Carlsen had no problem playing Hans in the Meltwater championship weeks before the Sinquefeld cup. He had no issue playing Hans in the Sinquefeld cup.

Until he lost to Hans.

It’s also important to note that Magnus has still not actually accused Hans of anything. He’s letting insinuations, innuendo and Twitter imaginations run wild do all the work for him.

He's lost to weaker players before. He's lost to younger players before, and praised them. He's lost longer streaks. He's lost with white in such situations too.

He's even lost to Hans before, with white, in the game where Hans infamously said "The chess speaks for itself".

And he didn't immediately withdraw from Sinquefield. Hans' postgame comments, where he made an odd claim about preparation, came in between and may have been a factor.

Remember, Chess is a LOT about preparation these days, and Carlsen was also at one point #1 fantasy football player in the world. He probably knows a thing or two about applied statistics. Even overlooking the specifics, he wouldn't get as far as he has if he wasn't pretty good at keeping his frustration at losing from influencing his judgments.

This is the most enlightening comment I've read about this case.

He's lost to many players for many reasons, even during his reign as WC.

The thing about that loss, was that it was basically a curved ball, and Hans was prepared for it.

It sounds like Magnus was suspecting something and prepared obscure line to test his response. Its not conclusive evidence as there is always some chance he just studied that sideline and know how to exploit it.

But it looks like its conclusive evidence to Magnus or he knows more than he lets out.

Even Karpov said he played badly in the Sinquefield game. Personally I think Hans didn't cheat in this game ...... but:

my best theory is that Carlsen is afraid to play against people who HAVE cheated once, because there mere thought that he COULD be cheating right now is enough to derail him from clear thinking. I think this because it's exactly what he declared in an interview ABOUT cheating on 2021.

So basically he's boycotting someone as a message for other cheaters and, even if hans is innocent, and keep Chess clean. It's of unfair for Hans if he's not cheating but ... what is a fair justice anyway ? There's always a message sent by a sentence.

In Go, (and in competitive Starcraft, I've noticed) they talk about "overplay", making a move that's trying to claim too much, biting over more than you should be able to chew. And if you spot it, and are good enough, you can "punish" an overplay. If you are playing with a handicap, you have to make overplays, and hope your opponent can't punish them. As the weaker player in a handicap game you know this, but you face a constant dilemma: do you think you know how to respond and punish, or do you play carefully, sacrificing a little of the edge of your handicap? What's best depends a lot on your confidence in your own strength.

Now in Chess, it's much harder to see what's an overplay or not, especially for us who aren't GMs. But the basic thing exists, it exists in all games. Players still have to make decisions about whether to concede a little of their edge (it starts off with white, but can change across the game) with a safe move, or go for a potentially risky counter.

Now imagine what suspectimg your opponent might on decisive moves have engine help, does with that dilemma.

> If you are playing with a handicap, you have to make overplays

Some players may feel they have to, but others manage to refrain from making overplays, and just keep playing moves they consider objectively best, patiently waiting for their weaker opponent to make big mistakes. Usually such patience does get rewarded.

For small handicaps, maybe you can see it that way. But it's harder to call a move "objectively best" when you're technically in a dead lost position.

With objectively best I refer to maximizing territory. A much stronger player of course realizes they're in a technically lost position throughout most of the game, but that doesn't make resigning objectively best.

So why even begin the match? The story would hold a lot more water if he boycotts from the outset

Because its more within the rules to resign than to withdraw in their contract probably

Just a guess may be Carlsen set the whole thing up. Like make a move and see if the opponent makes a move that could only be recommended by a chess engine. Do it in your preparation time and see this.

Like in your preparation you make an opening move and see what move the engine makes in response. Now do this in your live game and see if the opponent made the very same move. If they do, this confirms cheating. In this case may be that's the first he would do given he already suspects cheating?

There’s absolutely no way this is the case.

Chess GMs at Magnus and Hans’ level wouldn't even need to cheat on every move and certainly not on any opening where something like the first 20 best moves are all memorised. These guys would only need the engine to tell with them one or two moves per game to pretty much always win.

Why did Magnus start the game and then resign? Maybe he thought it would make a statement. Maybe he needed to technically show up to the game to avoid a penalty.

One opening move can’t possibly confirm cheating since the opening moves played by the best chess engines are also the same moves played by the vast majority of human players.

But if there is no obviously desirable move, and instead a wide array of potential equally good moves, then picking the same as the computer picked gives a high probability of cheating. That being said, I find it unlikely that that's the case here.

I believe you're starting from a false premise.

In case of the first moves, there's definitely not a wide array of potentially equally good moves. There's a very well known set which is studied by every serious chess player.

Literally every GM (including Magnus) will have studied all the possible moves a computer will make for the first N moves to memorize what the optimal move/response is etc.

Niemann had moved one piece. There were exactly 24 possible moves he could have made. Being in line with "the engine" would have been easy.

I dont know if he is cheating. Evidence is not clear. My theory is one of two things.

1) Carlsen doesn't want to play with anyone that has ever cheated. Fair enough. But be more vocal about it.

Pet theory 2) Carlsen is on tilt. We could be seeing a shift in play style, like we have several times with poker. GTO came on the scene and suddenly the whole game changed, and those on the top many times found themselves unable to deal with how the newer players were approaching the game.

What? Just because of reputation? What are you even talking about...

Have you ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty"? The burden of proof is on the accuser. We should be shown evidence, or Carlsen should apologize.

The "if I talk I am in big problem" video is exactly the most he can say without forcing him to go to an unwinnable (because the burden of the proof is on him and it is practically impossible) trial.

What can he do if he is completely convinced of the other player cheating. He can only let the other player win and at the same time make clear that he is not going to play against him.

That is the only legal and honest way to deal with what you perceive is a cheating opponent.

What else can you do? Get a libel trial?

He has not said that the other player does not cheat. But he is not going to play against him.

It is not so easy as to say: "hey, this player cheats".

OK: he has no proof. Perfect, he is willing to lose and keep his mouth shut. But he has said something: "I cannot say anything without getting into an unsolvable trouble".

Yes, when it's something that's unprovable (if done well enough), reputation can play a role, esp. if it's golden boy v.s. admitted past cheater.

And Carlsen didn't technically accuse him and Niemann is not technically on trial, so "innocent until proven guilty" is irrelevant. Magnus's goal seems to be to get Niemann disinvited from tournaments. He's taking such drastic measures for a reason at the expense of his own hard earned rep, and given his benevolence as world champion you have to trust his judgement.

You definitely don't have to trust his judgment. People change, he could be paranoid at the moment for all we know.

Magnus should explain his actions to the organisers and the public, or just not enter tournaments.

> Magnus should explain his actions to the organisers

He almost certainly explained himself to the organizers of the Sinquefield Cup, given how they instituted more anti-cheating measures as soon as he withdrew. They knew what was up, they just didn't come to a good resolution with Magnus and he withdrew instead.

> and the public

No good can come from that, any resolution will be either Hans being caught red handed, tournaments employing anti-cheating measures that put Magnus at ease, or tournaments having to choose between inviting Hans or Magnus. None of those involve the public in any way.

> or just not enter tournaments

I'm pretty sure he told the organizers of this tournament "I'm not coming if Hans is coming", and they told him "you signed the contract months ago, you have to come". So instead Magnus did the closest equivalent to not playing Hans: play one move and forfeit.

Yeh, it’s reasonable to assume this was the best move available to him, strategically. If he’s quiet: it’s for strategic reasons. If he play and forfeits, instead of not playing at all: it’s for strategic reasons. Etc. Saying it’s petulant or childish or whatever just shows you think toddlers are far more strategic than anyone realises.

His biggest challenge is next generation of younger prodigies like Pragg. He clapped at the end of their game in appreciation of Pragg. He's not paranoid about being usurped and knowing him through the years, he is going to take that as a challenge.

Hans made a comment after their game but before the drama - "Must be embarrassing for the World Champion to lose to such an idiot like me" which couldve easily tilted Magnus more than a simple loss with black (rather than white) or draw with someone like Pragg.

this is not an online game where people rage quit.

Carlsen himself said something akin to "Watzkin didn't have thick enough skin to become chess world champion", if you knew a bit about chess you wouldn't suggest this silly explanation

Fischer (e.g. 1975), Kasparov (e.g. screw you I'll make my own federation with hookers and blow) are both as prominent players to do things even more qualifying of a ragequit than this though there's plenty of examples more similar to this event.

Suggesting that pro chess players don't tilt is absurd given that we've seen it happen plenty of times, often after losses.

I am not supporting Magnus on his actions here. Just that this behaviour is a massive outlier for him.

Yes, and it doesn't matter.

Who are you to decide for whom it does and does not matter? Like others have said, this isn’t a court of law. You have made your standard here clear, cool. Other people have other standards they apply to various situations, and they are using those to discuss this specific topic.

Ok, but the other presented standards are obviously ridiculous.

"This guy is famous and a master of the game, so I'm going to trust him when he's seriously trashing some young guy."

I am someone who can think.

Unlike pretty much everything in Chess, this is an international news story. That’s quite significant.

And the other side is that people can trust someone's judgment. Credibility matters and people have to make judgment calls on that basis all the time. When companies decide to hire or even fire people they do so on the basis of credibility, and that can have some pretty serious consequences.

Hans has cheated before and that affects credibility. Magnus has been around for awhile and gathered a reputation regarding professional style. That affects credibility. Having high or low credibility is not a crime and everyone is free to create their own personal theories on credibility.

Magnus has decided that he does not want to play Hans. As the world chess champion people will want to know why. Magnus has pre-emptively tweeted a meme which basically says that he refuses to say anything. I don't see what's wrong with Magnus avoiding Hans while basically saying nothing.

> I don't see what's wrong with Magnus throwing his points away to satisfy his preference.

Losing games on purpose is unsportsmanlike. Now, if Magnus has good reason to believe that he's just countering bad sportmanship with his own brand of it, that could perhaps be justified in some circumstances. But to the general audience, it makes chess look really bad.

Magnus & Nakamura and a handful of other grandmasters are basically the only reason why chess is not dead to the public; I'm not sure thriving is in the cards ever again for chess. Chess has a lot more to be grateful for with Magnus than not.

That's what Magnus is to the "general audience" with regards to chess, and it's going to take a lot for Magnus to be a net negative to chess. We are only making drama because Magnus is so good. Nobody would be blinking an eye if I failed to show up to a tournament, and my opponent would be glad to reap the points.

> Magnus & Nakamura and a handful of other grandmasters are basically the only reason why chess is not dead to the public

Not really, at all. That TV series and the COVID pandemic have way more to do with current chess popularity than Magnus & Nakamura. The playing public doesn't really care who the champion is, they play with themselves and only very few follow every game on major tournaments. As a spectator sport, chess is beyond boring, even worse than baseball (seriously, how come people in the US are so into watching baseball??!)

I agree with most of what you said, except that I think chess can be a great spectator sport. Perhaps not classical chess, but rapid or maybe blitz.

I was mostly referring to top level classical chess matches, yes, it's as entertaining as watching the paint dry. More fast paced chess are better for watching, I agree.

> Losing games on purpose is unsportsmanlike.

So is cheating. At least this is blindingly obvious.

It's unsportsmanlike to the players in the tournament who are not cheating, especially in most tournaments with top Grandmasters because those are generally round robin tournaments. All those non-cheating players have to play Magnus too.

In the few high level tournaments that are knock out or Swiss system it would be less unsportsmanlike because in those most other players won't have to play Magnus.

I did address that in my comment.

If it becomes known that Magnus was having mental health issues (wouldn't be the first chess genius to have such things), then sure, my opinion may change. He most certainly did talk to the organizers. Why he has not made a public statement is beyond me, but I wouldn't be surprised if commercial interests and law suits are involved.

This is a solved problem. You don’t accuse them yourself but you leak information anonymously or have an undeclared mouthpiece (“friends close to Carlsen”) speak for you.

> Magnus's goal seems to be to get Niemann disinvited from tournaments.

In other words, he is bullying Niemann using his status and renown as a world champion. Nice.

It's just a principle, used in some laws in some legal systems in some countries — nothing dictates all accusations made on the planet has to abide by "innocent until proven guilty" principle.

Nothing dictates that burden of proof is always on the accuser, especially in the internet where there isn't really any authority or agreements on subjects like this. It's just a statement/opinion by grandparent and it baffles me why presumption of innocence is even brought up like it's something to be held everywhere.

> If the chess community decides to trust Magnus and his credentials without any proof, that's their prerogative, the concept of criminal innocence doesn't come into play at all here.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is not just a legal concept but a social norm. I'm a big Carlsen fan, but that same logic, applied to other domains, has led to witch-hunts throughout history, or character assassination/reputational damage when someone is accused of something but those accusations are never tested in court.

Coming back to chess, this isn't a casual situation with your friends, but a professional environment with norms and with money on the line. Imagine the same thing at your workplace.

Random non-experts taking sides here is inappropriate. Even many other Grandmasters have opinions on these accusations (true or false), but are refusing to state them publicly, preferring to let it play itself out, due to their respect for norms. Magnus is entitled to his opinion and to expressing them, but treating them as facts rather than accusations is just strange.

Chess cheating expert Ken Regan thinks Niemann didn't cheat. "Innocent until proven guilty" obviously applies.

> "Innocent until proven guilty" is not just a legal concept but a social norm.

I think the question is whether it ought to be a social norm.

What do you think of Prince Andrew? Hasn't been proven guilty. Should we just go about our business with him as usual? What about everyone else who settles a case?

I think of "Innocent until proven guilty" as a sort of viral trope. People think it's the norm, so when the question comes up, this phrase appears in their minds and is the first thought on justice. But I'm not sure it's a good norm, at least I have yet to hear arguments about why we should follow it, especially outside of the legal realm.

As a moral principle it’s kind of vague but you can take it as “when in doubt assume the best of people” which can work as an anti-prejudice tool.

But just because the bar is set so high for criminal guilt doesn’t mean we can or should use it elsewhere.

And much of personal interactions are basically “guilty until proven innocent” because the risk (even if minor) isn’t worth it. Most people have no problem being told they can’t share a bathroom stall with you even if you’d share one with a spouse.

Even civil cases have a lower bar, and many personal interactions are way lower.

And while I do have a problem with “do one crime and never be hirable again for anything” I do not have a problem with certain crime blocking certain types of work, and/or subjecting you to additional scrutiny.

Upvoted you, people shouldn't downvote perfectly fine comments.

> What do you think of Prince Andrew? Hasn't been proven guilty. Should we just go about our business with him as usual? What about everyone else who settles a case?

We have circumstantial evidence that he did it; testimonies from victims, who have made credible claims, etc. There's also a difference between making sure you're not victimized (e.g. being careful around alleged abusers, or Carlsen being suspicious about a suspected cheater), but that doesn't apply to internet gossipers.

And the public's reaction to Prince Andrew would be different if he was a nobody, who was publicly vilified by the most influential people, with zero evidence available to the public; compared to him being a powerful person, who is publicly protected by the most influential people, with plenty of circumstantial public evidence. I think he's guilty, but there's context to my belief.

What irks me is when people take sides in "he said she said" conflicts (i.e. with zero public evidence) between two people they've never met. "Innocent until proven guilty only applies to courts!" is reasoning I've seen far too often regarding accusations published in some random tweet, and it's really quite ugly.

Turns out if someone acts in a way for years people start to believe they'll act the same way later on. Crazy.

Burden of proof is on the accuser? That only applies in legal sense. Fortunately, we don’t live in a world bound by lawyers.

It’s not a court of law, and the kid has cheated before.

> What? Just because of reputation? What are you even talking about...

Is this a troll or some kind of rhetorical question? OP explained exactly his reasoning and clearly they said it was because of reputation.

> Have you ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty"?

It is not a court and Hans is not being tried on criminal charges, so what does that have to do with anything? Legal systems also have other standards for evidence such as balance of probability.

> The burden of proof is on the accuser. We should be shown evidence, or Carlsen should apologize.

What exact accusation did Carlsen make? A verbatim quote with complete context will be sufficient.

> Have you ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty"?

In the criminal court of law, that's the burden of proof. This is not it.

>Have you ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty"?

why would you need proof when Niemann already admitted to cheating in the past?

Because whatever a person did as a child playing online on a second-rate chess site is hardly relevant for a top-level over the board tournament with strict anti-cheating measures.

It is simply immoral to deny any kind of redemption to any person who has ever made a mistake. For a person so ready to cast stones, are you yourself without any sin? Should the errors you once made follow you for the rest of your life?

I'd say people should put up some evidence of Niemann's cheating, how exactly he was receiving information on best possible moves, or just shut up about it. Or dial the anti-cheating measures to eleven, strip the players naked, put them in a Faraday-cage without spectators and cameras, and see how they do.

> people should put up some evidence of Niemann's cheating, how exactly he was receiving information on best possible moves,

Do you see how absolutely impossible to do this, don't you?

I believe that cheating in over the board tournaments is hardly possible with all the security measures that are now taken by event organizers. If you suspect cheating you must come up with some explanation how exactly it is happening.

Do they Xray their clothing and shoes? Is there an anal inspection of sorts? Do they ban all RF devices and run wide-spectrum spectrum analysers?

Aren't you going a bit over the top with these suggestions?

A bit, but prize money for the biggest contests is close to a million, half a million for the runner-up. There's big stakes and some people will try to get an unfair edge (see every other sport for reference).

And honestly, even if it was proposed as a joke, a bluetooth buttplug actually sounds like a good secret channel for small amounts of information if you don't mind it sitting there. You're probably can feel the vibration very well and add some bits with different vibration speeds and patterns. I feel like the shoe method would require you to have your feet still and it's easier to enforce a shoe check than an anal probing...

X-ray them too to catch any swallowed/implanted devices.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is generally used in when talking about the state and punitive decision making, not a social norm. If my three best friends accused someone of trying to rob them, I'd be comfortable believing them even if they didn't get the altercation on camera. Would the police? Depends on the country, because as you said, the robber would be (and should be) considered innocent until the state can explicitly prove their guilt.

I don't think we should live in a society where people can be imprisoned by relying on accusations alone, of course hard evidence should be required, but I don't mind living in a society where people are free to use the shared knowledge of their own community to reach epistemological conclusions. If the chess community decides to trust Magnus and his credentials without any proof, that's their prerogative, the concept of criminal innocence doesn't come into play at all here.

Ya did Carlsen even read him his rights before he booked him danno?

who's accusing?

Nobel prize or not, evidence is needed. Nobel prize is sort of orthogonal to the situation where many other Nobel prize winners also have reservations about the accusation including Gary Kasparov and Fabiano Caruana. Magnus can’t play God, sorry. Eh, let’s call Caruana Fields medalist :-).

Evidence of what?

Has Carlssen explicitly said "This guy has cheated?"

He has only said "I cannot speak because I would be in such a big trouble that I am not willing to do so".

It is not so trivial as "prove it" when you only have a deep, serious, professional conviction.

> Has Carlssen explicitly said "This guy has cheated?"

How would you explain his reaction then?

He didn't explicitly said that, but he certainly implicitly said that, which is essentially the same in this situation.

Just curious if there is any other plausible motivation other than cheating. Some personal issue? Blackmail?

I don't think there's not going to be any binary or absolute outcome in this - if Niemann is actually (formally) accused of cheating.

Best thing would probably be some statistical analysis, and some likelihood of the moves made. And in the end, someone will probably conclude that there's a x% chance that cheating occurred.

With that said - at this level, I don't know how you differentiate true outlier moves, from the player just being incredibly apt at the game? I've heard that one way of identifying algorithmic / computer programs, is that the moves can extremely weird compared to what a human player would have done.

Anyone should be considered innocent until proven guilty, this is a strong rule for a reason.

It’s not the rule, it’s a rather modern exception.

The word "rule" doesn't imply how old or recent it is (most rules aren't things like "rules of physics", they're things that governments, parents, bosses, teachers etc. make up quite regularly).

The rule (in this case, rule of law) that forbids slavery is pretty modern, surely that doesn't make it any less important?

Rule also implies universality, which is how I interpreted it here. I was saying this is a new, ‘limited’ belief.