After the win against Carlsen, chess.com removed him from one of their online tournaments, and a couple of chess.com adjacent streamers insinuated the online cheating. Under that pressure, Niemann mentioned a coordinated attack and admitted to to cheating at the age of 12 and 16, but not in prize money tournaments.
To see how easy it goes online, here is a video of Carlsen taking a move from Howell during a prize money tournament in Lichess:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NrOv8hxN6g
It can't be compared to deliberately using an engine, but clearly the standards are different online.
chess.com has announced that it will release an additional investigation into Niemann soon. The involvement of an online company into an OTB tournament is unprecedented and comes after the takeover of the "Play Magnus" group.
chess.com also released a private cheating conversation with Dlugy, from whom Niemann had taken lessons a long time ago.
So, out of the 50 cases only those who are "involved" in a win against Carlsen are being targeted. I assume that chess.com will keep the rest of the files for future "use".
FIDE, the real official organization, is investigating as well but will probably not find any OTB cheating cases.
So what? He was 16 yo kid who did a stupid thing playing online. How exactly does that relate to top-level over the board tournament with anti-cheating measures which organizers deemed sufficient to stop cheating? So far there is nothing but allegations.
If chess.com is to be believed this is not the case, and they have informed Niemann about it. According to them Niemann has cheated more often and more recently than he admitted, and lied about it when he made his statement.
> How exactly does that relate to top-level over the board tournament with anti-cheating measures which organizers deemed sufficient
Professional chess has a huge cheating problem: It is very easy to cheat, chess tournaments are under-funded, and anti-cheating measures are expensive. There are worlds between, say, chess and cycling, or chess cheating and card counting.
That sounds a bit conspiratorial - isn't it more likely that both Carlsen and chess.com take issue with cheating and they are in a business relationship, not because?
Isn't the point that finally there is a discussion what a due process looks like?
> Isn't the point that finally there is a discussion what a due process looks like?
What do you mean, 'finally'? People who were appalled by Carlsen's tantrums were insisting on it from the very start. If you have an evidence of cheating, present it. If you don't, stop behaving like a spoiled child and do not bully your opponent.
> What do you mean, 'finally'?
It literally took the world champion to throw a 'tantrum' to get a public discussion about cheating in chess: How should FIDE sanction (online) cheaters? What is the process? What type of evidence is required? What are the statistical methods to distinguish a super GM from a GM with engine help? What anti-cheating measures are necessary?
Regarding a 'tantrum' if Niemann is such a bad vile cheater, why did Carlsen start all this intimidation campaign only after losing? (and losing in a game where there were no obvious computer moves, just a solid play from Niemann and not the best play from Carlsen)
If he has some evidence of cheating, he should bring it to the table. Or just play according to the rules.
Again, I don't get the whole 'campaign' thing, it sounds like a big collusion.
Sure, had Carlsen won, he would maybe not have withdrawn (apparently he still felt uncomfortable with Niemann's inclusion, as did other GMs). But it's a logical fallacy to conclude that the cheating allegations are unfounded. My understanding is it simply was the straw that broke the camel's neck. Likely a false straw, but the bucket was already full at that point.
Maybe it's nothing, but it's not as nothing as you're making it out to be.
So what? Just because someone has cheated in the past does not in any way prove that they've cheated in this particular case. It only proves they've cheated in the past. Is it suspicious? Sure. But any accusations of cheating are still pure speculation.
> Officials literally found weights inside the fish. Both of those are in this story.
And I specifically mentioned this in my comment.
Getting caught for cheating has an impact on credibility. Credibility is a big deal and a hard problem. The boy who cried wolf is not a story of no wolves. Are you surprised that cheating impacts credibility?
In a court of law we might have standards like preponderance of evidence or reasonable doubt. In everyday human relations everyone is free to develop their own theories of credibility and to act upon their freedoms accordingly. You are free to judge whether Microsoft is trustworthy even without proof that they will betray your trust in the future, which nobody really knows.
It's your call if you wish ignore to medical credibility when evaluating your doctor's advice. Perhaps you'll engage in a discussion about how their medical credibility is not adequate evidence, but at that point, isn't it time to get a doctor you find credible?
where’s your evidence to the contrary?
i’m sure you’ll find fault with it as yet another arm chair expert
what evidence do you have for your position?
> He’s either the greatest chess player alive
Ridiculous, nothing about his play suggests he's the greatest chess player alive.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33085649
but i’m sure you have quite literally nothing to refute this with but the autistic cries from the ether
cc @dang
My position is that the statistical analysis is flawed: just think critically about it for a bit and you can understand why. It has been beaten to death already.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33085649
what analysis have you published publicly to be scrutinized?
i’d love to see any substantive comment from you though