EPTOn October 06 2022 23:33 Mikau313 wrote:
I think you'll find that the person who started all the personal attacks was, in fact, you.
Show nested quote +
On October 06 2022 23:31 Jockmcplop wrote:
Yeah he got my back up when he started being an asshole earlier and now i'm all in.
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.
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.
On October 06 2022 21:37 Mikau313 wrote:
So we moved on from "he shouldn't be banned" to "well everybody does it" now?
Making a really compelling argument there.
Show nested quote +
On October 06 2022 21:36 Jockmcplop wrote:
There's a reason they won't ban him from OTB tournaments.
You would have no-one left playing them after they finished banning every GM who ever cheated online.
On October 06 2022 21:30 Mikau313 wrote:
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.
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".
Proof of at least 100 games in actual tournaments for actual prize money/points where he cheated.
On October 06 2022 18:11 0x64 wrote:
Being stuck at a level is common with young players. There has also been 2 years of COVID period. Other kids have shot up as well.
https://ratings.fide.com/profile/36083534/chart
Here is a similar case, that will end up shooting up to 2700, once things clicks.
Of course, this kid was 2400 at age 12, but you can see a classical "pause"
https://ratings.fide.com/profile/25059530/chart
Praggnanandhaa will also continue his rise, but got stuck at 2600 for 2 years.
No one thought his progress had stopped, just that improving his chess was not resulting in improved tournament results.
One possible reason chess players hit a level cap in rating is that usually to reach the "next level" you need to open your game or else you end up racking draws with lower rated players. So you start taking victories from stronger players, but also take losses from weaker players, until you manage to calibrate.
Of course MVL, Nepo, Carlsen have non-stop progress to the top, mark of the champions... But it is funny how actual youngster have all a cap during COVID 2 years... So let's count the progress argument out of the Hans situation.
The rest speaks for itself
On October 06 2022 17:51 Mikau313 wrote:
Not only the speed of his progress, but also the fact that he was stuck at around 2300 for years before he suddenly shot up.
Not only the fact that he can't explain his moves, but also the fact that he supposedly "analysed the opening Carlsen used just this morning", even though Carlsen only played that particular opening once before in his life.
On October 06 2022 17:34 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 fishy, but progress faster than Fisher + not being able to explain his moves and thinking is what is bothering top level players.
The reason they get this vibes is that they are used to talked with other 2700+ all the time, and they know the thinking and how well they throw lines after the game because they spent their time on those key questions.
Hans is a Grand master level player, so he will be able to fool his understanding, because frankly, I can't tell apart a 2500 and a 2700. (I am around 2000 level.)
I really think the public has very little to bring on the chess side. Now, should an online cheater be allowed to play OTB, this is a new kind of cheating.
Not only the speed of his progress, but also the fact that he was stuck at around 2300 for years before he suddenly shot up.
Not only the fact that he can't explain his moves, but also the fact that he supposedly "analysed the opening Carlsen used just this morning", even though Carlsen only played that particular opening once before in his life.
Being stuck at a level is common with young players. There has also been 2 years of COVID period. Other kids have shot up as well.
https://ratings.fide.com/profile/36083534/chart
Here is a similar case, that will end up shooting up to 2700, once things clicks.
Of course, this kid was 2400 at age 12, but you can see a classical "pause"
https://ratings.fide.com/profile/25059530/chart
Praggnanandhaa will also continue his rise, but got stuck at 2600 for 2 years.
No one thought his progress had stopped, just that improving his chess was not resulting in improved tournament results.
One possible reason chess players hit a level cap in rating is that usually to reach the "next level" you need to open your game or else you end up racking draws with lower rated players. So you start taking victories from stronger players, but also take losses from weaker players, until you manage to calibrate.
Of course MVL, Nepo, Carlsen have non-stop progress to the top, mark of the champions... But it is funny how actual youngster have all a cap during COVID 2 years... So let's count the progress argument out of the Hans situation.
The rest speaks for itself
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:
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.
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?
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:
Proof of what?
On October 06 2022 17:55 Mikau313 wrote:
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.
On October 06 2022 17:50 Magic Powers wrote:
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.
On October 06 2022 17:22 Mikau313 wrote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
I haven't even seen any theories about how Niemann allegedly cheated in live chess, that he made a single great move is circumstantial. Other datasets have concluded he is a normal player.
You think this is all based on 'a single great move'?
Other datasets have concluded there's a lot of fishy things going on here, even if they don't prove cheating outright. In addition to that, his behaviour around the Sinquefield Cup game against Carlsen has been incredibly fishy. Still doesn't prove cheating, but it should at least give one pause.
And even if they can't prove OTB cheating, the fact that he's built his rating, his career, his skill on cheating in online games really should be enough of a disqualifier to be invited to other pro events.
The idea that no proven cheater should ever be allowed to play OTB chess is not the reason why Niemann is in the spotlight. This was specifically about him and not anyone else, because no other chess player was named in this whole ordeal and the origin of the controversy was Carlsen's actions against Niemann.
The debate over cheating in general can be had without dragging Niemann's name through the mud and running a witchhunt against him. If the conclusion of such a debate ends up being that all cheaters (online or OTB) should be prohibited from playing any official/titled/prized chess, then this can be done in a way that there's no focus on specific individuals, which would be the healthy way of going about it. On the other hand if the conclusion is that OTB play should be permitted for proven online cheaters, then the witchhunt against Niemann also needs to end. Regardless in both cases the recent actions against Niemann are unjustified.
Furthermore, this debate must first be had and cannot be decided as of now, and in particular it cannot be a coercive action by those who favor a general prohibition for cheaters. Using Niemann's name for this purpose now, when it's clear that the debate would not be about him specificaly but about all cheaters, is unacceptable.
This is all, sorry to say, utter nonsense.
It doesn't matter what the origin of the controversy was. It doesn't matter that Carlsen acted like a little baby. What matters is Niemann's history of cheating, the proof that has come out since the start of this controversy and what the consequences of that should be.
The focus is on Niemann because he got caught cheating in 100+ games. There is nothing unfair about discussing consequences for those caught cheating, whether they partain to Niemann particularly or caught cheaters in general.
"This debate is only happening because Niemann got caught, so there can't be consequences against Niemann" is utterly asinine.
Proof of what?
Proof of at least 100 games in actual tournaments for actual prize money/points where he cheated.
There's a reason they won't ban him from OTB tournaments.
You would have no-one left playing them after they finished banning every GM who ever cheated online.
So we moved on from "he shouldn't be banned" to "well everybody does it" now?
Making a really compelling argument there.
This, with the shitty sarcasm and general bad attitude, is what pissed me off.
