Niemann - Carlsen

[Brad Thomson]

In support of those who take the side of Carlsen and the others against Niemann, I will say that he should already have been banned for life from competing in online events. Why he has not been is a question that seems relevant to me. There is no way he should be allowed to compete in a mode of chess wherein cheating is relatively easy and cannot be policed adequately short of monitors being placed in the room of every player in the various parts of the planet where they are playing from. Niemann, I believe, has already disqualified himself from the right to compete online. So why do not Carlsen and his cronies focus on this? To accuse Niemann of cheating over the board without offering any explanation as to how he could possibly do it, and simply saying "well, ah, we do not think he is that good", is not good enough, not even close. Tell us how Niemann pulls it off, or shut up and simply try to get him removed from online play, which is reasonable, and quite possibly something that should already have been done.

[Joshua Guo]

Naka - in his many hours of streaming he never directly called Hans a cheater, he just presented the evidence in a interesting way for people to judge

chess.com - gave him 2nd chance account after he cheated multiple times, Hans then cheated on his 2nd chance account. Have emails and games to back up

Hans has no collusion evidence between the 3 defendants, much much less than OTB cheating evidence against him over past 3 years.

[Joshua Guo]

Haha, only lawyers win in litigation.

Seems like Hans family is ok well off, lived in SF, went to private school. But for sure MC, Naka, chess.com all have way more resources than him.

I guess that’s why he’s suing. He has no case against Naka and chess.com. Even by some miracle he wins some money against MC, Magnus can just say “f-off, I’m retiring anyways” and go back to Norway.

[Alex Ferreira]

I hope Niemann gets blown out of the water. Can you imagine how "good" it would be for chess if a self-admitted cheater can successfully sue someone for being concerned that the cheater might be cheating? And on what basis is Niemann claiming harm? Carlsen dropped out of the Sinquefeld Cup, thus effectively increasing the potential prize pool for everyone else (best player in the world leaves and everyone else moves up a step). Then the next time they met, Carlsen gifted the kid a full point. Haven't heard anything about Niemann being shunned by chess organizers. Have you? Niemann is a POS who made his own bed. Let him sleep in it!

Peter, you can't be serious (?). I am trying not to take sides here but... if Niemann has not cheated OTB, what Carlsen is doing / has done, is very much harmful to Niemann's career prospects.
Has Carlsen come out and outright call him a cheater OTB? Maybe not, but his actions and insinuations are very clear. Carlsen is treating Niemann like a cheater, and the chess world has reacted to it. If you or I said Niemann was cheating, nobody would have cared, or known about our thoughts.

I bet there are several organizers (top ones) out there who are probably weighing their options. And Peter, if they decide it's not worth the trouble, we won't hear about it. You will not have an organizer come and tell you "we're not inviting Niemann because... ", lets get real. Why would a closed event organizer invite Niemann? Sounds like more trouble than it's worth. Never mind the anti-cheating measures, the searches, the concerns, the media hype and the possible fiasco and him being caught and the whole tournament story becoming about that. Other top players may (or outright will refuse) not want to play in an event that features Niemann in the line-up. Or won't feel comfortable / play their best chess. On the flip-side, pre-Sinquefield Cup, Niemann looked like a great possible invitee to all the top tournaments, as an up-and-coming rising super star.

----

I don't know if Niemann was cheating. If he did cheat, he should be made an example of, healthy ban, the works. But if he was not...?
Truth is, it was Carlsen's behavior that caused this entire thing.
I would certainly be in agreement though, that lawsuits / etc are unlikely to bring any good out of this. This whole thing has been totally blown out of proportion, and chess is making mainstream news for the wrong reasons.

Alex F.

[Peter McKillop]

Good luck to Niemann, I hope the suck and his sycophants get taken to the cleaners. This whole episode is shameless, may all the truth come out.

I hope Niemann gets blown out of the water. Can you imagine how "good" it would be for chess if a self-admitted cheater can successfully sue someone for being concerned that the cheater might be cheating? And on what basis is Niemann claiming harm? Carlsen dropped out of the Sinquefeld Cup, thus effectively increasing the potential prize pool for everyone else (best player in the world leaves and everyone else moves up a step). Then the next time they met, Carlsen gifted the kid a full point. Haven't heard anything about Niemann being shunned by chess organizers. Have you? Niemann is a POS who made his own bed. Let him sleep in it!

[Brad Thomson]

Good luck to Niemann, I hope the suck and his sycophants get taken to the cleaners. This whole episode is shameless, may all the truth come out.

[Neil Frarey]

A few aspects of Carlsen's erratic behavior are super telling.

Carlsen tried the rare 4.g3 Nimzo, he made an early mistake which resulted in an unpleasant endgame.
Carlsen when asked in a public interview gave Niemann, and his crew, a very favorable and very public valuation of Niemann's impressive play.
Carlsen's latest comment failed prove Niemann cheated.

Is it time to drag Carlsen and chesscom into court?

The time has come, ha!

Here's the filing ...

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...ann-v-carlsen/

And under NATURE OF THE ACTION

8. Notorious for his inability to cope with defeat, Carlsen snapped.

17. Accordingly, Niemann asserts the following claims against Defendants:

(1) slander;
(2) libel;
(3) unlawful group boycott under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, et. seq.;
(4) tortious interference with contract and business expectancies; and
(5) civil conspiracy.

18. Niemann seeks damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but no less than
One Hundred Million Dollars ($100,000,000).

And under PARTIES

19. Plaintiff Hans Moke Niemann is a natural person and a Connecticut resident.
20. Defendant Sven Magnus Øen Carlsen is a natural person residing in Norway.
21. Defendant Play Magnus AS d/b/a Play Magnus Group is a Norway limited liability
company founded and owned, in whole or in part, by Carlsen.
22. Defendant Chess.com, LLC is a Nevada limited liability company with a principal
place of business in Mountain View, California. Upon information and belief, Chess.com’s
members reside in Utah and California.
23. Defendant Daniel Rensch a/k/a “Danny” Rensch is a natural person residing in
Utah.
24. Defendant Hikaru Nakamura is a natural person residing in Florida.

[Aris Marghetis]

"My lawsuit speaks for itself"

https://twitter.com/ollie/status/158...uK-oBbYPQ&s=03

[Ian Findlay]

So now it seems that because of Carlsen's one move resignation against Niemann, GMs are doing the same to Carlsen ...

https://new.chess24.com/wall/news/ma...n-1-g5-mockery

Not so great for all the hard work organizers put into an event ... not mention the sponsors!

Thanks Carlsen!

Neil, time will tell if other gms will do the same, but Mamedov said he did it to protest 1...g5. It was a Titled Tuesday event, no big deal really, but yes, Carlsen opened up a can of worms.

[Neil Frarey]

So now it seems that because of Carlsen's one move resignation against Niemann, GMs are doing the same to Carlsen ...

https://new.chess24.com/wall/news/ma...n-1-g5-mockery

Not so great for all the hard work organizers put into an event ... not mention the sponsors!

Thanks Carlsen!

[Alex Ferreira]

This whole Niemann thing / cheating online topic is a bit funny in a way. We must all be really idle.
I actively boycott (just don't tune in) online chess (streams, chess channels and most importantly online competitions with top players). One exception is top GMs analyzing live OTB events, preferably without engines. Love those, I find them instructive.
That's not to say that I don't occasionally play online chess, on lichess or chess24 or whatever. I rarely do and / but enjoy it.

To my mind, online chess is just not meant to be taken seriously. It should be for amateurs to go try new openings / or just air out from their daily lives by pushing some pieces around.
Cheating online is just stupid, if online chess kept at an amateur level.

They (platform, sponsors, justified by big audiences) create - and pandemic took it through the roof - all these "pro level" online tournaments with ridiculous high prizes. What do you think is going to happen? Online cheating must be a lot easier to do than OTB chess. Get rid of online money chess :-P so we can bury this topic.

----------------------------------------

As for Niemann, what's happening is grotesque. Whether he's cheating or not. All these analyzes, hypothesis, studies, expert inputs mixed in with a world of trolling by armchair critics.
We know he cheated online. The real topic is: did he cheat and how, over-the-board? That should be the real concern.

Where's the proof? It's incredible how far this has gone without some absolute necessary basics:
- what method was used?
- was there an accomplice?
- how did he sneak something through?
- how was communication established?
- what factors contributed for someone (ie Niemann) to be allowed to get it through?

We got zilch on the fundamentals (assuming he cheated). Without it, we can't really move forward.
- can't prosecute / sentence the cheater (well, we're online prosecuting him without the above base conditions met) - SHAME!
- can't evaluate / debug the methods used - because we don't know what they were!
- can't block possible use of such devices (assuming some were used) - because we don't know what they are!
- can't block communication / sanction accomplices - because we don't know if / how there was any established!
- can't put additional measures across the board - because we don't know what we're looking for / trying to prevent!


Alex F.

[Vlad Drkulec]

I think your chances of winning this are close to zero. You also rely on finding a judge or jury that has the capability of even understanding the evidence. In most cases, you're going to have an accused cheat saying "I didn't cheat" vs a giant corporation with a mountain of hard to understand but very official looking data that says "you did cheat" and the judge/jury will look at the word vs the mountain and rule in favor of the mountain.

Most cases end in arbitration or get resolved early because the cheating flags were obviously set off erroneously. An example of the latter, a 2200 CFC player gets flagged for beating a 2100 chess.com player. They start your chess.com rating at 1500 and the 2200 player played very rarely on chess.com. Once it was established that he was a 2200 player his account was reinstated. There is a problem with young players who improve significantly over short time frames. They get flagged particularly when they beat a higher rated player.

The ones that cheated usually don't appeal. The ones that didn't cheat tend to be the ones that appeal. The grind of time is what usually does the people who do appeal in. The costs for a lawyer and the expert also can factor in if you don't get a pro bono lawyer and expert.

In my experience your chances of winning if you are willing to see it through to the end are excellent (if you didn't cheat). You will need that lawyer and someone (hopefully a chess and data/statistics expert) to explain the data in a way that walks the people deciding the case through the data and what it purports to show. The expert might need to go through and analyze the games that form the basis of the claim that you cheated.

I have had conversations with the principals of chess.com and later signed a non-disclosure agreement. I have had discussions with their fair play people about their robust anti-cheating measures which are quite good but not perfect. I have also dealt with them outside of the matters covered by the NDA in my role as CFC president and the person that usually gets involved in online cheating controversies that involve CFC games. Not everything that they say on their chess.com website is accurate.They do not disclose the basis on which an account was suspended until they absolutely have to and only at that point are you able to form a defense against the charges.

[David Ottosen]

You can always go to court or to arbitration. It will take you a year or usually two to get to a decision. You have some chances of reversing the ban if you really didn't cheat. It is not certain that you will be able to reverse the ban if you did not cheat. Most don't bother and simply start playing on a different platform. You will need a good lawyer and an expert who can present the case that you did not cheat. You basically have to prove that you did not cheat.

I think your chances of winning this are close to zero. You also rely on finding a judge or jury that has the capability of even understanding the evidence. In most cases, you're going to have an accused cheat saying "I didn't cheat" vs a giant corporation with a mountain of hard to understand but very official looking data that says "you did cheat" and the judge/jury will look at the word vs the mountain and rule in favor of the mountain.

[Aris Marghetis]

You can always go to court or to arbitration. It will take you a year or usually two to get to a decision. You have some chances of reversing the ban if you really didn't cheat. It is not certain that you will be able to reverse the ban if you did not cheat. Most don't bother and simply start playing on a different platform. You will need a good lawyer and an expert who can present the case that you did not cheat. You basically have to prove that you did not cheat.

Without revealing details that I probably shouldn't, I can echo that I'm aware of concerns from many friends and students about chess.com re arguable false positives. It can all feel impossible.

On a related note, here's an announcement today from ICC:
(I've never been aware of any false positives accused on ICC)

An Official Statement by the Internet Chess Club (Chessclub.com) on Fair Play.
Online chess has become increasingly popular for both recreational play and serious tournament play, more so following the pandemic. Promoting and ensuring Fair Play has become an even more paramount issue for ICC as tournament prize funds have increased significantly over the past two years. With all the chess engines available with a button click, it becomes far too easy for players, in a moment of laziness, to lean on one to assist their play illegally. Anti-cheating measures have become critical in offering a level playing field to players and organizers for trusted online tournaments.
At ICC, we take Fair Play very seriously.
ICC is committed to offering the highest standard of Fair Play. It has been a mission of ICC's staff for more than 25 years to ensure a safe and fair playing environment for our players and to protect the integrity of chess played online.
ICC has been entrusted to oversee thousands of participants in US Chess Scholastic Tournaments, weekly US Chess online rated tournaments, and CCA cash prize tournaments having awarded over $300,000 since 2020. ICC’s Fair Play team maintains the highest Fair Play standards in overseeing these important online events. Our staff and anti-cheating methods have gone through the process of being fully approved by the United States Chess Federation with the benefit of over a quarter century of development.
Anti-Cheating Methods and Procedures
Having experienced over 25 years of online play, overseeing millions of games every year, ICC has developed tools and procedures to detect cheating and takes rigorous steps to deal with players who violate the Fair Play rules.
We are a trusted partner of US Chess and have received their highest endorsement in the fair play area.
"The ICC’s system has a multi-level review process that uses computer analysis, their very experienced internal staff, and external high-level players. This multilevel review results in a very low rate (no known instances) of false positive detections".
It is well-known that no anti-cheating system can be perfect, but we at ICC can proudly affirm that we are one of the foremost leaders in the industry regarding anti-cheating measures.
ICC uses a team of experts who constantly work to ensure Fair Play while constantly improving the methods used in the process. ICC scrutinizes games with analysis tools that check the correspondence with engine moves and other characteristics of assisted play. When analysis finds specific parameters over the preset thresholds, the game is flagged and further analyzed by the Fair Play team. The team then analyzes the game with a forensic approach. We conduct detailed analysis with a suite of chess engines, and other data points are collected from the player and cross-checked against peer groups.
Cash Prize Tournaments
ICC holds cash-prize USCF-rated tournaments regularly. Most of our cash prize tournaments use longer time controls than Rapid. These longer time control events increase the team's workload. More time provides more opportunity for players to illegally access an engine. Proper oversight of lengthy time control online tournaments, with a large field of entrants, from unrated to Grandmaster, is an incredible task the team takes very seriously.
ICC staff developed a procedure to ensure Fair Play in these events. All players participating in a tournament with cash prizes must connect to Zoom, with webcams allowing tournament staff to see the player and their computer screens. The Tournament Directors are connected to the Zoom room. The number of TDs is proportionate to the number of participants so that each TD can focus on a limited number of players. During the tournament, analysis tools work in full swing, and the Fair Play team members are present online and ready to start an investigation if anything suspicious occurs. Meanwhile, the ICC team conducts a cloud analysis of all tournament games with popular chess engines, producing a screening to highlight players whose performance falls outside the norm.
As an added, independent review and cross-check, we also send all the tournament games to data scientist and Fair Play expert Professor Ken Regan for screening. Professor Regan's analysis, coupled with ICC's cloud analysis, pinpoints players needing forensic analysis. The Fair Play team checks the moves, one by one, and creates a standardized report for each game, with the analysis results and their conclusions. In addition, Prof. Ken Regan then produces a full test as a further independent player review. No cash prizes are awarded until the Fair Play analysis has concluded.
Marty Grund, one of the founders of ICC, informs a player when he, or she, has committed a Fair Play violation. In most cases, those implicated are under the age of 15. Marty takes great care handling these delicate situations with empathy in hopes of a confession and a path by which they can continue to play, recover their credibility, and not quit the game.
In addition, great lengths are taken to avoid filing an ethics complaint with the US Chess Federation. Ethics complaints are filed only in cases where complete denial occurs. When an ethics complaint is filed, the US Chess Federation Ethics Committee examines ICC's analysis, evidence, the player's explanation, and then renders a decision. If an Ethics Complaint is upheld, sanctions have resulted in up to a two-year ban from rated US Chess play. Filing an ethics complaint is a complex task. As of now, in the rare cases where ICC had to file an ethics complaint, the US Chess Federation has upheld ICC's opinion.
Fair Play is one of the most critical issues impacting online play. ICC will continue to improve its Fair Play oversight process and procedures. ICC will continue to invest and apply its knowledge, experience, and technology to give its members a safe playing environment and to protect the integrity of chess played online.

[Vlad Drkulec]

As I read it, basically once chess.com decides you cheated, you have two options:

1) admit that you cheated, apologize, promise not to do it again and be allowed back
2) deny you cheated and be banned for life and face whispers that you were banned and what that implies

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

I don't get the impression from his writing that he doesn't care about online chess; quite the opposite.

You can always go to court or to arbitration. It will take you a year or usually two to get to a decision. You have some chances of reversing the ban if you really didn't cheat. It is not certain that you will be able to reverse the ban if you did not cheat. Most don't bother and simply start playing on a different platform. You will need a good lawyer and an expert who can present the case that you did not cheat. You basically have to prove that you did not cheat.