a joke. He plays variants that might be good for blitz, but bad against any opponent at classic timecontrol. What he showed today is amateurish.

I would not judge a grandmaster by his opening choices. By that criterion, Magnus Carlsen must be a real patzer, he plays all sorts of dubious (or outright bad) openings, even in classical games. Of course his motivation is to get people out of their prep.

I would point out also that the opening was perfectly okay...Hans was as good or better for much of it. It's only when he tried to keep attacking chances alive that he started going wrong.

Also...Yaz pointed out how he had played 3. Bg5 twice in the 1990 London Phillips and Drew tourney. It's no worse than 3. Bf4. Simply the kind of things an 'intuitive' player might try to unbook a notorious time trouble addict like Ray.

[Alexander Schmidt]

Niemann has no chance. If he wins, it's called "cheater". And if he loses then it means "we know he can't play well without a computer. That's the evidence".

If he wouldn't have cheated, no one would call him a cheater, and we wouldn't have to discuss whether, and how often he cheats OTB.

[CornfedForever]

Niemann has no chance. If he wins, it's called "cheater". And if he loses then it means "we know he can't play well without a computer. That's the evidence".

If he wouldn't have cheated, no one would call him a cheater, and we wouldn't have to discuss whether, and how often he cheats OTB.

To butt in a sec. On what you say alone about OTB....then why aren't we talking about and their being 'shunned by Magnus OTB players like Naiditch and Maghsoodloo (there are others...)? No, this is squarely because of Magnus' actions against 1 person that threads like this all over the internet exist. Magnus even played OTB against Maghsoodloo just a few days ago. Fair question, yes?

[Rebel]

Why we do NOT question other players about cheating GM Robson played this game almost perfect according to engines

A few reasons:

-Because it's one game. Nobody seriously accuses a player of cheating because of one game.
-Because Robson is not a known online cheater.
-Because Robson doesn't have outstanding jumps in his strength history.
-Because his mentor isn't a known cheater.
-Because he can explain his moves in the after game analysis.
-Because no one of the top GMs suspects him as far as we know.
-Because nobody collected data that are completely different to other players of his level.
-Because he is obviously focused in his games.

http://rebel13.nl/niemann-report.pdf

Have a look at table two, they say they caught 25 GM's in cheating, among Hans, all 25 confessed.

Then from the email correspondence part:

From: Account Review accountreview@chess.com
Subject: Chess.com Account and CGC
Date: September 5, 2022 at 6:20 PM
To: Hans Niemann

Dear Hans,

Chess.com has elected to privately remove access from your account on Chess.com, and we are rescinding the invitation to join the CGC per your qualified spot.

Chess.com retains the right to close/remove access to any account at anytime without explanation —
https://www.chess.com/legal/user-agreement — see “Termination”.

We will however be providing you with your full compensation of $5,000.00 US dollars for the qualified spot in the CGC. You can claim your prize here https://go.chess.com/invoice at your earliest convenience.

Best wishes.

Chess.com Team

----------------------

1. I am beginning to understand the temptation to cheat.

2. The system is asking for trouble, human nature.

3. They don't list the names of the other 25 GM's who cheated, it would create total chaos with the risk of the collapse of the system.

4. They were forced to target Niemann publicly because MC picked him.

5. They prefer to handle cheating in private for obvious reasons, money.

[M ANSARI]

OK John Doe ... I mean John Smith ... I mean Brian Smith.

M - Is it...Mark Ansari? Mathew Ansari....Mary Ansari?

Don’t bother. Its confirmed, he’s a troll.

Dude...YOU are the one who started asking about names, saying I was hiding behind a user name...someone pointed out my name was there to be seen...then making fun of it. Yours...I just see M. I don't know what it stands for and asked.

Anyway, since you clearly can't converse as you continue to resort to 'BS' like this...just don't address me, okay (?) and I won't address you. This is...beyond ridiculous. Of course, half of what I see on this thread is. Too often things degenerate to some weird interpersonal squabble...well, anywhere on the internet really; so 'here' is no exception. Adieu.

Check who you are responding to. I’ve never said anything about user names or real names on this forum. Also, I was not calling you a troll.

Yes, so sorry...nasty nested quotes in the thread - I grabbed the quote at the wrong point. Of course... The comments were meant for M. ANSARI.

Now now Mr. Cornfed ... your feathers getting ruffled? Try and read properly before going Picasso on us. You are quite new here and I don't want to discourage you or anyone else from participating in the forum. But once you start calling people clowns and start ridiculing people that don't have the same point of view that you have then you pretty much will get something back. My advice to you is keep any debate civil and avoid making it personal. Everyone is allowed to have an opinion and your opinion is not the only one that matters. You mentioned earlier that you are 2600 or more on Chess.com and that someone was caught cheating against you ... somehow that didn't seem to bother you that much. I know when someone cheats against me online I feel like I want to tear them a new ahole. Would you be kind enough to share that game with us ... it would be interesting to check that game and see what triggered the cheat detection form Chess.com.

As for Hans Nieman and the cheating scandal ... you guys can search back to another very similar thread that had a lot of heated back and forth with regards to Ivanov. With Ivanov it was the same ... no physical proof and the person was never caught red handed. The guy even had CT scan and full body Xray with medical report. All allegations were based on the fact that he was just playing too good and error free and had many computer move matches.Unlike Hand, Ivanov had never been caught cheating and he did not have a coach that had been caught cheating ... so zero history of prior cheating. For me what made it ridiculously clear that he was cheating was he said that he kept playing thousands of games against Rybka 3 ... then realized he was ready when he started beating Rybka 3 .... 10 0 repeatedly. I had done a lot of beta testing for Rybka 3 and to me that was just hilariously ridiculous. But apparently for a lot of people they didn't think it was ridiculous! I mean if you play a game Call of Duty enough hours you can get pretty good at it ... right?? But chess doesn't work that way. Humans think in "plans" not individual moves ... and while a human can look at an engine game and later see a "plan" ... a human cannot see the small minute tactical pitfalls that are very obvious to engines. Sure if you are a sophisticated cheater like Hans seems to be, you can mix and obfuscate ... but there will always be a signature in the database of games you play that will be abnormal. I think this signature is quite clear already ... and most likely more will come. Is it enough to ban Hans from participating in tournaments ... I think so ... but many don't and I can see their point. The thing is that with chess ... if someone finds a way to cheat and not get caught then chess is over as a competitive sport. I mean you can give steroids or other enhancement drugs to an athlete and he will perform slightly better maybe 5% or 10% better than his non cheating competitors. But if anyone of us here would take steroids and try and beat Husain Bolt in 100m sprint ... I doubt it would be successful. However with chess ... anyone ... and I mean anyone ... with just a little training on how to cheat ... he could beat Magnus Carlsen repeatedly. With the inclusion of NNUE in the latest engines ... the gap between humans and engines is now around 1000 ELO points. That is why in Chess we have a huge problem and we have to have zero tolerance or baby handling of cheaters.

[M ANSARI]

Why we do NOT question other players about cheating GM Robson played this game almost perfect according to engines

A few reasons:

-Because it's one game. Nobody seriously accuses a player of cheating because of one game.
-Because Robson is not a known online cheater.
-Because Robson doesn't have outstanding jumps in his strength history.
-Because his mentor isn't a known cheater.
-Because he can explain his moves in the after game analysis.
-Because no one of the top GMs suspects him as far as we know.
-Because nobody collected data that are completely different to other players of his level.
-Because he is obviously focused in his games.

http://rebel13.nl/niemann-report.pdf

Have a look at table two, they say they caught 25 GM's in cheating, among Hans, all 25 confessed.

Then from the email correspondence part:

From: Account Review accountreview@chess.com
Subject: Chess.com Account and CGC
Date: September 5, 2022 at 6:20 PM
To: Hans Niemann

Dear Hans,

Chess.com has elected to privately remove access from your account on Chess.com, and we are rescinding the invitation to join the CGC per your qualified spot.

Chess.com retains the right to close/remove access to any account at anytime without explanation —
https://www.chess.com/legal/user-agreement — see “Termination”.

We will however be providing you with your full compensation of $5,000.00 US dollars for the qualified spot in the CGC. You can claim your prize here https://go.chess.com/invoice at your earliest convenience.

Best wishes.

Chess.com Team

----------------------

1. I am beginning to understand the temptation to cheat.

2. The system is asking for trouble, human nature.

3. They don't list the names of the other 25 GM's who cheated, it would create total chaos with the risk of the collapse of the system.

4. They were forced to target Niemann publicly because MC picked him.

5. They prefer to handle cheating in private for obvious reasons, money.

I agree that Chess.com doesn't come out good in any of this. They are just after what makes money. I am sure they are gaining a ton of new people signing up due to the controversy. What really pisses me off is they are picking and choosing who to flag for cheating and giving titled players chances over and over again. I pretty much doubt they give any nontitled players another chance. Anyone who cheats more than once should be exposed for the entire world to see.

[CornfedForever]

OK John Doe ... I mean John Smith ... I mean Brian Smith.

M - Is it...Mark Ansari? Mathew Ansari....Mary Ansari?

Don’t bother. Its confirmed, he’s a troll.

Dude...YOU are the one who started asking about names, saying I was hiding behind a user name...someone pointed out my name was there to be seen...then making fun of it. Yours...I just see M. I don't know what it stands for and asked.

Anyway, since you clearly can't converse as you continue to resort to 'BS' like this...just don't address me, okay (?) and I won't address you. This is...beyond ridiculous. Of course, half of what I see on this thread is. Too often things degenerate to some weird interpersonal squabble...well, anywhere on the internet really; so 'here' is no exception. Adieu.

Check who you are responding to. I’ve never said anything about user names or real names on this forum. Also, I was not calling you a troll.

Yes, so sorry...nasty nested quotes in the thread - I grabbed the quote at the wrong point. Of course... The comments were meant for M. ANSARI.

Now now Mr. Cornfed ... your feathers getting ruffled? Try and read properly before going Picasso on us. You are quite new here and I don't want to discourage you or anyone else from participating in the forum. But once you start calling people clowns and start ridiculing people that don't have the same point of view that you have then you pretty much will get something back. My advice to you is keep any debate civil and avoid making it personal. Everyone is allowed to have an opinion and your opinion is not the only one that matters. You mentioned earlier that you are 2600 or more on Chess.com and that someone was caught cheating against you ... somehow that didn't seem to bother you that much. I know when someone cheats against me online I feel like I want to tear them a new ahole. Would you be kind enough to share that game with us ... it would be interesting to check that game and see what triggered the cheat detection form Chess.com.

As for Hans Nieman and the cheating scandal ... you guys can search back to another very similar thread that had a lot of heated back and forth with regards to Ivanov. With Ivanov it was the same ... no physical proof and the person was never caught red handed. The guy even had CT scan and full body Xray with medical report. All allegations were based on the fact that he was just playing too good and error free and had many computer move matches.Unlike Hand, Ivanov had never been caught cheating and he did not have a coach that had been caught cheating ... so zero history of prior cheating. For me what made it ridiculously clear that he was cheating was he said that he kept playing thousands of games against Rybka 3 ... then realized he was ready when he started beating Rybka 3 .... 10 0 repeatedly. I had done a lot of beta testing for Rybka 3 and to me that was just hilariously ridiculous. But apparently for a lot of people they didn't think it was ridiculous! I mean if you play a game Call of Duty enough hours you can get pretty good at it ... right?? But chess doesn't work that way. Humans think in "plans" not individual moves ... and while a human can look at an engine game and later see a "plan" ... a human cannot see the small minute tactical pitfalls that are very obvious to engines. Sure if you are a sophisticated cheater like Hans seems to be, you can mix and obfuscate ... but there will always be a signature in the database of games you play that will be abnormal. I think this signature is quite clear already ... and most likely more will come. Is it enough to ban Hans from participating in tournaments ... I think so ... but many don't and I can see their point. The thing is that with chess ... if someone finds a way to cheat and not get caught then chess is over as a competitive sport. I mean you can give steroids or other enhancement drugs to an athlete and he will perform slightly better maybe 5% or 10% better than his non cheating competitors. But if anyone of us here would take steroids and try and beat Husain Bolt in 100m sprint ... I doubt it would be successful. However with chess ... anyone ... and I mean anyone ... with just a little training on how to cheat ... he could beat Magnus Carlsen repeatedly. With the inclusion of NNUE in the latest engines ... the gap between humans and engines is now around 1000 ELO points. That is why in Chess we have a huge problem and we have to have zero tolerance or baby handling of cheaters.

Seriously...does anyone know of a way for me to hide or not see this trolls posts about me?

Not responding to you anymore as I said...BUT since you are telling a lie, I have to respond:

1. I NEVER said I was 2600 on chess.com. See Post 219, I said a 2600 cheated on me and had his account closed...the next day as I recall. I'm sorry but if English is not your native language, perhaps you should take a course if you insist on all these long posts. I'm not sure it would help though as it is clearly something else at play....and it's there for all to see.

2. I am actually not new here...I've had problems with 2 other accounts (caused by computer crashes and losing data...pw's etc.).

3. Just go away, okay? Please.