Chess discussions



Chess.com saying they have evidence that contradicts Hans' claims as to the extent and seriousness of his cheating on that site and that's why they have banned him again.

If it turns out he was lying about how much he cheated while only admitting to the two times he was actually caught then his credibility is shot, even if he didn't actually cheat against Carlsen.
 
All this chess.com stuff is a bit of an aside. I don't see any remotely good evidence he's cheating over the board. For a start it's a lot harder to do, and there's nothing really in the games to suggest it. He's made plenty of human errors where you're supposed to make errors. The GMs that I have seen look over the games don't seem particularly convinced either.

If the chess.com stuff stood on its own merit as important they should have been dealing with it themselves, not just throwing everything at the wall because Magnus has spat his dummy out. They already banned him for it. Whether the punishment fit the crime I don't think it generally does, they're too lenient, but time was served for it. The Magnus tour also gave Hans opportunities after the chess.com cheating was already known in the community so that's..strange?

To me it's Magnus throwing his weight around because he's unhappy he lost and he couldn't get over his own paranoia due to Hans chequered history and now he's involved with chess.com they're all piling in. For once I think he miscalculated his response here and put a massive dent in the tournament to boot.
 
Abraxas said:
All this chess.com stuff is a bit of an aside. I don't see any remotely good evidence he's cheating over the board. For a start it's a lot harder to do, and there's nothing really in the games to suggest it. He's made plenty of human errors where you're supposed to make errors. The GMs that I have seen look over the games don't seem particularly convinced either.

If the chess.com stuff stood on its own merit as important they should have been dealing with it themselves, not just throwing everything at the wall because Magnus has spat his dummy out. They already banned him for it. Whether the punishment fit the crime I don't think it generally does, they're too lenient, but time was served for it. The Magnus tour also gave Hans opportunities after the chess.com cheating was already known in the community so that's..strange?

To me it's Magnus throwing his weight around because he's unhappy he lost and he couldn't get over his own paranoia due to Hans chequered history and now he's involved with chess.com they're all piling in. For once I think he miscalculated his response here and put a massive dent in the tournament to boot.
Click to expand...

He got a lenient six month ban because he admitted to cheating. If it turns out he has cheated on other occasions (which of course he has, someone who has been caught twice has cheated tons of times), then he hasn't been honest and he'll get the normal punishment instead. And they did deal with it themselves, the only reason we know about the ban is because Niemann told us.
 
altodevil said:
Needs to actually say what's wrong now
Click to expand...
If it's under investigation he actually cannot speak.

That being said, Hans has admitted to cheating in the past, so I don't understand the support he is getting now.
 
NM said:
If it's under investigation he actually cannot speak.

That being said, Hans has admitted to cheating in the past, so I don't understand the support he is getting now.
Click to expand...

The distinction between online cheating and OTB cheating is a big one in people's minds, I think. Partly because they think it's more serious, partly because they think it's a lot more difficult to actually do. And also maybe because a lot of casual chess fans have cheated online themselves in one way or another.

So the fact that he cheated online doesn't massively seem to carry across for them to Carlsen's (silent) allegation. At least not in the way you'd suspect it does for his fellow professionals.
 
sullydnl said:
The distinction between online cheating and OTB cheating is a big one in people's minds, I think. Partly because they think it's more serious, partly because they think it's a lot more difficult to actually do. And also maybe because a lot of casual chess fans have cheated online themselves in one way or another.

So the fact that he cheated online doesn't massively seem to carry across for them to Carlsen's (silent) allegation. At least not in the way you'd suspect it does for his fellow professionals.
Click to expand...

Yeah but this tournament is online. I don't like what Carlsen is doing (unless he's been told by FIDE / legal not to speak), but the support for a known cheater baffles me.

Also for context - I was a semi-serious player in my youth and played tournaments etc. so am not talking out of my butt. If you think the opponent is cheating you cannot play "normally" against them.
 
Suv666 said:
What a sore loser. Magnus is being a petulant child. You can't just accuse someone of cheating without a shred of evidence..
Click to expand...
Yeah but I think he's under legal advice not to say anything for now. So unfortunately it's not that simple as the evidence will have to be given through the right channels.
 
NM said:
Yeah but this tournament is online. I don't like what Carlsen is doing (unless he's been told by FIDE / legal not to speak), but the support for a known cheater baffles me.

Also for context - I was a semi-serious player in my youth and played tournaments etc. so am not talking out of my butt. If you think the opponent is cheating you cannot play "normally" against them.
Click to expand...
He cheated online as a 16 year old living alone at the height of pandemic lockdown just to pump his rating - you don't have to like him but it's pretty understandable that people can distinguish that from e.g. cheating at a OTB event with huge prize money. There's a reason why our justice systems are also more lenient with regards to underage criminals.
 
Kasper said:
He cheated online as a 16 year old living alone at the height of pandemic lockdown just to pump his rating - you don't have to like him but it's pretty understandable that people can distinguish that from e.g. cheating at a OTB event with huge prize money. There's a reason why our justice systems are also more lenient with regards to underage criminals.
Click to expand...

So I guess I should have cheated to pump my rating up and maybe made 2000 and had chess as a career when I was a kid? Nah that's bullshit. If you play as a professional, it can and should be held against you..
 
NM said:
So I guess I should have cheated to pump my rating up and maybe made 2000 and had chess as a career when I was a kid? Nah that's bullshit. If you play as a professional, it can and should be held against you..
Click to expand...
Well a) that wouldn't be enough by far and b) I wouldn't hold it against you if you afterwards perform at this level all by yourself, yes.
I also wouldn't hold a grudge against a professional football player who under pressure thought it would be smart to take EPO at the age of 15 to improve his performance.
 
Kasper said:
Well a) that wouldn't be enough by far and b) I wouldn't hold it against you if you afterwards perform at this level all by yourself, yes.
I also wouldn't hold a grudge against a professional football player who under pressure thought it would be smart to take EPO at the age of 15 to improve his performance.
Click to expand...

Buddy I've playd the likes of Humpy and Pragg over time and have played a few people who have made it pro. I know what it takes. Would I have made a GM? Hell no but an IM / NM probably.

That being said, let's take your analogy. If that player becomes the best in the world after taking PEDs you would think it's ok. That's a joke.
 
NM said:
Buddy I've playd the likes of Humpy and Pragg over time and have played a few people who have made it pro. I know what it takes. Would I have made a GM? Hell no but an IM / NM probably.

That being said, let's take your analogy. If that player becomes the best in the world after taking PEDs you would think it's ok. That's a joke.
Click to expand...
Your premise is that he is where he is because he cheated. If that's the case, yes bin him. But that has by no means be proven to be correct.
If said footballer becomes the best in the world clean and irrespective of taking epo back when he was 15, yeah I wouldn't give a feck if he apologized because I would consider the circumstances. If he would have Armstronged his way to the top obviously not.
 
Kasper said:
Well a) that wouldn't be enough by far and b) I wouldn't hold it against you if you afterwards perform at this level all by yourself, yes.
I also wouldn't hold a grudge against a professional football player who under pressure thought it would be smart to take EPO at the age of 15 to improve his performance.
Click to expand...
Not really a like for like comparison. Performance enhancing drugs don't eliminate all competition, they're just an advantage. Using an engine during a chess game is as good as an invincible hack. They're both very poor form but cheating in chess is a grave threat to the expansion of the game and does deserve harsh punishment when proven.
 
Abraxas said:
Not really a like for like comparison. Performance enhancing drugs don't eliminate all competition, they're just an advantage. Using an engine during a chess game is as good as an invincible hack. They're both very poor form but cheating in chess is a grave threat to the expansion of the game and does deserve harsh punishment when proven.
Click to expand...
In addition to this @Kasper using an engine to get rated higher means you get more invites etc. which allow you to improve further. It's not nearly as simple as you are making it out to be.
 
In the case of Hans and at least one other GM, the issue is that they allegedly cheated in prized online tournaments, iirc it was Titled Tuesday for both.
 
Kasper said:
He cheated online as a 16 year old living alone at the height of pandemic lockdown just to pump his rating - you don't have to like him but it's pretty understandable that people can distinguish that from e.g. cheating at a OTB event with huge prize money. There's a reason why our justice systems are also more lenient with regards to underage criminals.
Click to expand...
There's no difference. I play pro league of legends and people that have cheated at those ages always remain shady. My 2 cents. I don't hate cheaters btw, they pay my bills.

I welcome the drama though. Chess needs more WWE esque storylines. Cant wait for the diva spinoff.
 
NM said:
So I guess I should have cheated to pump my rating up and maybe made 2000 and had chess as a career when I was a kid? Nah that's bullshit. If you play as a professional, it can and should be held against you..
Click to expand...

Innocent until proven guilty was a thing last I checked?

Also Magnus had no problem participating in the tournament with the lad. Only had a problem because he lost..

You can't have it both ways, if Magnus wins he wins if he loses well feck it he's a known cheater anyway.
 
Abraxas said:
Yeah but I think he's under legal advice not to say anything for now. So unfortunately it's not that simple as the evidence will have to be given through the right channels.
Click to expand...

I doubt he has any evidence tbh if he did he wouldn't be pulling stunts like these.
 
Suv666 said:
I doubt he has any evidence tbh if he did he wouldn't be pulling stunts like these.
Click to expand...
Probably not hard evidence. It's very hard to have hard evidence. Which is one of the big problems chess is facing, because once you are caught online where the algorithmic methods of detection are believed to be fairly certain then it's clear the top players are not going to trust you any longer in any format. You have already proven to be untrustworthy and a bad sport, the type of individual that may be looking for exploits.

Niemann is not the only one to be caught recently, he is just the one in a high profile situation. It's a much wider issue than Hans versus Magnus that chess needs to confront. It's going to take a lot of thought from FIDE and the major chess websites to join up detection and implement correct punishments.
 
I don't get this forced distinction between online and otb either: Niemann wasn't some innocent kid fooling around, he did it, when he was already a serious player, to further his career (I believe he stated he did it to get to play the elite online? I don't know if he was streaming at the time, but that would be another factor). And that's just what he admitted to.
I have no sympathy for him, cheating is the single biggest issue for chess, especially when you consider the push for online tournaments. It shouldn't be accepted or normalized, with "it was just online".

On the other hand Magnus is basically trying to block Niemann's entry to top tournaments, by making it a "him or me" situation, while neither giving an allegation or proof - that sets a very risky precedent. If Magnus doesn't want to speak, FIDE need to resolve this matter one way or the other.
The problem is that they didn't act on online cheating in the first place. They may need to cooperate with the platforms and have them report cases of cheating where the player's identity is known, so it can be dealt with when it happens and doesn't turn up out of the blue years later.
 
Last edited:
Kasper said:
He cheated online as a 16 year old living alone at the height of pandemic lockdown just to pump his rating - you don't have to like him but it's pretty understandable that people can distinguish that from e.g. cheating at a OTB event with huge prize money. There's a reason why our justice systems are also more lenient with regards to underage criminals.
Click to expand...

He's 19 now, it's not exactly ancient history. He's also done it at least twice, with a few years in between. But it's very likely he did it a lot more.

Suv666 said:
Innocent until proven guilty was a thing last I checked?

Also Magnus had no problem participating in the tournament with the lad. Only had a problem because he lost..

You can't have it both ways, if Magnus wins he wins if he loses well feck it he's a known cheater anyway.
Click to expand...

But he was "proven guilty" only a few years ago. Besides, that's a thing in the criminal justice system. Tournament organizers (or online platforms) only have to think it's more likely that he cheated than not cheated for them to decide not to let him participate.
 
In more positive news Arjun Erigaisi is once again destroying the field. A really big talent in chess.
 
It feels like Magnus felt particularly motivated during these preliminaries...

Absolutely crushed it.
 
Cheeky Dlugy namedrop there.

6eh00vytm9p91.png
 
Caruana saying Magnus was already considering leaving the Sinquefield Cup when Hans was announced as the replacement for Rapport, which changes the context of his decision quite a bit.
 
Wonder what will happen if the final is Magnus V Hans? Will Magnus repeat what he done and quit after 1 move.
 
paulscholes18 said:
Wonder what will happen if the final is Magnus V Hans? Will Magnus repeat what he done and quit after 1 move.
Click to expand...
Probably depends on what happens with the prize money contractually. If he can withdraw, he'll probably do that rather than turn up for every game, make a move then resign. If not I expect him to repeat the trick.

It would make no sense for him to play, it would be far too inconsistent with whatever his mindset has been so I don't see him playing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.