Carlsen withdrawal after loss to Niemann

[Krzysztof Grzelak]

He doesn't want to analyze because he cannot analyze without the help of an engine and doesn't want people to see that. Whethere it is a strange quirk in his personality or it is because he is cheating ... that is the question. I sure hope that he is not still cheating ... because if he is, then we can kiss Chess as a viable spectator sport ... goodbye. Due to his past he will always be suspect ... I guess he earned that and I really feel zero sympathy for such a creep. Hikaru mentions something very reasonable ... either he is the best player in the history of chess or he is a cheater. Cheating and not getting caught doesn't mean it didn't happen. The evidence required to prove someone cheated at the moment is ridiculous ... it is more than required in a murder investigation. People in the US somehow accept a 4.1% error for murder cases (especially if the person is black)... but for chess it has to be .002%. In chess if you are wrongly accused of cheating ... you just don't play chess in tournaments against other players ... annoying but big deal. For murder you go to death row or spend the rest of your life in prison. Hans Nieman is a white american boy from California ... he has been caught cheating online and his trainer and mentor is an admitted cheater ... and the statistics of his games and progress show a zillion red flags. Yet somehow he is allowed to continue normally because nobody has caught him red handed. This was the same with doping in atheletics and in swimming. You had eastern german women with bodies of men and moustaches, it was obvious that they were on steroids ... yet since the technology was not good enough to catch the cheaters, this continued unabated and those people still have their gold medals! Some other honest athelte who deserved that medal instead was robbed.

Leave it all alone. Hikaru always talks a lot. We are talking about the game Niemann - Carsen. He asks a specific question - did Niemann cheat with Carlsen during the game. Do you have any concrete evidence.

[CornfedForever]

He doesn't want to analyze because he cannot analyze without the help of an engine and doesn't want people to see that.

A little rationality, please.

Even if he 'just a 2500 level player'...heck, even a 1600 level player or less, he could see Qh4 against Carlsen would drop a piece. If I see a bunch of people carrying their lit torches around and jumping all over things like that (like some here have), I would probably refuse to say anything as well. There were plenty of other parts perfectly fine about his analysis...right after the fact of the biggest game of his career. I'd be nervous...sure you would too.

In any case, being the 'underdog' and the one 'under the gun' will fuel many to play their best...so, maybe that's the reason for the return of the 'chess speaks for itself'. Heck, this is arguably the biggest tournament opportunity of his career.

[M ANSARI]

He doesn't want to analyze because he cannot analyze without the help of an engine and doesn't want people to see that. Whethere it is a strange quirk in his personality or it is because he is cheating ... that is the question. I sure hope that he is not still cheating ... because if he is, then we can kiss Chess as a viable spectator sport ... goodbye. Due to his past he will always be suspect ... I guess he earned that and I really feel zero sympathy for such a creep. Hikaru mentions something very reasonable ... either he is the best player in the history of chess or he is a cheater. Cheating and not getting caught doesn't mean it didn't happen. The evidence required to prove someone cheated at the moment is ridiculous ... it is more than required in a murder investigation. People in the US somehow accept a 4.1% error for murder cases (especially if the person is black)... but for chess it has to be .002%. In chess if you are wrongly accused of cheating ... you just don't play chess in tournaments against other players ... annoying but big deal. For murder you go to death row or spend the rest of your life in prison. Hans Nieman is a white american boy from California ... he has been caught cheating online and his trainer and mentor is an admitted cheater ... and the statistics of his games and progress show a zillion red flags. Yet somehow he is allowed to continue normally because nobody has caught him red handed. This was the same with doping in atheletics and in swimming. You had eastern german women with bodies of men and moustaches, it was obvious that they were on steroids ... yet since the technology was not good enough to catch the cheaters, this continued unabated and those people still have their gold medals! Some other honest athelte who deserved that medal instead was robbed.

Agreed, but the 'where is the prove' part should be the responsibility of the organizers. As a player your job should be to focus on the game alone.

Actually that is a good point! Imagine how the players facing Hans must feel. I am sure that they will not play the same way they would if they had no suspicions that their opponent is cheating. They have no idea if they are playing a human or playing SF 15 NNUE unleashed. Apparently, it is tough luck for them and they just have to accept it.

[Uri Blass]

He doesn't want to analyze because he cannot analyze without the help of an engine and doesn't want people to see that. Whethere it is a strange quirk in his personality or it is because he is cheating ... that is the question. I sure hope that he is not still cheating ... because if he is, then we can kiss Chess as a viable spectator sport ... goodbye. Due to his past he will always be suspect ... I guess he earned that and I really feel zero sympathy for such a creep. Hikaru mentions something very reasonable ... either he is the best player in the history of chess or he is a cheater. Cheating and not getting caught doesn't mean it didn't happen. The evidence required to prove someone cheated at the moment is ridiculous ... it is more than required in a murder investigation. People in the US somehow accept a 4.1% error for murder cases (especially if the person is black)... but for chess it has to be .002%. In chess if you are wrongly accused of cheating ... you just don't play chess in tournaments against other players ... annoying but big deal. For murder you go to death row or spend the rest of your life in prison. Hans Nieman is a white american boy from California ... he has been caught cheating online and his trainer and mentor is an admitted cheater ... and the statistics of his games and progress show a zillion red flags. Yet somehow he is allowed to continue normally because nobody has caught him red handed. This was the same with doping in atheletics and in swimming. You had eastern german women with bodies of men and moustaches, it was obvious that they were on steroids ... yet since the technology was not good enough to catch the cheaters, this continued unabated and those people still have their gold medals! Some other honest athelte who deserved that medal instead was robbed.

Agreed, but the 'where is the prove' part should be the responsibility of the organizers. As a player your job should be to focus on the game alone.

Actually that is a good point! Imagine how the players facing Hans must feel. I am sure that they will not play the same way they would if they had no suspicions that their opponent is cheating. They have no idea if they are playing a human or playing SF 15 NNUE unleashed. Apparently, it is tough luck for them and they just have to accept it.

I do not think the opponents should play in a different way only because they suspect their opponent is cheating but it is possible that hans does not cheat OTB but want them to believe he is cheating because of thinking it is going to reduce their level of play.

[Alexander Schmidt]

The fact that he had cheated earlier was admitted by himself. The fact that he poorly analyzed his game after the game does not mean that he cheated. You have to have hard evidence.

A hard evidence for one game is impossible beside catching one red handed. Everything is possible in one game.

But you can generate hard evidence by analyzing many games and by statistical analysis of his moves. That's what is done right now, and what is published so far don't look good for Niemann. It's not just the feeling of Carlsen in one game. It's the reasonable skepticism of several other GM's. It's Niemanns inability to explain his own games, a chess commentator who outplays Niemann in his analysis of his own game, the "average cp loss", the standard deviation of the quality of his moves, his cheating history, his dishonesty, his "coach" and so on. I am not talking about the analysis of single moves. It might be reason for skepticism and more research, but never an evidence.

[Graham Banks]

The fact that he had cheated earlier was admitted by himself. The fact that he poorly analyzed his game after the game does not mean that he cheated. You have to have hard evidence.

A hard evidence for one game is impossible beside catching one red handed. Everything is possible in one game.

But you can generate hard evidence by analyzing many games and by statistical analysis of his moves. That's what is done right now, and what is published so far don't look good for Niemann. It's not just the feeling of Carlsen in one game. It's the reasonable skepticism of several other GM's. It's Niemanns inability to explain his own games, a chess commentator who outplays Niemann in his analysis of his own game, the "average cp loss", the standard deviation of the quality of his moves, his cheating history, his dishonesty, his "coach" and so on. I am not talking about the analysis of single moves. It might be reason for skepticism and more research, but never an evidence.

I'm not really comfortable without physical evidence.
Like the old adage goes - there are statistics, statistics and damned lies.

It's a bit like convicting somebody of horse-stealing, but there's no horse.

[Krzysztof Grzelak]

A hard evidence for one game is impossible beside catching one red handed. Everything is possible in one game.

But you can generate hard evidence by analyzing many games and by statistical analysis of his moves. That's what is done right now, and what is published so far don't look good for Niemann. It's not just the feeling of Carlsen in one game. It's the reasonable skepticism of several other GM's. It's Niemanns inability to explain his own games, a chess commentator who outplays Niemann in his analysis of his own game, the "average cp loss", the standard deviation of the quality of his moves, his cheating history, his dishonesty, his "coach" and so on. I am not talking about the analysis of single moves. It might be reason for skepticism and more research, but never an evidence.

If there is no hard evidence - then let's not write stupid things. Statistics and analysis are not enough. I remind everyone once again before they start writing nonsense - please read about the case of the FIDE champion Patrycja Waszczuk.

[dkappe]

I'm not really comfortable without physical evidence.
Like the old adage goes - there are statistics, statistics and damned lies.

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.

— Benjamin Disraeli

[CornfedForever]

A hard evidence for one game is impossible beside catching one red handed. Everything is possible in one game.

But you can generate hard evidence by analyzing many games and by statistical analysis of his moves. That's what is done right now, and what is published so far don't look good for Niemann. It's not just the feeling of Carlsen in one game. It's the reasonable skepticism of several other GM's. It's Niemanns inability to explain his own games, a chess commentator who outplays Niemann in his analysis of his own game, the "average cp loss", the standard deviation of the quality of his moves, his cheating history, his dishonesty, his "coach" and so on. I am not talking about the analysis of single moves. It might be reason for skepticism and more research, but never an evidence.

If there is no hard evidence - then let's not write stupid things. Statistics and analysis are not enough. I remind everyone once again before they start writing nonsense - please read about the case of the FIDE champion Patrycja Waszczuk.

+1
To Graham's point, I am also reminded of another quote about Statistics...Mark Twain if I recall, "Statistics are like ladies of the night, once you get them down, you can do anything with them."

And some of you are.

In any case, I feel almost ashamed posting on this thread sometimes as some of the adults have left the room leaving the children run it. Perhaps I like lost causes...

[dkappe]

https://chess24.com/de/lesen/news/FIDE- ... -ermitteln

From Klaus Deventer, a member of the FIDE FairPlay commission.

Gibt es genügend Fakten, die einen Betrugsvorwurf rechtfertigen? Wenn wir zu dem Ergebnis kommen, dass das der Fall ist, würden wir entsprechend Anklage bei der Ethik- und Disziplinarkommission der FIDE erheben. Wir würden aber auch prüfen, ob eine falsche Beschuldigung vorliegt. Auch das würden wir dann gegebenenfalls zur Anzeige bringen.

In English:

Are there enough facts to justify an allegation of fraud? If we come to the conclusion that this is the case, we would file suit with the FIDE Ethics and Disciplinary Committee. But we would also check whether there was a false accusation. We would also report that if necessary.

So, there is some risk to Carlsen. If Niemann hasn’t cheated OTB, then Carlsen will have to deal with the ethics and disciplinary committee for making false accusations. Time will tell.