Anyone want to play a game of chess?

US Chess Championship started today. Niemann has beaten Christopher Woo with black. In the “interview” afterward, he was trolling. Did not wanted to analyze his game, said “chess speaks for itself” again and left the stage.

Maybe he should just be banned for being an asshole.

Many others would get banned if this would be the criterion. ;)

He thinks his game today was the statement.
Why water it down by explaining himself?

Go Hans! Screw the haters!!

“Chess speaks for itself”, this line will go down in (chess) history. He is bold.

Lance Armstrong’s cycling speaks for itself.

I think I have the correct thread for this!

LOL, funny.

I don’t know or really care if he cheated or not, but I do kind of admire how little he seems to give a shit one way or the other. I can’t tell if it’s performance art or if he’s just nuts.

It’s called the cheekmate.

<chefs kiss>

Yeah he cheated. But the report confirms lots of GMs cheat - they all get to be anonymous and Hans gets excoriated as the cheater. This is widespread but he is getting all the heat. All because Magnus singled him out. So good on him giving back as much shit as he can.

The problem with an argument based on statistics is that it’s defined by how you set the criteria.

Chess.com ““Hans became the fastest rising top player in classical, over-the-board chess in modern recorded history,” the report said, calling it “statistically extraordinary.””

Which is absolutely correct, since they set the criteria that would make it statistically extraordinary. It’s no different than p-hacking in research papers.

(This is separate from pattern analysis of games played, but the Chess.com report deliberately went much further than just their field of expertise for reasons unknown)

30 minute delay in US chess championship… Unless he is a cyborg, I just can’t imagine how he would transmit moves or how he would get moves.

He played a pretty good game against Xiong, but could not pull through. Draw.

Not saying Hans is doing this, but if a player could get an Arbiter/on-site staff to help this would be trivial thing to do - just have them stand in certain locations at key times to note critical moves or something. According to top players, they don’t actually need a lot of information to get an edge - just knowing that there is one move that keeps the advantage in the position is sufficient to increase winning chances considerably

Magnus Carlsen himself has commented on the problem of cheating:

As Magnus points out, for a player at his level, he would only need assistance 1-2 times a match, and he wouldn’t need to know a move - just that “hey, now you need to pay extra attention”. That’s all (interview worth watching, btw - it’s before the Niemann scandal, but has aged rather well and kind of shows where Magnus is coming from).

I can’t be amused at Nieman’s trolling. The guy is a proven liar - his being cocky about that hardly improves my opinion of him. Though I do agree that it is BS that other known cheaters aren’t also outed. I can see Chess.com’s reason not to (it’s dangerous to publish names without bulletproof evidence), but it’s a real problem for the competitive game.

Incidentally, the President of the Norwegian Chess federation has admitted to have cheated in online games in the past and has retired from his position.

I don’t believe that’s their real reason for not doing so, nor has there been anything to suggest that Niemann’s data/investigation is an outlier as compared to all the many, MANY other banned high level chess players. All that seems to differ in Niemann’s case is that he beat Magnus, in a manner that almost all experts agree was not suspicious or indicative of some sort of cheating.

Chess.com have not covered themselves in any glory in all of this and their motives are suspect (not that their conclusion that he cheated in specific online games, but in their report, how they targeted Niemann, when they targeted Niemann, and how they seem to be treating him differently than other banned high-level players).

Hans has big Billy Mitchell energy. There may never be a smoking gun to take the smirk off Hans, but it’s notable that Billy stayed smug even after damning statistical evidence was found.

There’s an irony here that cheating in chess almost doubles as training, so he probably was improving his play along the way, but he has also robbed himself of ever being above suspicion. In my view, he’s also undeserving of the chance to compete in some cases. It’s wild that Chess.com is so forgiving even where money is on the line. Maybe they’ll change their mind on that front.

Yeah, I’m sure he did cheat.

I’m with you: I’m finding the reaction from the chessies of “oh my God, there’s cheating to going on in this establishment” pretty silly. It’s a lightly-regulated competitive activity with money on the line…of course there’s rampant cheating.

As they explicitly point out in the report, he was the one who chose to go public wrt their interactions and then decided to misrepresent his actions on their site. Please point out the MANY other banned high level chess players who have done the same.

This is also not true.

We’ll just have to agree to disagree about that.

Could you please cite in which page of the report it states that he was the one who ‘chose to go public wrt their interactions’? Or link to a site that states same?

Any banned player who continues to play in OTB or on the fresh accounts provided to them after privately admitting to cheating are misrepresenting their actions on the site, or can you point out any of them that have been up front about the extent of their cheating? Or admitting to cheating at all?

Strangely, the report itself contradicts you and makes it clear that he was banned & uninvited before any public comments about cheating, because he had beaten Magnus:
image

The report’s own timeline makes it clear that:

  1. Chess.com investigated Niemann solely due to his having beaten Magnus.
  2. Within 24 hours of Niemann having beaten Magnus, Chess.com banned & uninvited Niemann
  3. 1&2 precedes any statement by Niemann regarding Chess.com or his dishonest recounting of his history of online cheating
  4. Exhibit B shows that none of Niemann’s games post-ban were suspicious or indicative of cheating, and that he had complied with the terms of the agreement reached with Danny Rensch back in 2020
  5. It is also shown that no new evidence was searched for until AFTER Niemann beat Magnus.
  6. Nonetheless, chess.com decided to reinstate his ban because he had beaten Magnus in a game that experts, again, state wasn’t indicative of cheating and was one in which Magnus played unusually poorly.

If you think that is a rational, logical or fair approach - by all means.

Ok 🤷‍♂️ Yet nonetheless, it remains true. Everything I’ve seen draws a distinction betwen his online cheating and his OTB game where people note that Carlsen played unusually poorly and missed several very obvious chances to win the game.

You’ve already pointed them out. Every statement by Niemann that is highlighted in the part you pull out is a lie. Hans could have chosen to accept their decision to ban and disinvite him quietly. He is not the only top-100 players to have been banned from Chess.com (there are probably more than we know) without making a public fuss. He is also not the first player to be disinvited from a tournament.

His choice to go public with it. And then to lie to justify himself.

So you keep saying. I must have imaged the surprise of various experts at Nieman’s play in that game, (the Norwegian broadcast experts even commented on it during the play, IIRC). It’s a line of play that he has no coherent explanation for (also covered in the Chess.com report). Nakamura, obviously - but also Nepo has spoken and published extensively about this. Nepo claims that even before the tournament he had requested additional anti-cheating controls specifically because of Nieman. And that’s just the big names.

I get that you think we should give a known, serial cheater the benefit of the doubt, since he hasn’t been caught red-handed OTB. We will just have to disagree about that as well.