This is why i think Hans Niemann is cheating

@kasparovbab said in #49:
> GM Susan Polgar tweeted those stats who speak by itself ...
> twitter.com/SusanPolgar/status/1568835715437305859

Those stats are super lame, obviously done by someone who doesn't understand statistics

1) Cherrypicked small time period
2) No control for opposition rating. Could it be that live events have much stronger fields? You lose points if you draw vs a weaker player
3) No context - find another player and do the same analysis for them > is such a variance unusual?

Here are FM Punin's analysis of what he thinks are suspicious OverTheBoard events played by Hans Niemann, including the tournament that secured his GM title :

youtu.be/AG9XeSPflrU
youtu.be/8pwtC0bH--A

Anyone else bored of all the speculation?

If there's proof - actual proof - let's see it. Otherwise I wish the self-appointed chess police would keep their suspicions to themselves.

@Onyx_Chess said in #41:
> @esmiro
>
> This is *complete speculation*...but just like finding the solution to a chess puzzle...all of the pieces fit:
>
> 1. Hans hacked Carlsen's chesscom account and gained access to Carlsen's opening prep.
> 2. Carlsen was made aware of the password breach prior to the game.
> 3. Hans behaved as though he knew Carlsen's prep.
> 4. Carlsen, shaken, couldn't focus or concentrate on the game.
> 5. Hans wins.
> 6. Carlsen leaves the tournament.
> 7. Chesscom sees what's occurred and bans Hans for life.
> 8. Hans admits to cheating for 4 years at his interview.
> 9. Hans' hometown fans rally behind Hans instead of asking questions.
> 10. Chesscom issues a statement saying that Hans lied about the frequency and severity of his cheating.
>
> These pieces fit together and make sense.
>
> Fact #1: Hans Niemann would own chesscom if they didn't have an entire mountain of evidence to back up their actions and their statements...and chesscom most likely has strong attourneys signing off on everything that they do/don't do.
>
> Rebuttal: Hans is going to successfully sue chesscom. < - - - Doesn't make sense.
>
> -
>
> Fact #2: Magnus would never leave a tournament without an extremely good reason.
>
> Rebuttal: Magnus sometimes gets grumpy when he loses. < - - - Doesn't make sense.
@Onyx_Chess said in #41:
> @esmiro
>
> This is *complete speculation*...but just like finding the solution to a chess puzzle...all of the pieces fit:
>
> 1. Hans hacked Carlsen's chesscom account and gained access to Carlsen's opening prep.
> 2. Carlsen was made aware of the password breach prior to the game.
> 3. Hans behaved as though he knew Carlsen's prep.
> 4. Carlsen, shaken, couldn't focus or concentrate on the game.
> 5. Hans wins.

If you were a GM preparing for a Tournament would you save all the opening prepon chess.com, where there is even a small possibility it gets hacked, or on your hard drive?

MICRO-CHIPS

@radiomartin said in #53:

> Anyone else bored of all the speculation?
>
> If there's proof - actual proof - let's see it. Otherwise I wish the self-appointed chess police would keep their suspicions to themselves.

The cause of this is not Magnus, not Chesscom, nor everyone here reacting.

The action was Hans dedicating himself to cheating chess players for 4 years.
Everything that's annoying you was caused by him and cheaters like him.

If I were Carlsen, I would have probably kept the rule of "ALWAYS MITIGATE SUSPICION" and I'd have kept everything behind closed doors...but before we can challenge Carlsen on this point...we have to challenge Hans about the damage that cheating for 4 years caused, and how Magnus' reaction might be a part of that chain of cause and consequence.

So be annoyed with the chess world and all of the gossip, and be annoyed with Carlsen for causing more suspicion to occur; however, also make sure that you're more annoyed with all cheaters, and with Hans' cheating in the past and/or in the present.

-

@NiemandH

I've never seen metal detectors at Sinquefield until this year.
This is, traditionally, a tournament that's played among close friends and close colleagues.

I find it impossible to think that any of the regular participants would ever cheat.
Not only because they don't have the character for it, but also because they all enjoy post-game banter and explaining all of the key points, in depth, and how it's just a fun and enjoyable time that none of them would think to destroy by cheating.

Yes, if I was participating in the Sinquefiled cup as Carlsen, I would absolutely keep my opening preparation in my chess.com account.

-

*** Honestly, I wish that all of this had been kept behind the scenes, but if it's to come to the forefront, then let us all, collectively, recognize the nasty and derogatory negativity that cheating pollutes the chess world with, and lets all stand united against it.

I wish that Hans never spent 4 years cheating people.
I wish that Carlsen didn't react as he did.
I wish that the word "cheat" didn't show up in these forums except to speak out against the damage that suspicion does, the amazing job that Lichess does preventing it, and how minimal it actually is and how surprisingly few people actually choose to do it. ***

-

It's a fact that the public suspicion around cheating has always caused more damage than the actual cheating itself.

On the downside, that cat's now pretty much out of the bag and cheating will soon be as bad as it can possibly get.
On the upside, if online chess can survive it, then it's only going to be uphill from here.

Cheaters will get bored and quit, cheaters will get banned, and there will be less and less of them moving into the future.

@Nomoreusernames said in #2:

> Those that are claiming he is cheating, without evidence, are actually committing not just what has been considered the worst type of lie (even looking all the way back into the history of humanity), but actually a criminal act. Chess players with a career in law have voiced how Hans would have a simple win in court on this matter.

Those chess players are absolutely wrong. Defamation cases are never simple wins. Period. Anybody saying that has no clue what they're talking about. Even defamation per se cases where you don't even need to prove damages because they're implied by the heinous nature of the defamatory statements are difficult to win by a plaintiff due to the strong first amendment protections in US courts.

Also, lying about one's role in war crimes is without a doubt far worse than baselessly accusing someone of cheating in chess. The idea that this kind of lie is the worst in the history of humanity is hilariously asinine.

And I thought the r/chess subreddit had terrible takes. Wow.

He might have progressed faster than other players, but there are younger players who are stronger than him... Progress is not always linear, as bobby fischer said, "I just became good". He also worked his butt off and has played a lot of games in a short time.

I do not necessarily agree he was unable to explain his moves well, more so in posterior interviews, when he was under stress from the whole ordeal. In the first interview right after beating carlsen the explanations were alright. But let's say he sometimes explains things badly.

You think if he was cheating, he would be unable to explain the moves of the engine? He is a pretty good player by all means, even in OTB blitz (narrowly lost to MVL, the world champ in that format). Even in seconds he can tell you something, good enough for an interview, nevermind if he had the whole game to think about it. He was just tired after a long game.

He cheated ONLINE. You act way different online versus in person. In the milgram experiment, it was easier to disobey the orders of the authority if they talked to people through a phone versus in person. We can see every day how badly people treat each other online, we get into discussions with people that we do not know. We see people rage quitting bullet games and promoting 5 queens to troll, we see people moving their knights back and forth in bullet- who would have the guts to do that OTB? You would be embarassed. Who would have guts to insult someone else OTB after losing? A lot less people, you just don't do it. In real life, we act more polished.

It's easy to forget that we are talking to an actual person if we can not see them. Also a problem if we all wear masks. Not seeing the other person's face, we can dehumanize them more easily, and treat them wrong.

Also cheating online is just so easy. To come up with a method to cheat OTB, that alone is really difficult.

It's easy to believe that Neimann beat Carlsen. No human being is infallible. I see that Carlsen has been shaking as of late, in his games, and just I see that many times he looks stressed. And kids can be good.

@Bionaut said in #20:
> All comes down to this where is the evidence? All I see are accusations.

this is not a court room. people are allowed to explain why they have any opinions.
These do not have to fulfill "without reasonable doubt" criteria but should respect common sense. You are allowed to have no opinion and no thoughts, of course.

The bulletproof evidence for all thinkable events around the game with carlsen is in HN s hands.