|
On October 06 2022 17:34 0x64 wrote:
Not fishy, but progress faster than Fisher + not being able to explain his moves and thinking is what is bothering top level players.
The reason they get this vibes is that they are used to talked with other 2700+ all the time, and they know the thinking and how well they throw lines after the game because they spent their time on those key questions.
Hans is a Grand master level player, so he will be able to fool his understanding, because frankly, I can't tell apart a 2500 and a 2700. (I am around 2000 level.)
I really think the public has very little to bring on the chess side. Now, should an online cheater be allowed to play OTB, this is a new kind of cheating.
Not only the speed of his progress, but also the fact that he was stuck at around 2300 for years before he suddenly shot up.
Not only the fact that he can't explain his moves, but also the fact that he supposedly "analysed the opening Carlsen used just this morning", even though Carlsen only played that particular opening once before in his life.
|
On October 06 2022 17:50 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2022 17:22 Mikau313 wrote:On October 06 2022 14:37 Magic Powers wrote:
If Carlsen wanted to make a point about not playing a cheater, why did he play Niemann and only protested after he lost? He said he already had suspicions before. That one game changed absolutely nothing. The fact that Carlsen handled this exceptionally poorly doesn't detract at all from the fact that somebody with a history of cheating and lying about it like Niemann has no business playing in official tournaments. On October 06 2022 16:51 Slydie wrote:
I haven't even seen any theories about how Niemann allegedly cheated in live chess, that he made a single great move is circumstantial. Other datasets have concluded he is a normal player. You think this is all based on 'a single great move'? Other datasets have concluded there's a lot of fishy things going on here, even if they don't prove cheating outright. In addition to that, his behaviour around the Sinquefield Cup game against Carlsen has been incredibly fishy. Still doesn't prove cheating, but it should at least give one pause. And even if they can't prove OTB cheating, the fact that he's built his rating, his career, his skill on cheating in online games really should be enough of a disqualifier to be invited to other pro events. The idea that no proven cheater should ever be allowed to play OTB chess is not the reason why Niemann is in the spotlight. This was specifically about him and not anyone else, because no other chess player was named in this whole ordeal and the origin of the controversy was Carlsen's actions against Niemann. The debate over cheating in general can be had without dragging Niemann's name through the mud and running a witchhunt against him. If the conclusion of such a debate ends up being that all cheaters (online or OTB) should be prohibited from playing any official/titled/prized chess, then this can be done in a way that there's no focus on specific individuals, which would be the healthy way of going about it. On the other hand if the conclusion is that OTB play should be permitted for proven online cheaters, then the witchhunt against Niemann also needs to end. Regardless in both cases the recent actions against Niemann are unjustified. Furthermore, this debate must first be had and cannot be decided as of now, and in particular it cannot be a coercive action by those who favor a general prohibition for cheaters. Using Niemann's name for this purpose now, when it's clear that the debate would not be about him specificaly but about all cheaters, is unacceptable.
This is all, sorry to say, utter nonsense.
It doesn't matter what the origin of the controversy was. It doesn't matter that Carlsen acted like a little baby. What matters is Niemann's history of cheating, the proof that has come out since the start of this controversy and what the consequences of that should be.
The focus is on Niemann because he got caught cheating in 100+ games. There is nothing unfair about discussing consequences for those caught cheating, whether they partain to Niemann particularly or caught cheaters in general.
"This debate is only happening because Niemann got caught, so there can't be consequences against Niemann" is utterly asinine.
|
United Kingdom10024 Posts
On October 06 2022 17:55 Mikau313 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2022 17:50 Magic Powers wrote:On October 06 2022 17:22 Mikau313 wrote:On October 06 2022 14:37 Magic Powers wrote:
If Carlsen wanted to make a point about not playing a cheater, why did he play Niemann and only protested after he lost? He said he already had suspicions before. That one game changed absolutely nothing. The fact that Carlsen handled this exceptionally poorly doesn't detract at all from the fact that somebody with a history of cheating and lying about it like Niemann has no business playing in official tournaments. On October 06 2022 16:51 Slydie wrote:
I haven't even seen any theories about how Niemann allegedly cheated in live chess, that he made a single great move is circumstantial. Other datasets have concluded he is a normal player. You think this is all based on 'a single great move'? Other datasets have concluded there's a lot of fishy things going on here, even if they don't prove cheating outright. In addition to that, his behaviour around the Sinquefield Cup game against Carlsen has been incredibly fishy. Still doesn't prove cheating, but it should at least give one pause. And even if they can't prove OTB cheating, the fact that he's built his rating, his career, his skill on cheating in online games really should be enough of a disqualifier to be invited to other pro events. The idea that no proven cheater should ever be allowed to play OTB chess is not the reason why Niemann is in the spotlight. This was specifically about him and not anyone else, because no other chess player was named in this whole ordeal and the origin of the controversy was Carlsen's actions against Niemann. The debate over cheating in general can be had without dragging Niemann's name through the mud and running a witchhunt against him. If the conclusion of such a debate ends up being that all cheaters (online or OTB) should be prohibited from playing any official/titled/prized chess, then this can be done in a way that there's no focus on specific individuals, which would be the healthy way of going about it. On the other hand if the conclusion is that OTB play should be permitted for proven online cheaters, then the witchhunt against Niemann also needs to end. Regardless in both cases the recent actions against Niemann are unjustified. Furthermore, this debate must first be had and cannot be decided as of now, and in particular it cannot be a coercive action by those who favor a general prohibition for cheaters. Using Niemann's name for this purpose now, when it's clear that the debate would not be about him specificaly but about all cheaters, is unacceptable. This is all, sorry to say, utter nonsense. It doesn't matter what the origin of the controversy was. It doesn't matter that Carlsen acted like a little baby. What matters is Niemann's history of cheating, the proof that has come out since the start of this controversy and what the consequences of that should be. The focus is on Niemann because he got caught cheating in 100+ games. There is nothing unfair about discussing consequences for those caught cheating, whether they partain to Niemann particularly or caught cheaters in general. "This debate is only happening because Niemann got caught, so there can't be consequences against Niemann" is utterly asinine.
Absolutely not.
I have lost a load of respect for Magnus, who as far as we know, only started all of this because he played a terrible game and got beat, and was embarrassed about it.
This was about OTB cheating. Sure, the narrative has changed, and chess.com did a great job protecting Magnus, and therefore protecting chess, but Neimann was never caught OTB cheating despite what Magnus said and the people still using really bad circumstantial evidence that Neimann did cheat OTB shows how toxic Magnus has been.
|
There are two seperate issues at play.
"Magnus acting like an absolute baby" and "Niemann having cheated regularly for years (plus a bunch of circumstantial evidence that it wasn't limited to just online cheating)".
The response to the second isn't impacted at all by the first. I'm not denying that Carlsen behaved horribly in this. I just don't think it's at all relevant to the question of "what should be done to people who have cheated continuously for years (even if there is no proof and only circumstantial evidence yet of it happening OTB)".
Let's imagine for a second a world where Magnus hadn't started this shitshow the way it did, and the chess.com article/paper had come out without any of the Magnus bagage. What do you think should be done about Niemann in that world? How do you think the chess world at large would have felt about this whole thing in that world? If your answer to those is "maybe don't invite Niemann to tournaments anymore", why would the answer be any different in the world where Carlsen did start this shitshow?
|
On October 06 2022 17:51 Mikau313 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2022 17:34 0x64 wrote:
Not fishy, but progress faster than Fisher + not being able to explain his moves and thinking is what is bothering top level players.
The reason they get this vibes is that they are used to talked with other 2700+ all the time, and they know the thinking and how well they throw lines after the game because they spent their time on those key questions.
Hans is a Grand master level player, so he will be able to fool his understanding, because frankly, I can't tell apart a 2500 and a 2700. (I am around 2000 level.)
I really think the public has very little to bring on the chess side. Now, should an online cheater be allowed to play OTB, this is a new kind of cheating.
Not only the speed of his progress, but also the fact that he was stuck at around 2300 for years before he suddenly shot up. Not only the fact that he can't explain his moves, but also the fact that he supposedly "analysed the opening Carlsen used just this morning", even though Carlsen only played that particular opening once before in his life.
Being stuck at a level is common with young players. There has also been 2 years of COVID period. Other kids have shot up as well.
https://ratings.fide.com/profile/36083534/chart
Here is a similar case, that will end up shooting up to 2700, once things clicks.
Of course, this kid was 2400 at age 12, but you can see a classical "pause"
https://ratings.fide.com/profile/25059530/chart
Praggnanandhaa will also continue his rise, but got stuck at 2600 for 2 years.
No one thought his progress had stopped, just that improving his chess was not resulting in improved tournament results.
One possible reason chess players hit a level cap in rating is that usually to reach the "next level" you need to open your game or else you end up racking draws with lower rated players. So you start taking victories from stronger players, but also take losses from weaker players, until you manage to calibrate.
Of course MVL, Nepo, Carlsen have non-stop progress to the top, mark of the champions... But it is funny how actual youngster have all a cap during COVID 2 years... So let's count the progress argument out of the Hans situation.
The rest speaks for itself
|
United Kingdom10024 Posts
On October 06 2022 18:07 Mikau313 wrote:
There are two seperate issues at play.
"Magnus acting like an absolute baby" and "Niemann having cheated regularly for years (plus a bunch of circumstantial evidence that it wasn't limited to just online cheating)".
The response to the second isn't impacted at all by the first. I'm not denying that Carlsen behaved horribly in this. I just don't think it's at all relevant to the question of "what should be done to people who have cheated continuously for years (even if there is no proof and only circumstantial evidence yet of it happening OTB)".
Let's imagine for a second a world where Magnus hadn't started this shitshow the way it did, and the chess.com article/paper had come out without any of the Magnus bagage. What do you think should be done about Niemann in that world? How do you think the chess world at large would have felt about this whole thing in that world? If your answer to those is "maybe don't invite Niemann to tournaments anymore", why would the answer be any different in the world where Carlsen did start this shitshow?
He should not be allowed to play in online tournaments, especially not if it affects his FIDE ratings.
Simple. The problem is online, ban him from online tournaments.
The thing is, there is a really serious issue raised by how Magnus has behaved. Why should active players be allowed to own the tournaments, and the companies running tournaments? Before now, it was probably a 'why not?' situation, but we've been shown why not. Magnus has too much influence over the chess world as a whole, and when a thing like this can happen just because he wanted to cry about losing a game, that is huge for the chess world.
So as well as banning Neimann from online play, they should ban players from playing in tournaments that they have a financial stake in, because Magnus will have made alot of money from this situation.
|
All this talk about Magnus is just a cheap attempt at diverting the discussion from the actual issue.
A counter attack as the best defence. But Magnus has been a class act all his career. There has never been anything controversial with Magnus.
Magnus has done the chessworld a huge favor by bringing this increasingly important subject in the spotlight.
|
On October 06 2022 17:55 Mikau313 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2022 17:50 Magic Powers wrote:On October 06 2022 17:22 Mikau313 wrote:On October 06 2022 14:37 Magic Powers wrote:
If Carlsen wanted to make a point about not playing a cheater, why did he play Niemann and only protested after he lost? He said he already had suspicions before. That one game changed absolutely nothing. The fact that Carlsen handled this exceptionally poorly doesn't detract at all from the fact that somebody with a history of cheating and lying about it like Niemann has no business playing in official tournaments. On October 06 2022 16:51 Slydie wrote:
I haven't even seen any theories about how Niemann allegedly cheated in live chess, that he made a single great move is circumstantial. Other datasets have concluded he is a normal player. You think this is all based on 'a single great move'? Other datasets have concluded there's a lot of fishy things going on here, even if they don't prove cheating outright. In addition to that, his behaviour around the Sinquefield Cup game against Carlsen has been incredibly fishy. Still doesn't prove cheating, but it should at least give one pause. And even if they can't prove OTB cheating, the fact that he's built his rating, his career, his skill on cheating in online games really should be enough of a disqualifier to be invited to other pro events. The idea that no proven cheater should ever be allowed to play OTB chess is not the reason why Niemann is in the spotlight. This was specifically about him and not anyone else, because no other chess player was named in this whole ordeal and the origin of the controversy was Carlsen's actions against Niemann. The debate over cheating in general can be had without dragging Niemann's name through the mud and running a witchhunt against him. If the conclusion of such a debate ends up being that all cheaters (online or OTB) should be prohibited from playing any official/titled/prized chess, then this can be done in a way that there's no focus on specific individuals, which would be the healthy way of going about it. On the other hand if the conclusion is that OTB play should be permitted for proven online cheaters, then the witchhunt against Niemann also needs to end. Regardless in both cases the recent actions against Niemann are unjustified. Furthermore, this debate must first be had and cannot be decided as of now, and in particular it cannot be a coercive action by those who favor a general prohibition for cheaters. Using Niemann's name for this purpose now, when it's clear that the debate would not be about him specificaly but about all cheaters, is unacceptable. This is all, sorry to say, utter nonsense. It doesn't matter what the origin of the controversy was. It doesn't matter that Carlsen acted like a little baby. What matters is Niemann's history of cheating, the proof that has come out since the start of this controversy and what the consequences of that should be. The focus is on Niemann because he got caught cheating in 100+ games. There is nothing unfair about discussing consequences for those caught cheating, whether they partain to Niemann particularly or caught cheaters in general. "This debate is only happening because Niemann got caught, so there can't be consequences against Niemann" is utterly asinine.
Proof of what?
|
United Kingdom10024 Posts
On October 06 2022 19:23 pmh wrote:
All this talk about Magnus is just a cheap attempt at diverting the discussion from the actual issue.
A counter attack as the best defence. But Magnus has been a class act all his career. There has never been anything controversial with Magnus.
Magnus has done the chessworld a huge favor by bringing this increasingly important subject in the spotlight.
Sounds like fanboying more than anything.
Magnus did this because
a) he's a baby and wanted to lash out after losing a match he should have won
b) His company and the tournament they run get lots of publicity.
Do you really think he lost a game where his opponent didn't cheat and thought to himself "Now's the time to really show how much the chess world needs me", ripped off his top and exposed his superhero costume, and then accused a guy without evidence of something he didn't do by throwing multiple hissy fits?
How do I know its not a cheap attempt to divert attention?
Because I had never heard of Neimann before this, and don't give a shit either way about what he's done. If he's cheated, he should be punished. Problem solved.
No-one has solved the problem of the massive conflict of interest involved when someone in Magnus' position can do this while making more money because of it by dropping out of tournaments he has a financial stake in. That is a HUGE problem.
I do think chess.com should have obviously done something about Neimann before all of this. Maybe Magnus was driven to it, and I understand that, if that's what happened.
It has still exposed the awful nature of how chess is organized, and left me wondering how one man who still plays competitively, can have so much power over the administration of the game he competes in.
|
We all don't know Magnus but I am sure no one seriously believes Magnus watning more money is a reason for all this...
|
United Kingdom10024 Posts
On October 06 2022 20:33 sharkie wrote:
We all don't know Magnus but I am sure no one seriously believes Magnus watning more money is a reason for all this...
Yeah its not like he's obsessed with his monetary worth is it?
Let me be more specific.
OK so I remember watching an interview where he was asked why he has put so much time into promoting cryptocurrency. His answer was "To increase my monetary worth, which is something I spend alot of time thinking about". That is paraphrased because its been over a year since i saw this.
So we know the following:
a) Magnus owned a company which had a financial stake in the tournament he dropped out of
b) Magnus knew he could make headlines
c) Magnus is preoccupied with his financial status
d) This drama has made front page news on the BBC website and every other website
e) No-one outside of chess has even heard of this tournament before this happened.
You don't think it even entered Magnus' head that this could be good for him and his company long term financially?
I thought the guy was a genius.
Of course, its all speculation, but once again, it shows the need for better governance to stop the blatant conflict of interest
|
On October 06 2022 18:11 0x64 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2022 17:51 Mikau313 wrote:On October 06 2022 17:34 0x64 wrote:
Not fishy, but progress faster than Fisher + not being able to explain his moves and thinking is what is bothering top level players.
The reason they get this vibes is that they are used to talked with other 2700+ all the time, and they know the thinking and how well they throw lines after the game because they spent their time on those key questions.
Hans is a Grand master level player, so he will be able to fool his understanding, because frankly, I can't tell apart a 2500 and a 2700. (I am around 2000 level.)
I really think the public has very little to bring on the chess side. Now, should an online cheater be allowed to play OTB, this is a new kind of cheating.
Not only the speed of his progress, but also the fact that he was stuck at around 2300 for years before he suddenly shot up. Not only the fact that he can't explain his moves, but also the fact that he supposedly "analysed the opening Carlsen used just this morning", even though Carlsen only played that particular opening once before in his life. Being stuck at a level is common with young players. There has also been 2 years of COVID period. Other kids have shot up as well. https://ratings.fide.com/profile/36083534/chartHere is a similar case, that will end up shooting up to 2700, once things clicks. Of course, this kid was 2400 at age 12, but you can see a classical "pause" https://ratings.fide.com/profile/25059530/chartPraggnanandhaa will also continue his rise, but got stuck at 2600 for 2 years. No one thought his progress had stopped, just that improving his chess was not resulting in improved tournament results. One possible reason chess players hit a level cap in rating is that usually to reach the "next level" you need to open your game or else you end up racking draws with lower rated players. So you start taking victories from stronger players, but also take losses from weaker players, until you manage to calibrate. Of course MVL, Nepo, Carlsen have non-stop progress to the top, mark of the champions... But it is funny how actual youngster have all a cap during COVID 2 years... So let's count the progress argument out of the Hans situation. The rest speaks for itself
He was stuck at 2300 for 3 years from 2015 to 2018, not during Covid. His rating went up from 2018 to Covid, and then shot up when Covid hit, just as people stopped playing OTB and everything moved online. That could ofcourse be a coincidence (just like how he 'coincidentally' practiced for an opening that Magnus never plays), but it's one more thing that smells fishy in a series of fishy things regarding Niemann.
On October 06 2022 18:13 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2022 18:07 Mikau313 wrote:
There are two seperate issues at play.
"Magnus acting like an absolute baby" and "Niemann having cheated regularly for years (plus a bunch of circumstantial evidence that it wasn't limited to just online cheating)".
The response to the second isn't impacted at all by the first. I'm not denying that Carlsen behaved horribly in this. I just don't think it's at all relevant to the question of "what should be done to people who have cheated continuously for years (even if there is no proof and only circumstantial evidence yet of it happening OTB)".
Let's imagine for a second a world where Magnus hadn't started this shitshow the way it did, and the chess.com article/paper had come out without any of the Magnus bagage. What do you think should be done about Niemann in that world? How do you think the chess world at large would have felt about this whole thing in that world? If your answer to those is "maybe don't invite Niemann to tournaments anymore", why would the answer be any different in the world where Carlsen did start this shitshow? He should not be allowed to play in online tournaments, especially not if it affects his FIDE ratings. Simple. The problem is online, ban him from online tournaments.
To use an SC2 analogy, if somebody was known to maphack in ESL weekly cups, would/should that person still be invited to offline events, especially when part of the reason he got the invite was his success in online cups he's known to maphack in?
The thing is, there is a really serious issue raised by how Magnus has behaved. Why should active players be allowed to own the tournaments, and the companies running tournaments? Before now, it was probably a 'why not?' situation, but we've been shown why not. Magnus has too much influence over the chess world as a whole, and when a thing like this can happen just because he wanted to cry about losing a game, that is huge for the chess world.
So as well as banning Neimann from online play, they should ban players from playing in tournaments that they have a financial stake in, because Magnus will have made alot of money from this situation.
I'm not disagreeing with you here, it's just not all that relevant to the question of "what should happen to Niemann".
On October 06 2022 20:08 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2022 17:55 Mikau313 wrote:On October 06 2022 17:50 Magic Powers wrote:On October 06 2022 17:22 Mikau313 wrote:On October 06 2022 14:37 Magic Powers wrote:
If Carlsen wanted to make a point about not playing a cheater, why did he play Niemann and only protested after he lost? He said he already had suspicions before. That one game changed absolutely nothing. The fact that Carlsen handled this exceptionally poorly doesn't detract at all from the fact that somebody with a history of cheating and lying about it like Niemann has no business playing in official tournaments. On October 06 2022 16:51 Slydie wrote:
I haven't even seen any theories about how Niemann allegedly cheated in live chess, that he made a single great move is circumstantial. Other datasets have concluded he is a normal player. You think this is all based on 'a single great move'? Other datasets have concluded there's a lot of fishy things going on here, even if they don't prove cheating outright. In addition to that, his behaviour around the Sinquefield Cup game against Carlsen has been incredibly fishy. Still doesn't prove cheating, but it should at least give one pause. And even if they can't prove OTB cheating, the fact that he's built his rating, his career, his skill on cheating in online games really should be enough of a disqualifier to be invited to other pro events. The idea that no proven cheater should ever be allowed to play OTB chess is not the reason why Niemann is in the spotlight. This was specifically about him and not anyone else, because no other chess player was named in this whole ordeal and the origin of the controversy was Carlsen's actions against Niemann. The debate over cheating in general can be had without dragging Niemann's name through the mud and running a witchhunt against him. If the conclusion of such a debate ends up being that all cheaters (online or OTB) should be prohibited from playing any official/titled/prized chess, then this can be done in a way that there's no focus on specific individuals, which would be the healthy way of going about it. On the other hand if the conclusion is that OTB play should be permitted for proven online cheaters, then the witchhunt against Niemann also needs to end. Regardless in both cases the recent actions against Niemann are unjustified. Furthermore, this debate must first be had and cannot be decided as of now, and in particular it cannot be a coercive action by those who favor a general prohibition for cheaters. Using Niemann's name for this purpose now, when it's clear that the debate would not be about him specificaly but about all cheaters, is unacceptable. This is all, sorry to say, utter nonsense. It doesn't matter what the origin of the controversy was. It doesn't matter that Carlsen acted like a little baby. What matters is Niemann's history of cheating, the proof that has come out since the start of this controversy and what the consequences of that should be. The focus is on Niemann because he got caught cheating in 100+ games. There is nothing unfair about discussing consequences for those caught cheating, whether they partain to Niemann particularly or caught cheaters in general. "This debate is only happening because Niemann got caught, so there can't be consequences against Niemann" is utterly asinine. Proof of what?
Proof of at least 100 games in actual tournaments for actual prize money/points where he cheated.
|
United Kingdom10024 Posts
On October 06 2022 21:30 Mikau313 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2022 18:11 0x64 wrote:On October 06 2022 17:51 Mikau313 wrote:On October 06 2022 17:34 0x64 wrote:
Not fishy, but progress faster than Fisher + not being able to explain his moves and thinking is what is bothering top level players.
The reason they get this vibes is that they are used to talked with other 2700+ all the time, and they know the thinking and how well they throw lines after the game because they spent their time on those key questions.
Hans is a Grand master level player, so he will be able to fool his understanding, because frankly, I can't tell apart a 2500 and a 2700. (I am around 2000 level.)
I really think the public has very little to bring on the chess side. Now, should an online cheater be allowed to play OTB, this is a new kind of cheating.
Not only the speed of his progress, but also the fact that he was stuck at around 2300 for years before he suddenly shot up. Not only the fact that he can't explain his moves, but also the fact that he supposedly "analysed the opening Carlsen used just this morning", even though Carlsen only played that particular opening once before in his life. Being stuck at a level is common with young players. There has also been 2 years of COVID period. Other kids have shot up as well. https://ratings.fide.com/profile/36083534/chartHere is a similar case, that will end up shooting up to 2700, once things clicks. Of course, this kid was 2400 at age 12, but you can see a classical "pause" https://ratings.fide.com/profile/25059530/chartPraggnanandhaa will also continue his rise, but got stuck at 2600 for 2 years. No one thought his progress had stopped, just that improving his chess was not resulting in improved tournament results. One possible reason chess players hit a level cap in rating is that usually to reach the "next level" you need to open your game or else you end up racking draws with lower rated players. So you start taking victories from stronger players, but also take losses from weaker players, until you manage to calibrate. Of course MVL, Nepo, Carlsen have non-stop progress to the top, mark of the champions... But it is funny how actual youngster have all a cap during COVID 2 years... So let's count the progress argument out of the Hans situation. The rest speaks for itself He was stuck at 2300 for 3 years from 2015 to 2018, not during Covid. His rating went up from 2018 to Covid, and then shot up when Covid hit, just as people stopped playing OTB and everything moved online. That could ofcourse be a coincidence (just like how he 'coincidentally' practiced for an opening that Magnus never plays), but it's one more thing that smells fishy in a series of fishy things regarding Niemann. Show nested quote +On October 06 2022 18:13 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 06 2022 18:07 Mikau313 wrote:
There are two seperate issues at play.
"Magnus acting like an absolute baby" and "Niemann having cheated regularly for years (plus a bunch of circumstantial evidence that it wasn't limited to just online cheating)".
The response to the second isn't impacted at all by the first. I'm not denying that Carlsen behaved horribly in this. I just don't think it's at all relevant to the question of "what should be done to people who have cheated continuously for years (even if there is no proof and only circumstantial evidence yet of it happening OTB)".
Let's imagine for a second a world where Magnus hadn't started this shitshow the way it did, and the chess.com article/paper had come out without any of the Magnus bagage. What do you think should be done about Niemann in that world? How do you think the chess world at large would have felt about this whole thing in that world? If your answer to those is "maybe don't invite Niemann to tournaments anymore", why would the answer be any different in the world where Carlsen did start this shitshow? He should not be allowed to play in online tournaments, especially not if it affects his FIDE ratings. Simple. The problem is online, ban him from online tournaments. To use an SC2 analogy, if somebody was known to maphack in ESL weekly cups, would/should that person still be invited to offline events, especially when part of the reason he got the invite was his success in online cups he's known to maphack in? Show nested quote +
The thing is, there is a really serious issue raised by how Magnus has behaved. Why should active players be allowed to own the tournaments, and the companies running tournaments? Before now, it was probably a 'why not?' situation, but we've been shown why not. Magnus has too much influence over the chess world as a whole, and when a thing like this can happen just because he wanted to cry about losing a game, that is huge for the chess world.
So as well as banning Neimann from online play, they should ban players from playing in tournaments that they have a financial stake in, because Magnus will have made alot of money from this situation.
I'm not disagreeing with you here, it's just not all that relevant to the question of "what should happen to Niemann". Show nested quote +On October 06 2022 20:08 Magic Powers wrote:On October 06 2022 17:55 Mikau313 wrote:On October 06 2022 17:50 Magic Powers wrote:On October 06 2022 17:22 Mikau313 wrote:On October 06 2022 14:37 Magic Powers wrote:
If Carlsen wanted to make a point about not playing a cheater, why did he play Niemann and only protested after he lost? He said he already had suspicions before. That one game changed absolutely nothing. The fact that Carlsen handled this exceptionally poorly doesn't detract at all from the fact that somebody with a history of cheating and lying about it like Niemann has no business playing in official tournaments. On October 06 2022 16:51 Slydie wrote:
I haven't even seen any theories about how Niemann allegedly cheated in live chess, that he made a single great move is circumstantial. Other datasets have concluded he is a normal player. You think this is all based on 'a single great move'? Other datasets have concluded there's a lot of fishy things going on here, even if they don't prove cheating outright. In addition to that, his behaviour around the Sinquefield Cup game against Carlsen has been incredibly fishy. Still doesn't prove cheating, but it should at least give one pause. And even if they can't prove OTB cheating, the fact that he's built his rating, his career, his skill on cheating in online games really should be enough of a disqualifier to be invited to other pro events. The idea that no proven cheater should ever be allowed to play OTB chess is not the reason why Niemann is in the spotlight. This was specifically about him and not anyone else, because no other chess player was named in this whole ordeal and the origin of the controversy was Carlsen's actions against Niemann. The debate over cheating in general can be had without dragging Niemann's name through the mud and running a witchhunt against him. If the conclusion of such a debate ends up being that all cheaters (online or OTB) should be prohibited from playing any official/titled/prized chess, then this can be done in a way that there's no focus on specific individuals, which would be the healthy way of going about it. On the other hand if the conclusion is that OTB play should be permitted for proven online cheaters, then the witchhunt against Niemann also needs to end. Regardless in both cases the recent actions against Niemann are unjustified. Furthermore, this debate must first be had and cannot be decided as of now, and in particular it cannot be a coercive action by those who favor a general prohibition for cheaters. Using Niemann's name for this purpose now, when it's clear that the debate would not be about him specificaly but about all cheaters, is unacceptable. This is all, sorry to say, utter nonsense. It doesn't matter what the origin of the controversy was. It doesn't matter that Carlsen acted like a little baby. What matters is Niemann's history of cheating, the proof that has come out since the start of this controversy and what the consequences of that should be. The focus is on Niemann because he got caught cheating in 100+ games. There is nothing unfair about discussing consequences for those caught cheating, whether they partain to Niemann particularly or caught cheaters in general. "This debate is only happening because Niemann got caught, so there can't be consequences against Niemann" is utterly asinine. Proof of what? Proof of at least 100 games in actual tournaments for actual prize money/points where he cheated.
There's a reason they won't ban him from OTB tournaments.
You would have no-one left playing them after they finished banning every GM who ever cheated online.
|
On October 06 2022 21:36 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2022 21:30 Mikau313 wrote:On October 06 2022 18:11 0x64 wrote:On October 06 2022 17:51 Mikau313 wrote:On October 06 2022 17:34 0x64 wrote:
Not fishy, but progress faster than Fisher + not being able to explain his moves and thinking is what is bothering top level players.
The reason they get this vibes is that they are used to talked with other 2700+ all the time, and they know the thinking and how well they throw lines after the game because they spent their time on those key questions.
Hans is a Grand master level player, so he will be able to fool his understanding, because frankly, I can't tell apart a 2500 and a 2700. (I am around 2000 level.)
I really think the public has very little to bring on the chess side. Now, should an online cheater be allowed to play OTB, this is a new kind of cheating.
Not only the speed of his progress, but also the fact that he was stuck at around 2300 for years before he suddenly shot up. Not only the fact that he can't explain his moves, but also the fact that he supposedly "analysed the opening Carlsen used just this morning", even though Carlsen only played that particular opening once before in his life. Being stuck at a level is common with young players. There has also been 2 years of COVID period. Other kids have shot up as well. https://ratings.fide.com/profile/36083534/chartHere is a similar case, that will end up shooting up to 2700, once things clicks. Of course, this kid was 2400 at age 12, but you can see a classical "pause" https://ratings.fide.com/profile/25059530/chartPraggnanandhaa will also continue his rise, but got stuck at 2600 for 2 years. No one thought his progress had stopped, just that improving his chess was not resulting in improved tournament results. One possible reason chess players hit a level cap in rating is that usually to reach the "next level" you need to open your game or else you end up racking draws with lower rated players. So you start taking victories from stronger players, but also take losses from weaker players, until you manage to calibrate. Of course MVL, Nepo, Carlsen have non-stop progress to the top, mark of the champions... But it is funny how actual youngster have all a cap during COVID 2 years... So let's count the progress argument out of the Hans situation. The rest speaks for itself He was stuck at 2300 for 3 years from 2015 to 2018, not during Covid. His rating went up from 2018 to Covid, and then shot up when Covid hit, just as people stopped playing OTB and everything moved online. That could ofcourse be a coincidence (just like how he 'coincidentally' practiced for an opening that Magnus never plays), but it's one more thing that smells fishy in a series of fishy things regarding Niemann. On October 06 2022 18:13 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 06 2022 18:07 Mikau313 wrote:
There are two seperate issues at play.
"Magnus acting like an absolute baby" and "Niemann having cheated regularly for years (plus a bunch of circumstantial evidence that it wasn't limited to just online cheating)".
The response to the second isn't impacted at all by the first. I'm not denying that Carlsen behaved horribly in this. I just don't think it's at all relevant to the question of "what should be done to people who have cheated continuously for years (even if there is no proof and only circumstantial evidence yet of it happening OTB)".
Let's imagine for a second a world where Magnus hadn't started this shitshow the way it did, and the chess.com article/paper had come out without any of the Magnus bagage. What do you think should be done about Niemann in that world? How do you think the chess world at large would have felt about this whole thing in that world? If your answer to those is "maybe don't invite Niemann to tournaments anymore", why would the answer be any different in the world where Carlsen did start this shitshow? He should not be allowed to play in online tournaments, especially not if it affects his FIDE ratings. Simple. The problem is online, ban him from online tournaments. To use an SC2 analogy, if somebody was known to maphack in ESL weekly cups, would/should that person still be invited to offline events, especially when part of the reason he got the invite was his success in online cups he's known to maphack in?
The thing is, there is a really serious issue raised by how Magnus has behaved. Why should active players be allowed to own the tournaments, and the companies running tournaments? Before now, it was probably a 'why not?' situation, but we've been shown why not. Magnus has too much influence over the chess world as a whole, and when a thing like this can happen just because he wanted to cry about losing a game, that is huge for the chess world.
So as well as banning Neimann from online play, they should ban players from playing in tournaments that they have a financial stake in, because Magnus will have made alot of money from this situation.
I'm not disagreeing with you here, it's just not all that relevant to the question of "what should happen to Niemann". On October 06 2022 20:08 Magic Powers wrote:On October 06 2022 17:55 Mikau313 wrote:On October 06 2022 17:50 Magic Powers wrote:On October 06 2022 17:22 Mikau313 wrote:On October 06 2022 14:37 Magic Powers wrote:
If Carlsen wanted to make a point about not playing a cheater, why did he play Niemann and only protested after he lost? He said he already had suspicions before. That one game changed absolutely nothing. The fact that Carlsen handled this exceptionally poorly doesn't detract at all from the fact that somebody with a history of cheating and lying about it like Niemann has no business playing in official tournaments. On October 06 2022 16:51 Slydie wrote:
I haven't even seen any theories about how Niemann allegedly cheated in live chess, that he made a single great move is circumstantial. Other datasets have concluded he is a normal player. You think this is all based on 'a single great move'? Other datasets have concluded there's a lot of fishy things going on here, even if they don't prove cheating outright. In addition to that, his behaviour around the Sinquefield Cup game against Carlsen has been incredibly fishy. Still doesn't prove cheating, but it should at least give one pause. And even if they can't prove OTB cheating, the fact that he's built his rating, his career, his skill on cheating in online games really should be enough of a disqualifier to be invited to other pro events. The idea that no proven cheater should ever be allowed to play OTB chess is not the reason why Niemann is in the spotlight. This was specifically about him and not anyone else, because no other chess player was named in this whole ordeal and the origin of the controversy was Carlsen's actions against Niemann. The debate over cheating in general can be had without dragging Niemann's name through the mud and running a witchhunt against him. If the conclusion of such a debate ends up being that all cheaters (online or OTB) should be prohibited from playing any official/titled/prized chess, then this can be done in a way that there's no focus on specific individuals, which would be the healthy way of going about it. On the other hand if the conclusion is that OTB play should be permitted for proven online cheaters, then the witchhunt against Niemann also needs to end. Regardless in both cases the recent actions against Niemann are unjustified. Furthermore, this debate must first be had and cannot be decided as of now, and in particular it cannot be a coercive action by those who favor a general prohibition for cheaters. Using Niemann's name for this purpose now, when it's clear that the debate would not be about him specificaly but about all cheaters, is unacceptable. This is all, sorry to say, utter nonsense. It doesn't matter what the origin of the controversy was. It doesn't matter that Carlsen acted like a little baby. What matters is Niemann's history of cheating, the proof that has come out since the start of this controversy and what the consequences of that should be. The focus is on Niemann because he got caught cheating in 100+ games. There is nothing unfair about discussing consequences for those caught cheating, whether they partain to Niemann particularly or caught cheaters in general. "This debate is only happening because Niemann got caught, so there can't be consequences against Niemann" is utterly asinine. Proof of what? Proof of at least 100 games in actual tournaments for actual prize money/points where he cheated. There's a reason they won't ban him from OTB tournaments. You would have no-one left playing them after they finished banning every GM who ever cheated online.
So we moved on from "he shouldn't be banned" to "well everybody does it" now?
Making a really compelling argument there.
|
United Kingdom10024 Posts
On October 06 2022 21:37 Mikau313 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2022 21:36 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 06 2022 21:30 Mikau313 wrote:On October 06 2022 18:11 0x64 wrote:On October 06 2022 17:51 Mikau313 wrote:On October 06 2022 17:34 0x64 wrote:
Not fishy, but progress faster than Fisher + not being able to explain his moves and thinking is what is bothering top level players.
The reason they get this vibes is that they are used to talked with other 2700+ all the time, and they know the thinking and how well they throw lines after the game because they spent their time on those key questions.
Hans is a Grand master level player, so he will be able to fool his understanding, because frankly, I can't tell apart a 2500 and a 2700. (I am around 2000 level.)
I really think the public has very little to bring on the chess side. Now, should an online cheater be allowed to play OTB, this is a new kind of cheating.
Not only the speed of his progress, but also the fact that he was stuck at around 2300 for years before he suddenly shot up. Not only the fact that he can't explain his moves, but also the fact that he supposedly "analysed the opening Carlsen used just this morning", even though Carlsen only played that particular opening once before in his life. Being stuck at a level is common with young players. There has also been 2 years of COVID period. Other kids have shot up as well. https://ratings.fide.com/profile/36083534/chartHere is a similar case, that will end up shooting up to 2700, once things clicks. Of course, this kid was 2400 at age 12, but you can see a classical "pause" https://ratings.fide.com/profile/25059530/chartPraggnanandhaa will also continue his rise, but got stuck at 2600 for 2 years. No one thought his progress had stopped, just that improving his chess was not resulting in improved tournament results. One possible reason chess players hit a level cap in rating is that usually to reach the "next level" you need to open your game or else you end up racking draws with lower rated players. So you start taking victories from stronger players, but also take losses from weaker players, until you manage to calibrate. Of course MVL, Nepo, Carlsen have non-stop progress to the top, mark of the champions... But it is funny how actual youngster have all a cap during COVID 2 years... So let's count the progress argument out of the Hans situation. The rest speaks for itself He was stuck at 2300 for 3 years from 2015 to 2018, not during Covid. His rating went up from 2018 to Covid, and then shot up when Covid hit, just as people stopped playing OTB and everything moved online. That could ofcourse be a coincidence (just like how he 'coincidentally' practiced for an opening that Magnus never plays), but it's one more thing that smells fishy in a series of fishy things regarding Niemann. On October 06 2022 18:13 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 06 2022 18:07 Mikau313 wrote:
There are two seperate issues at play.
"Magnus acting like an absolute baby" and "Niemann having cheated regularly for years (plus a bunch of circumstantial evidence that it wasn't limited to just online cheating)".
The response to the second isn't impacted at all by the first. I'm not denying that Carlsen behaved horribly in this. I just don't think it's at all relevant to the question of "what should be done to people who have cheated continuously for years (even if there is no proof and only circumstantial evidence yet of it happening OTB)".
Let's imagine for a second a world where Magnus hadn't started this shitshow the way it did, and the chess.com article/paper had come out without any of the Magnus bagage. What do you think should be done about Niemann in that world? How do you think the chess world at large would have felt about this whole thing in that world? If your answer to those is "maybe don't invite Niemann to tournaments anymore", why would the answer be any different in the world where Carlsen did start this shitshow? He should not be allowed to play in online tournaments, especially not if it affects his FIDE ratings. Simple. The problem is online, ban him from online tournaments. To use an SC2 analogy, if somebody was known to maphack in ESL weekly cups, would/should that person still be invited to offline events, especially when part of the reason he got the invite was his success in online cups he's known to maphack in?
The thing is, there is a really serious issue raised by how Magnus has behaved. Why should active players be allowed to own the tournaments, and the companies running tournaments? Before now, it was probably a 'why not?' situation, but we've been shown why not. Magnus has too much influence over the chess world as a whole, and when a thing like this can happen just because he wanted to cry about losing a game, that is huge for the chess world.
So as well as banning Neimann from online play, they should ban players from playing in tournaments that they have a financial stake in, because Magnus will have made alot of money from this situation.
I'm not disagreeing with you here, it's just not all that relevant to the question of "what should happen to Niemann". On October 06 2022 20:08 Magic Powers wrote:On October 06 2022 17:55 Mikau313 wrote:On October 06 2022 17:50 Magic Powers wrote:On October 06 2022 17:22 Mikau313 wrote:On October 06 2022 14:37 Magic Powers wrote:
If Carlsen wanted to make a point about not playing a cheater, why did he play Niemann and only protested after he lost? He said he already had suspicions before. That one game changed absolutely nothing. The fact that Carlsen handled this exceptionally poorly doesn't detract at all from the fact that somebody with a history of cheating and lying about it like Niemann has no business playing in official tournaments. On October 06 2022 16:51 Slydie wrote:
I haven't even seen any theories about how Niemann allegedly cheated in live chess, that he made a single great move is circumstantial. Other datasets have concluded he is a normal player. You think this is all based on 'a single great move'? Other datasets have concluded there's a lot of fishy things going on here, even if they don't prove cheating outright. In addition to that, his behaviour around the Sinquefield Cup game against Carlsen has been incredibly fishy. Still doesn't prove cheating, but it should at least give one pause. And even if they can't prove OTB cheating, the fact that he's built his rating, his career, his skill on cheating in online games really should be enough of a disqualifier to be invited to other pro events. The idea that no proven cheater should ever be allowed to play OTB chess is not the reason why Niemann is in the spotlight. This was specifically about him and not anyone else, because no other chess player was named in this whole ordeal and the origin of the controversy was Carlsen's actions against Niemann. The debate over cheating in general can be had without dragging Niemann's name through the mud and running a witchhunt against him. If the conclusion of such a debate ends up being that all cheaters (online or OTB) should be prohibited from playing any official/titled/prized chess, then this can be done in a way that there's no focus on specific individuals, which would be the healthy way of going about it. On the other hand if the conclusion is that OTB play should be permitted for proven online cheaters, then the witchhunt against Niemann also needs to end. Regardless in both cases the recent actions against Niemann are unjustified. Furthermore, this debate must first be had and cannot be decided as of now, and in particular it cannot be a coercive action by those who favor a general prohibition for cheaters. Using Niemann's name for this purpose now, when it's clear that the debate would not be about him specificaly but about all cheaters, is unacceptable. This is all, sorry to say, utter nonsense. It doesn't matter what the origin of the controversy was. It doesn't matter that Carlsen acted like a little baby. What matters is Niemann's history of cheating, the proof that has come out since the start of this controversy and what the consequences of that should be. The focus is on Niemann because he got caught cheating in 100+ games. There is nothing unfair about discussing consequences for those caught cheating, whether they partain to Niemann particularly or caught cheaters in general. "This debate is only happening because Niemann got caught, so there can't be consequences against Niemann" is utterly asinine. Proof of what? Proof of at least 100 games in actual tournaments for actual prize money/points where he cheated. There's a reason they won't ban him from OTB tournaments. You would have no-one left playing them after they finished banning every GM who ever cheated online. So we moved on from "he shouldn't be banned" to "well everybody does it" now? Making a really compelling argument there.
Excuse me?
They can't just decide to make up a rule now for Niemann. They have to use the disciplinary rules that are already in place, given that the offences committed are not in the future.
In case you're still really confused, that means you can't use a rule you JUST NOW INVENTED, to ban someone from a tournament for a historical offence.
I suppose you have a 'compelling argument' as to why rules invented on the spot should apply to previous incidents?
So I haven't moved anywhere. He shouldn't be banned from OTB tournaments because there isn't a rule that says he should, AND loads of GMs cheat so it would be bad anyway even if they did decide to do that.
|
On October 06 2022 21:41 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2022 21:37 Mikau313 wrote:On October 06 2022 21:36 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 06 2022 21:30 Mikau313 wrote:On October 06 2022 18:11 0x64 wrote:On October 06 2022 17:51 Mikau313 wrote:On October 06 2022 17:34 0x64 wrote:
Not fishy, but progress faster than Fisher + not being able to explain his moves and thinking is what is bothering top level players.
The reason they get this vibes is that they are used to talked with other 2700+ all the time, and they know the thinking and how well they throw lines after the game because they spent their time on those key questions.
Hans is a Grand master level player, so he will be able to fool his understanding, because frankly, I can't tell apart a 2500 and a 2700. (I am around 2000 level.)
I really think the public has very little to bring on the chess side. Now, should an online cheater be allowed to play OTB, this is a new kind of cheating.
Not only the speed of his progress, but also the fact that he was stuck at around 2300 for years before he suddenly shot up. Not only the fact that he can't explain his moves, but also the fact that he supposedly "analysed the opening Carlsen used just this morning", even though Carlsen only played that particular opening once before in his life. Being stuck at a level is common with young players. There has also been 2 years of COVID period. Other kids have shot up as well. https://ratings.fide.com/profile/36083534/chartHere is a similar case, that will end up shooting up to 2700, once things clicks. Of course, this kid was 2400 at age 12, but you can see a classical "pause" https://ratings.fide.com/profile/25059530/chartPraggnanandhaa will also continue his rise, but got stuck at 2600 for 2 years. No one thought his progress had stopped, just that improving his chess was not resulting in improved tournament results. One possible reason chess players hit a level cap in rating is that usually to reach the "next level" you need to open your game or else you end up racking draws with lower rated players. So you start taking victories from stronger players, but also take losses from weaker players, until you manage to calibrate. Of course MVL, Nepo, Carlsen have non-stop progress to the top, mark of the champions... But it is funny how actual youngster have all a cap during COVID 2 years... So let's count the progress argument out of the Hans situation. The rest speaks for itself He was stuck at 2300 for 3 years from 2015 to 2018, not during Covid. His rating went up from 2018 to Covid, and then shot up when Covid hit, just as people stopped playing OTB and everything moved online. That could ofcourse be a coincidence (just like how he 'coincidentally' practiced for an opening that Magnus never plays), but it's one more thing that smells fishy in a series of fishy things regarding Niemann. On October 06 2022 18:13 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 06 2022 18:07 Mikau313 wrote:
There are two seperate issues at play.
"Magnus acting like an absolute baby" and "Niemann having cheated regularly for years (plus a bunch of circumstantial evidence that it wasn't limited to just online cheating)".
The response to the second isn't impacted at all by the first. I'm not denying that Carlsen behaved horribly in this. I just don't think it's at all relevant to the question of "what should be done to people who have cheated continuously for years (even if there is no proof and only circumstantial evidence yet of it happening OTB)".
Let's imagine for a second a world where Magnus hadn't started this shitshow the way it did, and the chess.com article/paper had come out without any of the Magnus bagage. What do you think should be done about Niemann in that world? How do you think the chess world at large would have felt about this whole thing in that world? If your answer to those is "maybe don't invite Niemann to tournaments anymore", why would the answer be any different in the world where Carlsen did start this shitshow? He should not be allowed to play in online tournaments, especially not if it affects his FIDE ratings. Simple. The problem is online, ban him from online tournaments. To use an SC2 analogy, if somebody was known to maphack in ESL weekly cups, would/should that person still be invited to offline events, especially when part of the reason he got the invite was his success in online cups he's known to maphack in?
The thing is, there is a really serious issue raised by how Magnus has behaved. Why should active players be allowed to own the tournaments, and the companies running tournaments? Before now, it was probably a 'why not?' situation, but we've been shown why not. Magnus has too much influence over the chess world as a whole, and when a thing like this can happen just because he wanted to cry about losing a game, that is huge for the chess world.
So as well as banning Neimann from online play, they should ban players from playing in tournaments that they have a financial stake in, because Magnus will have made alot of money from this situation.
I'm not disagreeing with you here, it's just not all that relevant to the question of "what should happen to Niemann". On October 06 2022 20:08 Magic Powers wrote:On October 06 2022 17:55 Mikau313 wrote:On October 06 2022 17:50 Magic Powers wrote:On October 06 2022 17:22 Mikau313 wrote:On October 06 2022 14:37 Magic Powers wrote:
If Carlsen wanted to make a point about not playing a cheater, why did he play Niemann and only protested after he lost? He said he already had suspicions before. That one game changed absolutely nothing. The fact that Carlsen handled this exceptionally poorly doesn't detract at all from the fact that somebody with a history of cheating and lying about it like Niemann has no business playing in official tournaments. On October 06 2022 16:51 Slydie wrote:
I haven't even seen any theories about how Niemann allegedly cheated in live chess, that he made a single great move is circumstantial. Other datasets have concluded he is a normal player. You think this is all based on 'a single great move'? Other datasets have concluded there's a lot of fishy things going on here, even if they don't prove cheating outright. In addition to that, his behaviour around the Sinquefield Cup game against Carlsen has been incredibly fishy. Still doesn't prove cheating, but it should at least give one pause. And even if they can't prove OTB cheating, the fact that he's built his rating, his career, his skill on cheating in online games really should be enough of a disqualifier to be invited to other pro events. The idea that no proven cheater should ever be allowed to play OTB chess is not the reason why Niemann is in the spotlight. This was specifically about him and not anyone else, because no other chess player was named in this whole ordeal and the origin of the controversy was Carlsen's actions against Niemann. The debate over cheating in general can be had without dragging Niemann's name through the mud and running a witchhunt against him. If the conclusion of such a debate ends up being that all cheaters (online or OTB) should be prohibited from playing any official/titled/prized chess, then this can be done in a way that there's no focus on specific individuals, which would be the healthy way of going about it. On the other hand if the conclusion is that OTB play should be permitted for proven online cheaters, then the witchhunt against Niemann also needs to end. Regardless in both cases the recent actions against Niemann are unjustified. Furthermore, this debate must first be had and cannot be decided as of now, and in particular it cannot be a coercive action by those who favor a general prohibition for cheaters. Using Niemann's name for this purpose now, when it's clear that the debate would not be about him specificaly but about all cheaters, is unacceptable. This is all, sorry to say, utter nonsense. It doesn't matter what the origin of the controversy was. It doesn't matter that Carlsen acted like a little baby. What matters is Niemann's history of cheating, the proof that has come out since the start of this controversy and what the consequences of that should be. The focus is on Niemann because he got caught cheating in 100+ games. There is nothing unfair about discussing consequences for those caught cheating, whether they partain to Niemann particularly or caught cheaters in general. "This debate is only happening because Niemann got caught, so there can't be consequences against Niemann" is utterly asinine. Proof of what? Proof of at least 100 games in actual tournaments for actual prize money/points where he cheated. There's a reason they won't ban him from OTB tournaments. You would have no-one left playing them after they finished banning every GM who ever cheated online. So we moved on from "he shouldn't be banned" to "well everybody does it" now? Making a really compelling argument there. Excuse me? They can't just decide to make up a rule now for Niemann. They have to use the disciplinary rules that are already in place, given that the offences committed are not in the future. In case you're still really confused, that means you can't use a rule you JUST NOW INVENTED, to ban someone from a tournament for a historical offence. I suppose you have a 'compelling argument' as to why rules invented on the spot should apply to previous incidents? So I haven't moved anywhere. He shouldn't be banned from OTB tournaments because there isn't a rule that says he should, AND loads of GMs cheat so it would be bad anyway even if they did decide to do that.
I didn't realise "cheating gets you banned" would be a new rule, my mistake.
You don't have to invent new rules, you simply have to enforce the existing rules. Rules 12.1 and 12.3 from the FIDE rulebook, or 6.1 (among others) from the FIDE Ethics & Disciplinary code specifically.
|
United Kingdom10024 Posts
On October 06 2022 21:46 Mikau313 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2022 21:41 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 06 2022 21:37 Mikau313 wrote:On October 06 2022 21:36 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 06 2022 21:30 Mikau313 wrote:On October 06 2022 18:11 0x64 wrote:On October 06 2022 17:51 Mikau313 wrote:On October 06 2022 17:34 0x64 wrote:
Not fishy, but progress faster than Fisher + not being able to explain his moves and thinking is what is bothering top level players.
The reason they get this vibes is that they are used to talked with other 2700+ all the time, and they know the thinking and how well they throw lines after the game because they spent their time on those key questions.
Hans is a Grand master level player, so he will be able to fool his understanding, because frankly, I can't tell apart a 2500 and a 2700. (I am around 2000 level.)
I really think the public has very little to bring on the chess side. Now, should an online cheater be allowed to play OTB, this is a new kind of cheating.
Not only the speed of his progress, but also the fact that he was stuck at around 2300 for years before he suddenly shot up. Not only the fact that he can't explain his moves, but also the fact that he supposedly "analysed the opening Carlsen used just this morning", even though Carlsen only played that particular opening once before in his life. Being stuck at a level is common with young players. There has also been 2 years of COVID period. Other kids have shot up as well. https://ratings.fide.com/profile/36083534/chartHere is a similar case, that will end up shooting up to 2700, once things clicks. Of course, this kid was 2400 at age 12, but you can see a classical "pause" https://ratings.fide.com/profile/25059530/chartPraggnanandhaa will also continue his rise, but got stuck at 2600 for 2 years. No one thought his progress had stopped, just that improving his chess was not resulting in improved tournament results. One possible reason chess players hit a level cap in rating is that usually to reach the "next level" you need to open your game or else you end up racking draws with lower rated players. So you start taking victories from stronger players, but also take losses from weaker players, until you manage to calibrate. Of course MVL, Nepo, Carlsen have non-stop progress to the top, mark of the champions... But it is funny how actual youngster have all a cap during COVID 2 years... So let's count the progress argument out of the Hans situation. The rest speaks for itself He was stuck at 2300 for 3 years from 2015 to 2018, not during Covid. His rating went up from 2018 to Covid, and then shot up when Covid hit, just as people stopped playing OTB and everything moved online. That could ofcourse be a coincidence (just like how he 'coincidentally' practiced for an opening that Magnus never plays), but it's one more thing that smells fishy in a series of fishy things regarding Niemann. On October 06 2022 18:13 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 06 2022 18:07 Mikau313 wrote:
There are two seperate issues at play.
"Magnus acting like an absolute baby" and "Niemann having cheated regularly for years (plus a bunch of circumstantial evidence that it wasn't limited to just online cheating)".
The response to the second isn't impacted at all by the first. I'm not denying that Carlsen behaved horribly in this. I just don't think it's at all relevant to the question of "what should be done to people who have cheated continuously for years (even if there is no proof and only circumstantial evidence yet of it happening OTB)".
Let's imagine for a second a world where Magnus hadn't started this shitshow the way it did, and the chess.com article/paper had come out without any of the Magnus bagage. What do you think should be done about Niemann in that world? How do you think the chess world at large would have felt about this whole thing in that world? If your answer to those is "maybe don't invite Niemann to tournaments anymore", why would the answer be any different in the world where Carlsen did start this shitshow? He should not be allowed to play in online tournaments, especially not if it affects his FIDE ratings. Simple. The problem is online, ban him from online tournaments. To use an SC2 analogy, if somebody was known to maphack in ESL weekly cups, would/should that person still be invited to offline events, especially when part of the reason he got the invite was his success in online cups he's known to maphack in?
The thing is, there is a really serious issue raised by how Magnus has behaved. Why should active players be allowed to own the tournaments, and the companies running tournaments? Before now, it was probably a 'why not?' situation, but we've been shown why not. Magnus has too much influence over the chess world as a whole, and when a thing like this can happen just because he wanted to cry about losing a game, that is huge for the chess world.
So as well as banning Neimann from online play, they should ban players from playing in tournaments that they have a financial stake in, because Magnus will have made alot of money from this situation.
I'm not disagreeing with you here, it's just not all that relevant to the question of "what should happen to Niemann". On October 06 2022 20:08 Magic Powers wrote:On October 06 2022 17:55 Mikau313 wrote:On October 06 2022 17:50 Magic Powers wrote:On October 06 2022 17:22 Mikau313 wrote:On October 06 2022 14:37 Magic Powers wrote:
If Carlsen wanted to make a point about not playing a cheater, why did he play Niemann and only protested after he lost? He said he already had suspicions before. That one game changed absolutely nothing. The fact that Carlsen handled this exceptionally poorly doesn't detract at all from the fact that somebody with a history of cheating and lying about it like Niemann has no business playing in official tournaments. On October 06 2022 16:51 Slydie wrote:
I haven't even seen any theories about how Niemann allegedly cheated in live chess, that he made a single great move is circumstantial. Other datasets have concluded he is a normal player. You think this is all based on 'a single great move'? Other datasets have concluded there's a lot of fishy things going on here, even if they don't prove cheating outright. In addition to that, his behaviour around the Sinquefield Cup game against Carlsen has been incredibly fishy. Still doesn't prove cheating, but it should at least give one pause. And even if they can't prove OTB cheating, the fact that he's built his rating, his career, his skill on cheating in online games really should be enough of a disqualifier to be invited to other pro events. The idea that no proven cheater should ever be allowed to play OTB chess is not the reason why Niemann is in the spotlight. This was specifically about him and not anyone else, because no other chess player was named in this whole ordeal and the origin of the controversy was Carlsen's actions against Niemann. The debate over cheating in general can be had without dragging Niemann's name through the mud and running a witchhunt against him. If the conclusion of such a debate ends up being that all cheaters (online or OTB) should be prohibited from playing any official/titled/prized chess, then this can be done in a way that there's no focus on specific individuals, which would be the healthy way of going about it. On the other hand if the conclusion is that OTB play should be permitted for proven online cheaters, then the witchhunt against Niemann also needs to end. Regardless in both cases the recent actions against Niemann are unjustified. Furthermore, this debate must first be had and cannot be decided as of now, and in particular it cannot be a coercive action by those who favor a general prohibition for cheaters. Using Niemann's name for this purpose now, when it's clear that the debate would not be about him specificaly but about all cheaters, is unacceptable. This is all, sorry to say, utter nonsense. It doesn't matter what the origin of the controversy was. It doesn't matter that Carlsen acted like a little baby. What matters is Niemann's history of cheating, the proof that has come out since the start of this controversy and what the consequences of that should be. The focus is on Niemann because he got caught cheating in 100+ games. There is nothing unfair about discussing consequences for those caught cheating, whether they partain to Niemann particularly or caught cheaters in general. "This debate is only happening because Niemann got caught, so there can't be consequences against Niemann" is utterly asinine. Proof of what? Proof of at least 100 games in actual tournaments for actual prize money/points where he cheated. There's a reason they won't ban him from OTB tournaments. You would have no-one left playing them after they finished banning every GM who ever cheated online. So we moved on from "he shouldn't be banned" to "well everybody does it" now? Making a really compelling argument there. Excuse me? They can't just decide to make up a rule now for Niemann. They have to use the disciplinary rules that are already in place, given that the offences committed are not in the future. In case you're still really confused, that means you can't use a rule you JUST NOW INVENTED, to ban someone from a tournament for a historical offence. I suppose you have a 'compelling argument' as to why rules invented on the spot should apply to previous incidents? So I haven't moved anywhere. He shouldn't be banned from OTB tournaments because there isn't a rule that says he should, AND loads of GMs cheat so it would be bad anyway even if they did decide to do that. I didn't realise "cheating gets you banned" would be a new rule, my mistake. You don't have to invent new rules, you simply have to enforce the existing rules. Rules 12.1 and 12.3 from the FIDE rulebook specifically.
Can you quote those rules, because i'm not sure the anti-doping and nutrition rules really apply here.
If you mean section A/09, the anti-cheating regulations, they actually state quite clearly that he shouldn't be banned
Have you read these rules?
If there's evidence that he cheated within the last year, then FIDE or the FPL could do something. Otherwise there is a statute of limitations of one year on online tournaments.
https://handbook.fide.com/files/handbook/ACCRegulations.pdf
|
On October 06 2022 20:27 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2022 19:23 pmh wrote:
All this talk about Magnus is just a cheap attempt at diverting the discussion from the actual issue.
A counter attack as the best defence. But Magnus has been a class act all his career. There has never been anything controversial with Magnus.
Magnus has done the chessworld a huge favor by bringing this increasingly important subject in the spotlight. Sounds like fanboying more than anything. Magnus did this because a) he's a baby and wanted to lash out after losing a match he should have won b) His company and the tournament they run get lots of publicity. Do you really think he lost a game where his opponent didn't cheat and thought to himself "Now's the time to really show how much the chess world needs me", ripped off his top and exposed his superhero costume, and then accused a guy without evidence of something he didn't do by throwing multiple hissy fits? How do I know its not a cheap attempt to divert attention? Because I had never heard of Neimann before this, and don't give a shit either way about what he's done. If he's cheated, he should be punished. Problem solved. No-one has solved the problem of the massive conflict of interest involved when someone in Magnus' position can do this while making more money because of it by dropping out of tournaments he has a financial stake in. That is a HUGE problem. I do think chess.com should have obviously done something about Neimann before all of this. Maybe Magnus was driven to it, and I understand that, if that's what happened. It has still exposed the awful nature of how chess is organized, and left me wondering how one man who still plays competitively, can have so much power over the administration of the game he competes in.
Thats the nature of the chessworld. The worldchampion always had an enormous influence. In this aspect it is different from more regulated traditional sports where all the power and influence lies with the official organization. I can understand that this looks a bit weird to outsiders but it is not weird for the chessworld.
It has its liabilitys,like for example when Kasparov created the PCA and held his own championship. Or even earlier with fide where Russian politics played a big role behind the scene.
The current situation is maybe not optimal but i do not consider the Nieman case to be a liability. Many players are very happy with what Magnus did. The people who are not happy with it are mostly newcomers in the chessworld or people who are not even part of the chessworld but watch the streams and read about it for the drama and what not.
I guess in the end it is also a conflict of generations. With the somewhat older generation and most high rated players overwhelmingly supporting Magnus. And the new generation (and also the somewhat lower rated players,no offense intended) beeing a bit more devided about it (though still overwhelmingly supporting Magnus,its just that the other side is very loud and outspoken).
The chessworld,specially the older generations and higher rated players,have very little tollerance for cheating. In this aspect it is also slightly different from some other sports. Where cheating is often seen as a forgivable offense or even worse:as long as you dont get caught it is fine.
At least now there is a discussion that is very important for the future of chess and a discussion that was way overdue.
|
United Kingdom10024 Posts
On October 06 2022 22:12 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2022 20:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 06 2022 19:23 pmh wrote:
All this talk about Magnus is just a cheap attempt at diverting the discussion from the actual issue.
A counter attack as the best defence. But Magnus has been a class act all his career. There has never been anything controversial with Magnus.
Magnus has done the chessworld a huge favor by bringing this increasingly important subject in the spotlight. Sounds like fanboying more than anything. Magnus did this because a) he's a baby and wanted to lash out after losing a match he should have won b) His company and the tournament they run get lots of publicity. Do you really think he lost a game where his opponent didn't cheat and thought to himself "Now's the time to really show how much the chess world needs me", ripped off his top and exposed his superhero costume, and then accused a guy without evidence of something he didn't do by throwing multiple hissy fits? How do I know its not a cheap attempt to divert attention? Because I had never heard of Neimann before this, and don't give a shit either way about what he's done. If he's cheated, he should be punished. Problem solved. No-one has solved the problem of the massive conflict of interest involved when someone in Magnus' position can do this while making more money because of it by dropping out of tournaments he has a financial stake in. That is a HUGE problem. I do think chess.com should have obviously done something about Neimann before all of this. Maybe Magnus was driven to it, and I understand that, if that's what happened. It has still exposed the awful nature of how chess is organized, and left me wondering how one man who still plays competitively, can have so much power over the administration of the game he competes in. Thats the nature of the chessworld. The worldchampion always had an enormous influence. In this aspect it is different from more regulated traditional sports where all the power and influence lies with the official organization. I can understand that this looks a bit weird to outsiders but it is not weird for the chessworld. It has its liabilitys,like for example when Kasparov created the PCA and held his own championship. Or even earlier with fide where Russian politics played a big role behind the scene. The current situation is maybe not optimal but i do not consider the Nieman case to be a liability. Many players are very happy with what Magnus did. The people who are not happy with it are mostly newcomers in the chessworld or people who are not even part of the chessworld but watch the streams and read about it for the drama and what not. I guess in the end it is also a conflict of generations. With the somewhat older generation and most high rated players overwhelmingly supporting Magnus. And the new generation (and also the somewhat lower rated players,no offense intended) beeing a bit more devided about it (though still overwhelmingly supporting Magnus,its just that the other side is very loud and outspoken. At least now there is a discussion that is very important for the future of chess and a discussion that was way overdue.
I've been playing in FIDE tournaments for 27 years, since i was 10 years old at my first British Championship (although that's more BCF than FIDE, but it counts). I'm not a newcomer.
I just don't subscribe to 'oh that's chess, that's just the way it is' as being a reasonable excuse for conflict of interest, especially if Magnus is going to out it as an issue like this.
FIDE has always had massive issues with governance of chess.
|
On October 06 2022 22:15 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2022 22:12 pmh wrote:On October 06 2022 20:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 06 2022 19:23 pmh wrote:
All this talk about Magnus is just a cheap attempt at diverting the discussion from the actual issue.
A counter attack as the best defence. But Magnus has been a class act all his career. There has never been anything controversial with Magnus.
Magnus has done the chessworld a huge favor by bringing this increasingly important subject in the spotlight. Sounds like fanboying more than anything. Magnus did this because a) he's a baby and wanted to lash out after losing a match he should have won b) His company and the tournament they run get lots of publicity. Do you really think he lost a game where his opponent didn't cheat and thought to himself "Now's the time to really show how much the chess world needs me", ripped off his top and exposed his superhero costume, and then accused a guy without evidence of something he didn't do by throwing multiple hissy fits? How do I know its not a cheap attempt to divert attention? Because I had never heard of Neimann before this, and don't give a shit either way about what he's done. If he's cheated, he should be punished. Problem solved. No-one has solved the problem of the massive conflict of interest involved when someone in Magnus' position can do this while making more money because of it by dropping out of tournaments he has a financial stake in. That is a HUGE problem. I do think chess.com should have obviously done something about Neimann before all of this. Maybe Magnus was driven to it, and I understand that, if that's what happened. It has still exposed the awful nature of how chess is organized, and left me wondering how one man who still plays competitively, can have so much power over the administration of the game he competes in. Thats the nature of the chessworld. The worldchampion always had an enormous influence. In this aspect it is different from more regulated traditional sports where all the power and influence lies with the official organization. I can understand that this looks a bit weird to outsiders but it is not weird for the chessworld. It has its liabilitys,like for example when Kasparov created the PCA and held his own championship. Or even earlier with fide where Russian politics played a big role behind the scene. The current situation is maybe not optimal but i do not consider the Nieman case to be a liability. Many players are very happy with what Magnus did. The people who are not happy with it are mostly newcomers in the chessworld or people who are not even part of the chessworld but watch the streams and read about it for the drama and what not. I guess in the end it is also a conflict of generations. With the somewhat older generation and most high rated players overwhelmingly supporting Magnus. And the new generation (and also the somewhat lower rated players,no offense intended) beeing a bit more devided about it (though still overwhelmingly supporting Magnus,its just that the other side is very loud and outspoken. At least now there is a discussion that is very important for the future of chess and a discussion that was way overdue. I've been playing in FIDE tournaments for 27 years, since i was 10 years old at my first British Championship (although that's more BCF than FIDE, but it counts). I'm not a newcomer. I just don't subscribe to 'oh that's chess, that's just the way it is' as being a reasonable excuse for conflict of interest, especially if Magnus is going to out it as an issue like this. FIDE has always had massive issues with governance of chess.
Well in that case i did misjudge where you are coming from,for which i appologize. Maybe the chessworld is indeed more devided about this subject then i thought it would be. Maybe it is also my own opinion playing a role,which is anti cheat to the extreme.
I dont know,i think Magnus did the right thing though he could maybe have done it in a better way i wont deny that.
I dont see the conflict of interest for Magnus. The whole afair is not beneficial for Magnus,he doesnt gain anything from it on the contrary. He was the only person who could have brought so much attention to this subject and i truly think he did it only for the integrity of the game and not because of his own interests.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
