|
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.
Online.
How are those games relevant for the OTB accusation?
|
On October 06 2022 22:23 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2022 22:15 Jockmcplop wrote: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.
That's why I'm focusing so much on Magnus. Its not just me either, I posted that GM Ben Finegold video that did a great job explaining some of the problems with Magnus' behaviour.
With the cheating, FIDE and the FPL have to do what they have to do according to their own rules. There isn't really a question of what to do, because the rules exist and are quite specific.
If the idea was to get cheats banned, then people should be doing better analysis of online performance and tournaments, and doing it behind the scenes so you can actually catch people and then ban them as they get caught cheating.
The way this has been done actually makes their job harder.
There should absolutely be a discussion about FIDE/FPL rules and regulations, but I don't even see that discussion happening, its just alot of Magnus fans hating Niemann because they are Magnus fans and there is obviously bad blood.
Niemann isn't the only cheat. He should be dealt with in exactly the same way other cheats are dealt with, and if that isn't good enough, the rules need changing. I'm open to the idea that he is the worst cheat of the super GMs, which is where rule changes come in. The rules could and maybe should be changed so that prolific cheats online do get banned or get their FIDE rating rescinded and have to start again from nothing.
Nothing Magnus did helped that.
|
On October 06 2022 22:27 Magic Powers 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. Online. How are those games relevant for the OTB accusation?
If you'd read the rest of my comment you quoted and/or my other comments here since you'll see that I have already explained why I believe they are relevant.
They don't prove he cheated OTB. I believe they're still enough to not want him to play OTB tournaments anymore.
|
On October 06 2022 22:31 Mikau313 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2022 22:27 Magic Powers 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. Online. How are those games relevant for the OTB accusation? If you'd read the rest of my comment you quoted and/or my other comments here since you'll see that I have already explained why they are relevant. They don't prove he cheated OTB. I believe they're still enough to not want him to play OTB tournaments anymore.
If there's no specific evidence that he has cheated in a FIDE online tournament in the last year, they can't do anything.
|
On October 06 2022 22:32 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2022 22:31 Mikau313 wrote:On October 06 2022 22:27 Magic Powers 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. Online. How are those games relevant for the OTB accusation? If you'd read the rest of my comment you quoted and/or my other comments here since you'll see that I have already explained why they are relevant. They don't prove he cheated OTB. I believe they're still enough to not want him to play OTB tournaments anymore. If there's no specific evidence that he has cheated in a FIDE online tournament in the last year, they can't do anything.
Yes there is, they have intentionally vague "discrediting FIDE and/or chess" clauses, that I already pointed out to you, for this exact reason.
edit: They also specifically allow themselves the right to deviate from the rulebook as they see fit, once again for this very reason.
|
On October 06 2022 22:34 Mikau313 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2022 22:32 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 06 2022 22:31 Mikau313 wrote:On October 06 2022 22:27 Magic Powers 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. Online. How are those games relevant for the OTB accusation? If you'd read the rest of my comment you quoted and/or my other comments here since you'll see that I have already explained why they are relevant. They don't prove he cheated OTB. I believe they're still enough to not want him to play OTB tournaments anymore. If there's no specific evidence that he has cheated in a FIDE online tournament in the last year, they can't do anything. Yes there is, they have intentionally vague "discrediting FIDE and/or chess" clauses, that I already pointed out to you, for this exact reason.
If you're talking about the ethics and disciplinary code, this is clearly overridden by the specific anti-cheating rules.
If they want to get sued to shit and have to go back on their ruling as well as losing a court battle, that would be a fantastic way to go about it.
If you aren't talking about that, can you please link to exactly what you are talking about? The FIDE rules are all over the place.
|
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).
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.
I disagree with everything that's in bold. There seems to be little correlation with the playing history, rating, age or status of players supporting/favoring either Carlsen or Niemann.
I can speak for myself. I'm a 36 y/o with an average chess.com rating of ~2100 in blitz, rapid and bullet and I've been in the scene for maybe half my life on and off. My position is that Carlsen is in the wrong, that he has no evidence, nor does anyone else, that Niemann's innocence OTB should be assumed, that there should be no further punishment for Niemann over his online cheating history because it would be undue, and that he should be allowed to continue playing rated OTB tournaments for prize money along with all other competitors.
This is all subject to change if actual evidence surfaces, which after everything that's happened seems highly unlikely.
|
On October 06 2022 22:40 Magic Powers 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).
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. I disagree with everything that's in bold. There seems to be little correlation with the playing history, rating, age or status of players supporting/favoring either Carlsen or Niemann. I can speak for myself. I'm a 36 y/o with an average chess.com rating of ~2100 in blitz, rapid and bullet and I've been in the scene for maybe half my life on and off. My position is that Carlsen is in the wrong, that he has no evidence, nor does anyone else, that Niemann's innocence OTB should be assumed, that there should be no further punishment for Niemann over his online cheating history because it would be undue, and that he should be allowed to continue playing rated OTB tournaments for prize money along with all other competitors. This is all subject to change if actual evidence surfaces, which after everything that's happened seems highly unlikely.
Wow so you are agreeing with me but taking a more extreme position.
Why would you continue to let Niemann play in online tournaments? imo if he has cheated and the evidence is clear, then he should serve some amount of time of being banned.
All of this would be so much fucking easier if Magnus had simply demanded behind the scenes that this report happen quietly so they could continue to monitor Niemann and not be caught out by FIDE's rules. 'Catching him in the act' if you will. That can't happen now, because of Magnus.
|
On October 06 2022 22:38 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2022 22:34 Mikau313 wrote:On October 06 2022 22:32 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 06 2022 22:31 Mikau313 wrote:On October 06 2022 22:27 Magic Powers 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:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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. Online. How are those games relevant for the OTB accusation? If you'd read the rest of my comment you quoted and/or my other comments here since you'll see that I have already explained why they are relevant. They don't prove he cheated OTB. I believe they're still enough to not want him to play OTB tournaments anymore. If there's no specific evidence that he has cheated in a FIDE online tournament in the last year, they can't do anything. Yes there is, they have intentionally vague "discrediting FIDE and/or chess" clauses, that I already pointed out to you, for this exact reason. If you're talking about the ethics and disciplinary code, this is clearly overridden by the specific anti-cheating rules. If they want to get sued to shit and have to go back on their ruling as well as losing a court battle, that would be a fantastic way to go about it. If you aren't talking about that, can you please link to exactly what you are talking about? The FIDE rules are all over the place.
Yes, I am talking about those. Both the ethics and disciplinary code and the rulebook (including section A/09) specifically give arbiters the right to override the rest of the rulebook at their own discretion.
Nobody is getting sued because a private organisation who expressly has the right to decide for themselves who can and can't be part of their little club decides they won't tolerate their members cheating.
|
On October 06 2022 22:47 Mikau313 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2022 22:38 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 06 2022 22:34 Mikau313 wrote:On October 06 2022 22:32 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 06 2022 22:31 Mikau313 wrote:On October 06 2022 22:27 Magic Powers 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:
[quote]
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. Online. How are those games relevant for the OTB accusation? If you'd read the rest of my comment you quoted and/or my other comments here since you'll see that I have already explained why they are relevant. They don't prove he cheated OTB. I believe they're still enough to not want him to play OTB tournaments anymore. If there's no specific evidence that he has cheated in a FIDE online tournament in the last year, they can't do anything. Yes there is, they have intentionally vague "discrediting FIDE and/or chess" clauses, that I already pointed out to you, for this exact reason. If you're talking about the ethics and disciplinary code, this is clearly overridden by the specific anti-cheating rules. If they want to get sued to shit and have to go back on their ruling as well as losing a court battle, that would be a fantastic way to go about it. If you aren't talking about that, can you please link to exactly what you are talking about? The FIDE rules are all over the place. Yes, I am talking about those. Both the ethics and disciplinary code and the rulebook (including section A/09) specifically give arbiters the right to override the rest of the rulebook at their own discretion. Nobody is getting sued because a private organisation who expressly has the right to decide for themselves who can and can't be part of their little club decides they won't tolerate their members cheating.
Okay, but does it give them the right to overrule the fair play commission (FPL), whose job it is to deal with complaints/issues around cheating?
Quoted from the FIDE cheating rules:
1. The Fair Play Commission (FPL) has jurisdiction in all cheating-related matters,
including false accusations. People subject to FPL jurisdiction include players,
supporting persons, and team captains. Supporting persons include, but are not
limited to, heads of delegations, seconds, trainers, managers, psychologists,
organizers, spectators, relatives, journalists, chess officials, arbiters when involved in
cheating incidents.
2. All FIDE-rated over the board games are subject to FPL jurisdiction.
3. Online chess falls under FPL jurisdiction for official FIDE competitions. For such
tournaments, the provisions of Appendix 1 of the FIDE Online Chess Regulations
shall apply in addition.
So you're telling me that none of that applies because of a clause in their ethics document?
Personally, I think it might just be that you don't understand the rules at all, and you have just glanced through the document for anything that might support your (wrong) position.
That's confirmation bias, I'd try and avoid it if i were you.
|
On October 06 2022 22:43 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2022 22:40 Magic Powers wrote: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).
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. I disagree with everything that's in bold. There seems to be little correlation with the playing history, rating, age or status of players supporting/favoring either Carlsen or Niemann. I can speak for myself. I'm a 36 y/o with an average chess.com rating of ~2100 in blitz, rapid and bullet and I've been in the scene for maybe half my life on and off. My position is that Carlsen is in the wrong, that he has no evidence, nor does anyone else, that Niemann's innocence OTB should be assumed, that there should be no further punishment for Niemann over his online cheating history because it would be undue, and that he should be allowed to continue playing rated OTB tournaments for prize money along with all other competitors. This is all subject to change if actual evidence surfaces, which after everything that's happened seems highly unlikely. Wow so you are agreeing with me but taking a more extreme position. Why would you continue to let Niemann play in online tournaments? imo if he has cheated and the evidence is clear, then he should serve some amount of time of being banned. All of this would be so much fucking easier if Magnus had simply demanded behind the scenes that this report happen quietly so they could continue to monitor Niemann and not be caught out by FIDE's rules. 'Catching him in the act' if you will. That can't happen now, because of Magnus.
I said Niemann should be allowed to play in OTB rated tournaments, I didn't say anything about online. Please read my comment again.
Also, if you're interested, I think chess.com made a mistake when they unbanned him and they should rework their anti-cheat policy. I think no proven cheater should continue to be allowed to play on any platform that they cheated on. I have more opinions, but I'll keep it at that for now.
|
On October 06 2022 22:59 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2022 22:43 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 06 2022 22:40 Magic Powers wrote: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).
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. I disagree with everything that's in bold. There seems to be little correlation with the playing history, rating, age or status of players supporting/favoring either Carlsen or Niemann. I can speak for myself. I'm a 36 y/o with an average chess.com rating of ~2100 in blitz, rapid and bullet and I've been in the scene for maybe half my life on and off. My position is that Carlsen is in the wrong, that he has no evidence, nor does anyone else, that Niemann's innocence OTB should be assumed, that there should be no further punishment for Niemann over his online cheating history because it would be undue, and that he should be allowed to continue playing rated OTB tournaments for prize money along with all other competitors. This is all subject to change if actual evidence surfaces, which after everything that's happened seems highly unlikely. Wow so you are agreeing with me but taking a more extreme position. Why would you continue to let Niemann play in online tournaments? imo if he has cheated and the evidence is clear, then he should serve some amount of time of being banned. All of this would be so much fucking easier if Magnus had simply demanded behind the scenes that this report happen quietly so they could continue to monitor Niemann and not be caught out by FIDE's rules. 'Catching him in the act' if you will. That can't happen now, because of Magnus. I said Niemann should be allowed to play in OTB rated tournaments, I didn't say anything about online. Please read my comment again. Also, if you're interested, I think chess.com made a mistake when they unbanned him and they should rework their anti-cheat policy. I think no proven cheater should continue to be allowed to play on any platform that they cheated on. I have more opinions, but I'll keep it at that for now.
Oh I misunderstood your comment about 'no further punishment' for Niemann.
I get where you're coming from now, and I agree.
|
Johto4932 Posts
Personally I'd be a fan of using something akin to the doping rules in most sports. Cheat first time, banned for two years. Cheat again, banned for life. And I would not make a difference between online chess and OTB chess for this.
That being said, I still think the way Carlsen handled the situation was terrible. Not saying anything whilst in his right to do is not a great show of sportsmanship in the situation.
Also I am a firm believer that the FIDE shouldn't hand out Elo points for tournaments where the owner of the event is playing in it, aka Carlsen playing in a tournament organized by a company he has interest in.
|
On October 06 2022 22:54 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2022 22:47 Mikau313 wrote:On October 06 2022 22:38 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 06 2022 22:34 Mikau313 wrote:On October 06 2022 22:32 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 06 2022 22:31 Mikau313 wrote:On October 06 2022 22:27 Magic Powers 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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. Online. How are those games relevant for the OTB accusation? If you'd read the rest of my comment you quoted and/or my other comments here since you'll see that I have already explained why they are relevant. They don't prove he cheated OTB. I believe they're still enough to not want him to play OTB tournaments anymore. If there's no specific evidence that he has cheated in a FIDE online tournament in the last year, they can't do anything. Yes there is, they have intentionally vague "discrediting FIDE and/or chess" clauses, that I already pointed out to you, for this exact reason. If you're talking about the ethics and disciplinary code, this is clearly overridden by the specific anti-cheating rules. If they want to get sued to shit and have to go back on their ruling as well as losing a court battle, that would be a fantastic way to go about it. If you aren't talking about that, can you please link to exactly what you are talking about? The FIDE rules are all over the place. Yes, I am talking about those. Both the ethics and disciplinary code and the rulebook (including section A/09) specifically give arbiters the right to override the rest of the rulebook at their own discretion. Nobody is getting sued because a private organisation who expressly has the right to decide for themselves who can and can't be part of their little club decides they won't tolerate their members cheating. Okay, but does it give them the right to overrule the fair play commission (FPL), whose job it is to deal with complaints/issues around cheating? Quoted from the FIDE cheating rules: Show nested quote +1. The Fair Play Commission (FPL) has jurisdiction in all cheating-related matters,
including false accusations. People subject to FPL jurisdiction include players,
supporting persons, and team captains. Supporting persons include, but are not
limited to, heads of delegations, seconds, trainers, managers, psychologists,
organizers, spectators, relatives, journalists, chess officials, arbiters when involved in
cheating incidents.
2. All FIDE-rated over the board games are subject to FPL jurisdiction.
3. Online chess falls under FPL jurisdiction for official FIDE competitions. For such
tournaments, the provisions of Appendix 1 of the FIDE Online Chess Regulations
shall apply in addition. So you're telling me that none of that applies because of a clause in their ethics document? Personally, I think it might just be that you don't understand the rules at all, and you have just glanced through the document for anything that might support your (wrong) position. That's confirmation bias, I'd try and avoid it if i were you.
It seems like you're misinterpreting what "falls under the FPL commission" means.
For one, the FPL is simply a part of FIDE.
Secondly, the part you quoted specifically says "shall apply in addition". It doesn't supersede other FIDE regulations. That's literally in the very first paragraph of the FPL anti cheating regulations you linked to.
Perhaps you should read them a little bit better yourself before you accuse others of not reading them.
|
On October 06 2022 23:17 Mikau313 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2022 22:54 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 06 2022 22:47 Mikau313 wrote:On October 06 2022 22:38 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 06 2022 22:34 Mikau313 wrote:On October 06 2022 22:32 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 06 2022 22:31 Mikau313 wrote:On October 06 2022 22:27 Magic Powers wrote:On October 06 2022 21:30 Mikau313 wrote:On October 06 2022 18:11 0x64 wrote:[quote] 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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
Proof of what? Proof of at least 100 games in actual tournaments for actual prize money/points where he cheated. Online. How are those games relevant for the OTB accusation? If you'd read the rest of my comment you quoted and/or my other comments here since you'll see that I have already explained why they are relevant. They don't prove he cheated OTB. I believe they're still enough to not want him to play OTB tournaments anymore. If there's no specific evidence that he has cheated in a FIDE online tournament in the last year, they can't do anything. Yes there is, they have intentionally vague "discrediting FIDE and/or chess" clauses, that I already pointed out to you, for this exact reason. If you're talking about the ethics and disciplinary code, this is clearly overridden by the specific anti-cheating rules. If they want to get sued to shit and have to go back on their ruling as well as losing a court battle, that would be a fantastic way to go about it. If you aren't talking about that, can you please link to exactly what you are talking about? The FIDE rules are all over the place. Yes, I am talking about those. Both the ethics and disciplinary code and the rulebook (including section A/09) specifically give arbiters the right to override the rest of the rulebook at their own discretion. Nobody is getting sued because a private organisation who expressly has the right to decide for themselves who can and can't be part of their little club decides they won't tolerate their members cheating. Okay, but does it give them the right to overrule the fair play commission (FPL), whose job it is to deal with complaints/issues around cheating? Quoted from the FIDE cheating rules: 1. The Fair Play Commission (FPL) has jurisdiction in all cheating-related matters,
including false accusations. People subject to FPL jurisdiction include players,
supporting persons, and team captains. Supporting persons include, but are not
limited to, heads of delegations, seconds, trainers, managers, psychologists,
organizers, spectators, relatives, journalists, chess officials, arbiters when involved in
cheating incidents.
2. All FIDE-rated over the board games are subject to FPL jurisdiction.
3. Online chess falls under FPL jurisdiction for official FIDE competitions. For such
tournaments, the provisions of Appendix 1 of the FIDE Online Chess Regulations
shall apply in addition. So you're telling me that none of that applies because of a clause in their ethics document? Personally, I think it might just be that you don't understand the rules at all, and you have just glanced through the document for anything that might support your (wrong) position. That's confirmation bias, I'd try and avoid it if i were you. It seems like you're misinterpreting what "falls under the FPL commission" means. For one, the FPL is simply a part of FIDE. Secondly, the part you quoted specifically says "shall apply in addition". It doesn't supersede other FIDE regulations. That's literally in the very first paragraph of the FPL anti cheating regulations you linked to. Perhaps you should read them a little bit better yourself before you accuse others of not reading them.
You can pretend you understand how all this works as much as you want. You don't. I've played in some of these tournaments, admittedly at youth level, I know how this works.
The reason they have to have a semi independent body like the FPL to administer cheating regulations is specifically so they can't just overrule decisions based on nothing, which is precisely what you're saying they should do.
So stick to your guns, I'm not going to waste my time with you any more. I would suggest you apply for a job at FIDE, given that you seem to know much more about their rules than they do. Or did I miss something when Niemann is still playing OTB FIDE tournaments as we speak?
|
On October 06 2022 23:16 FO-nTTaX wrote:
Personally I'd be a fan of using something akin to the doping rules in most sports. Cheat first time, banned for two years. Cheat again, banned for life. And I would not make a difference between online chess and OTB chess for this.
That being said, I still think the way Carlsen handled the situation was terrible. Not saying anything whilst in his right to do is not a great show of sportsmanship in the situation.
Also I am a firm believer that the FIDE shouldn't hand out Elo points for tournaments where the owner of the event is playing in it, aka Carlsen playing in a tournament organized by a company he has interest in.
Yeah this is pretty much where I stand.
|
I feel like this has been the most impolite way to express ones opinion over such a matter that should not escalate in such agressive communication.
|
On October 06 2022 23:22 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2022 23:17 Mikau313 wrote:On October 06 2022 22:54 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 06 2022 22:47 Mikau313 wrote:On October 06 2022 22:38 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 06 2022 22:34 Mikau313 wrote:On October 06 2022 22:32 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 06 2022 22:31 Mikau313 wrote:On October 06 2022 22:27 Magic Powers wrote:On October 06 2022 21:30 Mikau313 wrote:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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?
[quote]
I'm not disagreeing with you here, it's just not all that relevant to the question of "what should happen to Niemann".
[quote]
Proof of at least 100 games in actual tournaments for actual prize money/points where he cheated. Online. How are those games relevant for the OTB accusation? If you'd read the rest of my comment you quoted and/or my other comments here since you'll see that I have already explained why they are relevant. They don't prove he cheated OTB. I believe they're still enough to not want him to play OTB tournaments anymore. If there's no specific evidence that he has cheated in a FIDE online tournament in the last year, they can't do anything. Yes there is, they have intentionally vague "discrediting FIDE and/or chess" clauses, that I already pointed out to you, for this exact reason. If you're talking about the ethics and disciplinary code, this is clearly overridden by the specific anti-cheating rules. If they want to get sued to shit and have to go back on their ruling as well as losing a court battle, that would be a fantastic way to go about it. If you aren't talking about that, can you please link to exactly what you are talking about? The FIDE rules are all over the place. Yes, I am talking about those. Both the ethics and disciplinary code and the rulebook (including section A/09) specifically give arbiters the right to override the rest of the rulebook at their own discretion. Nobody is getting sued because a private organisation who expressly has the right to decide for themselves who can and can't be part of their little club decides they won't tolerate their members cheating. Okay, but does it give them the right to overrule the fair play commission (FPL), whose job it is to deal with complaints/issues around cheating? Quoted from the FIDE cheating rules: 1. The Fair Play Commission (FPL) has jurisdiction in all cheating-related matters,
including false accusations. People subject to FPL jurisdiction include players,
supporting persons, and team captains. Supporting persons include, but are not
limited to, heads of delegations, seconds, trainers, managers, psychologists,
organizers, spectators, relatives, journalists, chess officials, arbiters when involved in
cheating incidents.
2. All FIDE-rated over the board games are subject to FPL jurisdiction.
3. Online chess falls under FPL jurisdiction for official FIDE competitions. For such
tournaments, the provisions of Appendix 1 of the FIDE Online Chess Regulations
shall apply in addition. So you're telling me that none of that applies because of a clause in their ethics document? Personally, I think it might just be that you don't understand the rules at all, and you have just glanced through the document for anything that might support your (wrong) position. That's confirmation bias, I'd try and avoid it if i were you. It seems like you're misinterpreting what "falls under the FPL commission" means. For one, the FPL is simply a part of FIDE. Secondly, the part you quoted specifically says "shall apply in addition". It doesn't supersede other FIDE regulations. That's literally in the very first paragraph of the FPL anti cheating regulations you linked to. Perhaps you should read them a little bit better yourself before you accuse others of not reading them. You can pretend you understand how all this works as much as you want. You don't. I've played in some of these tournaments, admittedly at youth level, I know how this works. The reason they have to have a semi independent body like the FPL to administer cheating regulations is specifically so they can't just overrule decisions based on nothing, which is precisely what you're saying they should do.
And yet they decided to specifically give themselves the right to do so. I wonder why you think they did that.
So stick to your guns, I'm not going to waste my time with you any more. I would suggest you apply for a job at FIDE, given that you seem to know much more about their rules than they do. Or did I miss something when Niemann is still playing OTB FIDE tournaments as we speak?
I'm arguing that a) they can ban Niemann if they want to and b) that I think they should.
The fact that FIDE hasn't done so doesn't mean they can't, just that that so far, they have decided not to.
I would suggest you drop the whole Ad Hominem and arguing in bad faith nonsense.
|
On October 06 2022 23:29 0x64 wrote:
I feel like this has been the most impolite way to express ones opinion over such a matter that should not escalate in such agressive communication.
Yeah he got my back up when he started being an asshole earlier and now i'm all in.
|
On October 06 2022 23:31 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2022 23:29 0x64 wrote:
I feel like this has been the most impolite way to express ones opinion over such a matter that should not escalate in such agressive communication.
Yeah he got my back up when he started being an asshole earlier and now i'm all in.
I think you'll find that the person who started all the personal attacks was, in fact, you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
