On October 24 2022 15:16 Magic Powers wrote: According to lawyers, Niemann seems to have a good case. I trust their words, not that of strangers on the internet.
Do you really want to pretend that this comment is sourced by a single random throwaway comment by a single random lawyer who clearly didn't read the complaint?
You are being incredibly disingenuous.
Implying that 'Niemann seems to have a good case' among lawyers in a general sense is not even remotely sourced by a random LinkedIn comment by somebody who, once again, clearly didn't read the complaint or knows Niemann's history (considering he managed to make 2 incorrect assumptions in the span of 2 sentences about both the case and Niemann).
Pretending like you have a bunch of solid sources for your rather sweeping claim (but decided to only share a random oneliner from Linkedin) but are simply refusing to share them because I was being "dismissive" is what's really childish here.
But this is moving too far offtopic, so this'll be my last comment on this. If you have actual, trustworthy sources that do indeed disagree with the analysis I linked to I'd be happy to read them.
Both of those sources basically say that a Hans victory is possible but neither say that it is the likely outcome which is a lot different than your first source that says Magnus better start writing a check. I don’t think anyone is arguing that Hans winning the lawsuit is impossible, just that it is not likely and your more legitimate sources seem to agree with that take.
I'm actually very glad Hans is suing Hikaru because it made me verify something I wrongly believed regarding the above court cases. I was under the (false) belief that you can slander public figures but apparently it's a little more nuanced than this. I love chess and have played countless games of chess before I discovered the superior board game of go (also called "baduk" or "weiqi"). My lichess username is sachdev and my most recent game (last month) was so cringe-inducing and nightmarish. I had a chance after move 13 to be up material but I tried getting fancy and over-looked white's best continuation. If I had simply played 14...Qxf4, then I'm up 9 pawns worth of material according to Stockfish... 🤦♂️
I think Hikaru's behavior has been inexcusable. The chess community on Reddit is beyond gullible and credulous every time that the shyster Hikaru opens his mouth. The "Halo effect" he generates onto the chess community on Reddit is surreal and undeniable. I am not usually the type of person to wish ill will upon somebody but I hope there's a special place in hell for Hikaru after his mistreatment of Hans.
You do realise this person disagrees with you, right? The most positive thing this person says about the lawsuit is that it's "not frivolous". The rest is just a bunch him reiterating that it's unlikely Hans will win, that defamation and conspiracy are unlikely to be proven and that the damages are way overblown.
Is your idea of "a good case" is one Niemann is unlikely to win?
On October 24 2022 19:00 Magic Powers wrote: Thomas J. Kherkher
Once again, the most positive thing this person has to say is that the parts of the claim that aren't "particularly weak" "could maybe have some merit".
Is that really how you define 'has a good case'? "If you take out all the jurisdictional issues and the particularly weak claims, maybe there is something there"?
At absolute best these two sources are saying it's not a foregone conclusion. So now we have a law student and two people who don't even really agree with your claim of "has a good case" as sources?
I'm actually very glad Hans is suing Hikaru because it made me verify something I wrongly believed regarding the above court cases. I was under the (false) belief that you can slander public figures but apparently it's a little more nuanced than this. I love chess and have played countless games of chess before I discovered the superior board game of go (also called "baduk" or "weiqi"). My lichess username is sachdev and my most recent game (last month) was so cringe-inducing and nightmarish. I had a chance after move 13 to be up material but I tried getting fancy and over-looked white's best continuation. If I had simply played 14...Qxf4, then I'm up 9 pawns worth of material according to Stockfish... 🤦♂️
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E3IsTQ5ISU I think Hikaru's behavior has been inexcusable. The chess community on Reddit is beyond gullible and credulous every time that the shyster Hikaru opens his mouth. The "Halo effect" he generates onto the chess community on Reddit is surreal and undeniable. I am not usually the type of person to wish ill will upon somebody but I hope there's a special place in hell for Hikaru after his mistreatment of Hans.
Hmm your message is weirdly constructed and hard to follow your point. Are you sure the video supports what you are saying? Which specific part do you think Hikaru's behavior is inexcusable. He is being super nice to Hans (Video is from 2 years ago)
Ironically the video is from the time when Hans was caught cheating by chess.com, and he is taunting "How I am so ***** good" :D. Notice also that Hikaru is happy for the win and hopes Hans will do great.
Remember this is court in America. Its extremely doubtful that anyone involved will know anything about chess or the chess world, so things that you take for granted as obvious may go over people's heads. I'd like to see one of the big law youtubers take this on, like LegalEagle. Personally I have no idea, but the thought of Niemann getting himself $100,000,000 behind this is just ridiculous.
You do realise this person disagrees with you, right? The most positive thing this person says about the lawsuit is that it's "not frivolous". The rest is just a bunch him reiterating that it's unlikely Hans will win, that defamation and conspiracy are unlikely to be proven and that the damages are way overblown.
Is your idea of "a good case" is one Niemann is unlikely to win?
Once again, the most positive thing this person has to say is that the parts of the claim that aren't "particularly weak" "could maybe have some merit".
Is that really how you define 'has a good case'? "If you take out all the jurisdictional issues and the particularly weak claims, maybe there is something there"?
At absolute best these two sources are saying it's not a foregone conclusion. So now we have a law student and two people who don't even really agree with your claim of "has a good case" as sources?
They do not disagree with me at all. They are very clear about this being a proper lawsuit that may not get rejected by a judge. If it doesn't get rejected, then Niemann has a good chance of winning. He may not win on every point, but winning on at least one point is not unlikely. Furthermore, Niemann can refile the case if it gets rejected, and then it may go through.
For comparison, Amber Heard won her case in the UK, and later she lost that same exact case in the USA. If you claim that Niemann's case is obviously bad then you don't know how the justice system works. The lawyers are overall undecided, and for you to take a strong stance that goes against theirs is frankly absurd. You're not an expert, so don't act like one.
If that to you means "the case is not going to get thrown out outright", then yes, you were correct.
I imagine most of us, when they say "Niemann has a good case", they mean "Niemann has a good chance at winning". That is not the case. Even the most positive examples you could find had major issues with large parts of the case and described the rest, at best, as "not completely without merit".
If you're going to argue that 'not likely to win' falls under the umbrella of 'has a good case', then we live in such completely different realities that it won't be productive to continue to talk about this.
Am I dumb to be reading the lawsuit as a move and not the whole game? Like I don't expect Neimann is thinking he might get $400m out of this, more that he can leverage friction between chess.com and Carlsen, causing enough of a fuss to make it worth it for the parties to settle.
On October 25 2022 01:49 Fleetfeet wrote: Am I dumb to be reading the lawsuit as a move and not the whole game? Like I don't expect Neimann is thinking he might get $400m out of this, more that he can leverage friction between chess.com and Carlsen, causing enough of a fuss to make it worth it for the parties to settle.
I like the idea of this being a more complex situation than just the straightforward lawsuit, but I can't right away see the way Niemann gets enough leverage to force some kind of settlement. If you can see an angle where it makes sense, it's definitely an idea worth considering.
I guess the other alternative is that Niemann has figured out he isn't going to have a career in invite-oriented chess world with his current reputation and he's going for some kind of hail mary play to either clear his reputation or to cash out big time before his exit.
On October 24 2022 21:41 Mikau313 wrote: You said he "had a good case".
If that to you means "the case is not going to get thrown out outright", then yes, you were correct.
I imagine most of us, when they say "Niemann has a good case", they mean "Niemann has a good chance at winning". That is not the case. Even the most positive examples you could find had major issues with large parts of the case and described the rest, at best, as "not completely without merit".
If you're going to argue that 'not likely to win' falls under the umbrella of 'has a good case', then we live in such completely different realities that it won't be productive to continue to talk about this.
It's great that you assume other people must share your understanding of "good". Problem is it's a subjective term. My advice is to ask people what they consider "good" before you start a fight with them.
I'd imagine some lawyers would describe something that is going to be contested in court and not just thrown out by the judge immediately as 'a good case'. Maybe if Niemann can easily prove loss of earnings, that makes it a good case. It doesn't necessarily mean its a sure thing, its just something that'll need to be disproved in court.
On October 24 2022 18:43 BlackJack wrote: Isn’t JD candidate at UC Berkeley law just another way of saying he is in law school at UC Berkeley? In other words he hasn’t even passed the bar yet and started practicing as an a attorney? Gotta go with Mikau on this one that citing a comment from a random law school student isn’t offering much.
On October 25 2022 01:49 Fleetfeet wrote: Am I dumb to be reading the lawsuit as a move and not the whole game? Like I don't expect Neimann is thinking he might get $400m out of this, more that he can leverage friction between chess.com and Carlsen, causing enough of a fuss to make it worth it for the parties to settle.
I like the idea of this being a more complex situation than just the straightforward lawsuit, but I can't right away see the way Niemann gets enough leverage to force some kind of settlement. If you can see an angle where it makes sense, it's definitely an idea worth considering.
I guess the other alternative is that Niemann has figured out he isn't going to have a career in invite-oriented chess world with his current reputation and he's going for some kind of hail mary play to either clear his reputation or to cash out big time before his exit.
The latter feels like what he should be angling for. Given that I'm not at all a lawyer, take the following with so much salt that you can't even taste anything else, but it seems like this:
1 ) Neimann has cheated in the past and has strong enough suspicion in place not to outright prove he was cheating, but to tarnish his career to a fragment of its potential value.
2 ) Carlsen acted purely on suspicion without proof and has used his weight in the chess scene to loudspeaker the above point, which at least to a layman feels like it should be illegal. He's also been consistently shitty about it, which leads to
3 ) Carlsen is motivated by ego more than anything else. If he was preserving the integrity of the game it would've been a problem before his loss, not after. If Neimann can 'offer' something as part of the settlement that appeases Carlsen (public apology or something else) and earn some-amount-of-money-that-feels-like-decent (I have no idea how valuable a chess player's career is) then Neimann can retire from professional chess sitting on a few million bucks as a clearly smart 19 year old.
Yeah, basically leverage the platform Carlsen has given him by grandstanding to (somewhat rightfully) tarnish Carlsen's reputation, thus damaging his professional image which he seems to value, and offering to stop and undo some of the damage if Carlsen settles.
On October 25 2022 05:07 Mikau313 wrote: edit: Screw it, if you really want to argue that "unlikely to win" means "a good case", have at it.
David Franklin calls it an "uphill battle". That only means Niemann doesn't have the advantage going in. A "good case" means that he has good enough chances of winning to justify the attempt. Remember it's a 100-400 million lawsuit, so any chance that is very significantly above 0 makes it a good case, because even a 10% chance to win on just a single point would make it a hugely favorable deal for him. Heck, even 5%. Many people would even take a 1% chance. But we don't have to go that low, a 5% chance of winning on any of the points would make it a good case, and if you think otherwise I'd accuse you of not liking money. Imagine having a 1 in 20 shot at winning 100 million, that's definitely a good shot.
It's not my problem that people interpret a "good case" as something closer to a 60% chance in a 100-400 million case, and then find it very important to start a fight over it because their interpretion must objectively be the correct one for some reason.
On October 25 2022 05:07 Mikau313 wrote: edit: Screw it, if you really want to argue that "unlikely to win" means "a good case", have at it.
David Franklin calls it an "uphill battle". That only means Niemann doesn't have the advantage going in. A "good case" means that he has good enough chances of winning to justify the attempt. Remember it's a 100-400 million lawsuit, so any chance that is very significantly above 0 makes it a good case, because even a 10% chance to win on just a single point would make it a hugely favorable deal for him. Heck, even 5%. Many people would even take a 1% chance. But we don't have to go that low, a 5% chance of winning on any of the points would make it a good case, and if you think otherwise I'd accuse you of not liking money. Imagine having a 1 in 20 shot at winning 100 million, that's definitely a good shot.
It's not my problem that people interpret a "good case" as something closer to a 60% chance in a 100-400 million case, and then find it very important to start a fight over it because their interpretion must objectively be the correct one for some reason.
It's maximum 100 million explained by gothamchess video about this and afaik if it doesnt get thrown out its gonna be a very long process and likely gonna be settled so its all about not getting it thrown out.
EPT
