lichess.org
Donate

This is why i think Hans Niemann is cheating

#41
@esmiro

This is *complete speculation*...but just like finding the solution to a chess puzzle...all of the pieces fit:

1. Hans hacked Carlsen's chesscom account and gained access to Carlsen's opening prep.
2. Carlsen was made aware of the password breach prior to the game.
3. Hans behaved as though he knew Carlsen's prep.
4. Carlsen, shaken, couldn't focus or concentrate on the game.
5. Hans wins.
6. Carlsen leaves the tournament.
7. Chesscom sees what's occurred and bans Hans for life.
8. Hans admits to cheating for 4 years at his interview.
9. Hans' hometown fans rally behind Hans instead of asking questions.
10. Chesscom issues a statement saying that Hans lied about the frequency and severity of his cheating.

These pieces fit together and make sense.

Fact #1: Hans Niemann would own chesscom if they didn't have an entire mountain of evidence to back up their actions and their statements...and chesscom most likely has strong attourneys signing off on everything that they do/don't do.

Rebuttal: Hans is going to successfully sue chesscom. < - - - Doesn't make sense.

-

Fact #2: Magnus would never leave a tournament without an extremely good reason.

Rebuttal: Magnus sometimes gets grumpy when he loses. < - - - Doesn't make sense.
#42
I feel terribly sorry for Hans Niemann. His treatment, by many parties, has been appalling. Irrespective of what he may or may not have done, the relentless attacks from all directions on a young man is reprehensible. People have cracked under way less strain than is being placed on him.

The only good thing to come out of this sorry saga as far as I'm concerned, is I now know which people to avoid like the plague.
#43
With the release of Sinquefield Organisers statement, regarding no cheating has been detected during the tournament and Kasparov's request that Carlsen should make a detailed statement regarding his abandonment of the tournament; I think my 'Hustle Theory' is holding up. As time rolls on you can see the battlelines more clearly, Carlsen et al + chess.com v FIDE + Sinquefield Organisers.

That said, I was surprised to read FIDE has an approved OTB statistical anti-cheating system, so was wrong about that - i.e. only physical evidence would do.
#44
@sheckley666

With regards to why tournament authorities would be able to judge objectively. Well, their motivations are different. If Carlsen is telling the truth, immediately post-game, he is likely to be predisposed to consider his opponent dishonest; and the other chappy, truthfully or not, is likely to argue from his own corner. Leaving aside motivation, the authorities will have access to any monitor recordings. Putting it back in your hands: why wouldn't they be able to look at the matter objectively?
#45
@radiomartin

Assuming that the winner of the game was innocent, I think the lesson to be learned is not to act dishonestly, on the internet or anywhere else. The internet is not so different as to be ethics-free, especially when there are fairly well-subscribed behaviours, as in chess. If you act dishonestly, it will be remembered, and in this case, Carlsen's suspicions are understandable, even if his reaction was less so.

Consider an historical example, very much pre-internet. Alekhine, a very fine player,, surprises the naturally gifted Capablanca with his opening preparation and takes the world championship. Completely reasonable; Capa should have prepared better. Alekhine then uses a range of tactics, legal no doubt, to prevent a re-match. So an otherwise great player has a huge blemish on an otherwise strong reputation.
#46
@coledavis They may be objective, but they cannot decide. There is too little information. All they can say is, what they said in the meantime: We do not have evidence for cheating.
#47
@sheckley666

I rather think that they have more information to hand than the Court of Lichess. This includes the decision that there is no evidence. The tournament organisers are much better placed than we are.
#48
@coledavis said in #45:
> @radiomartin
>
...
>
> Consider an historical example, very much pre-internet. Alekhine, a very fine player,, surprises the naturally gifted Capablanca with his opening preparation and takes the world championship. Completely reasonable; Capa should have prepared better. Alekhine then uses a range of tactics, legal no doubt, to prevent a re-match. So an otherwise great player has a huge blemish on an otherwise strong reputation.

Actually, it was Alekhine's behaviour during World War 2 that damaged his personal reputation. The USSR essentially dis-owned him for about ten years only to resurrect him when they wanted to establish chess as an example of the superiority of Soviet Political System, in the late 50s. There is no doubt that part of the attack on Alekhine chess reputation at the time was in the form emphasis on his so-called 'avoidance' of Capa. The chess world remembers the attack not the cause.

To be fair to Alekhine, he behaved little differently from most of the French population during the German occupation. But that is another story.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.