Carlsen resigns on move 2

[MartinCarpenter]

If Hans has nothing to hide then he should agree.

This is just nonsense, isn't it? He's not going to give Magnus a free hand in advance to say anything he chooses.

I'm not at all opposed to Keith's view that strong players have a sense for when something's wrong - there has to be something substantial in this. But I do also think this sense can be mistaken. (Isn't Mamedyarov/Kursonov an example of this?)

It is seems reasonable to suppose that there's probably something concrete in the online cheating part of the statement.

That could then easily have bled into suspicions FtF, grounded or otherwise.

I'm not even quite sure if that last bit should matter. Given the high proportion of serious chess that is now being played online, there have to be questions about whether/how easily online cheats should be able to play over the board.
(Which is going to be incredibly difficult for a number of reasons!).

[Matt Bridgeman]

Niemann isn't an established player who somehow became stronger than ever before at an age when most are on at least a gentle decline.

Apart from that, totally spot on and relevant comparison

(and the "he's a cheat" people like to claim HMN's recent improvement was "unprecedented" - in fact its anything but)

At some point there will probably be a shift away from the Carlsen game to the tournaments Hans used to increase his rating from 2500 to nearly 2700. Perhaps other former opponents will come forward with their own experiences?

Again, you say this as if no young players have ever improved rapidly from 2500 to 2700 level (or similar) before.

Do you regard this, in itself, as evidence of cheating?

It’s definitely an avenue of inquiry for investigators. Some top players have suggested then transition from normal GM to Super GM was unusually seamless. Whether there’s anything in Chessbase Let’s Check, but there seems to be a lot of very high accuracy games in his record. There’s obviously suspicion all around this player, but whether that turns into any actual evidence is up for debate. It’s all a bit precarious potentially - if at any point a friend/associate corroborates the suspicions the house of cards instantly crashes down.

[Matt Mackenzie]

Don't get me wrong, I'm totally open to the possibility that Niemann *has* been cheating OTB as well as online.

(and whether we like it or not, the latter is not in itself evidence of the former)

But as the saying goes "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - and tbh we haven't seen so much of that thus far.

[Geoff Chandler]

I've been surfing about and already people are jumping to the conclusion that Hans has something
to hide because he has not replied. It took Carlsen three weeks, so let's here at least give Hans time.

[NickFaulks]

Carlsen appears to be saying that he wants Niemann to promise not to sue him if he says anything slanderous. Surely the better solution is for him to avoid saying anything that is untrue, in which case no slander can occur.

Carlsen may of course be saying something else entirely, his statement is far from clear. If Niemann has been persuaded to seek legal advice, and if he can afford it, then these questions are presumably under consideration.

[Ian Thompson]

Carlsen appears to be saying that he wants Niemann to promise not to sue him if he says anything slanderous.

Maybe, but I wondered if Carlsen has seen the alleged proof of further cheating on chess.com but can't publish it without Niemann's agreement.

If Niemann has been persuaded to seek legal advice, and if he can afford it, then these questions are presumably under consideration.

Presumably, he could consult a no win, no fee lawyer to see if they would take a case on.

[JustinHorton]

Maybe, maybe not: I don't want to make confident claims about the law from a few minutes' Googling, but for the very little it's worth, I was struck when searching that the top results didn't seem to be about the US, and a deeper search revealed this:

When working with attorneys, a “contingency fee” means you only pay for the legal services if you win. You have probably seen ads for attorneys promising, “no win, no fee,” which means they offer contingency fees...

...very few (if any) law firms offer contingency fees for internet defamation cases. There is a good reason for this: defamation cases, in general, present far more challenges than normal personal injury type cases as contingency matter.

The First Amendment protections on free speech make defamation cases challenging to litigate.

[Joseph Conlon]

In terms of legal actions and chances of success, it is worth noting that US defamation laws contains significantly more protection for speech than UK ones do, especially when said speech involves public figures or matters of public concern (and one could reasonably view this as coming under both headings).

[NickFaulks]

Maybe, but I wondered if Carlsen has seen the alleged proof of further cheating on chess.com but can't publish it without Niemann's agreement.

Surely it would be permission from chess.com that was required. At present they cannot even admit that they have shared it with him, although they obviously have.

[JustinHorton]

Well it's weird isn't it? We discussed above that circulating the "blackmail list" seemed to entail sharing information that might be confidential between chessdotcom and the account-holder, so maybe it does require permission to be shared, in which case perhaps names shouldn't have been circulated? But that's too many perhapses.

[Jonathan Rogers]

Well it's weird isn't it? We discussed above that circulating the "blackmail list" seemed to entail sharing information that might be confidential between chessdotcom and the account-holder, so maybe it does require permission to be shared, in which case perhaps names shouldn't have been circulated? But that's too many perhapses.

makes sense though

[JustinHorton]

But would require some explanations from chessdotcom, although that in turn would require somebody to actually ask them the pertinent questions. But this is not the first time this has been true in this affair.

[Ian Thompson]

Maybe, but I wondered if Carlsen has seen the alleged proof of further cheating on chess.com but can't publish it without Niemann's agreement.

Surely it would be permission from chess.com that was required. At present they cannot even admit that they have shared it with him, although they obviously have.

They have disclosed that they shared it with him (my bolding):

Dear Chess Community, the last few days have been tumultuous for many in the chess community. At this time, we have reached out to Hans Niemann to explain our decision to privately remove him from Chess.com and our events. We have shared detailed evidence with him concerning our decision, including information that contradicts his statements regarding the amount and seriousness of his cheating on Chess.com. We have invited Hans to provide an explanation and response with the hope of finding a resolution where Hans can again participate on Chess.com. We want nothing more than to see the best chess players in the world succeed in the greatest events. We will always try to protect the integrity of the game that we all love.

[Jonathan Rogers]

In terms of legal actions and chances of success, it is worth noting that US defamation laws contains significantly more protection for speech than UK ones do, especially when said speech involves public figures or matters of public concern (and one could reasonably view this as coming under both headings).

There is a well known episode of South Park (American animated TV series) where the animated figure of Tom Cruise yells "I'll sue ... in England"!

Indeed, the UK was and perhaps still is the defamation capital of the world. Cases can be brought provided that some people within this jurisdiction were aware of the content in question. I believe that the days of big payouts are over, but often the claimants are more interested in an injunction to prevent future publication. But that would be in the early days of a gathering story. In Niemann's case, the horse long since bolted.

[NickFaulks]

They have disclosed that they shared it with him

No, I meant shared it with Carlsen.