Carlsen resigns on move 2

[Ian Thompson]

Hopefully he won't ... try to get Hans banned from any event Magnus plays in.

He's already done that by his actions. What organiser would now invite both of them?

The more immediate question is what will happen in this event if they both get through to the knockout stage and are paired against each other, particularly if that's in the final.

It was interesting on the chess24.com commentary to hear Simon Williams say he thinks online cheating is just as serious as OTB cheating. Both he and David Howell said they had played against people OTB who had been caught cheating against them online and that was difficult for them.

[Joey Stewart]

Why doesn't Carlsen just say he thinks Niemann is a cheat and be done with it, would arguably be less bad than this sort of carry on.

I assume 3 reasons:
1/ it would be an act of courage, not cowardice of hiding behind unsaid things;
2/ he has not a shred of proof;
3/ by virtue of 2/as a US citizen, I assume Niemann would be able to cause him catastrophic financial harm in a US court.

I dont think magnus would have too much to fear on points 2 and 3 - the moment his defence lawyers produced Niemanns own confession that he has previously cheated in online games any libel case would quickly collapse, and it is also presumably this statement that is the lynch pin of magnus now refusing to play any further games against him.
But by not saying anything at all just makes Carlsen look like a bit of a loose cannon, and a potential liability to any tournament organisers or sponsors looking to make money by working with him, so Niemann really doesnt have to bother trying to cause him any legal damage when he has done plenty to himself already !

[NickFaulks]

But by not saying anything at all just makes Carlsen look like a bit of a loose cannon

A commendably charitable description. I'd say it makes him look like a bit of something else.

[Geoff Chandler]

Hopefully he won't ... try to get Hans banned from any event Magnus plays in.

He's already done that by his actions. What organiser would now invite both of them?

Hi Ian,

You could be right, however even Magnus does not control who plays in FIDE events.
Other tournaments maybe, but the organisers may like the idea of not having to pay
Magnus a hefty appearance fee.

If it is proven that Magnus is only playing in OTB tournaments if Hans does not play
then there could be some legal act as compensation for potential loss of earnings.
He will find himself out on his own of it he tries to stop Hans from paying in OTB events.

Speculation.
How about, he does not want to play a self confessed cheat online. OK. Don’t.
Hans admitted it and perhaps Hans should not be playing in this event after that admission.
The one move resignation could be a protest about letting Hans play in this online event.
Magnus played four online games v Hans (W3 L1) in August. Is it from that event all this happened?
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.p ... pid2=52948
This is of course assuming the cheating thing is the reason.

('perhaps,' 'could be.' 'assuming, 'is it,' that is why I titled that last bit 'Speculation.')

We would like a statement but does he have to say anything. Pleading the 5th
is keeping me/us guessing and him, possibly (another guess) out of the law courts.

All this of course is the sign of a great player.
He steals the limelight from both events by playing one move in two games.

[Graham Borrowdale]

Hopefully he won't ... try to get Hans banned from any event Magnus plays in.

He's already done that by his actions. What organiser would now invite both of them?

This is the most dangerous point, in my opinion. Carlsen, assuming he has calculated this in advance, may be banking on organisers choosing to invite him over Niemann, effectively stunting the younger player’s career. He has already effectively excluded himself from individual FIDE events. He seems to be acting as if he is bigger than the game, which no player ever should be, in any sport.

[Ian Thompson]

No evidence that Niemann cheated according to Ken Regan.

The obvious question is whether or not this analysis, which does include some chess.com events, includes the games from chess.com where they claim he was cheating. I don't suppose anyone other than chess.com and Niemann know the answer to that.

[Geoff Chandler]

This is the most dangerous point, in my opinion.

Hi Graham,

And that is we are reduced to, opinions and guesses and speculation about what may happen next.
(and we have all been pretty hopeless at that - who predicted Magnus would resign after one move?)

He cannot take it OTB without offering an explanation and in that regard he has been very shy.
I'm positive he won't try to stunt Han's OTB career and to be honest I don't think he could.
Hans's current rating does not attract automatic invites and by the time it does all this will have blown over.

[NickFaulks]

I don't suppose anyone other than chess.com and Niemann know the answer to that.

Except that chess.com will be dripping out any damaging snippets in collusion with their new business partner.

[JustinHorton]

the moment his defence lawyers produced Niemanns own confession that he has previously cheated in online games any libel case would quickly collapse

No it wouldn't. Acceptance of prior wrongdoing is not acceptance of wrongdoing in any particular instance and a court would understand that.

[Roger de Coverly]

No evidence that Niemann cheated according to Ken Regan.

A couple of interesting points.

He says that Niemann gets good results because his opponents play badly. Arguably that was true of the Carlsen game.

Also that when a million games are played over a short timescale, that the one in a million chance of human moves naturally matching an engine choice will happen relatively frequently.

I don't have proof, but it seems logical to me that players who train intensively with engines and who have a pattern recognition style of play will start to play engine ideas in their games because they've seen them before.

[Ian Thompson]

the moment his defence lawyers produced Niemanns own confession that he has previously cheated in online games any libel case would quickly collapse

No it wouldn't. Acceptance of prior wrongdoing is not acceptance of wrongdoing in any particular instance and a court would understand that.

As well as the statements made being false, one of the other requirements for a successful libel claim is that the statements were damaging to the claimant's reputation. When someone has admitted to cheating online does it cause further damage to their reputation to falsely claim they cheated OTB? That's a subjective opinion where some people would probably say yes and others no.

[Mick Norris]

I don't have proof, but it seems logical to me that players who train intensively with engines and who have a pattern recognition style of play will start to play engine ideas in their games because they've seen them before.

I think Matthew Sadler adapted his play after spending a lot of time studying Alpha Zero, so presumably there's evidence, if not absolute proof

[Paul Heaton]

As well as the statements made being false, one of the other requirements for a successful libel claim is that the statements were damaging to the claimant's reputation.

The actual threshold is "injurious to another in their trade, business, or profession". Given how quickly Nakamura moved clarify his statements to cover his backside it seems fair to assume he received advice a line had been crossed.

[JustinHorton]

The US version:

Libel is a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, signs, effigies, or any communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person's reputation, exposes a person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business or profession.

I am no kind of a lawyer, let alone an American one, but I can see how not getting invites to tournaments, if that were to occur, would injure a person in their profession.

[Roger de Coverly]

but I can see how not getting invites to tournaments, if that were to occur, would injure a person in their profession.

A precedent would have been the treatment of Korchnoi by the Soviet Union forty years ago. But there were other political bans even earlier, such as Hastings and a Spanish player in 1953.