Niemann - Carlsen

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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!

[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.

[Aris Marghetis]

"My lawsuit speaks for itself"

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

[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.

[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.

[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!