Chess grandmaster Hans Niemann sues champion Magnus Carlsen, others for $100 million over cheating claim

[syzygy]

If that is not very clear or more direct, then I don't know what is.

"I believe that he has cheated more - and more recently - then he has publicly admitted."

Good luck trying to prove that Carlsen did not believe this.

"through our game ... I had the impression that he wasn't tense or even fully concentrating on the game in critical positions"

Good lucky trying to prove that Carlsen did not have that impression. I only saw some photos, but those did little to contradict that Carlsen may have had that impression.

"This game contributed to changing my perspective."

I'm sure it did.

"I hope that the truth on this matter comes out, whatever it may be."

Well said, Magnus.

Magnus has nothing to fear.

[dkappe]

It started when Carlsen later implicitly stated "He has cheated, and cheated more" or something along the line.

He should have simply left it with the cryptic tweet alone and went the Vasik Rajilich- mode of keeping quiet the entire time. That cryptic tweet itself exploded throughout the media far more than his later accusation. Niemann wouldn't have any chance to do anything with just that tweet about some random footballer.

In my view it clearly started with the withdrawal plus not-so-cryptic tweet.

The later statement that Hans had cheated and had cheated more often than publicly already known was factually correct.

To win, Niemann has to:
1. prove that some statement was false
2. prove that Carlsen (or Nakamura or chess.com) knew it was false or had no reason to believe it was true
3. prove that this statement resulted in the damage he claims.

The admitted/proven cheating seems already sufficient to cause most of the damage. Carlsen is fully in his rights not to wish to play against someone with such a track record. Just like e.g. Keymer is in his rights not to wish to play Niemann.

You missed some of the other claims.

17. Accordingly, Niemann asserts the following claims against Defendants: (1) slander; (2) libel; (3) unlawful group boycott under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, et. seq.; (4) tortious interference with contract and business expectancies; and (5) civil conspiracy.

I do remember the Sherman Act (passed in 1890) from junior high, but that’s about it. Something about anti trust. Also not sure what the legal difference is between slander, libel and defamation. #4 and #5 look juicy.

[syzygy]

You missed some of the other claims.

17. Accordingly, Niemann asserts the following claims against Defendants: (1) slander; (2) libel; (3) unlawful group boycott under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, et. seq.; (4) tortious interference with contract and business expectancies; and (5) civil conspiracy.

I do remember the Sherman Act (passed in 1890) from junior high, but that’s about it. Something about anti trust. Also not sure what the legal difference is between slander and defamation. #4 and #5 look juicy.

Yes, the Sherman Act is about antitrust. I guess Niemann's point is that Carlsen has a monopoly position, abuses it, and now needs to be split up

I'm sure Carlsen's decision not to play Niemann in the future has a much bigger impact on Niemann's chess career than the same decision by any other player. But Carlsen cannot force anyone to take the same decision, and there are still many tournaments in which Carlsen does not play.
(It is an interesting question what the situation would be if Carlsen declared that he would no longer play, say, Karjakin. That would hamper Karjakin's ability to play in tournaments, but I don't believe he could sue Carlsen.)

Maybe invoking the Sherman Act makes more sense in his case against chess.com. Perhaps there are cases where competition law was invoked against doping bans issued by sports federations (chess.com is a de facto online chess federation, I guess). I would think anti-cheat rules are certainly compatible with competition law (allowing players to cheat would destroy the sport), but there should probably be a fair procedure to fight any sanctions (which chess.com might not offer). But the main focus of Niemann's lawsuit does not seem to be his online chess.com career.

Defamation/slander/libel:

In contemporary common law jurisdictions, to constitute defamation, a claim must generally be false and must have been made to someone other than the person defamed. Some common law jurisdictions distinguish between spoken defamation, called slander, and defamation in other media such as printed words or images, called libel. The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, such as spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures or the like, then it is slander.

So libel is defamation in written form, slander is defamation in oral form.
It is not clear to me why Niemann would sue Carlsen for slander. Even his tweets are not "fleeting".

(4) and (5) seem to be a bit out there, but I should look into the complaint again before commenting more.

[syzygy]

Did Carlsen present any evidence that Nielman cheated in the fateful game at the St. Louis tournament? So far he hasn't shown anything. What we have so far is Carlsen crying and crying doesn't win lawsuits.

You can't be sued in court for crying.

[syzygy]

If that is not very clear or more direct, then I don't know what is.

The point is, Magnus said "he believes Niemann cheated more than he admitted" what Chess.com confirms. Regarding OTB, Magnus only talks about his impressions. The justice system in my country won't convict someone for his believes or impressions. So the only question is, how will this be judged in the U.S.

I think it will backfire for Niemann. It is easy to destroy his credibility because of his cheating past. He still says he didn't cheat lately, but chess.com has some good evidence for that, at least for online cheating in tournaments with price money.

Beside that, Magnus just has to proof, that the rumors where there before the Sinquefield Cup, so he just repeated something several others say since years. That can't be defamation de jure.

Well...if someone continues to 'insinuate' they believe you are a pedophile in public/print (but don't actually say it...maybe they intentionally mispell the word) and that leads to you being unable to get a job of your choice...or contracts being pulled...invites being rescinded, etc, etc. due to their willful, public implications... I would hope for your sake that this 'justice system' in your country would be more attuned to what is actually going on.

Magnus has clearly tied Hans past online cheating with OTB play when he says "His over the board progress has been unusual, and throughout our game in the Singuefield Cup I had the impression he wasn't tense or even fully concentrating on the game in crucial positions, while outplaying me as black in a way I think only a handful of players can do. This game contributed to changing my persepective"

So...change a few things round...throw in a word like pedophile instead of cheating and tell me what this justice system in your country should say if you went to them with a complaint.

It is ABUNDANTLY clear that Carlsen believes that Niemann has cheated OTB and that Carlsen suspects that Niemann has cheated against him. I don't think anyone is disputing it. This is not the issue.

The issue is: So what?

Carlsen has made clear on what basis he has come to these personal beliefs and suspicions. Like anyone, Carlsen is entitled to his opinions, beliefs and suspicions. Everybody else is free to make up their own mind.

Some other GMs are expressing their belief that Carlsen is just a bad loser. That is their opinion and Carlsen won't sue them over it.

[syzygy]

Carlsen has made clear on what basis he has come to these personal beliefs and suspicions. Like anyone, Carlsen is entitled to his opinions, beliefs and suspicions. Everybody else is free to make up their own mind.

For defamation Niemann has to show that Carlsen's beliefs and suspicions were false and that Carlsen knew that they were false or at the very least baseless. Good luck to Niemann.

[Modern Times]

For defamation Niemann has to show that Carlsen's beliefs and suspicions were false and that Carlsen knew that they were false or at the very least baseless. Good luck to Niemann.

Seems unjust if the law works like that. I'd have thought that Carlsen would have to provide evidence and proof of his statements. Onus should be on Carlsen to prove his accusations are correct, not for Nieman to prove that they are not. If Carlen can't prove his accusations, then the defamation action should succeed. Up to the courts to decide the issue, it will be interesting.

[mclane]

Ein sack niemann reis in china

[syzygy]

For defamation Niemann has to show that Carlsen's beliefs and suspicions were false and that Carlsen knew that they were false or at the very least baseless. Good luck to Niemann.

Seems unjust if the law works like that. I'd have thought that Carlsen would have to provide evidence and proof of his statements. Onus should be on Carlsen to prove his accusations are correct, not for Nieman to prove that they are not. If Carlen can't prove his accusations, then the defamation action should succeed. Up to the courts to decide the issue, it will be interesting.

We already know on what Carlsen based his suspicion. There is nothing left for him to prove.

If he had said "I have hard evidence that Niemann cheated in our game" or "Niemann showed me his beads", then it might be different. But he has only truthfully stated that he has suspicions and that he hopes that in the end the truth will come out "whatever it may be".

[syzygy]

The way he runs his criminal organization, I would say has inspired the way I think about chess.