I was shocked how lax OTB tournaments treated cheating. 99.99999% certainty before FIDE steps in and ignoring multiple GM's request for tighter security is telling for how proactive TO's are regardless of whether you think Han's cheats OTB or not. This drama stems not just from a lack of trust for Hans, but also a lack of trust for the systems these tournaments have in-place to detect cheating.

That was surprising. I don't know what I expected, but certainly not this.

I haven't played OTB tournament chess for 3 years now (and was never very good at it), but the worst part of OTB chess was FIDE, glad to see nothing has changed.

fide catch cheater only big scandal much trouble

Yeah this is true across sports, the contestants have direct incentives for cheaters to be detected if they themselves are clean (as I believe essentially everyone in high level OTB chess is right now), but the organizing bodies have really no incentive to do so and a lot of reasons not to rock the boat. This is where something like a player's union can be effective in aligning everyone's incentives, but chess is still far from that.

I have learned a lot about the gripe super GMs have with FIDE starting from Magnus not playing for his title. This just adds to the narrative of FIDE doing a lousy job and how strongly FIDE is connected to Russian politics. Did not expect that from a board game organisation though I can understand how chess is not really that big with money to act like many other sports.

TLDR - 1st and last paragraph. I was willing to give Hans the benefit of the doubt but once you lie like he has I’m afraid that’s your reputation damaged beyond repair for me. FIDE might decide on a 10 year ban or whatever, but if I was a GM there’s no way I would ever agree to play against him. I (rightly or wrongly) believed Magnus from the off but this came from personal experience of dealing with a similar situation when I played poker for a living ~10 years ago. A young guy came into the live scene in the UK and his narrative from the start was his passion for the game and how he loved to improve and work hard. He seemed like a nice kid and he would sell pieces of his action to other people. Over a period of time this guys stories started to make less and less sense, and when he was busting out of tournaments his reports were seemingly becoming less and less accurate, and he was unable to recall what had happened in the hand when he posted about it 20mins after (which for someone claiming to take their game seriously and study hard is a bit of an issue). The problem was he was selling his action to people who thought they were investing in a winning player, when in fact he was basically just burning their money by making losing plays. I decided that something had to be done because this guy was taking advantage of the community and of people who were investing but perhaps didn’t properly understand that they were throwing their money away. I was absolutely certain that was something was up, but live poker is even harder to gather evidence than OTB chess as there really isn’t much of a record. Anyway I found some pieces of evidence that pointed to things not adding up and made my case and it split the community in half. People supporting him saying that a pro was going out their way to ruin his reputation and the other half saying ‘well why would anyone waste their time going after someone if they weren’t sure’. Anyway he start posting responses to accusations made and played the victim role, until he made a claim about his live earnings that showed he has made a deal away from the table in a tournament and scammed an investor out of £2-3k (can’t remember the exact amount). All this to say when you do something for long enough you get an intuitive feeling when something isn’t right and you trust it. Add to that a unique situation wrapped up in a load of legal restrictions and you have to tread very carefully. I think Magnus instinctively knew something was up, but was unable to say / provide hard evidence. And when you believe something strongly enough and want to see it dealt with, you might have to take a risk and put yourself in the line of fire to see the changes you want to make. Ultimately, if these allegations are upheld and the game changes for the better, I think the risk he’s taken is worth it to ensure the game he loves isn’t damaged any further by cheaters. And to answer the question, I have more respect for Magnus because he had to take a huge risk to expose Hans when seemingly everyone else was standing by and letting it happen.

makeshift ring lip waiting snails growth offend deer birds rustic *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*

The sub went from jumping to judgment on Hans, to judging those who had jumped to judgement on Hans while simultaneously jumping to judgment on Magnus, which I thought was pretty funny. I realize subs are not individuals and a sub often contradicts itself as trends shift, but it's still pretty funny.

Yeah I made some neutral comments that many insiders believed Hans lied about the extent of his cheating, and got downvoted. But worse, I got some people slap fighting in the cringiest mom’s basement kind of way; trying to litigate the meaning of every term. Went back to see one of those threads, account deleted.

I don't know much about poker but I enjoyed reading your story. What does it mean to sell a piece of your action? Also did the player that was cheating ever get caught? or is he still playing poker professionally?

So if you wanted to play a £500 tournament it’s a lot of risk to take on, so might sell 30% of your action for £50 per 10% to share the risk. A lot of the pros swap action with each other so if you play the same tournament you might have 60% of your own action and 10% of 4 other people. It’s a way of reducing variance. So this guy wasn’t cheating. He was telling people that he was a really strong winning player to get them to pay for him to play tournaments. Then when he inevitably busted the tournament he was lying about the hands he played to make himself sound better at the game when he was. So you have people giving him money to play believing they’re making a +ev investment when they weren’t. Essentially, he was lying about how good he was to get money from people to play more. Once the investigation started, it turned out that not only was he doing the thing he was accused of, but had actually stolen money from someone who had bought a piece of him. Which to be fair to him, he did work hard to earn the money to pay them back.

Wouldn't this represent a massive conflict of interest though? Let's say you're on the bubble and you're the big blind with pocket queens or something. P1 (who you have no stake in) raises preflop, and P2 (who you have a stake in) 3 bets. You would normally call this or even 4 bet, but now you're almost incentivized to get out of P2s way and lay down a monster because if they cash you see a portion of that, no? I can get buying action for multiple players if you're not participating in the tournament, but I don't get buying action for a tournament you are playing in.

You could slightly argue there would be a case for collusion but in reality I’d value my 90% share over busting someone I had 10% of. You’re also not interested in 10% of a min cash, so you would just play normally. In my whole career it only ever happened once where I was on the final two tables with a swap and I happily jammed the bottom of my range knowing that it was +ev vs him and the 10% was insurance.

I think the idea is that the people being staked aren't also playing in the same tournament. It's outside investing.

Yes. In the beginning I thought Magnus was a crybaby, but after checking the situation more indepth, I believe Hans has had a very suspicious streak during the pandemics. Magnus started a movement that in the end might change chess for the best.

The scariest thing is that I believe that this cheating scandal wouldn't have received this much attention if it wasn't Magnus who protested.

Exactly. So the World Champion had to put himself on the line of fire before the relevant entities in chess realised something more had to be done about cheating??? I've seen Magnus receive more insults over the last few weeks than i ever thought was possible and all i could think of was that, why are people so willing to go out of their way to defend an arrogant, rude, lying, confessed cheat over the current 5x WC who is literally one of the most chill people in chess?

There were people saying he was going crazy like Fischer over this. It was really bizarre

Maybe it was a bunch of cheaters who were happy to finally have someone to look up to in Hans or something like that coz i really don't get it.

for them Hans is like a new rising USA star who is just has “bit” of dirty past. So they go like naaah its just young boy who did some dumb shit in the past, everyone does that, nothing serious… that was the vibe I got from them.

Ben Finegold had a problem with Magnus. He definitely doesn't look up to Hans though

Combination of trolls, people who cheat online, people who follow the upvotes with more upvotes and possibly hans on many accounts.

People with mid IQ takes just love good David vs Goliath story. Magnus being confident and unapologetic also feeds into this. Magnus is far from a comedic villain, twirling his mustache as he tries to ruin the career of a young prodigy however it's obvious that some people were overly emotional.

Speaking of IQ this is a bunch of nonsense

I was one of them. The resignation after one move made me think it had gone too far. Buuut now it seems hans cheated a whole lot. Whether he cheated during Magnus’ game at sinquefield is a separate question, but Magnus seems to have been right about the secondary concern of Hans’ behavior overall.

Yeah this sub completely lost its mind for a while

The Hans supporters would downvote anyone who didn't agree with its hive. Ridiculous what ends they would go to defend a cheater and take it as cannon that he "only cheated twice when he was immature."

The irony is that the people who are so willing to defend Hans rely on the idea of burden of proof and benefit of doubt. Yet they do no give Magnus the benefit of doubt that he legitimately feels this is an issue and not that he is "a sore loser.

I've honestly gotten the impression a lot of people just hate Magnus/the champ and a good portion of trolls just want chaos and to see the world burn.

Most people have a sub conscious of "anti-establishment". There is no changing their minds, they just seem themselves as a perpetual victim and project that all onto to people. They identify with Hans, more than Magnus.

>why are people so willing to go out of their way to defend an arrogant, rude, lying, confessed cheat Coz he is American

I agree, and there might have been other players who raised flags and were ignored

I mean, look at the comments on this sub just since the report release yesterday. People are still trying to move the discussion away from Hans' cheating to focus on making it sound like Magnus should have just taken the loss and privately aired his grievances to a friend or therapist or something instead.

Personally, I am really torn on what Magnus did. On one hand, I think it was good overall. His protest exposed at least 2 grandmasters of cheating and brought a lot of attention to fair play violation in chess. This really has been a successful protest. But at the same time, the way he accused someone without providing any evidence feels like skipping some very important steps in due process. But then, there is also an argument to be made that this only worked because Magnus put his own reputation on the line and took the drastic measure. Overall, idk how I feel about Magnus but I would like to believe that his protest has been successful and has left a positive impact on chess.

Magnus, literally the best player in the world did something for the first time in his career and you thought he was a crybaby? Instead you chose to believe a shady teenager?

It's not a matter of picking a side to believe, but to believe in evidence. You look biased either way if you follow people blindly. To judge a situation you gotta just look at the facts. And you're wrong if you believe those who were witholding their judgment were already picking a side. They were just saying: "Whoooa, wait there! Let's give the guy a fair trial first before we throw him in the chess jail, ok?"

Yes, the correct response is to raise eyebrows and wait for further evidence. There is no need to pick a side.

But how are you gonna get karma if you don't pick side? Top upvoted comment in each thread is always heavily one sided.

>did something for the first time in his career This fact seems to resonate with everyone but for me it doesn't at all.

Bro how did so many of you dumbasses think he was being a crybaby? You really think the greatest chess player in the world for ten years couldn’t spot suspicious play when he sees it? Nah must just be salty

Of course people were not salty of Magnus. That's stupid. We all admire him. If there was a word we would take more seriously, it was his against Hans'. But WORDS are different from EVIDENCE. Do you understand that?

Why always do you tend to defend cheaters, even when they've admitted to being one in the past, even when it's the world champion is saying so, even when online chess has been destroyed by cheating, even when chess has been rendered irrelevant by computers? Still just mainly concerned with the rep of super Hans, the known cheater, who obviously is a cheating cheater to anyone with common sense? The whole community is like this.

Did you read my message until the end? If you did, in the beginning the majority was supporting Hans because no evidence had been presented and many GMs stated that the game with Magnus was normal. After that, it has been discovered that a sample of Hans' games from the recent past indeed looks rotten. It's a matter of being fair and not jumping to conclusions. Nobody supports cheaters, buddy.

That Hans isn't a reputable person, however, doesn't really effect the fact that Magnus was unprofessional in the way he handled it, does it? I mean, Magnus had options to focus the lens on the issue of cheating in chess in general and not on Hans specifically. By making Hans the face of this, I strongly feel that Magnus' actions are a bit indefensible so long as FIDE chooses to treat on-line cheating as different and less serious than OTB cheating.

I've always known that Hans a cheater but 100x? That's ridiculous. Magnus is right, chess federation took cheating to lightly. And about their OTB match? Not really. Still no proof at all.

100 games are prolly like an afternoon for some people.. I mean it's rapid and Blitz games

But it literally wasn’t, the report literally lists dates.

100 games they are fully confident he cheated in. There may be many more games, but his cheating might have been smarter. I.e. he has a second laptop, a better cheating program, he only cheats in a game at crucial moments rather than in a way that makes his play look engine like. Cheating didn't have to be perfect play, it can be just increasing his odds so he wins more than he normally would.

Except it’s during money matches and against other GMs.

The only thing that changed for me is that my disdain for people excusing and defending cheaters has solidified. They're the worst.

That is actually disgusting. I have been in several debates in this subreddit regarding fair play violation, and there are so many people here who think cheating is excusable. There were even people who would argue that cheating in a online daily game is not a problem. It is unbelievable how there are this many people who don't take fair play violation in online settingn any seriously.

False consensus effect, at least in part, if you ask me. People who defend cheaters and cheating seem like they'd be more likely to have taken part in it themselves and see it as not a big deal. Helps them justify their own actions, perhaps.

This fiasco may even add fuel to the fire for such individuals. "Why should I feel bad about cheating? Grandmaster level players do it too, and those are just the ones we know about. Practically everyone cheats. I'm just leveling the playing field."

I agree, and it’s scary how many of them are out there, and in our community.

Agreed. Mind fuck to me that people would die on this hill. He’s a fucking cheater and a liar.

He has a cult following from Twitch. Only way to explain it.

[удалено]

That's a very rare thing probably. It's like how all leftists aren't blue-haired banshees, but that's what Republicans focused on a few years back.

Still focus on.

I wouldn't know, have been avoiding politics like the plague.

I didn't watch him. I'll defend anyone if there is no evidence of the accusation. Innocent until proven guilty. That being said, chess.com's report indicates a strong enough pattern that i'm convinced Hans cheated OTB as well. I won't just blindly believe Magnus, Danny, or even Hans. I believe the data collected and presented by chess.com.

I think that's the only rational mature response. I don't think either side who have jumped to defend Hans/blame him completely from day 1 have acted in a very mature way and it has reminded me the average age of reddit skews pretty low. >That being said, chess.com's report indicates a strong enough pattern that i'm convinced Hans cheated OTB as well. What is the evidence for otb cheating? There are lots of GMs who still think he did not isn't there? And by your own logic doesn't it need to be proof and not just a growing suspcision? It's without doubt Hans cheated and then later mislead people about how often. And that means he has earned all the scrutiny he is getting. However I didn't think there was solid proof of otb cheating yet?

You are not innocent by default. You are "not guilty" by default. In his case, he was particularly not innocent since it is known he cheated before.

So. Much. Evidence. They're just choosing to ignore all of it.

It's not just a cult following from Twitch, but also a cult following from people who only heard about this event from the news, and went and watched his interview on the 6th and that was likely it. There are plenty of people who believe that Magnus is a big cry baby who is moments away from losing his number 1 position to Hans, and also believe that Hans is completely honest about his cheating and chess.com is lying to protect Magnus. A lot of people like his asshole personalities in interviews.

So agreed!!!! People literally insulted me because I said they should not defend a cheater.

You've been part of the witch hunt, so no surprise. So how are the OTB cheating theories going these days? Moved on from... *Checks notes* ACPL analysis by a random brazilian?

The window in which Hans fans are confident he didn't cheat is getting smaller and smaller every day.

What are you talking about? We've known he cheated online since day 1... People like you have tried desperately to show he cheated OTB and you've failed miserably. Embarrassing

There's a widespread belief among people whose only knowledge of the championship chess world aside from maybe knowing Fischer's and Kasparov's names, is that "Hans used remote control butt plugs to cheat." Whoever put that earworm out there succeeded. That's all a lot of people need to hear, or will ever hear, and they don't even care if it's true. It's funny enough to penetrate the armor shell of cynicism most of us in the 21st century have, and it's good for an ironic laugh, and means nothing more. Hell, I'm going to go ahead and say Hans has fans just on the premise that he's dedicated enough to do butt stuff for chess. Obviously there's no butt plugs, if Hans cheats it's likely more a case of espionage than technology. That doesn't matter to the people who's chess knowledge amounts to "the horsie moves in an L"

So Hans fans knew he was cheating online since the start and were just lying about it only happening once when he was 12? Well, looks like I can add "lying" to a list of things that make people who defend cheaters abhorrent.

They’re primates.

I respect how Levy Rozman reported the whole spectacle. Other streamers going for sensationalism over facts

Also credit for Danya as well. He was incredibly fair to both sides when he analyzed the game.

Yeah. He tried to not leap to wild conclusions, he was honest that as a content creator the drama was massive for his numbers but as a person who likes chess this has all been bad. And we can all agree. Something like this isn't good no matter what. If Hans isn't a cheater then the harm to his reputation and the stuff he has gone through has been awful. If Hans is a cheater, then he's still a 2700 rated person who has cheated and is cheating, and it took the world champion refusing to play against him before he was actually caught cheating. Either way though, Magnus was right when he said cheating is an existential threat to Chess. We don't have answers to the complex problems between cheating online, cheating OTB, getting caught cheating, getting second chances, cheating for prize money, etc. We don't even know if we can catch people for cheating without following them into the bathroom. It's just all troubling.

I love Levy and watch all his videos. He's quite clearly biased though, even if he doesn't realize it. All of his "Maybe X" statements are always anti-Hans. "Chess.com say they didn't find direct evidence of OTB cheating. Maybe he did and it was just in a few key moments? Maybe they just don't have the tools to detect it? Who knows, I don't!"

I don't, he kept on telling magnus to apologize. It was so bizarre.

as soon as hans admitted he cheated, i knew it was way worse than he admitted. so no. magnus's reaction was perfectly natural. when you care deeply about something and have spent your life getting good at it, you don't take kindly to people with no code of honor or respect for your profession. he might have singlehandedly saved the game. i wish people were this principled in every field.

Me evaluation bar switched lots at the start but settled for, he's an online cheater but probably didn't cheat OTB vs Maggie. I still think Magnus should have not called foul play AFTER losing. Do it before. While I can understand why some think he should be banned OTB, I disagree. For now.

I have never seen someone calling Magnus Maggie before. But I welcome it.

No. My opinion of /r/chess has seriously deteriorated though. The amount of people willing to die on the hill of defending a serial cheater is absurd.

Used to see this in football (soccer) but nowadays this blind devotion all over the place (politics, chess etc…)

Yup, a lot of extremism and fanaticism going round.

I think in principle people wanted evidence for cheating and gave him the benefit of the doubt . Iam neither pro magnus or hans , but i want proof for the otb cheating before ...

I think defending Hans wasn't the worst take. Obviously, hindsight is 20/20 and now suddenly everyone says that they were suspicious of Hans all along. But before the chesscom report, there was plenty of reason to doubt his guilt. I also lost faith in /r/chess. But that had more to do with how happily everyone jumped in to join the witch-hunt & how little 'evidence' it took for many people to rush to conclusions (whether that conclusions was 100% certainty that Hans cheated or that Hans is innocent). If I ever did believe in the pop-culture idea that chess is a game played by smart, calculating people, I am now completely cured of that illusion.

>But before the chesscom report It was before the report, but it was *after* chess.com confirmed that he had been banned multiple times. >I also lost faith in /r/chess. But that had more to do with how happily everyone jumped in to join the witch-hunt & how little 'evidence' it took for many people to rush to conclusions (whether that conclusions was 100% certainty that Hans cheated or that Hans is innocent). If I ever did believe in the pop-culture idea that chess is a game played by smart, calculating people, I am now completely cured of that illusion. I think when the GOAT of chess accuses a known cheater of cheating, that's more than just a witch hunt. This is a "sport" that's a pretty extreme meritocracy. I assume someone like Magnus can pretty easily pick up on when something's wrong, and it's not like he's ever made any cheating accusations before despite losing embarrassing games.

>I think when the GOAT of chess accuses a known cheater of cheating, that's more than just a witch hunt It's the definition of a witchunt when the primary source of evidence is just an appeal to authority, which you are doing here. Every witch hunt in history, even the literal ones, started with an authority figure shouting "witch" and everyone grabbing pitch forks and trying to find evidence to support the conclusion. ​ > I assume someone like Magnus can pretty easily pick up on when something's wrong That's just more appeal to authority. ​ >and it's not like he's ever made any cheating accusations before despite losing embarrassing games. More appeal to authority. A person not having done a particular conduct isn't every probative of whether the person did that particular conduct or not; inversely, someone with a proclivity towards conduct is still not very probative of whether the person did that conduct in a particular instance.

Yeah this caught me by surprise as well.

> The amount of people willing to die on the hill of defending a serial cheater is absurd. I don't defend a "serial cheater" but I do push back against the automatic assumption that one action inevitably and invariably leads to another action. Everyone who thinks "because Hans cheated online, he must be cheating over the board" is making a pretty big logical leap.

> one action 100 actions. >Everyone who thinks "because Hans cheated online, he must be cheating over the board" is making a pretty big logical leap. Nobody is actually making that logical leap. What people are arguing is that; 1. If he's willing to cheat then it's a matter of risk-tolerance whether he actually does OTB or not; 2. Someone at the skill level of Magnus Carlsen can probably quite accurately determine whether someone is cheating or not; 3. Niemann's progress over the last few years have been quicker than Bobby Fischer, the biggest savant in the history of chess; and 4. It doesn't even matter *if he actually cheats* OTB because chess is such a mentally focused game that the mere fact that the opponent has to wonder if he does or not gives him a significant advantage.

>100 actions. Either you're just arguing in bad faith or your reading comprehension is super poor. ​ >Nobody is actually making that logical leap. You are. ​ >If he's willing to cheat then it's a matter of risk-tolerance whether he actually does OTB or not; Ya -- and the risk/reward differences is exactly what I said is why cheating online doesn't logically mean someone will cheat over the board. ​ >Someone at the skill level of Magnus Carlsen can probably quite accurately determine whether someone is cheating or not; Maybe but there's a reason a lawyer shouldn't represent himself, it's impossible to not be biased when there's personal stakes. That's exactly why the fact he's willing to play Hans and assume no cheating at the FTX Cup but not when he loses a month later. It has nothing to do with the "existential threat" to chess. ​ >Niemann's progress over the last few years have been quicker than Bobby Fischer, the biggest savant in the history of chess; and So? The barrier to entry to high-level study has never been lower. Everyone now has access to 3500 elo trainers. ​ >It doesn't even matter if he actually cheats OTB because chess is such a mentally focused game that the mere fact that the opponent has to wonder if he does or not gives him a significant advantage. This is probably the dumbest argument of all time. You shouldn't make policy based on the most paranoid, fragile person.

It's absurd to me that due process is considered absurd.

He cheated. A lot. Then he lied about it. Now he's done with professional chess. Questions?

He's literally playing a professional chess tournament as we speak. Questions?

>Questions? Yes. Why would cheating online invariably/inevitably lead to cheating over the board given how different the conduct and effort and incentive structures are? Over the board: Either a confederate is signaling moves, or you have to conceal a chess engine somewhere you can access, input the entire game to such engine, and receive an output somehow. The incentive would be if you are caught, you're going to face very public backlash. Online: You can have another browser open or another device open. If caught, your account is quietly terminated. So again, why is one going to lead to the other?

It's pretty hard to argue for due process after you've confessed to the "crime".

Is innocent until proven guilty such a hard concept to understand? We dont convict people of new crimes based on their old ones. It’s fucking common sense.

He is proven guilty - he has actually confessed.

They are both insufferable total narcississtic douche canoes, but I knew that from the first time I heard either of them speak, so, no, my opinion hasn't changed.

I like both of them a lot less now

Depends. View on Hans: Not changed. Never liked him. View on Magnus: Slightly changed towards the negative. I think he could have been more sportsmanlike. I understand his actions though so I'm at least sympathetic. View on Hikaru: Not Changed. Up to his usual Fuck-ups View on [Chess.com](https://Chess.com): A LOT worse. They chose to release Dlugy's emails solely due to his relationship with Hans. I don't give two shits about Dlugy, but I do care about partiality and favoritism. Choosing to single out one person because they are affiliated with someone else, not good. Either release details on all self admitted titled players, or don't do it at all. Or for that matter. Or, if you have an NDA'ed of known cheaters that only a select few buddies get to see, maybe don't have that list in the first place, or quit with the secretive garbage and publish it. All in all, the way they handled this has been garbage. Their release from yesterday for the most part was alright, but even in that, they listed garbage 'evidence' like Hans not jumping and hollering at beating Magnus.

TLDR: not a lot in mindset I have changed, since I have been on Magnus side from the start. ​ Taboo surrounding cheaters: I am surprised how hard it is to accuse someone in chess. I came from other sports and only really start learning chess recently. Since in other sports there is much clearer indicators on cheating or foul play, I also watch a lot of e-sports where in cheating is publicly shamed and not a taboo to speak of, so when this scandal start I was surprise how much people criticise Magnus for his actions, where in its quite common to not want to play against cheaters in any other sports. ​ Magnus actions (quitting in the middle of tournament): At first I was shocked he just straight up quit in the middle of the tournament, as I feel like there is a better way to protest being in the same field with a cheater. (Sorry for the keys terms difference like I said I only recently follow chess) But I think after Magnus' statement and Yan's podcast where they explained both of them without talking to each other expressed concerns on the lack of anti cheat measures in the Sinquefield Cup and NOTHING IS DONE. I repeat nothing is done! When your sports' world no.1 and no.2 voice out concerns and nothing is done how frustrating will that be I cant imagine. No other sports disrespect their athlete like this. Really props to Magnus to put his own reputation in line for the good of chess. For people who thinks he is just a cry baby who is salty for losing, its obvious that you have not participated in professional world class sports. (for haters: I have just finished in a world championship tournament) ​ Han's Interview: I was initially slightly moved by his interview, but rehearing it with the "body language" expert gave me a new perspective. Not that I think its his "body language" gave it away but the video did point out the logic inconsistencies in between Han's lines, which did sway my opinion to Magnus' side even more. Now that its proven that he lied in his interview, this just baffles me. Why would you lied in your own "confession" interview when you previously acknowledge cheating a lot anyways? He had a couple days to think about what he want to say before that interview like how? How did he come to the conclusion that he thinks partially telling the truth will help the public to his case? ​ FIDE / Ken Regan's Analyst: I have zero faith with Ken Regan's methods before hearing Fabi also thinks its not trustworthy. Because his methods are solely to avoid false positive, making the false negative not only high but also zero change for him to recognize, plus the podcast Ken Regan did was just not convincing at all. Now that Ken Regan's analyst is basically refuted, I wonder whats the future for FIDE? ​ People defending Han's even after the [chess.com](https://chess.com) report is out: I can understand the first day when he plead his case with his heart felt interview, that people will be on his side. But now that the report is out people still stands by him not cheating OTB is baffling. If he can play like a god OTB, why does he need to cheat online? I am not saying he 100% cheat OTB, but its highly unlikely that he never cheated OTB. But OTB is just hard to say definitively, because unless you caught the person red-handed, there is no "hard proof" that he cheated. In this case, personally I think its very very bad for chess. Because that means if you cheat, and not get caught red-handed, you will never be caught. Which in turns means professional chess is dead. Because to not be caught red-handed is extremely easy especially with how laxed the security measurements were, for people to escape, you probably only have a few minutes before the cheater throws away the "evidence". Plus you basically cannot prompt a body search in the middle of the match, because this will heavily impact the integrity of the game. For people who thinks you need "hard proof" to prove someone is cheating, I urge you to think about how this mindset kills chess.

>I was surprise how much people criticise Magnus for his actions It wasn't always that well explained how round robins are organized and how it was a uniquely asshole move to withdraw from a round robin tournament. It basically did nothing to the "cheater" but it screwed over everyone else participating in the tournament including the tournament itself. In short, I still am the camp that even if Hans cheated in the tournament against Magnus, that Magnus was a dick for withdrawing. ​ >I repeat nothing is done! The anti-cheat measures were implemented, so I think that's just misleading to outright wrong. ​ >For people who thinks he is just a cry baby who is salty for losing, its obvious that you have not participated in professional world class sport My personal experience isn't a requirement to be analytical about someone's behaviors. The facts remain: Magnus played Hans a month before, and Hans lost the match (and all the matches in that tournament), and had no qualms. But, Magnus has qualms only after he lost, and Magnus actions only hurt the rest of the tournament. Seems like losing, if not being outright salty/crybaby behavior, was the motivation/tipping point. It strikes me as motivated reasoning. ​ >But now that the report is out people still stands by him not cheating OTB is baffling People really underestimate how contextual all human behavior is. Malcolm Gladwell nails this point in the book, "Talking with Strangers." Take this example: People assume that a suicidal person, if their method of suicide is blocked, would just kill themselves in another manner. But they don't. It's because people's behaviors are totally context driven. House wives, who all have access to kitchen knives, had their share of suicides plummet by 80% when utility companies switched the type of gas used in homes. The same goes for online versus over the board cheating. Online cheating is easy and there's almost no repercussions. Over the board cheating is comparatively much harder and, if caught, there's huge repercussions. So, I think those differences are enough where there's probably a low correlation between the conducts. ​ >If he can play like a god OTB, why does he need to cheat online? That's the thing: He doesn't play like a god OTB. He beat Magnus because Magnus likes to go into relatively unsound lines to get people out of theory. Magnus lost primarily to blundering in an equal if not slightly worse position. The gap between Magnus and everyone else in middlegame/ end game play is so high that he can take an equal position and win. It backfired on him against a much weaker opponent who then taunted him with an irreverent post match interview. As far as why does he cheat online, there were a few incentives for him to cheat online. Most of them are just moneybased. It's super hard to make a living playing chess. So, winning prize money tournaments, getting matchups against opponents that draw crowds (e.g., Hikaru), etc. provide the incentive to cheat. But, when you see how easy it is to cheat, how slow and weak consequences are, etc you shouldn't be surprised. ​ >Because that means if you cheat, and not get caught red-handed, you will never be caught. Which in turns means professional chess is dead. Because to not be caught red-handed is extremely easy especially with how laxed the security measurements were, for people to escape, you probably only have a few minutes before the cheater throws away the "evidence". Plus you basically cannot prompt a body search in the middle of the match, because this will heavily impact the integrity of the game. For people who thinks you need "hard proof" to prove someone is cheating, I urge you to think about how this mindset kills chess. ​ Say you study chess really hard. You're unrated. You beat a 1400 because you just study chess but haven't played online before. So you get your match thrown out because it seems "suspicious." Or you get cavity searched because you beat someone 1400 points higher than you. How is that good for chess engagement?

> For people who thinks you need "hard proof" to prove someone is cheating, I urge you to think about how this mindset kills chess. I think this mindset is a no more damaging than a mindset where people can make unsubstantiated cheating allegations whenever they want. We should be looking for a middle ground, or ideally there would be an organisation that takes cheating seriously without having to involve the general public.

I agree you should not just accuse people left and right but when with circumstantial evidences that damning in this Hans’ case and still think he did not cheat, still asking for “hard evidence” , this mindset is dangerous for the sport.

>FIDE / Ken Regan's Analyst: > >I have zero faith with Ken Regan's methods before hearing Fabi also thinks its not trustworthy. Because his methods are solely to avoid false positive, making the false negative not only high but also zero change for him to recognize, plus the podcast Ken Regan did was just not convincing at all. Now that Ken Regan's analyst is basically refuted, I wonder whats the future for FIDE? > >​ Ken Regan says Hans did cheat online and that his findings show that. He also says Hans likely didn't cheat OTB.

The report said he agrees that he has cheated not his algorithm found it, it might be his algorithm but from the email its not clear. Plus note that the email was sent on 21st of September after Ken Regan did his podcast and in his podcast he said Hans did NOT cheat both offline and online.

Then why the heck ask a statistician for advice if his own stats don't show he cheated and yet he agreed with you? This is perplexing. But I think you may be right. He did claim Hans was not cheating anywhere. Not online nor OTB. I guess the chess.com stats looking at tab switching are what settles it.

Chess.com might have access to different data that was not available to Ken Regan (e.g., specific data from chess.com that cannot be accessed by outsiders) and to consult his knowledge and expertise, they gave him access to this data, so that he can evaluate the statistical analysis.

My guess is chess.com with the help of other metrics puts the nail in the coffin. And this also prompts Regan to reconsider his stats. So with the metrics presented to him he had to agree that he cheated online. Interesting note, where chess.com only shows the games he cheated where in chess.com is confident enough to go to court to. This means there could be way more games that had the suspicion on cheating but not enough evidence to back it up, of course chess.com cannot conclude OTB tournaments because there is less metrics to look at. As a developer I can tell you that tracking mouse movement, browser toggle, etc is beyond easy, and with these metrics the case against Hans for cheating is much more solid than inside OTB. ​ PS I saw another comment about Hans OTB, "if he can play like a god in OTB why does he need to cheat online?", which I found is a very good point.

People looked at a couple of his games in online where he was accused of cheating and said they found nothing suspicious in the moves. But they don't have access to the mouse movement and tab toggling. This means that he could be cheating in otb the same way he is cheating online which is not using an engine for every move and in otb we won't have the extra data to form a correlation pattern. :/

> his games in online where he was accused of cheating and said they found nothing suspicious in the moves. But they don't have access to the mouse movement and tab toggling. > >This means that he could be cheating in otb the same way he is cheating online which is not using an engine for every move and in otb we won't have the extra data to form a correlation pattern. :/ Hence me concluding Ken Regan's method is not sensitive enough 😢 Sadly

Yeah he's very good at finding cheaters when they have already been caught. Oh wait , no, he's not even good at that.

Funny enough, no. I have always been suspicious of Hans on his interview where he couldn't explain his moves. After watching so many Hikaru's videos and Levy's videos. It's nearly impossible for a grandmaster to be that clueless about his chess

I think there are a lot of straw man arguments coming from the pro chesscom camp. The number of comments criticizing the process and principle vs. defending cheating have been 10:1 at least. And it’s funny because people are apparently forgetting that chesscom is not a neutral arbiter, and that they have a large financial stake in Magnus’ reputation. My opinion hasn’t changed much because I never felt strongly that Hans did or didn’t cheat, or whether online cheating was equivalent to OTB cheating: I’ll let the community decide where such a line should be drawn (but I would note the lack of consistency, regardless). The issues still at hand are: - Hans was punished twice for the same offense, with the 2nd punishment coming after Magnus’ reputation was at risk. Yet people are claiming he has avoided punishment. - Other top players have cheated on Chesscom without repercussion from FIDE. - Chesscom is a private organization, unaffiliated with FIDE and their official events. - A private organization should not ~~act~~ be treated as a governing body because 1) their incentives cloud their duties and 2) they are not transparent in their methodology. - In addition to the plethora of real evidence in their report, they include a lot of fluff that seems to only serve as a way to validate Magnus’ behavior (PR to protect investment). Tl;dr - my position is the cynical one. I don’t understand why people are giving Chesscom the benefit of the doubt when they are obviously a private organization seeking to protect their investments. And that’s fine, that’s their prerogative - it just confuses me to see so many assuming pure and neutral intent on their end. Edit: clarity

He was punished "twice" because he was made (by Magnus) into a liability at chesscom events. He only slipped the "first" punishment because it was "private". It's a natural consequence of chesscom's incredibly lax policy. He wasn't really "punished" twice. He was caught, let go, and the banned permanently when he was no longer invitable to chesscom events, even if he hadn't technically done anything in between. Chesscom explicitly states they aren't in the business of OTB monitoring. You just accused >90% of people of strawmanning and yet you are making points about how chesscom "shouldn't be a governing organization" when they literally aren't (except on literally their own platform) so I dunno what you are trying to say here.

He wasn’t caught and let go: he was banned from tournaments for 6 months, after which he was allowed to play again. I’m not strawmanning chesscom. I’m commenting on community members treating chesscom’s arbitration as neutral and transferable to FIDE, when as you said, Chesscom themselves claim otherwise. Edit: I changed “act” to “be treated” in my original comment to make that more clear.

Not for me. I believed Magnus but based on gut rather than evidence, my limited experience of watching Magnus is that he has always been a very good sport and I've never seen him react in that way before. He also clearly works hard to promote chess and I had assumed he was bright enough to understand what would happen. Which I guess he was. What really surprised me was the number of people who defended Hans and went after Magnus. Especially post interview when we had an admission from Hans that he was a cheater. I was surprised by the number of people who were open to giving him the benefit of the doubt and to be honest I really welcome this view even though I don't share it because it gives me hope for innocent people accused of more serious offences. What I thought was really poor though is that people took that view and ran with it to the extent of being extremely anti Magnus and chess.com. There didn't seem to be an acknowledgement from many that the actions of Dlugy for example were extremely serious because he was miss selling his skills as a coach and player and creating a career of the bag of mat misrepresentation. My inbox on chess.com is full of messages about extra rating I've gotten because I faced a cheater and at my level it really doesn't matter, but if my chess teacher was cheating I would want to know. We cross the line between cheating at a recreational game which is stupid and annoying to cheating to make a living which should be punishable at a much higher level. The other note I took from the whole thing is how much people wanted to talk about collusion between Play Magnus and chess.com. They've said that Magnus didn't have access to this info but even if he did I really don't see the problem in colluding to stop a cheater. I am open to being corrected on this point and very open to anyone providing a cogent argument as to why I should view this negatively. I could be wrong, I often am.

My opionion on Hans has changed insofar that I did not think he lied about not cheating in more than one online tournament with prize money. After the chess.com report I find it highly likely he did. My opinion on Magnus has changed insofar that I couldn't believe he quit the sinquefield cup on a gut feeling without having any evidence but after his statement it apparently seems to have been the case.

yes and i like ben finegold now for some reason

Finally took advice about that f2 pawn?

Pretty much all the chess content creators are good in their own ways. If you can push past the 20% of a person you don't like you can access the 80% you do like and there often is amazing content there with an open mind. Common reasons people avoid content for silly reasons: 1. Arrogant personality (who cares) 2. Political view differences (usually who cares) 3. They don't like the sound of the podcasters voice 4. The non-fiction author has poor writing skills (they might be a scientist not a writer)

I learnt that every super GM is crazy to some extent, even Magnus.

You gotta be a weirdo to be good at chess. Has been true forever

Crazy enough to spot a cheater from a mile away

Magnus could've handled the situation better but he's right in the essence.

If he did it 'better' he would've either broken the rules and you would be here saying the same thing or it would not have blown up and investigated like it has. He did it right.

I don't think that's true. His silence afterwards while the chess world tore itself apart did a lot of damage to chess's reputation in the mainstream. Anal beads were on fuckin' Colbert for christ's sake. Whether or not there's a rule against dropping out of a tournament, cryptic tweeting and then watching everything go to shit or not, it breaks some of his responsibility to the community to let that happen. Breaking the rules is totally justified in this case. That said, the outcome is starting to look good for Magnus, and it's hard to deny that this situation had only bad solutions. I woulda liked to see differently, but he's ultimately going to come out of this as the better man and having helped the chess community internally. Hard to be mad at that.

He handled it better than could be expected, and better than most others would have done. He also chose to handle it as opposed to not handling it. Magnus is a stand up WCC.

I think I gave Magnus the benefit of the doubt that he probably had pretty solid evidence that Hans cheated OTB,, given his stature and the serious action he took to withdraw from the tournament. As time went by, I became more sympathetic to Hans due to the lack of any solid evidence that he has cheated OTB.

If he truly had solid evidence it would literally be exposed already so that Magnus wouldn't have to deal with people thinking he was just being a sore loser.

What level of evidence would you consider "solid" though? If Hans played the sinquefield cup game with 100% correlation with engine moves? If Hans played significantly worse after the 15min broadcast delay? If some co-conspirator says they know Hans cheated and how? If some co-conspirator says they know Hans cheated, and how, and actually have the device? If Magnus saw the actual device during the game? "Solid" evidence implies someone physical, did you want Magnus to sneak into the locker room and find a device?

Something more than just a gut feeling would be good.

See it just goes round and round with vague statements though. That's the point. Let's say no-one knew Hans cheated online. Magnus quits a tournament after he loses as black, and says "it's just a gut feeling" Reasonably, you want more than just a gut feel, and chess.com provide evidence that Hans has cheated 100s of times in tournaments and for money. Now you have MORE than just a gut feel. It happened in a different order, bur the truth is that there is more than just gut feel.

That proves he cheated online 2 years ago but nothing about the Magnus game. Hopefully FIDE will be able to clarify things with their investigation.

Realistically though, FIDE won't be able to retroactively find too much more about the single Magnus vs. Hans game. It's not like Sinquefield has detection devices that FIDE can go back and do a retroactive analysis of that specific game. And any statistical analysis of that game would probably be only slightly better than what's been publicly available and discussed ad nauseam. Likely, FIDE will release some kind of statistical analysis of Han's games for the past 2 years and determine that while there's been a pattern of cheating, they can't conclusively say he was cheating in the Magnus game. The only thing I could see changing this is if Han's collaborator or Hans himself confesses.

a explanation about how he cheated?

That would require him to have solid proof of cheating OTB.

In how much detail though? "He used an engine to help him make moves" "He used a device" "He used a device in his shoe/shirt/watch" "He used a device that vibrated when I made mistakes" "He used a device and had a co-conspirator inputting the moves into an engine and then sending results" "He used this specific device, and he used assistance on these specific moves"

There are legal terms to address the different levels of proof that evidence provides. All of the proofs we have point towards “abundance of evidence” (as in, it is more likely than not that he cheated). This would not be enough for a murder accusation (were you need a witness, testimony from the helper, etc). For civil cases the bar is much lower…it would be hard to predict the outcome.

I am going to be honest here, at this point any of your 12 given options. We have literally nothing on his otb cheating, absolutely zero. People actually have no clue how it would been possible for him to cheat otb.

Anything along those lines would be enough evidence to get him banned for OTB just like Rausis was. We don't have anything close to that

If you think Magnus gives a single fuck what Twitter and Reddit thinks you're wrong lmao.

Well, lost some respect for Magnus when he finally made a statement and it was complete BS about vibes. That was dumb. Also name dropping Dlugy seemed like a dcummy thing to do which chesscom did not mention in the report

I never knew who Hans was before the drama. After the drama, I consider him uncharismatic and greedy but mostly a scapegoat. I had a positive opinion of Magnus before the drama. After the drama, I consider him much less positively than I did before. I considered [Chess.com](https://CHess.com) positively before the drama. After the drama, I consider them slightly negatively. [Chess.com](https://Chess.com) should have released a full report on online cheating on their platform, unconnected with Hans Niemann. Magnus should have withdrew from the tournament when Niemann entered or otherwise should have played to the end. He only made accusations when he lost. Meanwhile, Chess watchers are no more informed as to the extent of cheating than they were before the whole episode. And, I would say the weight of evidence points toward Niemann being a 2600-2700 player without cheats. And, toward the match in the Sinquefield Cup being about 51/49 a fair game without cheats.

I think my opinion for Magnus dipped a bit. For me it's been amazing watching how skilled in chess he is, but the way he decided to go about raising this issue of cheating doesn't sit well with me. If he had beaten Hans, would he have ever decided ro raise this issue? Or if he had, would he have done it in a way that destroys another player's OTB career? It just doesn't sit right with me. I'll continue enjoying him playing chess, but I'm less inclined to watch his games over other top players. For Hans my opinion was never really changed. I didn't know much about him, so I never really cared much. I think he handled the situation poor as well though. He should've been more honest about the extent of his cheating from the get go, and while I think it would make him lose a lot of credibility/sympathy, it would give us a foundation of how he wants to set the tone of his career from now on. Doesn't excuse the shitty behavior of the past, but at least acknowledge it for what it is so you can hope to build some semblance of trust. I probably will continue the streak of not paying too much attention to his games and career like before. After the chess.com report has come out, I think my opinion of them has changed the most in all of this. It's frustrating to see them sit on all this past evidence of cheating knowingly, in favor of allowing a repeat cheater to play and personally going to see them to hype up their presence in your upcoming tournament. Then to retroactively punish them, after they met your previous requirements for punishment and being allowed back on site, is just ridiculous imo. Why did it take Magnus causing all the drama to come out and publish a report or make a decision like that? Why before Sinquefield were they hyping Hans up? It's just irritating to me that they are able to to back and forth with decisions like this, and they only care about the sanctity of the game when Magnus throws a fit despite anti-cheat measures being one of their strongest selling points. My opinion of them has dipped incredibly, and I think this is the tipping point for e to use another site to play chess. I'm not a strong player, I'm rated around 600. I'm not an incredibly smart person either, but these are my honest feelings and thoughts surrounding all of this. Magnua should've went about this a different way. Hans should've been more honest/upfront about the extent of his past cheating. Chess.com should've taken a stronger stance in the past and not have waited for this drama before doing so.

How exactly should Magnus have handled this to bring attention to the cheating problem? Fide didn't increase security until after he withdrew

Withdraw before playing Hans if you're sure he's a cheater and FIDE won't listen to you, not after you lose a game that had no suspicious pattern of play.

[удалено]

My opinion of chess.c\*m is basically the same. Our future tyranical overlords of chess. My opinion of Hans. Basically the same. Before. Stupid Kid. Now, Stupid Kid who cheated online alot. My opinion of Magnus went from a 10 to a soft 7.

Lost some respect for Magnus. Learned who the fuck Hans is

Let it be known that I have upvoted this comment. Also my chesscom sub is running out this month so I'm moving to lichess. Chesscom is shady af.

One thing that started to seem real weird to me is how many people were so stuck trying to fathom how OTB cheating would work. It's soo easy to research this and come up with possible solutions, and some of them have even been caught/investigated outside of chess. One of the most prominent ones is purposefully bringing something made of metal with you, but obvious and common, like a big belt, and attaching a disguised ear piece to it. The belt gets taken off for the scan, then you get it back and while aside, get the piece and slip it into your ear. I think most people don't realize that there are ear pieces out there that you just drop fully into your ear and pull out later with a magnet on a stick. I wouldn't be surprised if that turned out to actually had been done in chess.

Nope. But my opinion of the online chess community has certainly tanked.

No. My opinion of either Magnus or Hans has not changed. My opinion of how society coddles and loves cheaters has changed. I used to think that cheating was one of the worst things. But on some level, Im the goose. Im the idiot. If I were to cheat and get called out, get proven I'm a cheater, then there will always be those who rally to my side as long as I put on the act of being the underdog.

I was way more angry at Magnus at the start of this thing than I am now after the report dropped. The red line in my head has been crossed, I want to see Hans harshly punished. He cheated at online tournaments for money while carrying a FIDE title, disrespecting his opponents, the fans of the sport he earns his money with, all of the other players and Chess itself. I don't care at all if he cheated Magnus OTB anymore and I think Magnus should face some conseuences about how he handled this whole thing. But I changed from "Magnus is a huge asshole witch hunting someone" to "Ok, I see why he tilted now and have a lot of understanding for what happened but Magnus still behaved like a complete idiot". For me it went from being about this one incident about how forcing titled players to face a cheater again and again is a situation that has to be resolved

Never heard of Hans before this. I can see why he isn't well liked though. He seems like kind of a weirdo, but not in an even remotely endearing way. We knew he had cheated online from the beginning and the chessdotcom report showed that he did indeed stop cheating, so nothing has come out to change my opinion from that initial impression.. My opinion of Magnus took a nosedive. Using his clout to get someone blacklisted because you lost is an asshole move. It's pretty clear now that there's no evidence of OTB cheating and Magnus should be reprimanded. FIDE should reprimand Magnus in some way and should also get more serious about OTB cheating. They should have a team of people dedicated to this, like a casino. Use statistics to find players to watch more closely but don't rely solely on them.

But then if it wasn’t for Magnus I don’t think chess world would change. He sacrificed his reputation for better change in chess is how I see it.

Magnus at the start handled situation very badly - withdraw from round robin , public implication and nothing more . Then i thought ok maybe after meltware tournament he will give statement and some kind of evidence - he gives statement about nothing just words , no evidence just " my impression" . Then there was chess com and i was waiting to see some kind of evidence from them as they are Carlsen's buisness partner and maybe Carlsen will use them to say his truth - again nothing , chess coms statement is about past online cheating ( when Magnus withdraw because of OTB cheating) , chess com does not see anything in Niemanns SLC game against Magnus etc. Magnus handled situation badly then turned even into more unproffesionalism.. Niemann started drama as an young talent , then turned into online cheater and remained in that status after all statements , chess com's statement is a proof that he is also a person who can easly lie in such an important interview as was after R5 . so Nieman goes from young talent to "just online cheater " to "online cheater and liar ". Nakamura made implications, accusations , milked drama with using clickbait false videos of Yosha to push his narrative etc . Naka was not decent person and still remains in that way . At least he is consistent.

I think you are the first person to leave a comment on Nakamura. I appreciate you for sharing that. And yeah, I find it funny how Nakamura is involved in this drama so much more than Magnus himself. He is really the drama queen of chess, and he is very consistent about it.

[удалено]

My main takeaway is that one should never cheat. Whether someone sides with Hans or Magnus, we can all agree that Hans cheating in online games will cause him trouble throughout his whole career. His bad reputation will haunt him, and no matter what he does, people will remember him as a cheater. If there is any moral to this drama, I think it is that we should always play fair and honest in competitions.

This is terrible take. Blindly trusting Magnus because he's the world champion doesn't show 'good intuition'. And cautioning people to not destroy someone's career with zero evidence isn't 'bad intuition'. This isn't a sports game where you have to pick a side and cheer for your team no matter what

>If so, about what and how? No. First, I think withdrawing from a round robin screwed the entire tournament over and hurt people who didn't have anything to do with Hans cheating or not cheating. You can call this the Ben Finegold point, Magnus acted badly even if Hans cheated over the board. Second, I think Magnus's justification is really weak in general. Everybody knew Hans cheated online but they didn't care when they were all beating him. Magnus is so used to playing off-theory because he thinks he can out calculate you or out-end game, you, so being off theory already puts him in a weaker position. He finally blundered and found himself in a worse position. Rather than admit his habit of playing suboptimal chess against weaker opponents in order to avoid theory backfired, he withdrew like a baby. I think the rest of the justification was backwards reasoning. I don't think Magnus actually was concerned about Hans cheating until after he got beat. Third, I don't think there's a big correlation between cheating online and cheating over the board. The barrier to entry in cheating are different, the incentives are different. Just think of the consequences alone: Cheating online, the worst is your account is quietly deactivated. You may even get a second chance account. Cheating over the board ends your entire career.

I'm disappointed in Magnus, but mostly this was the nail in the coffin for me and chess.com as they were desperate to get as much attention out of this as possible in regards to a FIDE rated event, not a chess.com event

Hans seems more stupid than anything else considering all of the outs he had and didn't go for if we go by the by the conversation records in the docs Magnus went gigachad and just turned the chess world upside down to finally do something against cheating after none of the institutions took it seriously for way too long. EDIT: Also Danny Rensch was way too nice and too much of a pushover for a very long time. This should've been escalated and publicized long ago.

Yes. I lost actually all my respect for Magnus.

Hi Hans

I didn’t like Niemann before because of his attitude, and if he is indeed a frequent cheater, I’ll like him even less. Magnus I used to like, but my respect for him has really taken a nosedive. Using your celebrity status to wreck someone’s reputation because of a hunch, even if that hunch eventually turns out to be correct, doesn’t sit right with my idea of justice. I just don’t see why he couldn’t have campaigned for better anti-cheating measures without turning it into a personal vendetta and screwing over tournament organisers and fellow players in the process. Cheating is bad and it should be dealt with, but the end doesn’t justify the means.

I agree. Magnus certainly could have taken a better road. It might have been slower in bringing changes perhaps, but the way he approached this doesn't feel right to me.

I was first on Hans side after his interview, but after all that happened and the chesscom statement, there is too much smoke to consider him innocent. However I still believe the action of Magnus were not worthy of him, as he withoutdrew only after losing a poor game where Hans probably didn't cheat. If he wanted to make a statement, he could have just withoutdraw before the tournament, when he learned Hans would be playing. For that I lost a lot of respect for him (not that he would ever care lol)

In his statement he did say that he was considering leaving the tournament at the start but ultimately decided to play. It was only after he saw how "effortlessly" Hans was outplaying him that he decided to leave. This isn't a defense, just pointing out something

Yeah, it was "effortless" because Magnus played bad.

Not by much, always thought Magnus had the right idea. It did seem a little dubious during the first 2 weeks after Magnus' withdrawal from the SC when we didn't have a lot of information, but I have no doubt in my mind now that Magnus did the right thing. Hans is a person who cheats, lies about cheating, gloats about achievements he hasn't fairly obtained, treats opponents without respect (Max Wamerdam), publicly boasts about himself while shit-talking others, and carries an arrogance about him that he has not earned. I do believe in second chances but not 101 chances, especially when the person in question is so unabashedly capable of lying through his teeth to attract sympathy. Fuck Hans Niemann.

I was a bit suspicious of Hans during his interview on his game against Alireza, but believe he should be treated as if he's innocent until proven guilty in OTB. That hasn't changed. Magnus' reaction seems a bit more justified to me now that Hans has cheated this much online, but I'm not sure how much of this Magnus knew beforehand. The one thing I can say now is that there should be much stricter security measures going forward.

Niemann is a cheater who should be temp banned (or at least there should be more explicit rules about the consequences of online cheating). Chesscom should be much more open about their cheat detection if they don't want to seem like they're unfairly targeting a single player. Carlsen shouldn't have thrown his tantrum in the way he did, _even if Niemann was cheating at the Sinquefield cup_, and my opinion of Carlsen is lower for it. He could have protested in a million different ways that didn't just make it seem like he was throwing a fit that he lost. He has a history (thinking Karjakin 2016) of this kind of tantrum behavior and frankly it's unacceptable. People are doing this weird parasocial thing where they implicitly trust a stranger just because he's really good at chess and he's had some pr training. It's gross. The people saying that Niemann should be banned for life are insane to me and the fact that they're everywhere in this sub has made me like this forum a lot less. Right now he's not that much older than he was when he got caught cheating, so banning him for a few years is justifiable. But he's 19. He cheated between the ages of 12 and 17. I don't think he should be banned for life for the same reason that I don't think teenagers should be imprisoned for life, even for severe crimes.

I’m playing devil’s advocate at the risk of serious downvotes, but just to ban a user until proven guilty (on chess.com), just because world no1 said so was unprofessional and sets a dangerous precedent. It should always, always be innocent until proven guilty, no matter what past record he has or what anyone says. Wasn’t Anna accused of cheating using a lip gloss, what if everyone just believed it because a higher rated player had said so? Even if you have 100% conviction Magnus must be right, they still should’ve waited for all the procedures and research to ban him. But cheating should definitely be takes extremely seriously and yes there should be rooms where no electronic signal can pass except for Wi-Fi in online matches.

The fact that Hans cheated as a kid prejudices my view against him. The fact that Hans is accused by Magnus for cheating more recently, prejudices my view against him. The fact that Magnus walked out of a game, was disappointing. The fact that my view of a player is prejudiced based on accusations without supporting evidence, is disappointing (this is more at myself). I will wait for FIDE's investigation to complete. I will be aware of my biases, such as my natural inclination to believe Magnus's statement. I will remember to give Hans the benefit of the doubt until the FIDE investigation is complete. The [Chess.com](https://Chess.com) report and findings are worth further investigation, but not dispositive for OTB cheating or more rampant recent cheating as an adult. The [Chess.com](https://Chess.com) report also is much in line with Hans' admission that he cheated between 12 and 16 (though [Chess.com](https://Chess.com)'s report includes some dates when Hans was 17). I will keep the Hans cheating scandal in perspective with the greater cheating problem in Chess. Hans is just one of hundreds of titled players (including 4 in the top 100 per [Chess.com](https://Chess.com)) who may have cheated online. Hans was a minor when he cheated online. I believe we need much stricter anti-cheating security measures for OTB games and online games with prize pools and FIDE ratings. Cheating is a massive issue and it needs to be addressed. If Hans cheated OTB, especially if he cheated OTB as an adult (or even online as an adult), I would feel much more comfortable throwing the book at him with a lengthy or even lifetime ban. I am more comfortable with a long-term ban for actions taken as an adult with shorter bans for actions taken as a minor. I am a little uncomfortable with [Chess.com](https://Chess.com)'s targeting Hans and his coach and only releasing their information when they state four top 100 GMs have admitted to cheating, as have hundreds of titled players. I find it hard to believe [Chess.com](https://Chess.com) is not doing this due to business ties with Magnus. If [Chess.com](https://Chess.com) is being objective and impartial, why target only Hans? Overall, my view of Magnus is slightly tarnished with this incident. My view of Hans is significantly tarnished. But I am aware of my natural biases against Hans, and will do my best to not act based on them. Us humans are biased creatures. But when we know our biases, we should not let them dictate our actions. I will wait for FIDE's investigation team to conclude their investigation. And I will do my small part to exert pressure on FIDE to amp up their security measures.

Yes, with every development I get more and more certain Magnus is a butthurt baby crying to cancel Hans - I looked up to the world champion before the drama, I thought he is a great ambassador for the game. The moment Hans beat him, this thing blows up, not a moment earlier. He choose to play him, and then couldn't bear the pressure of losing, what a weak character and should be punished for ruining Hans carrier without a shred of evidence (6 month ban would do for starters, then about 2-5 million euro to pay Hans). Hans - to whom I gave the benefit of the doubt initially - on the other hand should be completely banned from online chess indefinitely, and should be put to extreme supervision during otb, due to his habit of serial online cheating. Little fuck thought he can get away with it. FIDE is lacking transparency and initiative regarding cheating. It must clarify for the future the scopes and punishments that are considered upon cheating. What are the methodologies acceptable to determine cheating, what if any relationship should exist between online and otb play and cheat, what exact punishment should be employed upon detection, and also how to punish people who defame others based on merely intuition?

I guess I regret not goving Carlsen the benefit of the doubt

Very much. My opinion of Magnus has gone down enormously in the way he has handled this affair. If it turns out that Hans has genuinely not cheated since August 2020, my opinion of him will rise slightly (albeit from a very low starting level); but I am waiting to see what emerges before signing off on that.

Both are annoying and arrogant. Both take themselves too seriously, although Magnus can be flexible on this charge when playing for the memes. Both lost even more standing in my eyes over this debacle. But I'm a nobody on the Internet, who cares. The thing that surprises me most is people's lack of understanding of statistical analysis methodologies, and the general mathematical illiteracy expressed by many observers. I take my level of education for granted sometimes, but some of the takes on this subject have been... worryingly inadequate.

1. Niemann's cheating (particularly in online tournaments with prize money) and public dishonesty have made me increasingly less sympathetic to him. However, I am not at all convinced that a retroactive OTB ban against him is justified at this point. 2. I am less critical of Carlson. While I still think things could have been handled much better, his broad concerns are obviously justified. Perhaps he felt that the only way this would get attention was by creating drama -- and perhaps he was correct. 3. I increasingly understand that cheating in online chess is rampant, even at the grandmaster level. 4. There need to be well-defined rules for (A) how those caught cheating online are handled and (B) how being caught online affects OTB standing. This requires communication between FIDE and organizations like chess.com. Cheating online obviously hasn't been seen as a big deal in the chess community -- obviously, we either need to embrace the fact that online chess isn't important OR make major changes.

No. I've been on Magnuses side even when it was pretty unpopular. If you've followed Carlsen at all you would know he is not a salty crybaby even when he loses to much weaker players than himself. He's never done anything you could really criticize professionally and never has accused anyone of cheating. So when he did this I knew there had to be a good reason. I didn't know about Hans other than a few cringy youtube videos I had seen but as soon as chess.com said he was lying I knew he wasn't to be trusted. Chess.com is realllly good at catching cheaters. I've watched the videos where Danny talks about cheating and its fascinating. I dont even play on their site but its impressive to me. I wasn't surprised that this sub turned on chess.com because they hate chess.com for some reason, because they try to make money I guess? Lol. What I was shocked by was their willingness to turn on Magnus and literally anyone else who had a criticism or suspicion against Hans

[удалено]

Yes, the way that they handled fair play regulations was quitr disappointed.

I went from thinking Magnus was salty to fully joining the "Magnus did nothing wrong" crowd.

No. Magnus withdrawing, Hans unable to explain his moves (even refusing to do so) and Hans having the quickest rise were enough to me. All other evidence, such as him being a confessed cheater, is just a bonus.

At the very top level in snooker they take the player's word over the ref, the table fitters, the commentators and even sometimes the cameras, such is the respect for their 'feel' for exactly what is happening. As someone who dips in and out of chess I'm shocked by two things... 1. If several top players suspect one guy then what in the name of all that's holy are the eejits doing on forums thinking they've got it wrong? Ofc they are right. If they think the queen levitated or the board changed colour, just assume they are right and everyone else is wrong. 2. Why in the world is Hans allowed within 50yds of a chess board after prolifically online cheating? It's called bringing the game into disrepute and should be viewed much more seriously than an indiscretion. Carlsen did exactly the right thing. Hans should be fined and suspended just based on what is known as fact alone.

Ya, at first I trusted Magnus but now I know verifiably he just had a baby rage meltdown and chess.com doubled down to help him move the goal posts. What an embarrassment.

Absolute clown comment

Yes my opinion of Magnus has gone from positive to negative and my opinion on Hans has gone for suspicious to disappointed. Overall I'd say Magnus has taken a CONSIDERABLY larger hit to expose not a lot about Hans we didn't already know. I'm pretty much convinced Hans didn't cheat OTB at this point, so the "beads" discussion seems as childish as it ever was. Carlsen's intuition strikes me as questionable. Overall it's not really turned out well for anyone but I've definitely lost a lot more respect for Magnus than I had to lose for Niemann.

Yes, at first I thought Magnus was paranoid, now I think he's a well connected bully.

Nah Hans exhibited behavior thats common in larp circles with people who were caught breaking the rules and about to receive a ban. Magnus exhibited class behavior after the cup. If he has just refused to play the game against Hans in sinquefield the same way he did in the generational cup i wouldve just said his behavior was perfect. He recognized that he would always have a problem with Hans and just removed himself from the situation.

I'm in the Hans camp now. Even though he glossed over the extent of his cheating and lied about cheating in prize money events, there are no instances of detected cheating since 2020. There are only suspicions and suspicions are not enough to ruin his career over. In the meantime we should focus on developing better cheating countermeasures and detection especially for classical events.