Chess' $100 Million Showdown: Carlsen Moves To Dismiss Niemann Lawsuit Over Cheating Allegations (forbes.com) 88
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Forbes: Lawyers representing Norwegian World Chess Champion Magnus Carlsen and online chess platform Chess.com asked a federal judge Friday to toss a $100 million lawsuit filed by chess grandmaster Hans Niemann in October, which marked a dramatic escalation of tensions over cheating allegations levied against the 19-year-old American. The motion to dismiss argued the teenager spent years "trying to curate a reputation as the bad boy of chess" and "now wants to cash in by blaming others" after the allegations derailed his chess career.
Niemann acknowledged he cheated during a handful of matches as a young teen but an October report from Chess.com determined he "likely cheated" more than 100 times in online chess matches, after Carlsen released a statement in September saying Niemann "has cheated more -- and more recently -- than he has publicly admitted." Niemann stated in his defamation lawsuit the claims are a conspiracy from the chess community's establishment to smear him after he defeated Carlsen -- the five-time defending world champion -- during a tournament in St. Louis on September 4. The teen claimed the alleged conspiracy was an attempt to save Carlsen, 32, from reputational damage after Chess.com agreed to purchase his "Play Magnus" app for $83 million in August.
Friday's motion stated all of Niemann's claims are without merit, arguing he has not disproved the cheating allegations or offered evidence to back up his conspiracy assertion. The lawsuit, filed in the Eastern District of Missouri, also named Chess.com executive Daniel Rensch and a website streaming partner, Hikaru Nakamura, as defendants. "Niemann now seeks to shift blame to reigning World Chess Champion Magnus Carlsen and others, claiming a wholly implausible conspiracy to defame and boycott Niemann that somehow damaged his already dubious reputation to the tune of $100 million," the motion to dismiss states.
Niemann acknowledged he cheated during a handful of matches as a young teen but an October report from Chess.com determined he "likely cheated" more than 100 times in online chess matches, after Carlsen released a statement in September saying Niemann "has cheated more -- and more recently -- than he has publicly admitted." Niemann stated in his defamation lawsuit the claims are a conspiracy from the chess community's establishment to smear him after he defeated Carlsen -- the five-time defending world champion -- during a tournament in St. Louis on September 4. The teen claimed the alleged conspiracy was an attempt to save Carlsen, 32, from reputational damage after Chess.com agreed to purchase his "Play Magnus" app for $83 million in August.
Friday's motion stated all of Niemann's claims are without merit, arguing he has not disproved the cheating allegations or offered evidence to back up his conspiracy assertion. The lawsuit, filed in the Eastern District of Missouri, also named Chess.com executive Daniel Rensch and a website streaming partner, Hikaru Nakamura, as defendants. "Niemann now seeks to shift blame to reigning World Chess Champion Magnus Carlsen and others, claiming a wholly implausible conspiracy to defame and boycott Niemann that somehow damaged his already dubious reputation to the tune of $100 million," the motion to dismiss states.
The pathology of cheaters (Score:5, Interesting)
Being an accomplished cheater takes practice. A successful cheater is devious, skilful, and experienced.
People who cheat as adults probably do not start cheating as adults - much the same as more serious criminal offending often has its roots in childhood behaviours and related traumas.
People think that children grow-out of behaviours, but in fact, unless corrected, children turn into adults that have grown-in to behaviours that tend to become more problematic over time.
The trigger for cheating in childhood may be inability to accept losing (usually related to stunted emotions), excessive parental pressure to win at all costs, or a variety of other factors (or more likely a combination of such). Thus, we can see that cheating is usually related to complex psychopathology that is easy to view in simple terms by those who are not themselves cheats. Such psychopathology tends to be deep-seated and not amenable to change.
Whilst it is not fair to say, "once a cheat, always a cheat", neither is it wise to assume that a cheater has been reformed.
Re: (Score:2)
To be clear, the only proven cheating Niemann did was use a bot 5 times to go up the ranks to play better players. If true it was not for gain in the sense you are talking about, it is just literally the only way online to do the classic Korean DJ money match technique of self improvement.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but that's hardly a vindication.
Re: (Score:3)
To be clear, the only proven cheating Niemann did was use a bot 5 times to go up the ranks to play better players. If true it was not for gain in the sense you are talking about, it is just literally the only way online to do the classic Korean DJ money match technique of self improvement.
The only admitted cheating was using the bot 5 times. But the chess.com evidence showed extensive cheating in the months leading up to when they caught him, including prize money tournaments.
It's just their anti-cheating algorithms at the time only flagged those 5 games, so he swore those were the only 5 times he cheated and swore to never do it again.
AFAIK he still seems to be denying that he cheating in those additional online games, which really hurts his credibility.
Re: (Score:2)
the chess.com evidence showed extensive cheating in the months leading up to when they caught him, including prize money tournaments.
Yes, which is what this suit is about. We will hopefully see if those allegations were meritorious or were just character assassination designed to help their business partner and themselves.
Burden of proof? (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Burden of proof? (Score:5, Informative)
So, sure, if chess.com were suing Niemann for cheating, they would need solid proof of his cheating. But since it's Niemann suing them for defamation, he must prove their allegation is demonstrably false to get a judgment against them. So, it's pretty hard to shut people up by threatening a defamation suit against them. Only 10% of plaintiffs end up winning defamation cases [elawtalk.com].
Re: (Score:1)
It's probably easier for his defamation claims to win, unless they actually have proof of him cheating, but if they had that, they'd have already used it to get him banned and his wins revoked.
Now to me the claims of $100 million is insane, and I can't imagine that even if he wins if he'll get a judgement anywhere near that. But again,
Re:Burden of proof? (Score:4, Informative)
This is a special case because as a high profile grandmaster Hans Niemann is a public figure, so he will have to meet the "actual malice" standard to prove his case: that Carlsen made the allegedly defamatory statements knowing they were false or with reckless disregard for the truth.
Defendants routinely ask for dismissal or summary judgement just to burden the plaintiffs, but in this case I think there's little chance Niemann can meet the actual malice standard. We all have opinions about whether Niemann is a cheater or not, someone expressing a sincerely held opinion Niemann is a cheater isn't committing defamation. Carlsen has as much right to do that as anyone.
Re:Burden of proof? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes to this. And Niemann will have to prove actual malice. That is, he is going to have to prove that the statement is not a reasonable opinion based on the evidence available to the speaker, but was expressed in order to damage.
I would be very surprised if he can show that. If you go through the grandmaster studies and commentary available on youtube, where they go through a couple of games move by move, you see (assuming you can understand the analysis) that Niemann from time to time makes moves which are typical of modern computer programs but which no human player would consider.
The reason why the strongest programs nowadays are way outside the reach of even the strongest humans is this, that they (so to speak) see what is on the board in a different way.
If you play through games, maybe simultaneous exhibition games, where a grandmaster is playing an A player, you will see the GM making moves that no A player would see. If you have nothing else than the score you will still be able to say which player is which. And you will be able to say that one of the two is not just a slightly stronger A player than the other.
I have no idea whether Niemann has cheated in tournament play, but I am certain, based on the GM analysis in the youtube clips, that a reasonable person having looked at the evidence could come to the view that he has. That is a very long way from proof of course, its probably not evidence which would justify any action by the chess bodies, but its probably enough to defeat the claim of actual malice.
The youtube material is here:
https://www.youtube.com/result... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Or maybe having grown up playing in a chess computer era, the younger player has picked up chess moves and play style from the computers he's spent so much time with but older players are still set in their human style ways.
Maybe he's the first of many to come who will play more like the computers do.
Playing a different style than humans expect is not in and of itself evidence of anything.
Do I feel he cheated? No idea and haven't seen anything evidentiary yet. I did watch through several long and unconvin
Re:Burden of proof? (Score:4, Interesting)
"...the younger player has picked up chess moves and play style from the computers he's spent so much time with...."
There is no such thing, especially there is no such thing as style. Its a case of seeing. Its not style or moves that can be learned. Its moves that make no apparent sense but which the engines select.
The case against him is that in some games the correlation of his moves with what the chess engines pick is close to 100%.
Now you could say, that just means he is very strong. But the problem is, no other GM comes even close to that. Fisher at his best, around 70%. Kasparov and others similar.
Once would not be suspicious. A run of them, starting suddenly, means there is something needing explanation. Its not proof. But its if you like a case for investigation, its real evidence that people will argue about and come to conclusions from.
I am not saying he is guilty. I am saying that the defense argument will be, this is the evidence, I have looked at this, and my conclusion is cheating. The argument then hangs on the status of this statement, not on the facts of the cheating.
The plaintiff then has to show that this conclusion was negligent or worse. I think, given the evidence, and its worth working through the youtube games to satisfy yourself of this, that argument will fail. Reasonable and competent observers may differ on their conclusions. But the conclusion that the evidence indicates cheating, while quite possibly wrong, is not going to be so totally lacking in rational motivation that it must be due to bad faith, negligence etc. Its going to be, I looked at it carefully, there is evidence, here it is, and this is what I think it shows.
Its within the limits of things you can say without being defamatory.
It will be a fine line. A direct accusation of cheating on a specific occasion might fall into defamatory. But the general statement that one thinks the pattern of evidence suggests, even shows, cheating, that I don't think will.
Re: (Score:2)
Civil cases don't need to meet the "beyond a reasonable doubt" bar. Just "on the balance of the probabilities." Which doesn't look good for the admitted cheater's claim. He was called out on 5 instances of cheating, admitted to those 5 (really didn't have much of a choice), and subsequent re-examination of other games showed serious problems.
The defense to the defamation claim is pretty obvious: the guy is a known and admitted cheater, but only fessed up when caught. Is it likely that he cheated on other
Re: (Score:2)
He was already known to have cheated as a 12 year old. If that was a problem he should have been banned years earlier.
You don't let someone play under a cloud until it's convenient to suddenly say, "oh wait, you're a cheat! Wow! We knew but did nothing about it for 7 years but we're now going to smash you for what we knew for 7 years and did nothing about".
That's bullshit.
I'm aware of the legal standards.
Then you also should know that the law and society as a whole treat minors differently than adults.
And he was playing for serious money as an adult. Cheating makes it fraud, which is criminal.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not sure cheating at a professional "sport" is illegal. It is certainly unethical and they have every right to ban him.
What actually happened:
1) they knew he cheated at 12 and ignored it
2) ignored it until he beat the world's best and most childish player (move 1 resignation was cry baby move)
3) even then didn't ban him and even put them together again
4) but did ruin his reputation over old cheating that was already known
5) which is the basis of his suit
Had they simply banned him at 12 or whenever they
Re: (Score:2)
And again, missing the point.
You can be charged, even convicted, with, say, murder, without the police knowing exactly how the murder was committed - or even a body.
So the "how" he cheated is irrelevant. Sane as the government can do a "lifestyle assessment" to conclude that you've got income you're not reporting. They don't have to prove that it was from, say, drug dealing. At that point, you have to show proof that the income was legit and that you didn't owe tax on it.
And keep in mind, this is a d
Re: (Score:1)
He didn't commit murder. He possibly cheated at a pro level game. And there is no trial. This isn't a crime. It's a game.
You can't compare murder, a capitol felony to cheating at a game. It's also not drug dealing. There is no felony involved in cheating at a game.
As far as what he'll get in court, I don't know and neither can you. That's why we have courts. They determine those things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The proof is relevant to -me-. This isn't a trial, we are not jurors. We're just 2 random internet idiots shooting the shit about something with zero impact on either of us (I assume you're not a pro chess player) and near zero on the world.
I have been on the filing end of a defamation case, talked to real lawyers I paid real money, and did plenty of my own research. Mine didn't end up in court as the other party backed off and agreed to a written statement that satisfied my core requirements at the time
Re: (Score:2)
An opinion [nolo.com] is a defense in the US, as per the 1st Amendment. Don't know what jurisdiction you're in.
Countries that have the English common law as the basis of their laws, defamation is harder to defend, because there is no 1st Amendment. But it's still damn hard to win.
It's also why smart people who can't prove something to the "balance of the probabilities standard" will provoke the other party to sue for defamation. I'm guessing this is what's happening here. After all, discovery can be quite useful
Re: (Score:1)
I'd have to go check but I don't recall the chess federation outright calling him a cheat so they're likely safe but cry baby guy did. It wasn't expressed as an opinion on the sense of, "I think he's a dick". That is clearly opinion and I 100% agree with you the 1st amendment covers that. But saying, "he's a cheat" or "he cheated" or likely even the softer, "I think he cheated" (But I'm less certain on that last one) could get cry baby in some hot water.
In fact, the chess guys allowing him to keep playin
Re: (Score:2)
That's just it - since there is no clear-cut evidence either way, it's not defamation to say he cheated, especially when the chess federation isn't willing to say he didn't cheat.
So "He's a cheater" is not clearly defamation. So it was really stupid to launch a defamation suit when "the jury's out". Like I said, he was stupid to let himself be goaded into filing a defamation suit. And if he loses ... everyone and their dog can say he cheated with impunity.
Most cases, the smart policy, when there's doub
Re: (Score:1)
I agree the suit was dumb. Doing a PR campaign would've been better. UNLESS, he has something in his pocket we don't know about. Unlikely but we'll find out in court soon enough if they go that far. I still think baby could have some troubles but we'll see. But both should really shut up in public about it once the suit got filed.
Re: Burden of proof? (Score:2)
The 100% engine correlation had been busted. Even the tool's devs say it should not be used to detect cheating.
Basically lots of people are analyzing Niemann's games with every engine at every setting they can, including outdated ones. And those analysises are uploaded to the tool.
When the tool calculate the correlation, it checks if a move matches ANY of the engines' top move, from ALL the uploaded analysises.
It's absolutely logical that Niemann has a way higher correlation since all of his moves are check
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I also agree that false allegations can do a lot of damage. One thing that helps is that actual abusers have almost always done it multiple times, so true allegations tend to be corroborated once they become known. I don't think that fact was fully appreciated until fairly recently.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That is a flawed analysis.
Defamation (in US law) requires showing that the statements caused actual harm, and were knowingly made to cause harm. One does not have to prove the statements were false.
However, truth (in US law) is a defense against defamation. If the statements can be shown to be truthful, then no defamation can have occurred.
It is a vital distinction. The burden on the plaintiff is to prove that they were actually and intentionally harmed by the defendant's statements. If they can prove t
Re: (Score:3)
His reputation was already damaged - by himself - when he had to admit to being a cheat. It's like saying "I only screwed 5 goats." After being causght screwing 5 goats. And evidence that would lead many reasonable people to believe you were screwing another 100.
The original 5 were enough to not trust you around goats ever again.
Re: Burden of proof? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
'fault amounting to at least evidence...'
Go through the youtube analyses I linked to above. Now ask yourself whether it is 'at least negligence' to conclude that there has been cheating.
It may be mistaken. I certainly don't think cheating has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Has it been proven on the balance of probability? Maybe. Its hard to work through the examples the GMs give without being persuaded. At the very least you have to conclude there is a case to answer.
It cannot then be 'at least
"the bad boy of chess" (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
It means he whines a lot even though he wins a lot, like Phil Hellmuth, the "bad boy of poker".
Re:"the bad boy of chess" (Score:5, Funny)
His window is closing. (Score:4, Funny)
With crypto collapsing like an apartment tower in Chna, much of the prize money in chess is drying up. If he doesn't try to grab his slice of the pie now, the next pie may well be a lot less tasty. I don't think that drives what he is doing, but I think it has a lot of influence on when he is doing it.
Let's be honest, for once (Score:3, Insightful)
If this little prick wasn't American, he'd already be fish food as far as high level chess was concerned. He's a proven cheater. The idea that anybody takes him seriously is ludicrous.
Re: (Score:1)
If by "proven" you mean "accused without any evidence" ... ugh...
Then again, you seem to think there is some sort of chess mafia that for some reason won't touch Americans. The idea that anybody takes you seriously is ludicrous.
Re: (Score:2)
You heard he admitted cheating, right? Are you stupid as well as American?
Re: (Score:1)
He admitted to cheating years ago when he was like 12 or whatever. That has absolutely nothing to do with the current accusations made against him.
There is no evidence that he cheated. None. Zero. Get it? Now go be stupid somewhere else.
Re: (Score:2)
He admitted to cheating years ago when he was like 12 or whatever. That has absolutely nothing to do with the current accusations made against him.
There is no evidence that he cheated. None. Zero. Get it? Now go be stupid somewhere else.
Seriously. Most of the "bad kids" where I grew up turned into "bad adults - aka criminals." We didn't need our parents warnings to stay away from them - who wants to hang around with scumbags.
Similarly, the "good kids" mostly turned out to be "good adults". People who work for a living instead of living off welfare in between turns in jail.
Which is why the "good kids" moved away as adults, and the "bad kids" turned the old neighborhood into a crime-ridden slum. Humans aren't frogs - the ones with com
Re: Let's be honest, for once (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That doesent mean "good kids" have never done "bad things". That's a universal truth.
Doesn't negate my statement. Bad kids tend to grow up to be bad adults. Nature? Nurture? Genes? Environment? Pollution? Parents consuming too many intoxicants? Who can give a definitive answer? It's just observational - even in the same family, there are "good kids" and "demon spawn from hell".
Re: (Score:1)
Doesn't negate my statement
Yes, it does. You're trying to claim this is a "bad kid" on the basis of one bad thing. His point was the every kid, even the good ones, have done bad things.
What bad things have you done? What are you crimes, Barb?
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't negate my statement
Yes, it does. You're trying to claim this is a "bad kid" on the basis of one bad thing. His point was the every kid, even the good ones, have done bad things.
What bad things have you done? What are you crimes, Barb?
No, I was showing that his case is just one more data point in a long series of data points of bad kids growing up and still doing bad shit.
Cheated when he was 12-13. Strong indications he's still cheating as an adult. Kind of makes my point. The guy is an idiot with no case. All he's doing is drawing more publicity to himself, making it impossible to rehab his reputation.
He should have just STFU and gone away for a while. And you should learn to stop defending the indefensible. But since you asked, I h
Re: (Score:2)
Cheated when he was 12-13. Strong indications he's still cheating as an adult.
Bullshit.
I was showing that his case is just one more data point in a long series of data points of bad kids growing up and still doing bad shit.
Do I need to point out again that there is no evidence that he cheated? Also, the kid is a chess grandmaster, not some delinquent. Get your head out of your ass.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, you're illiterate. I'll explain things to you, using small words:
He did not "get caught" cheating. That is a lie.
He admitted to cheating in some online games when he was younger, but never in over-the-board games.
Carlsen accused him of cheating in an over-the-board game. There is no evidence that he cheated.
It's true that chess.com claims to have "evidence", but we can't trust chess.com because they have a serious conflict of interest.
Was that last one too complicated? Get an adult to help you.
Re: (Score:2)
Look who the illiterate one is.
You don't need to know the exact modus operandi of how he cheated to have a well-found suspicion of cheating, one sufficient to disqualify someone from tournament play.
Same as if security footage shows there's $1,000 in an envelope in the room when I leave, and when I come back, the envelope is gone, and security footage shows you were the only one to have entered the room, but the camera footage doesn't actually show you pocketing the envelope because your body blocks it
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like you're also really, really, stupid. I'll try something even simpler:
There is no evidence that he cheated. None at all.
The kid beat Carlsen in an over-the-board game. Carlsen called him a cheater.
Carlsen is a scumbag. You'll get over it.
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like you're also really, really, stupid. I'll try something even simpler:
There is no evidence that he cheated. None at all.
The kid beat Carlsen in an over-the-board game. Carlsen called him a cheater.
Carlsen is a scumbag. You'll get over it.
There is no evidence he didn't cheat. But there IS a reasonable opinion, based on circumstantial evidence and past behavior. Also, it's a subjective opinion. Protected by the 1st Amendment's provisions of freedom of speech. So he will lose his defamation claim. He might have had a chance in the UK, where defamation law is different, but not in the USA.
Or are you one of those Trumpers who wants to abolish the Constitution, along with the 1st Amendment?
Re: (Score:1)
> He's a proven cheater
Nope. He only admitted cheating as teen.
Magnus Carlsen has not provided any evidence of his claims either. If that little prick was not top chess player, he would be fish food by now too.
Re: (Score:3)
He is a teen (19) - the latest cheating evidence is from 2020.
Re: Let's be honest, for once (Score:1)
Ever used a cheat code in a game?
Does that mean you always use cheat codes?
Re: (Score:3)
He cheated in a competitive situation to get to play against higher ranking players. This isn't up for debate, he confessed to it. If you use cheat codes when playing against other people, you're an asshole - and a cheater. If you "cheat" in a single player game, you're just playing the game how you want it played.
Re: (Score:2)
Like I said, he's a proven cheater. Convicted out of his own mouth.
Re: Let's be honest, for once (Score:2)
I'm not seeing the American connection there. It seems to me the reason he's not fish food is that he beat world #1, so there's serious financial and reputation consequences depending upon the cheating accusation.
That statement comes with a caveat that I'm not a chess player, and am observing this (interesting) dynamic from outside the chess community.
Cheated, cheated, cheated, what? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
(modded down for truth again)
Re: (Score:2)
What the hell is a "bad boy of chess"? (Score:4, Funny)
Is that like a Rubik's Cube hooligan? Or a Scrabble rebel? Or a Sudoku maverick?
Soâ¦. (Score:4, Interesting)
Did Niemann actually cheat in the game against Carlsen? The game where Niemann won?
Im not sure I buy the logic that somehow the fact that he cheated in the past means he cheated in any specific game.
Regardless of armchair psychology, that argument does not even make logical sense.
Was there any proof of cheating in that specific game where Carlsen lost?
how about this? (Score:3)
Magnus no longer is #1. There comes a day in every champion, whether it be Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods or whoever, that they are no longer at the top of their game and someone else takes over. Maybe the new champion couldn't beat the old with both in their prime, but time moves on, people get older and skills deteriorate
Re: (Score:2)
Michael Jordan said when asked which championship was the hardest, people think the first, it was the last. Every time you win you lose a little bit of that hunger. Its a battle with yourself to get to that same place that you've been 5 times before.
Re: (Score:2)
Did Niemann actually cheat in the game against Carlsen? The game where Niemann won?
Nobody knows. The main allegation is "he played too well". There are analyses from experts out there that, at the same time, say he still made too many mistakes to have cheated. Now, he is 19. At 19 you can still have a spurt of skill and you can still train a lot of things to become much better. It is quite possible this is just Carlsen's ego unable to take it. It is also possible Niemann did cheat cleverly and did intentionally not use some opportunities.
The main problem is that so little signalling to a
Re:Soâ¦. (Score:4, Insightful)
Did Niemann actually cheat in the game against Carlsen? The game where Niemann won?
Im not sure I buy the logic that somehow the fact that he cheated in the past means he cheated in any specific game.
Regardless of armchair psychology, that argument does not even make logical sense.
Was there any proof of cheating in that specific game where Carlsen lost?
Reasons to think Hans cheated:
1) He not only cheated in online play, but cheated more than he admitted (and still refuses to admit). He also exaggerated his accomplishments as a cyclist [cyclingtips.com]. This really hurts hit credibility.
2) His rate of improvement is virtually unprecedented.
3) His results have gotten worse since he's been under intense scrutiny and the tournaments he entered used stronger anti-cheating measures.
4) Some of his OTB games have some very suspicious/unusual moves. And as many GMs have said you only need 1-2 hints per game to make a huge difference. His explanation in the Magnus game also didn't make a lot of sense.
5) The lawsuit looks a lot more like an intimidation tactic than a legit plan to clear his name.
Reasons to think Hans didn't cheat:
1) It's a lot easier and more tempting to cheat online than in OTB play. I suspect there's many chess players who've cheated online who would never think of cheating OTB.
2) As for the "suspicious patterns in his play" you're likely to see "weird stuff" if you look at anyone's game with a suspicious eye.
3) His post-accusation drop in play can be explained by the fact that chess requires a lot of focus and being a massive pariah would be very distracting.
4) His unusually rapid improvement is explainable if he only took chess seriously later on.
Personally I'm still unsure, but regardless of whether he's cheated OTB I think his future steps are clear:
1) Come clean about the past online cheating or at least come up with a really good explanation, lying about easily disproven facts is not a good look.
2) Accept that you'll be under intense scrutiny and welcome the extra anti-cheating measures as a way to clear your name (he seems to have done this part).
3) Spend a few years proving that you've earned your ranking.
You are moving the goalposts. To a different field (Score:2)
No one being targeted in the lawsuit ever accused him of that. The only thing they are accused of is either publishing a report, or quoting from that report, showing that through data analysis of past online games it was very likely that he had cheated more than 100 times in addition to the games he had already been caught cheating at, and had admitted to cheating at, in the exact same way. Seems like a pretty reasonable and well grounded statement to make.
at the same time (Score:3)
How much is a Play Magnus app worth if some kid comes along and knocks him off his throne.
If he cheated in the tournament, how'd he do it? Many of us over the years have been told that we're too good, "you must be cheating"
I thought for sure Dennsen86 was cheating at Kaizo Mario World. But some people are just that good. Its an ego blow, esp to a guy like Magnus
Re: (Score:1)
Nailed it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, pretty much.
Re: (Score:2)
Other than Magnus has been beaten by younger people before and never accused them of anything. Just this one. This kid is sketchy as hell, and notably NONE of the other grandmasters or up and coming whiz kids are stepping forward to support this kid or knock Magnus down a peg. As for the kid "only cheating as a teen", he still -IS- a teen, btw. Also, he knew making the accusation and the public shitshow that would follow would do more damage to his value than if he kept his mouth shut. So money is clearly n
What a Ridiculous Statement to Make (Score:2)
What a great way to come off as a complete bumbling fool. I don't understand how their did not exist a competent lawyer who could of convinced Magnus that this was a bad statement to make.
The law does not care if Niemann culminated a bad boy persona. Magnus and Chess.com are business partners, and together they destroyed or attempted to destroy a multi million dollar career. And they had a financial incentive to do so. Their statements better be provably true, trying to weasel out by saying, "well Niemann j
Re: (Score:2)
It probably means that the Carlsen-side has no evidence at all.
Re: (Score:2)
And the amount of damages is a joke. $100 million? How much was Nieman's reputation harmed by the original admission of cheating, and the subsequent investigation uncovering 100 more probable cheats? At that point saying "I don't play with cheaters" is quite reasonable.
Re: (Score:2)
You do not seem to understand how the law works at all...
Re: (Score:2)
You do not seem to understand how the law works at all...
He's the one suing. He has to prove that (a) he was actually defamed, as opposed to "he ruined his own reputation", and (b) that he actually suffered damages.
If he can't prove BOTH those things by a preponderance of evidence (it's a civil case, not criminal), he loses. And defamation law suits are VERY hard to win.
The defense doesn't have to prove a damn thing.
Even if he wins, he stands to get only the symbolic $1 in damages.
A History of Misleading (Score:2)
Back in 2020 Niemann claimed that as a youth in the Netherlands he was one of the top ranked cyclists in his age group, and then when he moved to the US he was ranked 3rd nationally.
Both of these claims are unsubstantiated and likely wrong [cyclingtips.com].
It's not chess... but the kind of people you'd expect to cheat at chess are the same kind of people you'd expect to inflate past sports results.
Cheating? At Chess? (Score:1)
I've played chess most of my life. How do you cheat at chess? Do you have a mega computer looking over your shoulder and sending you ideas for the next move? How? I think I read the accusation that he had a vibrator in his butt or something ridiculous like that. If he cheated like that when he was 11, he's a genius.