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

[CornfedForever]

In your example you would be violating a law.

You mean in present days I would be violating a law? How about at the height of segregation times in the U.S. I am sure at some point of history this would be perfectly legal. I guess since it was legal at that time it must have been also perfectly ethically OK back then. (i.e.: for sure things can be wrong only after they become illegal )

Sadly, in the US, I think all you have to do is shout "It infringes upon my religious convictions". If your religion has something against people of color, you could probably get away with it. Certainly you can be a bakery and chose to not bake a cake for gay couples because your 'religion' says that is an abomination...and get away with your refusal.

Perhaps the difference there is that you 'could' go to another bakery? I do not recall how that went down. Perhaps Magnus can say he goes to the Church of Once a Cheat, Always a Cheat? I guess then, he could not play with himself (no non-chess insinuation). I heard today of a Redit post from Magnus's account of some 9 yrs ago where he responded to a question with "Once in a while I've used some of my friends accounts and won a couple of games...or a lot..."

Wasn't he older then than Neimann is now??

[syzygy]

And indeed it supports his actual contention quite well.

Not really, the relevant quote from chess.com is "there is nothing in our statistical investigation to raise any red flags regarding Hans’ OTB play and rise."

The "unusual" rise was addressed by chessbase article - nothing of substance in those allegations.

But the actual contention was at the same level. Not enough to count as evidence of cheating. But interesting.

[syzygy]

In your example you would be violating a law.

You mean in present days I would be violating a law? How about at the height of segregation times in the U.S. I am sure at some point of history this would be perfectly legal. I guess since it was legal at that time it must have been also perfectly ethically OK back then. (i.e.: for sure things can be wrong only after they become illegal )

Sure, at the height of segregation you would have gotten away with it. What is your point?

My point was that if Carlsen simply declared he doesn't like some other player and that he won't play him anymore, then that other player won't be awarded any damages if he goes to court. Don't turn this into "ethically bla bla".

[dkappe]

In your example you would be violating a law.

You mean in present days I would be violating a law? How about at the height of segregation times in the U.S. I am sure at some point of history this would be perfectly legal. I guess since it was legal at that time it must have been also perfectly ethically OK back then. (i.e.: for sure things can be wrong only after they become illegal )

Sure, at the height of segregation you would have gotten away with it. What is your point?

My point was that if Carlsen simply declared he doesn't like some other player and that he won't play him anymore, then that other player won't be awarded any damages if he goes to court. Don't turn this into "ethically bla bla".

But it wasn’t just that, was it? Magnus implied that Hans was a cheat. Now I’m not sure how defamation by implication works, especially if Hans’ legal team is able to uncover communication about this in discovery.

We shall see, provided the suit moves ahead.

[syzygy]

Sadly, in the US, I think all you have to do is shout "It infringes upon my religious convictions". If your religion has something against people of color, you could probably get away with it. Certainly you can be a bakery and chose to not bake a cake for gay couples because your 'religion' says that is an abomination...and get away with your refusal.

Perhaps the difference there is that you 'could' go to another bakery? I do not recall how that went down.

In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that the commission had been hostile to the baker's religious views (the commission had compared his view to a defense of slavery or the holocaust). The broader issue was not decided.

But a baker offers commercial services, and a chess player just plays games. I don't think anti-discrimination laws apply to chess players. However, I do not doubt that the FIDE Ethics Commission would ban a player who refuses to play other players on the basis of their skin color.

[syzygy]

In your example you would be violating a law.

You mean in present days I would be violating a law? How about at the height of segregation times in the U.S. I am sure at some point of history this would be perfectly legal. I guess since it was legal at that time it must have been also perfectly ethically OK back then. (i.e.: for sure things can be wrong only after they become illegal )

Sure, at the height of segregation you would have gotten away with it. What is your point?

My point was that if Carlsen simply declared he doesn't like some other player and that he won't play him anymore, then that other player won't be awarded any damages if he goes to court. Don't turn this into "ethically bla bla".

But it wasn’t just that, was it? Magnus implied that Hans was a cheat. Now I’m not sure how defamation by implication works, especially if Hans’ legal team is able to uncover communication about this in discovery.

We shall see, provided the suit moves ahead.

But I was talking about the "Carlsen hurt Niemann's career by not wanting to play him anymore and therefore he must pay" argument, so ignoring the defamation aspect.

Full context:

I think the difference between our positions is largely that you think Magnus can say/do as he wants (as long as he does not directly say something like: "Hans cheats in OTB chess, therefore I will not play him OTB - or, obviously Online)."
Whereas I say he lives in the same ecosystem (not on an island to himself) as Hans and such words/insinuations/actions have an affect on Hans and his ability to play the game OTB.

If Magnus says "I don't like Niemann as a person, and I am not going to play him anymore in the future", then that has an effect on Hans and his ability to play the game, but there is nothing he can do about it.

If only that were the case! I think even Saul Goodman would laugh in your face if you gave him that to go to court with...

Who would be going to court? Not Carlsen.

Do you believe a court would award damages to Niemann? On what basis? Please explain.

It is not good enough that Hans is negatively affected by something that Carlsen does. What Carlsen does that negatively affects Hans has to cross some line. (And I believe the decision not to play someone because you simply don't like him as a person does not cross any legal line. FIDE Ethics Commission might see it differently, but they don't award (huge) damages I believe.)

[CornfedForever]

It is not good enough that Hans is negatively affected by something that Carlsen does. What Carlsen does that negatively affects Hans has to cross some line. (And I believe the decision not to play someone because you simply don't like him as a person does not cross any legal line. FIDE Ethics Commission might see it differently, but they don't award (huge) damages I believe.)

Ummm...indicating that he has cheated against you in OTB FIDE games, without offering evidence....and singling out Hans (of all the online cheats of the world) for refusal to play against...and therefore likely refusal to play in a tournament in which Hans might otherwise get invited... is kind of a big deal.

For that matter, I half way wonder if a Jury might give some weight to the actions of the world governing body of the sport in which both participate if it were to indicate that Magnus has 'crossed a line' with such an internal boycott.

FIDE has already rebuked Magnus for the manner in which he withdrew from the St. Louis tournament and further said "We strongly believe that the world champion has a moral responsibility attached to his status, since he is viewed as a global ambassador of the game" Heck, it even said it would investigate "When the adequate initial proof is provided" and indicated to not follow protocols "can be damaging to a players reputation".

So, it is on record...and I think Magnus has yet to produce any such evidence of OTB cheating.

[Alexander Schmidt]

I notice you cite the relevant chess.com passage as support for your words of .”…but it is more “likely” than Hans cheated than other players” (OTB).
Yet, the passage you cite only mentions patterns which are but “interesting" and “…possible for a rising player approaching 2700”
Did you happen to notice for the just ended US Championship performance (with its 30 min delay and extensive precautions), Hans Pre Tournament rating was: 2699….and his post tournament ‘Performance rating’ came out to be….2699?.

I know, what I cited, you just missed the point. I don't take the chess.com report as an evidence for OTB cheating of Niemann, but it is also wrong to take it as evidence, that Niemann didn't cheat.

They wrote clearly, that there are anomalies. If you translate this to a "likeliness" (i didn't start with this) it means, it is somehow more likely. But I also mentioned, that it isn't a proof for cheating, and that the style of Niemann can cause the anomalies. So where exactly am I wrong?

Give it up. He doesn’t actually read or understand the material, just cites it as supporting his contention.

At least I try to discuss objectively. This is your 4th answer in a row to me without any substance, only personal attacks. Nobody will take you serious if you act like this.

[CornfedForever]

I notice you cite the relevant chess.com passage as support for your words of .”…but it is more “likely” than Hans cheated than other players” (OTB).
Yet, the passage you cite only mentions patterns which are but “interesting" and “…possible for a rising player approaching 2700”
Did you happen to notice for the just ended US Championship performance (with its 30 min delay and extensive precautions), Hans Pre Tournament rating was: 2699….and his post tournament ‘Performance rating’ came out to be….2699?.

I know, what I cited, you just missed the point. I don't take the chess.com report as an evidence for OTB cheating of Niemann, but it is also wrong to take it as evidence, that Niemann didn't cheat.

They wrote clearly, that there are anomalies. If you translate this to a "likeliness" (i didn't start with this) it means, it is somehow more likely. But I also mentioned, that it isn't a proof for cheating, and that the style of Niemann can cause the anomalies. So where exactly am I wrong?

I'm not sure why you say that I 'missed the point'. All I asked is, given what you cite, what you thought about Hans performance at the US Championship....it mirroring his OTB rating and with the extensive security precautions in place.

[mirek]

A completely different question is if Carlsen's refusal to play Niemann by itself means that tournament organisers should refuse to invite Niemann. My answer to that is "no". The mere fact that Carlsen does not want to play Niemann is not good enough. That would be like not inviting Israeli players just because an Iranian player (let's say a higher-ranked Iranian player) refuses to play Israeli players.

Older post but wanted to say I think this analysis is way too optimistic. Almost all of the elite tournaments are round robin events meaning Hans and Magnus would be required to play against each other and since Magnus wouldn't be willing to play the only way how to resolve it would be to agree upfront on the pre-arranged result - and no matter what this result would be (1/2 or loss for Magnus) this would be obviously unfair to other players as it could affect their standings, prizes etc.

Therefore I very much doubt something like this could ever fly on the elite level. The only thing you could imo argue is that the tournament organizers could choose between Carlsen and Niemann and Carlsen never demanded that they have to choose him. However in practice it seems very unlikely that Magnus intended to impose self-ban on events with Niemann and instead his intention was the exact opposite (or one could at least make strong argument that this is how it will be played out in practice most of the time).