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

[supersharp77]

Point #1 Prove That Some Statements Made Were False...Well Hans N. can Argue He just Played The USA Champs & played at a 2699 level and no "cheat devices" Found....Point #2 Prove Magnus Hikaru & Chess.com etc knowingly made false stmts...(Tough to Prove but not impossible) Point #3 Prove Hans was damaged by the cheat claims (Should be easy to prove in court). #4 Unlawful Group boycott...(Not too hard to prove...lost tourneys...cancellations etc). #5 Contract Interferance (restraint of Trade..Lost Income) Not too hard to prove but must prove Multimillion dollars Of lost income (Very Hard!!) #6 Civil Conspiracy...They will look at Social media chatter...News Articles..Reddit Posts...You tube videos etc...(Infinitely Provable)! Hans Niemann has got a GREAT SHOT but of Course if They (Magnus & Co.) can prove he Cheated OTB then Hans Case is BUST!!

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.

[Alexander Schmidt]

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.

That's not correct. If I say, you robbed a bank, you don't go to jail, just because you can't prove the opposite. Carlsen has to prove that he is right in what he said. But Carlsen said: "I believe Niemann cheated more than he admitted." and "I had the impression...". Both is the truth, there is no doubt.

You can't be sued in court for crying.

Only Hans is crying right now, because Magnus don't want to play with him.

[M ANSARI]

Carlsen said he thought Hans was cheating more than he admitted. He based that on the Hans previous cheating and on Hans statistical progression in chess strength which does not make sense or at least is historically grossly abnormal. Magnus Carlsen has the right to suspect his opponent is cheating and there is no law against that, especially if that person is an admitted serial cheater. In court they might ask for expert witnesses to see if MC was exagerrating ... well the number 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 and 5 players in the world, all thought that some of the OTB games by Nieman were very suspect ... so MC suspicions were definetly not baseless.

Defamation is when you defame someone for doing something he didn't do. MC and Chess.com have accused Hans Nieman of cheating and Hans Nieman has admitted he cheated. MC never mentioned OTB or online when he accused Hans of cheating so he doesn't have to prove anything ... Hans admitted to cheating ... end of story there. So for the suit to succeed Hans Nieman has to retract his statements that he cheated and say that is was either done under duress or due to other reasons (like Dlugy did). He has to change his story and say that he has never actually cheated. Good luck with that!

As for MC not wanting to play with Hans ... guess what ... he has a right to not want to play with someone with a cheating history! Also guess what ... private chess organizers can decide who they want to invite to play in their tournaments. They are NOT obliged to have Hans participate in their money tournaments if they feel he is a disgusting creep, cheat and fraud!

[Henk]

Can't even wear sex toys anymore while playing chess. What a world we live in.

[supersharp77]

Well Ansari When Mr Niemann has chosen a "Career" as A 'GM Professional Chess Player' & you (World Champion) say you won't play with him in a Chess Tournament(s) then You Potentially Limit his ability to make a Living/Income... "Restraint Of Trade"... Posting You tube videos & Mathematical Dissertations/Written Statements/Reddit/Twitter posts on Hans Cheating some Lawyers/People might consider this "Civil Conspiracy"

"Civil conspiracy is an agreement between two or more parties to commit an unlawful or wrongful act that injures a third party."
"Restraint of trade is a type of economic injury that involves meddling with someone else's ability to conduct business freely."
(Ex..FatFritz2.. Chessbase)

Carlsen said he thought Hans was cheating more than he admitted. He based that on the Hans previous cheating and on Hans statistical progression in chess strength which does not make sense or at least is historically grossly abnormal. Magnus Carlsen has the right to suspect his opponent is cheating and there is no law against that, especially if that person is an admitted serial cheater. In court they might ask for expert witnesses to see if MC was exagerrating ... well the number 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 and 5 players in the world, all thought that some of the OTB games by Nieman were very suspect ... so MC suspicions were definetly not baseless.
As for MC not wanting to play with Hans ... guess what ... he has a right to not want to play with someone with a cheating history! Also guess what ... private chess organizers can decide who they want to invite to play in their tournaments. They are NOT obliged to have Hans participate in their money tournaments if they feel he is a disgusting creep, cheat and fraud!

[Chessqueen]

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.

That's not correct. If I say, you robbed a bank, you don't go to jail, just because you can't prove the opposite. Carlsen has to prove that he is right in what he said. But Carlsen said: "I believe Niemann cheated more than he admitted." and "I had the impression...". Both is the truth, there is no doubt.

You can't be sued in court for crying.

Only Hans is crying right now, because Magnus don't want to play with him.

If I was GM Hans, I would be full of Joys knowing that his lawyer would NOT have accepted to represent him unless he knows that they would at least get 25% of what they are suing for .Play Magnus Group accepted US$82.9m takeover bid from Chess.com+ Plus his Networth was equal to 50,000,000 before he sold his business Total Networth 132.000,000 Millions, therefore, Hans only want a little bit of his fortune for embarrassing and defaming him, and his lawyer only wants 33% of the total lawsuit, since In the majority of cases most lawyers in the USA will receive 33% (or one-third) of any settlement or award, which includes investigation etc..
https://www.sportspromedia.com/news/pla ... ver-worth/
https://wealthygorilla.com/magnus-carlsen-net-worth/
https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/ar ... -chess-com

[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.

That's not correct. If I say, you robbed a bank, you don't go to jail, just because you can't prove the opposite.

That is different. Indeed the state will have to prove that I robbed a bank before they can jail me. But we are talking about claiming damages for defamation.

In the US:

To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation

(If you accuse me of robbing a bank, which is a crime, then the fact that the police is not investigating me is probably sufficient to show that the statement is false (unless you have proof, etc.). But cheating in chess is not going to be investigated by the police.)

As for Hans, most if not all of the damage is caused by the revelation that he cheated 100x online. As far as I am aware, this is just a fact.

The public speculation by Magnus that Hans also cheated against him OTB... everybody can make up their own mind on that. What is clear is that Magnus does not trust Hans. Is it wrong for Magnus to say that? I don't think it is.

Carlsen has to prove that he is right in what he said. But Carlsen said: "I believe Niemann cheated more than he admitted." and "I had the impression...". Both is the truth, there is no doubt.

I have looked a bit more in the "only an opinion" argument. Formulating something as an opinion apparently does not automatically avoid liability for defamation.

The "I believe that Niemann has cheated more - and more recently - than he has publicly admitted" sentence is probably not just an opinion but an allegation. There is an insinuation that Carlsen knows more. However, the allegation seems to be fully correct, so Carlsen should be fine here.

The "cheating OTB" part, in my reading of Carlsen's statement, is still clearly Carlsen's opinion based on a number of stated facts.

Topalov once accused Kramnik of cheating based on the number of times Kramnik visited the toilet.
Was this defamation?
In my view it was not. It was clear what fact Topalov based the accusation on, and this fact was not in dispute. Does a high number of toilet visits indicate cheating? Make up your own mind.

Carlsen accused Niemann of cheating based on (1) a proven pattern of online cheating, (2) his OTB progress, and (3) Niemann's demeanour during the game.
The difference with Topalov's accusation is that (1) puts Niemann in a particularly bad light (and caused most if not all of Niemann's damage). But that is not Carlsen's fault.
Otherwise, the situation seems perfectly comparable.

[Alexander Schmidt]

I have looked a bit more in the "only an opinion" argument. Formulating something as an opinion apparently does not automatically avoid liability for defamation.

Thanks a lot for this detailed explanation, much appreciated.

[syzygy]

Topalov once accused Kramnik of cheating based on the number of times Kramnik visited the toilet.
Was this defamation?
In my view it was not. It was clear what fact Topalov based the accusation on, and this fact was not in dispute. Does a high number of toilet visits indicate cheating? Make up your own mind.

I did not know that Kramnik won an ethics complaint against Topalov, and I also was not aware of the ferocity of Topalov's accusations.
https://en.chessbase.com/post/fide-ethi ... ov#topalov

Mr. Veselin Topalov had the right to lodge a complaint to the Appeals Committee and even to report any suspicion on his opponent’s behaviour to the Appeals Committee for it to make a ruling.

“Coincidence Statistics” could be a reason for a suspicion, even if nothing more. But to present these “Coincidence Statistics” in a press release was just an indirect accusation of cheating not addressed to the competent organ. This was an accusation without any evidence and, therefore, unjustified, and an accusation that was damaging, or potentially, to Mr. Vladimir Kramnik’s reputation. There was consequently a violation of art. 2.2.9 and 2.2.11 of the FIDE Code of Ethics.

So Topalov should have informed the Appeals Committee of his concerns and not gone public with the cheating accusation. That makes a lot of sense from the point of view of the FIDE Ethics Commission. (But Topalov's responsibility for the press release was only considered to be "minor".)

The press release: https://en.chessbase.com/post/silvio-da ... ng-fritz-9

After the mach Topalov stated in an interview in Spanish:

"The Kremlin will never admit that they poisoned the Russian spy, which seems obvious, nor will Kramnik admit that he cheated", "(Do you think Kramnik continued to cheat after the scandal was exposed?) Personally, I think so and I think the new method was better. ... (Also in the tie-break?) There they had a system that didn't fail. In the fourth game, even when he had me beaten, Kramnik made a move that only a machine can think of. Then he was entitled to a rest day, but he didn't even ask for it. If you're going to get moves passed to you, you'd better play sooner rather than later. But they did a better job than the botched cable job. If it goes on like this, with the technology of the Russians, Kramnik will be unbeatable in a match.

That is quite strong.

These statements were clearly defamatory and damaged the honour of Mr. Vladimir Kramnik, harming his personal and professional reputation.

Mr. Veselin Topalov, in his defence, asked the EC to give him more time to present further evidence, probably to submit an “exceptio veritatis”, to prove his statements were true in substance. But, first of all the Defendant has had more than sufficient time for this and, after the information communicated to him on 23rd April 2007 by the EC, he did not present any document or evidence. Secondly, when he gave the interview in December 2006 he had no any new evidence at all. And in any case the substance of his communication was not even limited to the 2006 World Chess Championship in Elista, but went further, declaring that Mr. Vladimir Kramnik cheated during the match and will cheat in future matches. Thus, there is no justification for his behaviour.

Mr. Veselin Topalov conduct was likely to injure and discredit Mr. Vladimir Kramnik’s reputation, thus Mr. Veselin Topalov violated art. 2.11 of FIDE Code of Ethics.

Could Kramnik have sued Topalov for defamation under US law?

For the press release, I doubt it. It is clear that the publication of the "Coincidence statistics" is an indirect accusation, but the statistics themselves are presumably true. Suppose someone else would have published these statistics together with a suggestion of cheating: would that be defamatory? I don't think so, and I don't think Topalov (or his manager) doing it makes a difference. (It correctly does make a difference for the Ethics Commission.)

For the interview, perhaps yes.


Coming back to Magnus.

Depending on the details of what happened exactly, I suppose the FIDE Ethics Commission might rule that Carlsen should have filed a complaint with FIDE or the tournament organizers instead of withdrawing from the tournament (and publishing the tweet). Carlsen might be able to defend himself by arguing that FIDE has done too little for too long. (I don't know if there have been prior formal complaints about Niemann that we don't know about it.)

The later more complete statement by Carlsen is much more measured in content and tone than Topalov's statement in the interview (and far more backed up by the facts).

[syzygy]

I have looked a bit more in the "only an opinion" argument. Formulating something as an opinion apparently does not automatically avoid liability for defamation.

Thanks a lot for this detailed explanation, much appreciated.

Relevant SCOTUS cases seem to be:
A case from 1974: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gertz_v._ ... Welch,_Inc.

Since the majority opinion emphatically stated that there was "no such thing as a false idea," observers and libel law experts expected the court to define an opinion privilege against libel the next time an appropriate case came up.

A case from 1990: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milkovich ... Journal_Co.

Observers and First Amendment law experts had expected that the Court would formalize its observation in Gertz that "there is no such thing as a false idea" into an opinion privilege against libel claims, expanding the traditional fair comment defense. They were taken aback when it declined to, instead suggesting that the constitutional safeguards it had already erected were enough to protect statements of opinion from being actionable.

(...)

Dissent
"The majority does not rest its decision today on any finding that the statements at issue explicitly state a false and defamatory fact. Nor could it," wrote Justice Brennan in his dissent. He and Justice Marshall agreed with the lower courts that there was sufficient indication that the column was opinion to protect it as such: it was on the sports page, it had a picture of the author with "TD Says" in it, and in the text itself, "Diadiun not only reveals the facts upon which he is relying, but he makes it clear at which point he runs out of facts and is simply guessing." (...)

The argument in the dissent corresponds to mine: as long as you make clear what facts you rely on and where you are only speculating, it should be fine. Obviously a dissent is not the law, but I suspect the majority did not disagree with the argument (but with the dissenters' interpretation of the statements at issue.

State interpretations

State courts responded by filling in the gap, grounding an opinion privilege in their own constitutions. New York's ruled that as long as an opinion relied on accurately stated and reported facts, it was not actionable as long as the content, tone and apparent purpose of the statement distinguished it as opinion. This privilege does not apply, however, to any accusations of criminal or illegal activity.

Illinois courts required that the factual basis of a statement must be clearly disclosed for it to qualify as opinion. Any statement of opinion without underlying facts is to be treated as a factual assertion per se. If it implies the existence of undisclosed facts which are false and defamatory, it is actionable. False statements of fact couched in an opinion context are actionable unless clearly set aside by "loose, figurative or hyperbolic language."

Texas applied Milkovich more literally. Prior to it, only statements of fact were actionable. Afterwards, opinions that imply false statements of objective fact were held by at least one court to be unprotected, and it declared that there was no opinion privilege in Texas.

In 1991, a California appellate court, in the case Kahn v. Bower, rejected the claim that a "categorical exception for opinion exists independently under California law".

So New York and Illinois seem to agree that an opinion based on accurately stated facts cannot be defamation.

In practice I suspect there is not so much difference between e.g. Texas and Illinois. Even if an "opinion" based on clearly stated facts is considered to be an accusation, if the facts are true and the conclusion derived from those facts is not unreasonable, I doubt that a claim of defamation will succeed.

But this is only my opinion!