Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Dear Chess World,

At the 2022 Sinquefield Cup, I made the unprecedented professional decision to withdraw from the tournament after my round three game against Hans Niemann. A week later during the Champions Chess Tour, I resigned against Hans Niemann after playing only one move.

I know that my actions have frustrated many in the chess community. I'm frustrated. I want to play chess. I want to continue to play chess at the highest level in the best events. I believe that cheating in chess is a big deal and an existential threat to the game. I also believe that chess organizers and all those who care about the sanctity of the game we love should seriously consider increasing security measures and methods of cheat detection for over the board chess. When Niemann was invited last minute to the 2022 Sinquefield Cup, I strongly considered withdrawing prior to the event. I ultimately chose to play.

I believe that Niemann has cheated more - and more recently - than he has publicly admitted. His over the board progress has been unusual, and throughout our game in the Sinquefield Cup I had the impression that he wasn't tense or even fully concentrating on the game in critical positions, while outplaying me as black in a way I think only a handful of players can do. This game contributed to changing my perspective.

We must do something about cheating, and for my part going forward, I don't want to play against people that have cheated repeatedly in the past, because I don't know what they are capable of doing in the future.

There is more that I would like to say. Unfortunately, at this time I am limited in what I can say without explicit permission from Niemann to speak openly. So far I have only been able to speak with my actions, and those actions have stated clearly that I am not willing to play chess with Niemann. I hope that the truth on this matter comes out, whatever it may be.

Sincerely, Manus Carlsen - World Chess Champion



"I'm not saying Hans Niemann cheated in this very specific instance against me. I'm just saying he's a professional cheater, and that fact may or may not be related to my withdrawal in a game against him after just one move."

Carlsen is all but accusing Niemann of having cheated against him. Why can't he go the extra step? Is this something his lawyers have advised him to do? (I don't have a dog in this fight)


Yes. Niemann has admitted to cheating in the past, and has apparently been banned from some past events for cheating. So Carlsen can safely relate to the public that he believes Niemann to be a "cheater". But to say for a fact that Niemann cheated in a specific match, he'd be communicating a statement of fact. If that statement is false, or could colorably be argued as false, then Niemann can take him to court for defamation, and even if Carlsen prevailed, it would still be painful and expensive.

Remember that statements of opinions, including opinions that are analyses of previously disclosed facts, are protected from defamation claims. Defamation can only consist of a damaging false statement of fact, or the allegation that you're aware of specific undisclosed facts like that to support your opinion.


Note that the above defamation is the US-based one, I believe.

Other countries have vastly different statues, and in some cases true statements of fact can be defamation (if they were not widely known, I believe).


I think the UK is that way.

You could call out Lord St. Buggering-Little-Boys, complete with films, DNA evidence, and witness testimony, and still lose (and be on the hook for legal fees).


Japan is like that - making someone look bad by publicizing their provably-true behavior is considered defamation


But he already accused Neimann of cheating ... the slander is already there.

If I were Neimann I would actually sue now.


That's why Carlsen is being very careful at what he does.

He hasn't said anything beyond provable facts, and let people read into his actions what they want.

Suing someone for defamation because they resigned to you in a tournament is going to be a pretty high bar.


Neimann has already admitted to cheating in the past, so that claim is dead.


>I believe that Niemann has cheated more - and more recently - than he has publicly admitted.

Plus, a very strong implication thag he did so at the Sinquefield Cup.

Neimann may have something.


You're allowed to make "very strong implications". The other word for that is "opinion". You're in trouble if you say "I've been given secret information that shows Neimann cheated at the Cup", but if all you're saying is "based on these factors, which by implication you yourself could evaluate, I believe he's cheating", you're offering an opinion based on disclosed facts, and that defamation claim won't survive dismissal.

(I'm not a lawyer, I just nerd out on this stuff, happy to be corrected).


In a carefully worded statement like this (clearly it has been reviewed by legal council) you will say things that cannot be charged as defamation in the appropriate courts.

It's also a gambit to get Hans to say something like "sure, Carlsen, say whatever you want" which could be used as a defense in a defamation case.

There's even a hint that Carlsen has evidence of cheating that has yet to be revealed (but not this game).


I was about to say that the word is counsel but, come to think of it, Carlsen can well afford an entire council of lawyers.


Ha! Good catch (did you have a computer help you!!!) but I daresay Carlsen's lawyer and perhaps Chess.com's have reviewed the statement.


The aforementioned Twitter Gambit first having been developed by Capablanca.


Cheaters gonna cheat. Personally I don't think Carlsen needs to elaborate any further.


If you're 49% sure someone cheated against you / would cheat against you, that's probably enough to make you never want to play against them, but also not enough to prevail in a court case.


Read his statement again. He does accuse Niemann of cheating against him at the Sinquefield Cup. His reasoning is more feel/behaviour based.


Please don't post manufactured troll quotes.


I don’t like this. You can’t just imply someone is cheating without proof or some indication of proof. I understand we need to crack down on cheating but this is not the way.


Magnus doesn't imply Niemann is cheating. He states his own belief that Niemann is cheating, and explains why he believes that to be the case.


Yah, his explanation was that Hans didn’t appear to be concentrating. Seems a bit flimsy to me.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: