> 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.