24
votes
Magnus Carlsen beats Hans Niemann, in first match since infamous cheating scandal, at the 2024 Speed Chess Championship in Paris
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Authors
- Ben Morse
- Published
- Sep 7 2024
If it weren't for that damn mouse!!! lol
"Cheating" scandal in which no cheating was ever found, mind you. I lost a lot of respect for Magnus and others over this.
Danny has always been a clown and a sycophant so his behavior was to be expected. He's a self-important blowhard who has no business inserting himself as a commentator, for example.
Hasn't he cheated before as well? I seem to remember him being banned when he was younger. Also wasn't the issue more on how well he was playing compared to his usual that the best excuse was cheating.
He's admitted to cheating online, yes. He says he's never done it OTB (over-the-board).
There's absolutely zero proof that Hans cheated in that game. That is something you want when the most famous player in the world accuses his opponent of cheating, effectively tarnishing a young man's career for life. As far as everyone knows, Hans is kind of a dick and has a checkered past but that is not enough to simply presume that he cheated against Magnus.
After that debacle, if I was a young chess pro I would be a little scared of doing too well against Magnus, not gonna lie.
It's true that there is no solid proof but from what i read he cheated over a 100 of times on chess.com games, if that's the case he's not just someone trying out cheating but a proper cheater who is good at chess as well.
When he was 13 or 14, yes. He freely admitted that he made a mistake. He was a child. I don't think that incident should be held against him super strongly today.
Chess.com published 100+ games of him cheating. I don't believe those were historical but recent around the time of the controversy. It wasn't just when he was young.
Chess.com is partly owned by Magnus Carlsen and released that data shortly after Magnus accused Hans of cheating.
And yet the data can easily be checked yourself using the exact same methods the entire world does to look for cheating.
Sure, I just think that's relevant context. It's a little weird how most people seem to ignore that.
Can you expand on how that context matters in this specific case?
I don't ask in malice, it's just that isn't that fairly normal to be presented with data from the people who are trying to prove an accusation? That is aside the fact that I can't find how much of chess.com he owns (if any) but it's fairly obvious that the uppers at chess.com would be willing to offer aide to such a big name in the space regardless of relationship.
Regardless of who presented the raw data, if the data itself is reputable and damning, I don't understand why it would matter who brought it to the table. I would be more understanding if the data were preformatted and not in a raw form, in which case you could argue twisting reality to fit a narrative.
It seems self evident, I'm not sure why I have to suport anything specific, to be honest.
Maybe it makes sense for you to defend the opposite? In what circumstances is it not relevant for Magnus to have an evolving relationship with the company that published a huge dossier to support his hypothesis shortly after he presented that hypothesis? Something they never did before or since? How is that not relevant information? Even more considering that the game with Magnus was not even on chess.com, so you can compile all the chesscom data in the, it will still not resolve whatever happened in that one game with Magnus. To say that someone stole in the past is not the same to say that they stole that one time.
The way Magnus and chesscom dealt with that whole thing was disappointing.
To think that none of that is relevant seems very misguided.
Well call me a stooge for asking a self-evident question. I'll ask it again because it isn't to me.
Well, let's suppose Magnus is playing puppeteer and was the sole reason that information got published. The data can be analyzed by anyone (and has been ad nauseum). It's clear he has cheated where he said he hasn't.
Why is this less valuable coming from Magnus himself or his supposed puppets at chess.com versus anyone else?
I guess I'm just not seeing how it's relevant at all. Again, it would be if the data were ambiguous or prefabricated but these games are all public for anyone to see, it's just raw data, there's no influence from those who presented it.
Edit: your post changed fairly significantly while I was responding. I'll leave it but I'll bow out now as it's gotten confusing as to what I'm answering
Why would I defend something I never stated in the first place? I do not have any specific theory to offer you, my point is to say that some things are worth considering. If you wish to discuss an specifc theory, I'm afraid you'll have to find someone else!
We are arguing two separate points. You're coming at it from the angle that any of the claims herein affect the accusations of "the" game with Magnus. I'm not arguing that, I am speaking about the source and result of the data for the purposes of setting a stage where this guy lied in the past. It doesn't directly indicate guilt in cheating in "the" match, just proving that he has in other matches.
I never stated anything in regards to the quality or truthfulness of whatever data chesscom published. I merely highlighted the relationship between Magnus and chesscom, the timing of the publishing, the uniqueness of chesscom publishing such a huge dossier, as well as the lack of relevance such data had in regards to the actual game that started the whole thing. I am critical of how both Magnus and chesscom dealt with the whole thing. Specifically the oddity of publishing a report as reaction to a game that did not take place in their platform. And oh, yes, even if Hans cheated a whole bunch, (1) why didn't chesscom took action before?, and (2) it is actually unethical to put that players crimes for the whole of humankind to see. That is extremely brutal and unkind. That should have been dealt with privately.
Also, at no time have I ever affirmed that Hans has a pristine background, is guilty of innocent. I am talking about how Magnus and chesscom dealt with the crisis more than anything.
You've affirmed we are arguing two separate points. I do not care of the politics of the situation. I was speaking literally only in terms of the integrity of the data.
If you go to the original few posts of this thread, it was brought up that Neiman said he cheated only when he was a kid but then chess.com released evidence otherwise. You said you thought it was relevant to mention Magnus' involvement with chess.com.
My question wasn't about the timing of the publication or any motives or politics otherwise, as there was no mention of any of that prior.
Here is where my question came from, in essence:
In that arc, it sounded to me like you were saying the data is compromised or less valuable due to who published it. So, I asked why, because the data is just games, it's unaltered so it shouldn't matter.
Clearly, you were speaking on another point.
So again, it seems to me we are not speaking on the same plane, making this entire thread chain fairly irrelevant.
How much ownership does Carlsen have? I see Chess.com acquired his company in 2022, and it's not clear how much of a stake he got in Chess.com if any?
The Chess.com report stated that it was likely that he cheated in over 100 online matches (including tournaments for money) as recently as 2020.
Please stop linking reports from Danny's vanity projects 🙂
I don't care about Danny and I don't care who he pays to play on his platform 🙂
Why? Data is data, and chess is maybe one of the easier games out there to actually identify cheating?
What is wrong with the report?
Even FIDE found that he had cheated in over 50 matches.
He cheated from ages 12 to 16 online, while he is still young he cheated online for do long that i don't blame people on jumping to conclusions on him and trusting magnusses hunch
Who is Danny? I didn't find a reference to anyone with that name in the linked article.
I assume they're referring to Danny Rensch, Chief Chess Officer of chess.com, the platform that serves as the primary online arena for chess. All the big players play there, and chess.com did a report (mentioned in the CNN article) looking into Niemann's cheating in online play.
Thank you for the context. "Chief Chess Officer" (his title) made me grin :)
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/15/sport/hans-niemann-magnus-carlsen-chess-probe-cheating-spt-intl/index.html
Excerpts:
After a probe by an investigatory panel of the Fair Play Commission (FPL) into the cheating allegations, FIDE’s statement on Wednesday said that “Carlsen’s suspicions of cheating were based on reasonable grounds despite the ultimate conclusion that GM Niemann had not made himself guilty of over-the-board cheating.”
“The reasonableness of GM Carlsen’s belief rested upon GM Niemann’s own confession of online cheating, and a report released by Chess.com,” the FIDE statement said.
According to the FIDE report, Regan also found “discrepancies” in Niemann’s statement that he had only cheated between the ages of 12 and 16.
However, the games of 2017 and the games against Bok in August of 2020 occurred after he turned 17 in June. Another important discrepancy is that the cheating took place in rated online games,” said the FIDE report
The report also said there was no “statistical evidence to support GM Niemann cheating in over the-board games” in an analysis of 13 tournaments over the past three years.
“Additionally, it was determined that GM Niemann´s overall results in the Sinquefield Cup showed no statistical basis for cheating,” the report said.
FIDE’s Ethics and Disciplinary Commission (EDC) said in the report that it concluded the case was “an in-between situation,” one “where a complaint can be well-founded without the suspected person not found guilty of cheating.
“(Carlsen’s) statement regarding Niemann being a cheater was made after Niemann´s confession. In the Chamber's opinion, this mitigates his comment from being reckless, or manifestly unfounded as Niemann himself admitted to cheating.”