If Hans cheated once in an event for money, he should be banned from competing in chess. It's absolutely astounding to me that he has admitted to cheating multiple times and yet he's still playing in tournaments.
Even sillier is the number of people willing to completely ignore his rampant cheating just because it was "online". Hans has to carry the burden of his decisions, that's how this work.
There's a vocal minority who earnestly believe that because the internet obscures wrongdoing, it absolves all wrongdoing. Those people cheat, steal, lie, and then say "it's online, what's the big deal" to skulk away from the consequences. I think they identify with Hans Niemann, Dredd Pirate Roberts and other internet celebrities of ill repute because there's not much else for them to hide behind.
The lawsuit is alleging that he is being penalized for cheating in a game that he did not cheat.
Afaik, nobody is arguing that you can't punish somebody for breaking a rule. He even was banned in the past for cheating. However, you can't use an already punished infraction to issue a second infraction. Hans is claiming that he's been blacklisted from a bunch of tournaments as a result of a very unproven claim he cheated in the Sinquefield Cup.
First time I heard it is more widespread. In that case, I don't understand why Niemann is being targeted so hard by chess.com (no opinion about Carlsen.)
> Of the cheaters we have detected to date, 51 (10.2%) are grandmasters. 98 (19.6%) are international masters, and 160 (31.9%) are FIDE masters. More than 90% of these players are male.
> Destroy someone's career and livelihood with unsubstantiated claims.
Hans admitted cheating while playing games on Chess.com. Is alleging that he cheated more than he previously admitted destroying his career and livelihood?
Chess.com never said Hans cheated OTB, they just provided factual evidence of his rampant online cheating in both casual and money events... Something they probably wouldn't have done if he hadn't decided to lie about the extent of his cheating on camera at the Sinquefield Cup.
From the outside perspective, Hans used Chess.com’s brand by essentially saying that Chess.com vouches for his credibility. Then Chess.com asked Hans to recant and came out with their fat report after he refused.
Chess.com said very little about Magnus's charge of cheating and constrained their commentary to their relationship with Hans. I don't see this as Chess.com trying to punish Hans as opposed to Chess.com trying to protect their brand by (1) banning a problematic player from their own online games and (2) retorting Han's claims about further online cheating.
Note that Hans does not dispute the legality of (1) and does not dispute the factuality of (2). Hans is trying to tie Chess.com into this by saying there's a conspiracy against him when he has provided zero evidence of that.
Then don't cheat. If you are a known cheater other players have the right to be suspicious of you, especially in high stakes tournaments.
>But somehow is Niemann how is doing the public relations stunt.
What else would you call this lawsuit? Do you think Niemann, a known cheater, has an actual claim which meets the very high standards he needs to overcome to win the suite? Do you not think a professional chess player has the right to withdraw from a series and say that he does not feel comfortable playing a known cheater?
> you not think a professional chess player has the right to withdraw from a series
He may have a legal right to do that.
But if someone does that, then the international chess federation should sanction that player for unsportsmanlike conduct, and bad the withdrawer from future tournaments.
So there can be no redemption? I can’t, off the top of my head, think of any endeavors where someone can never participate again once they’ve cheated. Certainly not in sports.
The number one chess player on the planet qualifies as someone who can express an informed, professional opinion that another individual was calmer than he should have been under certain circumstances. Many similarly qualified experts will support that contention. Such experts professing the belief that someone who admits cheating has done so more than they've admitted is similarly not going anywhere.
I’m going to guess this lawsuit will fail mostly because it looked to me like Magnus and Chess.com both made statements that were qualified and sounded like read outs. I’d surmise that a legal red team had hit this in preparation for this contingency.
This should be a reminder everyone to guard your reputation. It doesn’t matter if Hans cheated this time. He cheated in the past which tarnished his reputation so now no one knows what to believe.
Always do the right thing to the best of your ability. Additionally, and importantly, fitting in and doing the right thing are NOT the same thing, though many people conflate the former with the latter as a moral shortcut. Doing the right thing is hard and Hans is going to have to do a lot of growing to get past this moment. His lawsuit suggests he’s not there yet.
This is the boy who cried wolf. Hans lost his credibility by cheating multiple times. If he actually played that game fairly, it’s still on him for many people doubting him.
Online chess and OTB chess are not the same. This is a mistake many people ITT are making. If they can prove that he cheated OTB (especially if they can prove he cheated during that now infamous game against Magnus Carlsen at the Sinquefield Cup, which is what set this whole thing off in the first place) then by all means he should be banned but until then let's put the pitchforks down.
"Online chess", and "online chess for money" aren't the same either.
I'd say the "for money"/not, vs "online"/not is a more significant factor.
I mean, if someone shows they're willing to cheat for prize money in online games, I'd be surprised to hear that they'd have qualms about cheating for money in an OTB game.
Why should people be set to a different competitive standard? Both are chess tournaments played for money with the expectation that everyone is playing fairly.
This is a very recent line of thinking that started last year or so when serious prize funds started happening online. Takes some time for this to disperse to everyone....if it merits it even. Definitely no FIDE rated ones but has there been a classical game played in an online tournament by GMs?
The fact that he cheated more than he previously confessed to puts enough doubt to black list him. Just about every other sport permanently disqualifies cheaters, I have no idea why Hans was allowed in spite of his own admissions plus his lies of omisson.
It's not a fact. Hans disputes this and chess.com who made the accusation provides no evidence. Even then, taking some rant he made while under the camera shouldn't be taken seriously enough to attack him like this.
IANAL but my understanding is that in a libel lawsuit the plaintiff has to prove that the defendant knew what they were saying was incorrect. That is a really high bar, and it is hard for me to imagine a scenario where Hans could do that. And $100M is a ridiculous amount, so calling it a PR stunt is spot on.
There are no winners in this. Magnus looks like a spoiled kid who throws tantrums (I think he psyched himself out in the game where he lost to Nieman), Hans looks even worse than him for bringing in lawyers.
Readit News
Afaik, nobody is arguing that you can't punish somebody for breaking a rule. He even was banned in the past for cheating. However, you can't use an already punished infraction to issue a second infraction. Hans is claiming that he's been blacklisted from a bunch of tournaments as a result of a very unproven claim he cheated in the Sinquefield Cup.
Just be aware that you'd have to ban ~20 percent of all grandmasters in chess.
Online cheating, even at the top level, is apparently rampant.
Biased source in this case, but https://www.chess.com/article/view/online-chess-cheating says 10%, which is certainly more than I would have thought:
> Of the cheaters we have detected to date, 51 (10.2%) are grandmasters. 98 (19.6%) are international masters, and 160 (31.9%) are FIDE masters. More than 90% of these players are male.
Then complain when said person files a law suit.
To add insult to injury. Chess.com is the one who jumped on the Niemann bandwagon. But somehow is Niemann how is doing the public relations stunt.
I find this whole episode very unpleasant. How one famous person's word against can make you a pariah to entire community; just like that.
Hans admitted cheating while playing games on Chess.com. Is alleging that he cheated more than he previously admitted destroying his career and livelihood?
That's not what Hans is claiming so it's irrelevant.
Hans is claiming that as a result of him beating Magnus in a game he did not cheat in. Hans is now blacklisted from nearly every chess event.
One famous person's word and Han's own history as a cheater that is.
But they did allow him to play, and only now after the fact want to somehow disqualify that he played and won and fairly.
I don't think people willing to do that are in a great position from which to talk about anyone else's integrity.
*https://drive.google.com/file/d/11IokKgTVSXdpYEzAuyViIleSZ_2...
The Hans Niemmann Report does not claim that Hans beat Magnus by cheating.
> X. The Sinquefield Cup and the Game with Magnus Carlsen
> ... In our view, no conclusions should be made from this data.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes, etc.
Chess.com said very little about Magnus's charge of cheating and constrained their commentary to their relationship with Hans. I don't see this as Chess.com trying to punish Hans as opposed to Chess.com trying to protect their brand by (1) banning a problematic player from their own online games and (2) retorting Han's claims about further online cheating.
Note that Hans does not dispute the legality of (1) and does not dispute the factuality of (2). Hans is trying to tie Chess.com into this by saying there's a conspiracy against him when he has provided zero evidence of that.
>But somehow is Niemann how is doing the public relations stunt.
What else would you call this lawsuit? Do you think Niemann, a known cheater, has an actual claim which meets the very high standards he needs to overcome to win the suite? Do you not think a professional chess player has the right to withdraw from a series and say that he does not feel comfortable playing a known cheater?
He may have a legal right to do that.
But if someone does that, then the international chess federation should sanction that player for unsportsmanlike conduct, and bad the withdrawer from future tournaments.
Always do the right thing to the best of your ability. Additionally, and importantly, fitting in and doing the right thing are NOT the same thing, though many people conflate the former with the latter as a moral shortcut. Doing the right thing is hard and Hans is going to have to do a lot of growing to get past this moment. His lawsuit suggests he’s not there yet.
Certainly many times a cheat, over an extended time frame, always a cheat.
You make assumptions about others based on what you know of yourself.
I'd say the "for money"/not, vs "online"/not is a more significant factor.
I mean, if someone shows they're willing to cheat for prize money in online games, I'd be surprised to hear that they'd have qualms about cheating for money in an OTB game.
Fool me twice, shame on me.
Fool me thrice... won't get fooled again?
There are no winners in this. Magnus looks like a spoiled kid who throws tantrums (I think he psyched himself out in the game where he lost to Nieman), Hans looks even worse than him for bringing in lawyers.