To me, the fact that they are so careful about condemning his OTB play is just more damning.
Maybe, but I think this is more likely down to the fact that the accusation came weeks before the evidence. So lots of people had already taken a position, and many will not want to admit that their initial reaction might have to change.
Perhaps. Though I’d think that the fact he quite literally lied to everyone about the extent of his online cheating would temper any inclination to give him the benefit of the doubt.
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.