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?