FIDE Judgement In The Carlsen / Niemann Case

[towforce]

1. Niemann is not guilty of cheating over the board

2. Carlsen is guilty of not following the correct procedure on suspecting an opponent of cheating, and has been fined €10,000

Summary of the judgement: https://www.fide.com/news/2795

The full judgement: https://ethics.fide.com/wp-content/uplo ... _final.pdf

[syzygy]

1. Niemann is not guilty of cheating over the board

2. Carlsen is guilty of not following the correct procedure on suspecting an opponent of cheating, and has been fined €10,000

Summary of the judgement: https://www.fide.com/news/2795

The full judgement: https://ethics.fide.com/wp-content/uplo ... _final.pdf

It seems the judgement is concerned only with point 2. There was no ethics case against Niemann (as far as I can tell).

The EDC Chamber held that GM Carlsen’s suspicions of cheating were based on reasonable grounds despite the ultimate conclusion that GM Niemann had not made himself guilty of over-the-board cheating. The reasonableness of GM Carlsen’s belief rested upon GM Niemann’s own confession of online cheating, and a report released by Chess.com.

18 Accordingly, and taking into account all of the above, the EDC Chamber unanimously decides as follows:
18.1 The Respondent GM Magnus Carlsen is found not guilty of a breach of Articles 11.7(f) and 11.9(f) of the FIDE Disciplinary Code.
18.2 The Respondent is found not guilty of a breach of article 11.6(b) of the FIDE Disciplinary Code.
18.3 The Respondent is found not guilty of a breach of article 11.9(j) of the FIDE Disciplinary Code.
18.4 The Respondent is found guilty of Article 11.9(b) of the FIDE Disciplinary Code.
18.5 The Respondent is fined 10,000 (ten thousand) Euros payable to FIDE’s financial department within 30 days of the date of this decision.

Article 11.9(b):

Withdrawal from tournaments: Players withdrawing from a tournament without valid reason or without informing the tournament arbiter;

Duh.

So Carlsen should have told the arbiter he had a headache.

[syzygy]

So Carlsen was found not guilty of:

Reckless or manifestly unfounded accusation of chess cheating: Any player or official who, or National Federation which, makes public or private allegations of cheating against another player or official without acceptable grounds existing for a reasonable suspicion of cheating; provided that a player is not precluded from reporting in private to an arbiter or anti-cheating official during a competition any suspicion of cheating by another person for the purposes of monitoring the behaviour of such person.

Misconduct towards a Competition Official: Any person subject to this Code who acts improperly towards an Arbiter or other Competition Official or engages in misconduct towards an Arbiter or other Competition Official, in particular (but not limited to) unsporting behaviour, physical assault, verbal abuse or threatening behaviour.

Disparagement of FIDE's Reputation and Interests: Any action which is held by the EDC to have adversely affected the reputation or interests of FIDE, its Continents or National Federations, either internally amongst its National Federations and Continents or externally amongst the general public or which has harmed the image of chess generally.

Attempt to Undermine Honour: Any person who attempts to undermine the honour of another person subject to this Code in any way, especially by using offensive language, gestures or signs.

[CornfedForever]

The EDC Chamber held that GM Carlsen’s suspicions of cheating were based on reasonable grounds despite the ultimate conclusion that GM Niemann had not made himself guilty of over-the-board cheating. The reasonableness of GM Carlsen’s belief rested upon GM Niemann’s own confession of online cheating, and a report released by Chess.com.

It's been a minute...didn't "Niemann's own confession of online cheating" come in an interview AFTER Carlsen withdrew? The wording flat out indicates something that happened AFTER Carlsen withdrew caused/justified what he did in withdrawing. The cart cannot come before the horse. Come to think of it, the chess.com report also came AFTER Magnus withdrew.

Something is worded badly somewhere.

In any case, I do find the contrast between the Chess.com and Chessbase.com headlines interesting:

Chessbase: FIDE Ethics Commission fines Carlsen 10,000 euros

Chess.com: Carlsen Not Guilty on 3/4 Counts in Niemann Ruling, Fine 10,000 for Withdrawl

I'm sure some organization somewhere probably said something like: Carlsen found guilt on 1 of 4 counts and find 10,000 euro. If the chess.com heading had said it that way, he probably would have given Danny the finger and told him to not look to him for anything any longer. Even thought it would have been saying the very same thing.

[syzygy]

It's been a minute...didn't "Niemann's own confession of online cheating" come in an interview AFTER Carlsen withdrew? The wording flat out indicates something that happened AFTER Carlsen withdrew caused/justified what he did in withdrawing. The cart cannot come before the horse. Come to think of it, the chess.com report also came AFTER Magnus withdrew.

Something is worded badly somewhere.

I think you may be mixing up the timeline. Carlsen suggested that Niemann had been cheating only some time after he had withdrawn.

[CornfedForever]

It's been a minute...didn't "Niemann's own confession of online cheating" come in an interview AFTER Carlsen withdrew? The wording flat out indicates something that happened AFTER Carlsen withdrew caused/justified what he did in withdrawing. The cart cannot come before the horse. Come to think of it, the chess.com report also came AFTER Magnus withdrew.

Something is worded badly somewhere.

I think you may be mixing up the timeline. Carlsen suggested that Niemann had been cheating only some time after he had withdrawn.

No, that's what I'm saying - Hans saying he cheated online AND the chess.com report all happened AFTER Magnus withdrew.

[syzygy]

It's been a minute...didn't "Niemann's own confession of online cheating" come in an interview AFTER Carlsen withdrew? The wording flat out indicates something that happened AFTER Carlsen withdrew caused/justified what he did in withdrawing. The cart cannot come before the horse. Come to think of it, the chess.com report also came AFTER Magnus withdrew.

Something is worded badly somewhere.

I think you may be mixing up the timeline. Carlsen suggested that Niemann had been cheating only some time after he had withdrawn.

No, that's what I'm saying - Hans saying he cheated online AND the chess.com report all happened AFTER Magnus withdrew.

1. Carlsen was fined for withdrawing.
2. Carlsen was not fined for accusing Niemann of cheating.

Niemann's confession played no role in 1, Carlsen was fined for withdrawing in case you did notice.
It did play a role in 2.

The only way to make sense of your original statement is that you assume that Carlsen's accusation coincided in time with his withdrawal. My point is that the timeline was different.

[CornfedForever]

The EDC Chamber held that GM Carlsen’s suspicions of cheating were based on reasonable grounds despite the ultimate conclusion that GM Niemann had not made himself guilty of over-the-board cheating. The reasonableness of GM Carlsen’s belief rested upon GM Niemann’s own confession of online cheating, and a report released by Chess.com.

But they (well, could be you as I was quoting your words) are saying Carlsen's suspicion was based on....something he himself did not know until AFTER he played the game he lost and then withdrew. Unless Magus is psychic, his suspicion could not have been based on the statement Hans made on camera which happened AFTER Magnus had withdrawn.

So, just sayin', they...or you have a clumsily worded statement there. Or...Magnus is psychic.

[Graham Banks]

The EDC registered the case on 20 February 2023 and informed GM Carlsen accordingly. GM Carlsen was called upon to defend himself against charges of the violation of the Ethics and Disciplinary Code, more particularly Art. 11.7(f) [reckless or manifestly unfounded accusation of chess cheating], alternatively Art. 11.9(j) [attempt to undermine honor], as well as Art. 11.6(b) [disparagement of FIDE’s reputation and interests] and Art. 11.9(b) [withdrawal from tournament without valid reason].

...the EDC First Instance Chamber (consisting of Yolander Sammy as chairperson, and Khaled Arfa and Pedro Dominguez as members) found Mr. Carlsen not guilty on the first three charges, but guilty on the last charge. The EDC Chamber held that GM Carlsen’s suspicions of cheating were based on reasonable grounds despite the ultimate conclusion that GM Niemann had not made himself guilty of over-the-board cheating. The reasonableness of GM Carlsen’s belief rested upon GM Niemann’s own confession of online cheating, and a report released by Chess.com.

The EDC held that GM Carlsen’s withdrawal from the Sinquefield Cup was without valid reason and that if he had had concerns about the fair play of his opponent, he should have followed the prescribed procedure of making a confidential in-tournament cheating complaint to the organizers. In light of GM Carlsen’s status as the foremost chess player in the world with a considerable influence and following, his withdrawal set a bad example for other chess players and he is therefore given a fine of 10,000 Euros.

[syzygy]

The EDC Chamber held that GM Carlsen’s suspicions of cheating were based on reasonable grounds despite the ultimate conclusion that GM Niemann had not made himself guilty of over-the-board cheating. The reasonableness of GM Carlsen’s belief rested upon GM Niemann’s own confession of online cheating, and a report released by Chess.com.

But they (well, could be you as I was quoting your words) are saying Carlsen's suspicion was based on....something he himself did not know until AFTER he played the game he lost and then withdrew. Unless Magus is psychic, his suspicion could not have been based on the statement Hans made on camera which happened AFTER Magnus had withdrawn.

So, just sayin', they...or you have a clumsily worded statement there. Or...Magnus is psychic.

This should not be difficult.

Whether Carlsen's suspicion was reasonable is relevant to the question whether he is guilty of "Reckless or manifestly unfounded accusation of chess cheating". He did not make the accusation when he withdrew but only later. When he made his accusation he referred to Niemann's admitted cheating and to further information which turned out to be the Chess.com report.

And if you think that Carlsen should have had a reasonable suspicion when he withdrew, then well, he did get fined for withdrawing. It should not need to be mentioned that the EDC Chamber did not argue "reasonable suspicion" to justify imposing that fine.