Carlsen withdrawal after loss to Niemann

[CornfedForever]

... but Larry Kaufman? What’s his angle?

Personally, I think of Larry as more of a 'right' angle while you are simply...'obtuse'.

[Collingwood]

... As for the issue under discussion, I would say it is now up to Neimann to dispute the claim by chess.com that he had been found to have cheated online more often and/or more recently than what he admitted to. If he can convince the chess world that chess.com is wrong, then his claims regarding the over the board tournaments should be believed. If chess.com is right, then nothing he says regarding cheating should be believed. ...

In your experience, how likely is it for someone to play at that level but give incoherent after-game answers to press questions? i.e. Did you ever encounter such an apparent discrepancy in your career?

[lkaufman]

... As for the issue under discussion, I would say it is now up to Neimann to dispute the claim by chess.com that he had been found to have cheated online more often and/or more recently than what he admitted to. If he can convince the chess world that chess.com is wrong, then his claims regarding the over the board tournaments should be believed. If chess.com is right, then nothing he says regarding cheating should be believed. ...

In your experience, how likely is it for someone to play at that level but give incoherent after-game answers to press questions? i.e. Did you ever encounter such an apparent discrepancy in your career?

Well, as I mentioned, one of my opponents with a 2450 USCF rating (Will Fisher, who later committed suicide), was only able to discuss our game at perhaps a 2150 or so level afterwards, and he was soon recognized by those who investigate cheating to be a cheater. That's of course a lower level than the current case. Usually, strong grandmasters can explain their thought processes after a game reasonably well, but of course there have been some strong players who have personality problems that make it difficult for them to communicate normally. Hans was at times able to comment at a suitable level about his games, at other times his comments were either evasive, strange, or just wrong. It is suspicious, but not proof by itself that he cannot play at 2700 level without assistance. If all GMs were required to explain their reasons for key moves after the game to some top level retired player who would judge them, we would catch all the cheaters but also would disqualify a few strong players with various psychological problems.

[Albert Silver]

Well this isn't the first time the chess community has launched a witch-hunt, and probably won't be the last.

Take that back!

[Albert Silver]

IM Ken Regan weighs in:

https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cH ... ZjQ4?ep=14

[CornfedForever]

IM Ken Regan weighs in:

https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cH ... ZjQ4?ep=14

...you are a few pages (in this thread) too late.

[AndrewGrant]

Well this isn't the first time the chess community has launched a witch-hunt, and probably won't be the last.

Take that back!

[Chessqueen]

IM Ken Regan weighs in:

https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cH ... ZjQ4?ep=14

...you are a few pages (in this thread) too late.

Sometimes I wonder...just what goes on in your brain. Sometimes. So what if a person is a few pages too late, have you ever wonder the ages of the people here posting and what level or stages of alzheimers they are. Please do not ask me in what level I am, it has to be at least in the middle stage by now. https://www.alz.org/alzheimers-dementia/stages

[Graham Banks]

IM Ken Regan weighs in:

https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cH ... ZjQ4?ep=14

So after analyzing 300-400 games, his conclusion is that there is no cheating.

[M ANSARI]

Yeah ... the post game analysis after the Mamydyraov game and especially after the Firouzja game was really hard to watch without your eyebrows automatically going full up. I still think that in the data there must be a certain tell tale sign that something is amiss ... no matter how well you understand cheating algorithims and try to obfuscate play by using suboptimal moves that continue to pose problems for your opponent. If you look at the top super GM's and have an engine running ... it is incredible the amount of blunders they make but that somehow the other side doesn't see. The number of these blunders per say 1000 games and other such data over a large set of games must have a tell tale sign that shows that statistically someone has a cheating profile. However even that would not be enough to definetively say someone cheated ... just that there is a high probability he cheated.

So it seems to me the best way to deal with this is to avoid cheaters or anyone who has cheated before to enter a chess tournament. I know some of you think that online cheating is not the same thing ... but I absolutely disagree with that as many of the invites to tournaments are based on how well someone does in online tournaments. So by cheating online and doing well ... you get chosen over someone who is better but didn't do as well because he did not cheat!!! Also after corona, online tournaments have really become much more relevant ... so can't be disregarded. Maybe a cooling off period of say 5 years being clean before you can enter a prestigious tournament. Also the anti cheating protocols should be challenged and improved whenever possible. No player should have to even think there is a tiny possibility his opponent is cheating as that totally changes the way they play chess. I am surprised at how many people on this forum seem to think that online cheating is not a big deal and that somehow it is morally acceptable while OTB cheating is not ??!!??