Yeah, I caught that here late in the US last night. The drama continues… Let’s see if they end up facing each other in the finals of this generations tournament for our next dramatic installment. Maxim was banned from a chess.com Titled Tuesday tournament where he had 8 of 8 points going into his 9th game.
Oh, nevermind. Missed the news that Hans was eliminated earlier today.
Speaking of elimination, the controversy has taken a darker turn.
I laughed more than was strictly necessary there. I think it was the chalk outline.
I do know what The Onion is, but their casual reference to a “cheating scandal” is taking a non-satirical position on the whole mess.
Well, good for Carlsen, he just came out and said it rather than continuing to be coy. He is concretely calling Niemann a repeat cheater.
Yep, good to have more of a formal statement from Magnus, and it’s pretty much what people expected. Hans had admitted to two instances of cheating online, but Magnus believes he’s done more than that. I definitely agree with Magnus that cheating in general is a big deal and needs to be dealt with.
The bit about Niemann’s behaviour in their over-the-board game is tough though. Obviously Magnus has enough experience for us to listen to him about someone behaving strangely during a game. But by his own words he was already bothered and suspicious of Hans before the game, so that’s really likely to colour his perceptions of Hans’s behaviour.
It’s good to have that out there rather than speculation even though speculation was completely correct.
However, Magnus better be right or he’s fucking over a guy really badly.
That guy being, principally, himself. As in, if it is proven that Niemann did not in fact cheat, he will be forever known as the sore loser champion who couldn’t deal with the fact someone outplayed him. It’s an almost Fischer-esque meltdown (minus - I assume - the antisemitism).
Now in fact, it is almost impossible for there to be proof either way - unless Niemann confesses. But why would he? Even if he was cheating, he knows that it can probably never be proven, so it’s highly unlikely he would choose to confess (and he certainly wouldn’t if he was not in fact cheating).
If chess tournaments introduce more measures to counter cheating, and Niemann’s performance never reaches similar levels, that would be (further) suggestive that he did in fact cheat against Carlsen, so we will have to wait and see what happens in the coming years.
Of course, the genius of Carlson’s position is that you cannot PROVE he didn’t cheat. There’s no way to prove he didn’t have some kind of electronic device on - or in - him somewhere during that match. It could in theory be proven he did cheat. Carlson can win but can’t lose.
Perhaps there’s a libel case here? Carlsen’s written statement is a strong attack against Niemann and will damage his career.
I agree with your first 2 sentences, but not the second 2 - Niemann is in a similar position in that given no hard evidence has emerged by this time, it’s now all but impossible to prove that he did cheat (if he did).
If Niemann didn’t cheat, he can (effectively) prove that by beating top chess players in serious tournaments, if he does so then Carlsen looks a fool, at best. Almost a case of “no harm, no foul” as far as his chess career goes. If he doesn’t, well then it makes it more probable that he did in fact cheat in some way to beat Carlsen.
Not more probable, just more believable.
Sounds like a great case, Carlsen has not produced a shred of evidence backing his contention.
Niemann is now going to be tarred as a cheater for the rest of his life. He’s not Magnus Carlson, he doesn’t have that level of pull.
But didn’t he admit to cheating online earlier in his career?
Well to be fair, he had already admitted to (previously) cheating prior to this whole situation - Magnus has just made it a whole lot higher in profile.
To be clear, I’m not a massive Carlsen fan-boy, I think there are many things he could have handled better here. But I think it’s more likely that Niemann cheated, based on what we know, than not. Only slightly more likely - balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt. So I certainly could be wrong.
At 12 and 16. Meh.
No, that’s just more proof of him cheating!
Well, that’s only 3 years ago. And it’s highly doubtful that those were the only two times.
Ah well, if you just assume guilt that makes things pretty easy.
What’s more likely, he cheated multiple times between the ages of 12 and 16 and only got caught twice? Or he cheated once when he was 12, thought “well that’s enough”, and then 4 years later went “maybe I’ll cheat one more time.”