Hans Niemann

[chrisw]

Regarding the notion, "Once a criminal, always a criminal": there's a very large number of counter examples (criminals who later became law abiding citizens), so the basic notion is wrong. For people who disapprove of Niemann, the better option might be the "crime so terrible it can never be forgiven" notion.

I think the people who prefer never to see Niemann play chess again are not so much concerned with punishing him but with ensuring that there is no (or less) cheating in future games. If someone has been untrustworthy once, how can we trust him in the future?

But it seems unlikely that Niemann will be "convicted" by FIDE and even if he is, he will not be banned for life.

I wonder if FIDE will consider that cheating in chess outside FIDE events can in principle be a breach of the FIDE ethical rules.

On last point, that would seem doubtful. If one has signed up with FIDE to play in a FIDE event (or one governed by it's rules, as was the case with ICGA and Rybka) then it's a sort of contract with a pre-known set of rules and you can get sanctioned for not playing by the rules - but external events? FIDE didn't make the rules and nobody agreed any rules with FIDE. So.

But, it's possible they have Magnus in the frame because he is FIDE World Champion (an event subject to yet more rules, no doubt) and he could be argued to have brought the game into disrepute etc etc. Is he a FIDE Officer as World Champion? if so, he is definitely in the frame for behaviour, if undesirable.
FIDE have to decide, I would guess they cant really allow someone to use his office (WC) to maliciously harm the chess career of another player. Lots of scope for discussions yeah or nay. Who asked FIDE to investigate btw, or did they take it upon themselves?

[towforce]

If someone has been untrustworthy once, how can we trust him in the future?

You cannot trust anybody: the single biggest problem in economics is the principle-agent problem (link). The biggest single reason why market economies are usually more successful than planned economies is because they reduce (but don't eliminate) the problem. If you've ever misled someone who's paying you about the work you're doing for them, then you are part of the problem.

The main reason why people disapprove of Niemann is that Magnus Carlsen and Chess.com have declared him to be a cheat - and we tend to trust a field's brand names. You're not upset about players who cheat and who are clever enough to get away with it.

A couple of popular expressions:

1. It takes a thief to catch a thief

2. Poachers make the best gamekeepers

Basically, a dishonest person will be the best person to guess what another dishonest person will do. If Hans Niemann is guilty, then:

1. the rule that the person most likely to catch a dishonest person is another dishonest person wouldn't apply to Magnus Carlsen: he's as innocent as a new born baby (or he has perfected the art of cheating in chess to a level that is undetectable)

2. Hans Niemann should be made the adjudicator of all major tournaments going forward. He's EASILY be the best qualified person for the job!

[syzygy]

I wonder if FIDE will consider that cheating in chess outside FIDE events can in principle be a breach of the FIDE ethical rules.

On last point, that would seem doubtful. If one has signed up with FIDE to play in a FIDE event (or one governed by it's rules, as was the case with ICGA and Rybka) then it's a sort of contract with a pre-known set of rules and you can get sanctioned for not playing by the rules - but external events? FIDE didn't make the rules and nobody agreed any rules with FIDE. So.

But, it's possible they have Magnus in the frame because he is FIDE World Champion (an event subject to yet more rules, no doubt) and he could be argued to have brought the game into disrepute etc etc. Is he a FIDE Officer as World Champion? if so, he is definitely in the frame for behaviour, if undesirable.

I think you are right. From the ethics code:

1.4 This Code of Ethics is applicable to:
- FIDE office bearers,
- member federations, delegates and counselors,
- affiliated organizations
- organizers, sponsors
- all competitors in FIDE registered tournaments.

Almost certainly "all competitors in FIDE registered tournaments" are only bound by the code of ethics to the extent that their actions relate to FIDE registered tournaments, since otherwise any amateur player could be sanctioned for cheating in a chess game at a local bar.

FIDE might like to see the code of ethics apply more widely to, say, GMs, but it seems unlikely that a GM is an "office bearer".

I don't know if being the FIDE world champion is an "office". But Carlsen made his comments in connection with FIDE events, so it seems likely the ethics rules apply to him making those comments as a "competitor".

[syzygy]

The main reason why people disapprove of Niemann is that Magnus Carlsen and Chess.com have declared him to be a cheat - and we tend to trust a field's brand names. You're not upset about players who cheat and who are clever enough to get away with it.

No, the reason Niemann is disapproved of is that there is a lot of objective smoke. That Carlsen happens to evaluate this smoke as fire of course does not help Niemann, but anyone can draw their own conclusions from the same known facts.

When Topalov accused Kramnik of cheating, everybody just laughed.

What upsets people is the idea that cheaters can go undetected for a long time.
Note that I am not saying that this justifies Niemann being banned from chess. He is almost certainly not going to be banned from chess. (But it seems difficult to force tournament organisers to invite Niemann against their own better judgement.)

[rainhaus]

If someone has been untrustworthy once, how can we trust him in the future?

You cannot trust anybody: the single biggest problem in economics is the principle-agent problem (link). The biggest single reason why market economies are usually more successful than planned economies is because they reduce (but don't eliminate) the problem. If you've ever misled someone who's paying you about the work you're doing for them, then you are part of the problem.
The main reason why people disapprove of Niemann is that Magnus Carlsen and Chess.com have declared him to be a cheat - and we tend to trust a field's brand names. You're not upset about players who cheat and who are clever enough to get away with it.
A couple of popular expressions:
1. It takes a thief to catch a thief
2. Poachers make the best gamekeepers
Basically, a dishonest person will be the best person to guess what another dishonest person will do. If Hans Niemann is guilty, then:
1. the rule that the person most likely to catch a dishonest person is another dishonest person wouldn't apply to Magnus Carlsen: he's as innocent as a new born baby (or he has perfected the art of cheating in chess to a level that is undetectable)
2. Hans Niemann should be made the adjudicator of all major tournaments going forward. He's EASILY be the best qualified person for the job!

"If Hans Niemann is guilty, then he should be made the adjudicator of all major tournaments going forward. He's EASILY the best qualified person for the job!"
Is this meant ironically ? Interesting theory, but far from reality.
If Hans Niemann is guilty, then he can only act as a chess player when the mafia founds its own chess league, there he can also act as an adjudicator.

Let's stay with the facts and there is nothing to do but to let the pending proceedings of the court and FIDE take their course. It is clear that man prefers to see definitive decisions rather than open proceedings and therefore he interpetes and project like hell.

Well, balances and perspektives in a moderate range should be allowed. Hans Moke Niemann probably cannot be proven that he cheated against Carlsen in the Sinquefield Cup, no matter how perfect his play looked in that game.
The fact that Niemann has cheated in online chess in the past doesn't help either. Presumption of innocence, -in case of doubt for the accused-, that is the formula that mankind has adopted as an ethical and legal imperative for good reasons.
In addition to that, Carlsen's behavior is to be questioned as also critically, for which Chris's detailed recapitulation of the case given enough indications.
Finally, it is easy to prove that since this accusation Hans is no longer in such demand and hardly ever receives invitations to the big tournaments. With the 32nd place in the FIDE world ranking list, all tournaments should still be open to him.

Once a criminal, always a criminal" is the formula for people who don't want to see the world as complicated as it is, but as simple as they need it to be.
People are not interested in reports that document the rehabilitation of delinquents, and who realizes the many studies and statistics that show the recidivism rate of criminals by offense and percentage.
What do these realities interest the hobby judge at the home screens, monitors and and displays ? Not a single salted peanut. You did well to point out this aspect.
Interesting also how often literature, film and television are on this theme. We all know the popular Hollywood scenario of the hopeless re-offender who wants to change his life but can't escape his milieu. One of the most popular themes in mafia and gangster flicks. In contrast, there are, for example, 12 ANGRY MEN, the prejudice classic par excellence, or, in a broader sense, TAXI DRI'VER, in which a stumbled girl finds her way back to normality thanks to a hero from the streets.

Where does Hans Niemann belong?
.

[towforce]

...In contrast, there are, for example, 12 ANGRY MEN, the prejudice classic par excellence...

Apologies for going off topic, but the film "12 Angry Men" annoys me:

A neighbour heard the boy and his father get into a fight around 7pm. He then goes to a store and buys a knife; the shopkeeper and friends who saw the knife identified the murder weapon as the knife he bought. The shopkeeper claimed it was a very rare knife, not a common commodity.

The same neighbour, later that night at the time of the murder, testified that he heard the defendant yell "I'll kill you," in the apartment upstairs, followed by a body hitting the floor. He testified that he then went to his door and saw the boy running downstairs immediately after.

A neighbour across the street - who knew the boy and his father - testified that she saw the boy murder his father through their respective windows and the windows of a darkened passing elevated train.

The defendant's alibi was that, after the initial fight, he went to the movies until 3am. There were no witnesses who could recall seeing him there, and the boy couldn't recall which movies he saw. The defendant claims the knife he bought fell through a hole in his pocket, and that the murder weapon was an identical but separate knife.

The jury finds enough reasonable doubt to acquit.

Because one juror was able to find an identical knife in the defendant's neighbourhood, they find it reasonable that someone else could have owned an identical knife and used it to murder the man and that coincidentally the boy would lose the knife just hours after he bought it.

They decide that the downstairs neighbour lacks credibility, and was possibly making up a story the police wanted to hear for attention. They decide that, because of the passing train, he wouldn't have been able to hear what he claimed to hear, and because he was slow to move, he couldn't have gotten in the door in the time he said he did. This is entirely speculation. It's far more plausible that the man mis-estimated the amount of time he took to reach the door than it is that he made the entire story up.

They decide it's plausible that the boy wouldn't remember what movies he had just come from because one juror remembered the title of a movie he saw three days prior slightly wrong.

They decide the woman across the street's testimony lacks credibility because they noticed she had pinches on her nose from glasses. They figure she needs glasses, despite not wearing them in court due to vanity, and that she was unlikely to have put them on after awaking to see what happened across the street. Again, this is full speculation. Since the trial took place during summer, the woman may have worn sunglasses which she removed inside. If she did wear eyeglasses and needed them to see, she may have put them on. There's no good reason to believe she's mistaken in identifying the defendant.

The kid did it, right? He had the means, motive, and opportunity. He went and bought a knife immediately after fighting with his father, then used it to murder him. The jury decides that two credible witnesses are lying, essentially out of pity for the boy. Juror 8 isn't a courageous hero standing up to the mob in the interest of justice; he simply bullied 11 other people into letting a murderer go free.

End of off-topic rant.

[Peter Berger]

The kid did it, right? He had the means, motive, and opportunity. He went and bought a knife immediately after fighting with his father, then used it to murder him.

End of off-topic rant.

But isn't this the whole point of the film? It strongly suggests that the kid actually did it at its end ( and from what other source than the film itself would we even know?)

The jury didn't know though. And some of the counter-arguments were pretty strong, like the one with how street kids actually use knifes. Actually, isn't this what justice is about? That it's not enough to suspect?

[rainhaus]

The kid did it, right? He had the means, motive, and opportunity. He went and bought a knife immediately after fighting with his father, then used it to murder him.
End of off-topic rant.

But isn't this the whole point of the film? It strongly suggests that the kid actually did it at its end ( and from what other source than the film itself would we even know?)
The jury didn't know though. And some of the counter-arguments were pretty strong, like the one with how street kids actually use knifes. Actually, isn't this what justice is about? That it's not enough to suspect?

I like to watch movies I've seen ages ago, and I'm happy when I realize I've become a little bit wiser with getting older, maybe I will certainly do the same with "The 12 Jurors" (title in other countries) and while watching I'll keep an eye on the logic and coherence of the plot and the characters.

However, the film is not primarily about the criminal case and the more or less likely killer, but about how easily a person can be blinded by personal prejudices in finding the truth, be it racism or deeper private problems. Because of the intimate character study of each juror, the film unfold a tense and dramatic atmosphere and demonstrates the great acting skills of the actors and the mastery of the director.

The film was selected by the American Film Institute as the second best courtroom drama of all time (after 1962's To Kill a Mockingbird) for AFI's 10 Top 10 list. It is considered by many to be one of the best films of all time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFI%27s_10_Top_10
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_Angry_Men_(1957_film)
.

[Nordlandia]

It is sad for Niemann that he is publicly crucified in front of the whole world in the first place. Instead of taking it up behind the scenes in peace and quiet. I don't endorse cheating, but you can see what Magnus has set up, a terrible mess for himself and the accused. Someone who makes a mistake once as a teen, does not mean that it will happen again. I think the public are being harsh on him, he was after all only in his teens. There is a difference between someone at that age and an mature adult.

[CornfedForever]

It is sad for Niemann that he is publicly crucified in front of the whole world in the first place. Instead of taking it up behind the scenes in peace and quiet. I don't endorse cheating, but you can see what Magnus has set up, a terrible mess for himself and the accused. Someone who makes a mistake once as a teen, does not mean that it will happen again. I think the public are being harsh on him, he was after all only in his teens. There is a difference between someone at that age and an mature adult.

It's a slippery slope, 'reasoning': One could argue that if someone uses 'computer assistance' in an online game/tourney he should never be trusted OTB. That is quite a stretch and essentially what we have here. And what if anyone reading this has used an engine...even at critical points in those 'daily' games when he is not supposed to...do you shun them at next weekend's OTB tourney?

It's best to keep the two pursuits separate.

A certain Iranian player (not the one who lives in France) 'cheated' on chess.com...got called on it and yet Magnus plays him OTB. The same with a certain German GM. And who knows how many he continues to play OTB who cheated online that he doesn't even know about.

So, Magnus obsessed on Niemann after Niemann beat him and the latter did not pay the 'proper respects'...offers no evidence and life goes on (with Niemann unable to get certain invitations if the organizers think they have a shot at getting Magnus)...while Niemann keeps playing in OTB tourneys - un-shunned by others, and stays about 2700.

Hey, it's all fair...be it in sport, politics...anywhere, he rich and powerful get to play by different rules than the rest of us.