towforce wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 10:57 pmI am struggling to see the case for speaking out in public.
Well, Magnus did what he did, so that's that.
What are you trying to say... there must be some deep conspiracy going on here?
The limit of what I'm saying is that Carlsen was foolish to voice his suspicions in public: apart from it being morally wrong, it also represented bad tactics (not what you'd expect from the top human chess player): he's made it an order of magnitude more difficult to catch Niemann in the act if he has been cheating OTB.
Of course I accept that Carlsen having voiced his opinions in public is a factual reality: I'm actually glad that he did - from a neutral point of view, it's jolly good entertainment!
Well...don't you have that backwards? 'An order of magnitude more difficult to catch' him? I mean, isn't it more an 'order of magnitude' more likely that he would be caught cheating OTB, simply because ALL EYES are upon him OTB, every game...every tourney.
If he's cheating OTB (I'm absolutely not saying that he is), then...
* he might continue to cheat, slip up (easily done), and be caught by someone investigating in a way he wasn't expecting
* more likely, though, he will take extra care over cheating, reduce the amount he does it, take more care over algorithmic cheating detection, choose tournaments at which he knows he has a better chance of getting away with it, and maybe even vary his cheating methods. In short, make himself a lot more difficult to catch
* had Carlsen kept his mouth shut, the invigilators could have quietly increased the ways they were investigating, while Niemann would have (as cheaters usually will) gradually have become more complacent and brazen in his cheating methods
I guess one could look at it that way as well. Word among players was that (online anyway) he was a known cheater so apparently they knew (either chess.com told them or they put '2 and 2 together...maybe they just saw his account closed for 'fair play' violations)...possibly some OTB organizers.
I can only speak for myself, but if I was a cheater OTB, I would already be doing the maximum to not be detected. I don't think that...'amp' would need to be turned up to 11.
towforce wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 10:57 pmI am struggling to see the case for speaking out in public.
Well, Magnus did what he did, so that's that.
What are you trying to say... there must be some deep conspiracy going on here?
The limit of what I'm saying is that Carlsen was foolish to voice his suspicions in public: apart from it being morally wrong, it also represented bad tactics (not what you'd expect from the top human chess player): he's made it an order of magnitude more difficult to catch Niemann in the act if he has been cheating OTB.
Of course I accept that Carlsen having voiced his opinions in public is a factual reality: I'm actually glad that he did - from a neutral point of view, it's jolly good entertainment!
Assuming he had thoroughly thought things through when he resigned from the tournament (which basically forced him to voice his suspicions even though he delayed this at first), he may have considered that something needed to happen about cheating in chess and that the way to get things moving is to cause some drama.
We don't know the full history. Perhaps at an early occasion (involving Niemann or someone else) he did keep things internal.
towforce wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 10:57 pmI am struggling to see the case for speaking out in public.
Well, Magnus did what he did, so that's that.
What are you trying to say... there must be some deep conspiracy going on here?
The limit of what I'm saying is that Carlsen was foolish to voice his suspicions in public: apart from it being morally wrong, it also represented bad tactics (not what you'd expect from the top human chess player): he's made it an order of magnitude more difficult to catch Niemann in the act if he has been cheating OTB.
Of course I accept that Carlsen having voiced his opinions in public is a factual reality: I'm actually glad that he did - from a neutral point of view, it's jolly good entertainment!
Assuming he had thoroughly thought things through when he resigned from the tournament (which basically forced him to voice his suspicions even though he delayed this at first), he may have considered that something needed to happen about cheating in chess and that the way to get things moving is to cause some drama.
We don't know the full history. Perhaps at an early occasion (involving Niemann or someone else) he did keep things internal.
You don't publicly scapegoat 1 person (and imply he's doing it otb) for the sins of all. Even after that he has played against Parham (think that's his name) who was known to have cheated on chess.com...and I believe a well known German GM whom I noticed Jesse Kraai outed.
Anyway, like you alluded to, there is more to the story.
IMO, if a judge were to make a judgement in the case today, while the amount of money Niemann is claiming is probably disproportionate, the judge would be obliged to find in Niemann's favour because the evidence that he cheated in over the board games simply isn't strong enough to justify the public accusations against him.
Writing is the antidote to confusion.
It's not "how smart you are", it's "how are you smart".
Your brain doesn't work the way you want, so train it!
towforce wrote: ↑Sat May 20, 2023 10:48 am
IMO, if a judge were to make a judgement in the case today, while the amount of money Niemann is claiming is probably disproportionate, the judge would be obliged to find in Niemann's favour because the evidence that he cheated in over the board games simply isn't strong enough to justify the public accusations against him.
The thing is, Magnus has been careful to only make "Public Implication"....not accusations (that I know of)
towforce wrote: ↑Sat May 20, 2023 10:48 am
IMO, if a judge were to make a judgement in the case today, while the amount of money Niemann is claiming is probably disproportionate, the judge would be obliged to find in Niemann's favour because the evidence that he cheated in over the board games simply isn't strong enough to justify the public accusations against him.
The thing is, Magnus has been careful to only make "Public Implication"....not accusations (that I know of)
A court would normally allow itself some leeway to interpret the one as the other if that was the effect
CornfedForever wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 7:32 pm
Anyway, Collingwood makes the salient point: Hans continues to maintain his rating...increasing it slightly with all eyes on him. 'Respect' some would say.
1) He has barely played.
I did a quick check...looks like he has played more OTB games this year than either of the top 2 players (3 and 4 just finished playing each other). #5 is Nakamura and he rarely plays.
Not that this matters, but I think "barely played" refers to classical chess. His disastrous performance in Baku was reported as being a bit of a return to chess after a drought.
CornfedForever wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 7:32 pm
Anyway, Collingwood makes the salient point: Hans continues to maintain his rating...increasing it slightly with all eyes on him. 'Respect' some would say.
1) He has barely played. 2) In the recent games he has played, he's had some bad losses.
3) So what? It's irrelevant.
You do not need to be very weak in order to cheat.
Repeat: you do not need to be very weak in order to cheat.
Put it another way: strong players can cheat too! A revolutionary idea for some, but do you think that only poor people steal or commit crime? Do you?? Really? Because if you do, I have some bad news for you.
Regarding point 2), in the Baku Open apparently he was top seed, but it seems he finished around 54th.
Niemann lost with the White pieces against a 2442-elo IM. I don't know but would like to know how common it is for a (non-cheating) 2700+ GM to lose with White against a sub-2450 IM.
Niemann was also very lucky not to lose (with Black) against a 2501-elo IM, escaping with a draw.
But, again, note point 3). I'm talking about current performance only because his defenders seem to think it means so much, which it doesn't. It's a logical fallacy to claim that strong players won't cheat, but in this case even the factual claim that the fallacy has been applied to, i.e. the claim that he's playing strongly now, is questionable.
CornfedForever wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 7:32 pm
Anyway, Collingwood makes the salient point: Hans continues to maintain his rating...increasing it slightly with all eyes on him. 'Respect' some would say.
1) He has barely played. 2) In the recent games he has played, he's had some bad losses.
3) So what? It's irrelevant.
You do not need to be very weak in order to cheat.
Repeat: you do not need to be very weak in order to cheat.
Put it another way: strong players can cheat too! A revolutionary idea for some, but do you think that only poor people steal or commit crime? Do you?? Really? Because if you do, I have some bad news for you.
Regarding point 2), in the Baku Open apparently he was top seed, but it seems he finished around 54th.
Niemann lost with the White pieces against a 2442-elo IM. I don't know but would like to know how common it is for a (non-cheating) 2700+ GM to lose with White against a sub-2450 IM.
towforce wrote: ↑Sat May 20, 2023 10:48 am
IMO, if a judge were to make a judgement in the case today, while the amount of money Niemann is claiming is probably disproportionate, the judge would be obliged to find in Niemann's favour because the evidence that he cheated in over the board games simply isn't strong enough to justify the public accusations against him.
As has been milked out already in other posts (so I won't try to repeat too much), there is no need for Carlsen to be able to prove that Niemann was cheating.
The FIDE ethics commission is far more likely to conclude that Carlsen violated the FIDE ethics code than a court is to find Magnus liable.
