Carlsen resigns on move 2

[Richard Bates]

If you think Carlsen etc are genuine in their belief (even if you disagree and/or disagree that he should have made that belief public) then Niemann loses.

Sorry, nothing in US law is as simple as that.

If you say so. Best hope is that he somehow makes it past dismissal stage and they agree to settle just to avoid enriching the lawyers on all sides.

But we’ll see…

[NickFaulks]

Best hope is that he somehow makes it past dismissal stage and they agree to settle just to avoid enriching the lawyers on all sides.

Couldn't agree less. The last thing we need is a settlement under which neither side is permitted to say anything about the facts of the case. Anyway, I doubt that Niemann wants that, he is looking for public exoneration not money.

[Roger Lancaster]

As to the references here to "US law" and "US defamation law", a quick check on Wikipedia suggests the definition of libel varies between US states

[Richard Bates]

Best hope is that he somehow makes it past dismissal stage and they agree to settle just to avoid enriching the lawyers on all sides.

Couldn't agree less. The last thing we need is a settlement under which neither side is permitted to say anything about the facts of the case. Anyway, I doubt that Niemann wants that, he is looking for public exoneration not money.

Best hope for Niemann, not for chess.

[NickFaulks]

Best hope for Niemann, not for chess.

I think the two are the same thing. If top players can get away with claiming that their opponent was cheating whenever they lose a game, then chess is dead.

[Richard Bates]

Have fun…

https://twitter.com/BMB_Esq/status/1583554189690433536

[Geoff Chandler]

From what I read about about it the claim v Nakamura is a no go.

V Carlsen. Again very 'iffy' What ever was said before Round 4 started may throw further light.

Meanwhile what I thought might happen appears to be happening. No official ban but he is being ostracised. His match v Vincent Keymer has been cancelled and Tata Steel have dropped him. They might have to give reasons why no tournament wants him (if it stretches that far.) Denying someone the right, without an official OTB ban, to earn a living can open up a discrimination claim. They can say' No.' but do they have to give a reason? (one for the arbiters/organisers?)

v Chess,com. They made public the claim he 'probably cheated in more than 100 games.' Do they not need to prove without any doubt, 100% proof Hans cheated in 100+ games. (just a layman's view.) You can almost hear the lawyers opening statement; 'How many games is it, 101, 199, 999, exactly how many games is 'probably more that 100?'

[JustinHorton]

Meanwhile what I thought might happen appears to be happening.

I still expect some kind of apology from Magnus at the end of the tournament.

[Ian Thompson]

v Chess,com. They made public the claim he 'probably cheated in more than 100 games.' Do they not need to prove without any doubt, 100% proof Hans cheated in 100+ games. (just a layman's view.)

I'd have thought not. They will be able to say that they know Niemann cheated in some games because he's admitted it. They will quite likely be able to say that their cheat detection algorithms reported a high probability of cheating in these games and an equally high probability in the 100 other games, so it's reasonable for them to conclude that he probably cheated in them as well. They will also be able to refer to other players who've admitted cheating and compare their cheat detection algorithm scores with Niemann's and again say his scores are as high as the scores of known cheats.

If it's correct that all chess.com has to do is to show that their opinion was a reasonable one to have then they've done all they need to do.

[Paul Cooksey]

Another excellent Perpetual Chess Podcast, with a professor of US law, David Franklin.

His one liner was "Hans has an uphill battle but the claim is not frivolous"

Worth listening to the whole thing, since some insight on the US concepts of a public figure, where burden of proof likely to be, and which parts stronger or weaker in law. This podcast and the lawyers on twitter seem agreed Hikaru has least to worry about.

I was hoping the claim was frivolous, since I was hoping this would not drag on for years, which it now might. But if it does come to trial, apparently I might get a US judge ruling I am right about the risk of smart cheating and Justin is wrong, so that would be good

[Mick Norris]

Chess Mind with comments from an attorney which seem to concur with some of the post from Paul

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Justin,

"I still expect some kind of apology from Magnus at the end of the tournament." Was me hoping for this to be cleared up. It seemed the best way to go. I really did think it would end there. My following sentence. "If he comes out shooting from the hip then I'll go into hiding for a month." was me anticipating the storm that is now raging. Instead of the apology Magnus fires into Hans yet ends his statement with; "I hope the truth on this matter comes out, what ever it may be." (sounds like he was not too sure.)

When I was discussing online bans = OTB bans. I said I did not like the idea becoming official but added organisers can always say 'No.' and this appears to be what happening. Whether this goes on and on we do not know. Hans may have a discrimination case against the organisers (can he? I really don't know.) I really hope it does not become the norm but if it does then so be it.

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Ian,
I'm just trying to think what angle the lawyers will come in from.

Going global with 'probably cheated' in over 100 games. Will team Niemann not ask to see the probable proof in every one of those 100+ games. And as for comparing Han's games with confessed known cheats. These players will have to be publically named along with all other FIDE rated players banned (but kept secret) so chess.com cannot cherry pick whose algorithm they wish to show. The lawyer may demand to see their banned (and let back on the site) list so they can do their own comparisons.

[John Upham]

Best hope for Niemann, not for chess.

I think the two are the same thing. If top players can get away with claiming that their opponent was cheating whenever they lose a game, then chess is dead.

How generic would this be? A friend of mine plays competitive Scrabble using a DGT 2010.

Other friends play Bridge and Poker.

I play table tennis and my opponents might claim I'm using illegal rubbers, speed glue or that I have bionic implants.

I'm not sure that claims of this nature are peculiar to chess.

[JustinHorton]

It does seem that Chesscom may have acted unwisely when they decided to tear up their promises of confidentiality under the impression that nobody was big enough to stand up to them. It's not that I think they would necessarily lose any case: it's that (as suggested above) they may have to reveal a great deal more than they ever intended.

Previously I always thought that if somebody was banned and took legal action, Chesscom would likely take the option of caving in, apologising to the individual and carrying on as before. It's not clear to me that this option is readily available now.