Niemann - Carlsen

[Aris Marghetis]

from the Mechanics' Institute - Chess Room Newsletter - Issue #1030 - October 8th, 2022

FM Paul Whitehead
Hans Niemann: Chess at the Top
“Money Changes Everything” – The Brains
By now we are all familiar with the scandal engulfing the chess world, boiled down to this:
lame-duck World Champion Magnus Carlsen loses a game in the Sinquefield Cup to 19-
year-old American up-start GM Hans Niemann. He then withdraws from the tournament,
at the same time making a vague insinuation that Niemann has cheated. A couple of weeks
later in the online Julius Baer Generation Cup, Carlsen loses yet another game to Hans,
resigning before playing his 2nd move. Shortly afterwards he makes a statement on social
media, asserting that Hans had cheated during their encounter at the Sinqufield Cup –
and offers not a single shred of evidence.
I want to offer my own opinion, based on long experience in the chess world plus my own
interactions with Hans when he was an up-and-coming player at the Mechanics’ Institute.
It is not an easy path to the top of the chess world. It takes great fighting spirit and singleminded
determination. Magnus Carlsen, like every other World Champion before him, has
demonstrated those qualities. Other top players I have observed, like GM Walter Browne
(one of Hans’ early coaches), manifest that desire to win in an almost visceral and physical
way.
I have no doubt whatsoever that the will to win (and not to lose!) can cloud a chess
players moral compass. Ashamedly, I remember engaging in fisticuffs with my own
brother over a disputed game.
With that said, I’m curious what the reader might think of the following example.
Captured on video, Carlsen attempts to take a move back against GM Alexandra
Kosteniuk in the 2009 World Blitz Championship, and then leaves the table without a
word or a handshake: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeyXKTVYenA&t=161s
If this was not an attempted cheat, then I don’t know what is.
Perhaps even more damning is the following video, Carlsen’s own live-stream of the
Lichess Titled Arena in December 2021. The World Champion clearly takes the advice of
GM David Howell to trap GM Daniel Naroditsky’s queen. I understand the tournament
had a 1st place of $500. The critical moment is at the 1:44:00 mark:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRdrf1Ny3x8
I am not trying to throw just Magnus Carlsen under the bus here. Both of these videos
show very typical displays of fighting spirit. Sadly, they also display not particularly rare
examples of un-sportsmanlike behavior.
For the World Champion to accuse Niemann of what he himself is clearly guilty of is, in
my opinion, just flat out wrong. If Niemann has cheated, then so has Carlsen. And
many, many others.
Thirty years ago (and more) it was a common sight to see chess masters and
grandmasters walking the hallways together, whispering in each other’s ears. I don’t
believe the majority of players were outright cheating perse, but innocent questions or
statements such as: “What do you think of my position?” or “Maybe it’s time to go
home!” accompanied by frowns, raised eyebrows, coughing, laughing, et cetera, were
quite common. Of course, this is different information than one can get nowadays. After
all, a grandmaster is only human, and their suggestions and advice will only take you so
far.
But Stockfish is a God.
Nowadays the top players are electronically frisked, and their trips to the bathroom are
monitored - all under the smoky pall of large prize funds, large appearance fees, and
generous corporate sponsorship.
While the top players and streamers, and the private interests that sponsor them
(purporting to speak for the regular player), wring their hands worrying over the
“integrity of the game” and the “existential threat” posed by cheaters, they are living in
a chess world unimaginable only 30-40 years ago.
Back then, top players might have lived out of their cars or crashed on a friend’s couch,
all the while waiting for a few paltry bucks from their chess federation or a miserable
cash prize to pay their expenses. Chess lacked the glitz that corporate sponsorship and
lots of money can buy: the glamorous world of The Queen’s Gambit, trash-talking
streamers angling for a date with one of the Botez sisters, or better yet: the chance to
be rich and/or the subject of world-wide attention.
Chess at the top looks, sounds, and tastes very different now than it did not so long ago.
The players are younger, have nice haircuts, and pay respect (if not outright homage) to
their master, World Champion Magnus Carlsen. It looks quite cozy from the outside: for
almost ten years now, the same 15–20 players have competed against each other over
and over again in countless tournaments, over the board and online. Rarely are
outsiders permitted into this precious circle, which helps to keep their ratings inflated
just enough to keep the invites and appearance fees coming and the sponsorships rolling
in.
But cracks are starting to appear.
Almost all of the top players lost rating points at the recent Olympiad in Chennai, where
they had to compete with lower rated players.
A younger generation is muscling in, in the shape of players like Hans Niemann, India’s
Dommaraju Gukesh, and Nodirbek Abdusattorov from Uzbekistan. The latter became the
World Rapid Champion earlier this year, defeating not only Carlsen, but Carlsen’s two
most recent World Champion challengers, Fabiano Caruana and Ian Nepomniachtchi.
The young may also seem to lack the “proper respect,” which leads us back to what I
see as the whole crux of this sorry Carlsen/Niemann affair.
Right now, with the lack of any evidence that Niemann cheated in that over-the-board
game against Carlsen, I think the only conclusion we can reach is the one staring us all
in the face: Hans Niemann beat Magnus Carlsen fair and square at the Sinquefield Cup.
I believe Hans has gotten under Magnus’ skin big-time, and, as is well documented here
and elsewhere, Magnus hates losing. And to what extent, we are just now finding out.
With Carlsen also abdicating the World Championship, I am reminded somewhat of an
angry child that destroys his own sandcastle when told that it’s time to leave the beach.
Hans Niemann played a lot at the Mechanics’ Institute as a youngster (11-12 years old
in 2013 and 2014), and his progress was meteoric. As I outlined in our last newsletter,
his rating jumping from 1200 to 2200 in just under two years.
I myself played Hans a bunch of times, and his father recently sent me a video of Hans
and I battling it out in a blitz game at the Mechanics’ Institute. I am totally winning for
ages and ages, and his only hope is that I will lose on time. Hans hangs in there though,
crying “Flag, flag, flag!” over and over. Both of us are enjoying the contest immensely…
and I lose on time before I can mate him. His joy at winning is a sight to see.
Not everyone appreciated Han’s brash and cheeky demeanor. It was either IM John
Donaldson or I who (affectionately) started calling him “Niemann the Demon,” but there
were (and are still) players at the club who, perhaps, have forgotten what it was like to
have been young once.
When I see Hans in those post-game interviews at the Sinquefield Cup, I feel I am
watching exactly the same person that I knew back then: a person with a great love for
chess, supremely confident in his abilities, and with respect for no one.
A stone-cold chess killer.
Hans acts in a rough and tumble manner that surprises us nowadays, and harkens back
to earlier times - perhaps strongly influenced by older coaches like GMs Walter Browne,
Max Dlugy, and IM John Grefe. These are no-nonsense and worldly fellows, and Hans’
development was tempered in steel.
I think the time has passed, if it ever really existed, when chess could lay claim to
completely fair-play. Ruy Lopez de Segura (c.1530 - c.1580) a founding father of modern
chess and a Catholic priest, advised his students to “place the board such that the light
shines in your opponent’s eyes.”
Behind the brouhaha surrounding Carlsen and Niemann, there are other factors and
interests playing out. As we follow chess celebrities, minor and major (because that is
what they are now) we should also follow the money. Is it a coincidence that Niemann was
banned anew from chess.com whilst the Play Magnus Group was acquired by that selfsame
chess.com? I find it fascinating to see who is lining up to defend Carlsen’s accusations,
and why.
There will always be attempts to cheat at over-the-board chess – some have been caught,
others not. With the money pouring in, attempts to cheat will not stop, ever. Chess has
entered the world of all other sports and games where these problems exist, whether it’s
baseball or poker.
The online world thrived like nobody’s business during the pandemic: perhaps the real
“existential threat” to wealthy streamers and online platforms is not cheaters – it’s the
return to over-the-board play.
The chess world at the top has waited a long time for this moment – they’ve made it. They
have world-wide attention, and they are rolling in the dough. In a sense they have gotten
what they wished for, yet in another sense they are paying the price for those wishes
coming true.
But back here, for the rest of us in the clubs, in our homes and schools, I believe chess
will thrive and continue to be enjoyed for the skillful, interesting, and fascinating game
that it is - untainted by money and enjoyed for its own sake.
The same way Hans and I enjoyed playing together, not so very long ago.

[J. Crowhurst]

Haha, ok no point debating with you.
You are as hilarious as Hans today, trying to flag a 2650 opponent in a lost position when he still had 1hr 15 min. on the clock. Maybe try to put up some resistance like a normal GM?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQU33IpcnS4&t=4m11s

Again, if you believe Hans only cheated online 2x as he claimed, then by all means stick with your view...

I'm not debating you. For it to be a debate, you would actually have to, you know, say something. Make some kind of point all by yourself, rather than inviting others to draw their own conclusions.

But yeah, I get that you think he cheated OTB and I don't think there's a shred of evidence to support it. As for online cheating, I would accept the verdict of Ken Regan when he says, in chess.com's report, that he cheated in the events as a kid and in four of the nine events that chess.com alleges he cheated in. Because to me, Regan's word is evidence as an expert in the matter. His opinion would be admissible in court, assuming chess.com released the game PGNs where Niemann is alleged to have cheated.

[Peter McKillop]

....

If he cheated OTB in say Charlotte GM tournament 2020, there's no way to prove it once he leaves the playing hall. ....

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, can we even be sure that Niemann is playing with his own brain?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...-b2200885.html

[Joshua Guo]

I believe you are missing the point, please correct me if I am wrong. Neither J nor I necessarily believe that Niemann did not cheat over the board, we are simply saying that until you demonstrate opportunity you have not made a sufficient case to accuse and to convict. The obligation is on you to say how the hell he does it, or else you can prove nothing. We are deemed innocent until proven guilty, we are entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

Does this situation look fishy? Sure, but it proves nothing.

Appreciate the frank response.
If your stance is "innocent until proven guilty (i.e. find device in butthole)", then this is where opinions diverge. And really no point debating further as mentioned before.

If he cheated OTB in say Charlotte GM tournament 2020, there's no way to prove it once he leaves the playing hall. All we have are the games. It's not like baseball where tests can be done afterwards for roids.

By this measure I think many cheaters will get away, most tournaments/clubs are not as sophisticated (well funded) as STLCC. But if this is your standard for proving guilty, then by all means stick to it, no point debating further.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Dlugy's article implies (or states pretty close to directly) that there's no such thing as a third option of:

3) Deny you cheated and have your case re-examined

The third option is used from time to time, and the ban is reversed.

[Brad Thomson]

Again, if you believe Hans only cheated online 2x as he claimed, then by all means stick with your view...

I believe you are missing the point, please correct me if I am wrong. Neither J nor I necessarily believe that Niemann did not cheat over the board, we are simply saying that until you demonstrate opportunity you have not made a sufficient case to accuse and to convict. The obligation is on you to say how the hell he does it, or else you can prove nothing. We are deemed innocent until proven guilty, we are entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

Does this situation look fishy? Sure, but it proves nothing.

[Aris Marghetis]

Exactly, particularly when a room has video cameras everywhere.

I’m a prosecutor. If police send me a bank robbery charge, and the only evidence is video footage of the guy sitting in a chair for an hour, and the bank is saying “well we lost $3,000 during that hour, and he was there the whole time so he must have done it”, I would label that a below-average case, and suggest that maybe it was the bank that lost the money all by themselves.

It’s been five weeks since this happened, there has been nothing new. And we’re still reading ridiculous stuff like “after his first three games at Sinq, where his performance rating was 3100, he hasn’t continued to do that well. Draw your own conclusions.”

i’m sorry for getting testy. To me this kind of thing is serious. I’ve had many situations where I’m staring at my computer thinking, “If I click this button, this guy’s life is over. He’ll be in the papers, on the internet, he’ll lose his job and probably his marriage and he’ll have to sell a kidney to pay the $40,000 it will cost for a proper defence. So how much do I believe that one witness?”

And if I get police report where the facts are as cherry picked as the chess.com report, I just wonder, “what do you idiots think your job is?”

Thanks J, solid post.

[Roger Patterson]

Another loss for Niemann today at US Championship.
After the anti-cheating measures were implemented after R3 of Sinq Cup, Hans has scored 1 Win, 7 Draws, and 5 Losses in St. Louis.
15 min. broadcast delay at Sinq Cup after R3, 30 min. broadcast delay at US Championship.
Draw your own conclusions.

You must think Aronian (same score, even higher rated) is a goof too.

[Joshua Guo]

Exactly, particularly when a room has video cameras everywhere.

I’m a prosecutor. If police send me a bank robbery charge, and the only evidence is video footage of the guy sitting in a chair for an hour, and the bank is saying “well we lost $3,000 during that hour, and he was there the whole time so he must have done it”, I would label that a below-average case, and suggest that maybe it was the bank that lost the money all by themselves.

It’s been five weeks since this happened, there has been nothing new. And we’re still reading ridiculous stuff like “after his first three games at Sinq, where his performance rating was 3100, he hasn’t continued to do that well. Draw your own conclusions.”

i’m sorry for getting testy. To me this kind of thing is serious. I’ve had many situations where I’m staring at my computer thinking, “If I click this button, this guy’s life is over. He’ll be in the papers, on the internet, he’ll lose his job and probably his marriage and he’ll have to sell a kidney to pay the $40,000 it will cost for a proper defence. So how much do I believe that one witness?”

And if I get police report where the facts are as cherry picked as the chess.com report, I just wonder, “what do you idiots think your job is?”

Haha, ok no point debating with you.
You are as hilarious as Hans today, trying to flag a 2650 opponent in a lost position when he still had 1hr 15 min. on the clock. Maybe try to put up some resistance like a normal GM?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQU33IpcnS4&t=4m11s

Again, if you believe Hans only cheated online 2x as he claimed, then by all means stick with your view...

[J. Crowhurst]

This is the crucial factor, without this explanation all accusations are without merit because they do not demonstrate opportunity.

Exactly, particularly when a room has video cameras everywhere.

I’m a prosecutor. If police send me a bank robbery charge, and the only evidence is video footage of the guy sitting in a chair for an hour, and the bank is saying “well we lost $3,000 during that hour, and he was there the whole time so he must have done it”, I would label that a below-average case, and suggest that maybe it was the bank that lost the money all by themselves.

It’s been five weeks since this happened, there has been nothing new. And we’re still reading ridiculous stuff like “after his first three games at Sinq, where his performance rating was 3100, he hasn’t continued to do that well. Draw your own conclusions.”

i’m sorry for getting testy. To me this kind of thing is serious. I’ve had many situations where I’m staring at my computer thinking, “If I click this button, this guy’s life is over. He’ll be in the papers, on the internet, he’ll lose his job and probably his marriage and he’ll have to sell a kidney to pay the $40,000 it will cost for a proper defence. So how much do I believe that one witness?”

And if I get police report where the facts are as cherry picked as the chess.com report, I just wonder, “what do you idiots think your job is?”

[Brad Thomson]

and no explanation as to how he could have cheated.

This is the crucial factor, without this explanation all accusations are without merit because they do not demonstrate opportunity.

[Joshua Guo]

Here are my conclusions.

He was the lowest rated player in the Sinquefeld Cup by 60 points. In round three, he had the greatest moment in his entire life, which he got to enjoy for one day. The next day, he was branded a cheater by the World Champion's insinuations, and convicted by the internet at large based on no evidence, no suggestion that there was any yet-to-be-revealed evidence, and no explanation as to how he could have cheated.

After that, his play went downhill. Carlen's withdrawal stripped Niemann of his win, so he even though he finished at .500 with 2-5-2, it was scored as 1-5-2. For the lowest rated player in the tournament.

At his next trip to St. Louis he has, so far, he has lost to the two players leading the tournament, he beat a guy rated 140 points lower, and drew against 2747, 2690, and 2712. Then today, he lost to 2652.

The thing about statistics is when you say "7 draws" and you leave out "against 7 of the top 50 players in the world", some might conclude that you're trying to mislead the people who are reading what you have to say.

I'm pretty confident that if his true strength, without cheating, was 2550 or whatever chess.com suggested it would be, his results in those post round 3 games would be very, very different.

I wasn't leaving out anything. Everyone who plays in St Louis is strong, I assume people know that. His performance rating is 2635 in these 12 games, you happy?

In any case, I think Hans true strength is around 2600, which is much stronger compared to everyone. But there's big difference between 2600 vs. 2700 FIDE.

Anyways, no point arguing with people on ChessTalk, if you believe Hans is innocent and only cheated twice online, then.... by all means, just believe that.

Edit: I didn't even mention Hans only win out of 12 games was against Yoo (2563). He was close to losing in multiple games (vs. Dominguez vs. Nepo in Sinq Cup, and vs. Shankland in US Championship), but managed to draw them.

[J. Crowhurst]

Another loss for Niemann today at US Championship.
After the anti-cheating measures were implemented after R3 of Sinq Cup, Hans has scored 1 Win, 7 Draws, and 5 Losses in St. Louis.
15 min. broadcast delay at Sinq Cup after R3, 30 min. broadcast delay at US Championship.
Draw your own conclusions.

Here are my conclusions.

He was the lowest rated player in the Sinquefeld Cup by 60 points. In round three, he had the greatest moment in his entire life, which he got to enjoy for one day. The next day, he was branded a cheater by the World Champion's insinuations, and convicted by the internet at large based on no evidence, no suggestion that there was any yet-to-be-revealed evidence, and no explanation as to how he could have cheated.

After that, his play went downhill. Carlen's withdrawal stripped Niemann of his win, so he even though he finished at .500 with 2-5-2, it was scored as 1-5-2. For the lowest rated player in the tournament.

At his next trip to St. Louis he has, so far, he has lost to the two players leading the tournament, he beat a guy rated 140 points lower, and drew against 2747, 2690, and 2712. Then today, he lost to 2652.

The thing about statistics is when you say "7 draws" and you leave out "against 7 of the top 50 players in the world", some might conclude that you're trying to mislead the people who are reading what you have to say.

I'm pretty confident that if his true strength, without cheating, was 2550 or whatever chess.com suggested it would be, his results in those post round 3 games would be very, very different.

[Brad Thomson]

Draw your own conclusions.

This may rule out the theory first put forth by Sid to the effect that Niemann has a state-sponsored implant that allows him to cheat without outside help. (Although we know that Magnus tosses games, maybe Niemann does too.)

[Joshua Guo]

Another loss for Niemann today at US Championship.
After the anti-cheating measures were implemented after R3 of Sinq Cup, Hans has scored 1 Win, 7 Draws, and 5 Losses in St. Louis.
15 min. broadcast delay at Sinq Cup after R3, 30 min. broadcast delay at US Championship.
Draw your own conclusions.

Also his analysis in post-game interview is still crap. Every GM they interviewed (Robson, Fabi, Shankland, etc.) all show good insights about their games and not necessarily long accurate variations. But Hans just seems like a much weaker player when analyzing, if he chooses to analyze at all. Sorry that's my honest opinion.