Here is a pretty good breakdown of the lawsuit from a lawyer who has read it:
A person who’s “well known” is always well-known within some particular context. The context here is clearly chess: That’s the context in which the claims were made, and the context in which Niemann’s reputation was harmed, and the context in which the claims would be widely heard. And in the context of chess, a grandmaster is notable.
“As a teenager” isn’t much of a qualifier, given that he’s still a teenager.
Ok, as a minor then.
It doesn’t matter what words you use to describe it; the cheating which he already admitted to was only three years ago. Two if you believe the chess.com report.
I guess I’ve been practicing the wrong sorta law these past several decades. Damn, but that is some lurid language for a Complaint! I’ve never seen such personal language. Not sure how you would reply to some of those counts…
I’ll listen to some of the expert commentary later.
Seems to demonstrate that Niemann is a massive narcissist at the least. There’s just something about adjective/adverb overuse that gives off a certain scent: devastating damages, egregiously defaming, incredibly lucrative, upset victory, maliciously retaliated, cowardly demand, etc. Brings to mind certain other well-known narcissists…
It’s easy to blow that claim out of the water.
Bobby Fischer (when US champion) withdrew from a match v Reshevsky in 1961
Fischer withdrew from the 1967 Interzonal in Sousse
Fischer defaulted in game 2 of his World Championship match v Spassky in 1972
Isn’t Bobby Fischer the last person you’d want to be the only precedent for your behavior?
Well Fischer had problems (and behaved badly) away from the board for sure.
But he certainly behaved himself when playing.
In any case, Fischer was a world-class player who withdrew from prestigious chess events - which nullifies the claim.
Since I have very little experience following chess compared with you for sure, I’m asking if this is something that happens more often than a few times in a century.
Well there have certainly been serious disputes at high level (the World Championship matches between Karpov + Korchnoi, plus Kasparov + Karpov come to mind.)
In my opinion, the claim does not help Niemann’s cause.
But “virtually unheard of” is not the same thing as claiming it has never happened.
It’s a valid thing for him to say, IMO.
Twice!
PS I still have my copy of Robert Wade’s post-tournament book for that Interzonal, and it’s fascinating reading.
Don’t forget the 2006 World Championship between Kramnik and Topalov, where the area of dispute was also allegations of illegal computer assistance, resulting in Kramnik forfeiting Game 5 of that match.
Although in this case, the one who forfeited the game (Kramnik) was the accused, not the accuser, since he felt insulted by the allegations from Topalov’s camp.
I was wondering that too. Don’t some European countries consider it libel if you say something that hurts their reputation even if true?
That’s Japan IIRC, it’s literally a law about insulting someone’s honor even if it’s true.
Niemann’s suit was dismissed (in part with prejudice and in part without prejudice). See Niemann’s $100 Million Defamation Lawsuit Dismissed - Chess.com for the story. The first link in the chess.com story leads to an article that contains the full text of the dismissal. This chessbase article ( Niemann’s $100 Million Defamation Lawsuit Dismissed - Chess.com) summarizes the dismissal for those who don’t want to read all of it.
Not quite sure if this is appropriate to the thread, but it demonstrates that one mooted method of cheating was at least feasible.
I still don’t know why everyone focuses on the “remote controlled” aspect. It wouldn’t be too hard to build the entire computer into the… erm… signalling device.
Inputting the moves without being obvious might prove a challenge. Perhaps it’s lack of practice, but I don’t think I can clench my anus in Morse code without seeming suspicious.