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Sure, had Carlsen won, he would maybe not have withdrawn (apparently he still felt uncomfortable with Niemann's inclusion, as did other GMs).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.