Niemann - Carlsen

[Vlad Drkulec]

A reasonable response, but I am not prepared to ruin a person's entire career based upon a preponderance of evidence in this case. However, if opportunity is demonstrated then I will certainly reconsider my opinion.

What evidence? The correlation claims are silly based on how they are constructed. Read Ken Regan’s posts and the blog he references which exposes the problems with those claims.

[Alex Ferreira]

I get the sense that, most people who I discuss this topic with, have made up their mind one way or another in the first 2-3 days of this fiasco. Arguments presented after seem to be either used to reinforce their stance, or seem to be dismissed. Pity.

[Sid Belzberg]

What evidence? The correlation claims are silly based on how they are constructed. Read Ken Regan’s posts and the blog he references which exposes the problems with those claims.

I read Ken Regan's articles and as I previously posted, he criticized average centipawn loss as a reliable barometer of strength however he failed to address how the same open source analytic methodology flawed or not, produced identical results of a group of players that climbed from 2500- 2700 but did not address the fact that Han's is somehow entirely different and we are supposed to believe that this statistically impossible result is a coincidence.
It warrants further investigation. As I said the discovery process will seek out evidence of possible ways he could have obtained receiving and transmitting equipment etc.

[Brad Thomson]

What evidence? The correlation claims are silly based on how they are constructed. Read Ken Regan’s posts and the blog he references which exposes the problems with those claims.

I have never said there is any evidence. I reject the comparison of Niemann's games to computers as possible evidence. I want to be shown how and that he did it, or I will assume nothng.

[Aris Marghetis]

I get the sense that, most people who I discuss this topic with, have made up their mind one way or another in the first 2-3 days of this fiasco. Arguments presented after seem to be either used to reinforce their stance, or seem to be dismissed. Pity.

Very well said. Seems to apply to many subjects nowadays. Enormous pity, I agree.

[Brad Thomson]

I get the sense that, most people who I discuss this topic with, have made up their mind one way or another in the first 2-3 days of this fiasco. Arguments presented after seem to be either used to reinforce their stance, or seem to be dismissed. Pity.

Not all of us. Some of us have "made up our mind" not to decide either way, and thus not to convict without good evidence and a demonstration of opportunity. With respect to Carlsen, yes, I have made up my mind, he behaved reprehensibly to accuse without evidence.

[Peter McKillop]

.......
And I think if Peter McKillop traded places with Carlsen, Peter might just do the same thing. .....

This is typical of your style, Pargat; i.e. a completely asinine hypothetical which accomplishes nothing.

.... Peter is on record here as detesting the fact that Neimann did once get caught cheating, when he was much younger and was playing online chess. ....

And this is also typical of your style; i.e. altering the facts to bolster your position. Niemann was caught cheating online more than 100 times, not once. And "much younger?" Only if you consider 3 years ago to be "much." My position on Niemann is already on record.

.... At no time in this thread have I said that Niemann's online cheating should be used as a basis for punishing him in OTB chess. In fact, I believe he should NOT be punished further unless there is conclusive evidence that he cheated in OTB chess too. My point was that we should care about Niemann's online cheating history, and not simply dismiss it as a childish error in judgement, because he did it so many times and then lied about it. Niemann is a highly intelligent young man. He knew what he was doing was wrong but he chose to do it anyway. Where I was raised that is considered a character flaw, a moral failing. He had the intelligence to make the right decisions but he deliberately chose to make the wrong decisions. The fact that Niemann is currently undergoing a sort of punishment by suspicion and innuendo is 100% his own fault. As the old idiom says, the kid made his bed.....

[J. Crowhurst]

Very well said. Seems to apply to many subjects nowadays. Enormous pity, I agree.

For me (as if my opinion matters), I had never heard of Niemann before this happened, and I was a big Carlsen fan. When this happened I was struck by Carlsen's reliance on innuendo rather than simply saying nothing. I also thought that chess.com pulling Niemann's account that same day, that "spoke for itself". When their report came out, that's when I joined Team Niemann. I've had the benefit of cross-examining an expert or two over the years, and seen dozens of expert's reports. This one wasn't that. They say there's no evidence he cheated OTB, then spend ten pages giving all the reasons why the reader should discount that conclusion, and then finish with "but like we said, no evidence that he cheated OTB". What the F?

The final straw was Ken Regan's interview a couple of weeks ago where he said that Chess.com's accusation that Niemann cheated in online tournaments in 2020 was "bupkis". Not "we disagree on that". It wasn't close. Most of the matches, he was with them, the tournaments as a kid, he was with them. But the tournaments, not close.

Niemann's memory failed him during what was otherwise a persuasive denial on Sept. 6th. It seems clear that "a few random games" was not accurate. Did he lie? I don't know I'd go that far. Memories are selective, and it's not like chess.com ever told him specifically what he was accused with; apparently they never tell anyone, according to the emails they disclosed. I've seen clearer examples of lying that were given a pass.

One other thing came out recently that has me asking some further questions. Nepo was playing on an anonymous account. I wonder how he was playing on that day, was he Nepo the 2850 blitz player, or was he goofing around? How might that affect everybody's analysis. Was it the same with the other opponents? How hard were they trying against this 2465 rated 16 year old, and were they playing under their own brand?

Until chess.com start making the pgn's and the analysis results public, I'm wondering if anybody can truly believe anything they say. Also, given Carlsen's admission of cheating at online Blitz - he has admitted for years that he would play on friends' accounts to give them a boost and have some fun, and a video came out during this scandal of him accepting an immediate winning move from someone watching his online game.

I know that when I played, there were quite a few games where my opponent and I had already agreed on the result. Is that cheating? I'm hardly alone on this site when it comes to that. I know people who have thrown games for money, and thrown games so that somebody got a particular result instead of a mutual foe. Is that cheating? I think it is.

So there's that.

[Brad Thomson]

Also, given Carlsen's admission of cheating at online Blitz - he has admitted for years that he would play on friends' accounts to give them a boost and have some fun, and a video came out during this scandal of him accepting an immediate winning move from someone watching his online game.

The plot thickens. What a tangled web we weave...

[Pargat Perrer]

This is typical of your style, Pargat; i.e. a completely asinine hypothetical which accomplishes nothing.



And this is also typical of your style; i.e. altering the facts to bolster your position. Niemann was caught cheating online more than 100 times, not once. And "much younger?" Only if you consider 3 years ago to be "much." My position on Niemann is already on record.

It seems to be your style to alter what people actually post here. I didn't post that Niemann cheated at online chess "only once". Where did you get that? You made it up.

He was "caught cheating online more than 100 times"??? Are you counting each move in a game he cheated as a separate "time" he cheated?

Also, yes, when you are only 19 or 20 years old, 3 years is "much". Everything's relative Peter, even Einstein said so.

But the main thing Peter is that you seem to be sending 2 different messages when you write "In fact, I believe he should NOT be punished further unless there is conclusive evidence that he cheated in OTB chess too. My point was that we should care about Niemann's online cheating history, and not simply dismiss it as a childish error in judgement, because he did it so many times and then lied about it. Niemann is a highly intelligent young man. He knew what he was doing was wrong but he chose to do it anyway."

First you say let's not punish him for OTB allegations unless we have conclusive evidence. Then you go into a "we should care about" shpiel that seems to be suggesting maybe we should punish him, because he has a character flaw. It makes me think of the section of the Bible where Jesus is asked about stoning a woman who committed some sin and Jesus is quoted as saying, "Let him without sin cast the first stone". Peter, what were your teenage years like? No "character flaws"?

And what exactly do you mean by "we should care about"???? Do we consider him guilty or not? You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

[Brad Thomson]

Everything's relative... even Einstein said so.

Except change, which is permanent. Thus, substance is Time.

[Bob Armstrong]

Time.............a real theoretical problem.........as well as at ground zero.

My view:

1. There is no reality to time; it does not exist; so it is not material (So I guess I disagree with Einstein that it can be bent, if I have understood him correctly.........can someone advise?)
2. Only existence IS.......that is, there is only what in time language, we call the "present".
3. Time is simply a thought construct which helps us organize information and our thoughts.

OK.....I now have a bull's eye on my back everyone!

Bob A

[Peter McKillop]

It seems to be your style to alter what people actually post here. I didn't post that Niemann cheated at online chess "only once". Where did you get that? You made it up. .....

Why did you put "only once" in quotation marks? If you're trying to attribute that quote to me, you're wrong. I never said "only once." Here, however, is what YOU did say (bolded text added by me so that YOU DON'T MISS IT this time).

..... Peter is on record here as detesting the fact that Neimann did ONCE get caught cheating, when he was much younger and was playing online chess. .....

And how about this next one, Pargat?

..... He was "caught cheating online more than 100 times"??? Are you counting each move in a game he cheated as a separate "time" he cheated?

Pargat, if you're going to participate in a thread, rather than just jumping in and shooting your mouth off, don't you think you have a responsibility to at least do a little bit of reading so that you have a basic familiarity with the matters being discussed? The number of online games in which Niemann is alleged to have cheated has been common knowlege for at least 3 weeks. Do you have access to Google, Pargat? Why don't you google something like 'how many times did Niemann cheat'?

p.s. Here, Pargat, this will save you some time (note the date of the article):

https://en.chessbase.com/post/wall-s...likely-cheated

[Peter McKillop]

Time.............a real theoretical problem.........as well as at ground zero.

My view:

1. There is no reality to time; it does not exist; so it is not material (So I guess I disagree with Einstein that it can be bent, if I have understood him correctly.........can someone advise?)
2. Only existence IS.......that is, there is only what in time language, we call the "present".
3. Time is simply a thought construct which helps us organize information and our thoughts.

OK.....I now have a bull's eye on my back everyone!

Bob A

I love this stuff, Bob! It's fascinating. I wish I'd taken some philosophy courses at school.

[Brad Thomson]

Time is simply a thought construct which helps us organize information and our thoughts.

Bob, we will need to be careful not to upset Hugh Brodie, but it sounds like you are a Kantian. My opinion suggesting that Substance and Time are the same concept is based upon this: Substance is that which is permanent, the only thing permanant is change, change without regard to particulars, that is universal change itself, is none other than Time, thus Time is Substance. Only the Now exists, yes, it is ever changing and completely impermanent. It comes from nothing and returns to nothing, this is Time. It never really IS, nothing IS, all is BECOMING. We cannot say even that existence IS, we can say only that existence BECOMES.