Official Probe Finds Hans Niemann Didn't Cheat Against Magnus Carlsen (cnn.com) 59
15 months ago U.S. grandmaster Hans Niemannn was accused of cheating in a tournament after beating Magnus Carlsen (five-time world chess champion).
Last week a report was finally issued by the world governing body of chess, CNN reports: FIDE's report said that analysis from professor Kenneth Regan — a computer chess cheating expert — showed "instances of cheating" by Niemann in around 32-55 games on the online chess platform; far less than the 100 suggested by Chess.com. According to the FIDE report, Regan also found "discrepancies" in Niemann's statement that he had only cheated between the ages of 12 and 16. However, the games of 2017 and the games against Bok in August of 2020 occurred after he turned 17 in June. Another important discrepancy is that the cheating took place in rated online games," said the FIDE report.
The report also said there was no "statistical evidence to support GM Niemann cheating in over the-board games" in an analysis of 13 tournaments over the past three years. "Additionally, it was determined that GM NiemannÂs overall results in the Sinquefield Cup showed no statistical basis for cheating," the report said. "GM Niemann's performance through the years is characterized by peaks and troughs, consistent with his expected level of play," according to the FIDE report.
FIDE's Ethics and Disciplinary Commission (EDC) said in the report that it concluded the case was "an in-between situation," one "where a complaint can be well-founded without the suspected person not found guilty of cheating.... The EDC also found that Carlsen was not guilty on three charges — reckless or manifestly unfounded accusation of chess cheating, disparagement of FIDE's reputation and Interest, and attempt to undermine honor.
However, the EDC did find Carlsen guilty of withdrawing from the 2022 Sinquefield Cup "without valid reason." He was fined €10,000 ($10,800) as a result.
Meanwhile, Forbes reports that the world Rapid Chess Championship begins Monday in Uzbekistan and runs through December 31.
"Norwegian chess legend Magnus Carlsen will compete."
Last week a report was finally issued by the world governing body of chess, CNN reports: FIDE's report said that analysis from professor Kenneth Regan — a computer chess cheating expert — showed "instances of cheating" by Niemann in around 32-55 games on the online chess platform; far less than the 100 suggested by Chess.com. According to the FIDE report, Regan also found "discrepancies" in Niemann's statement that he had only cheated between the ages of 12 and 16. However, the games of 2017 and the games against Bok in August of 2020 occurred after he turned 17 in June. Another important discrepancy is that the cheating took place in rated online games," said the FIDE report.
The report also said there was no "statistical evidence to support GM Niemann cheating in over the-board games" in an analysis of 13 tournaments over the past three years. "Additionally, it was determined that GM NiemannÂs overall results in the Sinquefield Cup showed no statistical basis for cheating," the report said. "GM Niemann's performance through the years is characterized by peaks and troughs, consistent with his expected level of play," according to the FIDE report.
FIDE's Ethics and Disciplinary Commission (EDC) said in the report that it concluded the case was "an in-between situation," one "where a complaint can be well-founded without the suspected person not found guilty of cheating.... The EDC also found that Carlsen was not guilty on three charges — reckless or manifestly unfounded accusation of chess cheating, disparagement of FIDE's reputation and Interest, and attempt to undermine honor.
However, the EDC did find Carlsen guilty of withdrawing from the 2022 Sinquefield Cup "without valid reason." He was fined €10,000 ($10,800) as a result.
Meanwhile, Forbes reports that the world Rapid Chess Championship begins Monday in Uzbekistan and runs through December 31.
"Norwegian chess legend Magnus Carlsen will compete."
Perhaps the best result (Score:3)
Stuff happens and it appears there was a basis in the moment to consider the possibility of cheating in the match. However on further analysis there was none.
Both sides can claim some vindication, except for one throwing a tantrum and quitting. That was properly called out.
Now let's get back to the spine chilling thrills of a live chess match.
Re: (Score:1)
The only "evidence" seems to be nothing more than "He won a game that we think he shouldn't have won, therefore, he surely must be cheating." Seems very flimsy to me. What am I missing?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The only "evidence" seems to be nothing more than "He won a game that we think he shouldn't have won, therefore, he surely must be cheating." Seems very flimsy to me. What am I missing?
He was fully prepared for an obscure opening variation that Carlsen hadn't played before. He claims that it was just luck that he happened to have looked at it the day before. That's somewhat difficult to believe, as he would have been preparing for the game by studying Carlsen's known lines.
It's worth noting that being fed opening prep would never be detected as cheating. Known lines, even obscure ones, are not considered when doing cheat analysis. It has to be that way, as otherwise all GMs would appear
Re:Perhaps the best result (Score:5, Interesting)
He was fully prepared for an obscure opening variation that Carlsen hadn't played before. He claims that it was just luck that he happened to have looked at it the day before. That's somewhat difficult to believe, as he would have been preparing for the game by studying Carlsen's known lines
It may be difficult to believe, but not impossible. However unlikely you or I might want to dimiss his explanation, it is always possible that by some happenstance he did come across this obscure opening move. For example, Andrea Agassi revealed a while back how he was able to defeat Boris Becker. He watched the direction of the guy's tongue [insider.com].
In a 2017 interview with The Players Tribune's Unscriptd, Agassi said that he used to struggle mightily to return Becker's serve. Then, after some film study, he realized Becker would indicate how he was going to serve by moving his tongue.
"I started to realize he had this weird tick with his tongue," Agassi said. "I'm not kidding. He would go into his rocking motion, his same routine, and just as he was about to toss the ball, he would stick his tongue out. And it would either be right in the middle of his lip, or it'd be to the left corner of his lip.
"If he's serving in the deuce court and he put his tongue in the middle of his lip, he was either serving up the middle or to the body. But if he put it to the side, he was going to serve out wide."
Now think of how many other people watched tape of Becker to try and figure out how to beat him, and here's Agassi finding something completely obscure which helped him win.
Not saying Niemann didn't cheat, only that his explanantion can be seen as reasonable when shown against Agassi's revelation.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with this argument is that Niemann had already been caught cheating multiple times in the past, and that has to be taken into account when determining the possibility of him getting lucky in anticipating Carlsen's opening moves.
Which is more likely: That Niemann got extremely lucky, or, that a previous multi-time cheater cheated in a way undetectable by a bunch of people to counter Carlsen's unexpected opening?
It's one thing to get lucky. It's another thing for a known cheater to get "lucky".
Re:Perhaps the best result (Score:5, Interesting)
The important point that I think is being missed by most people is that being a cheat is pretty binary. Either you cheat, or you don't. Particularly for professional, world-class players, that is a very clear distinction.
If you were told that your doctor, or your banker, cheated "but not all the time", how would you feel?
IMHO Carlsen was fully justified in refusing to play the guy, even if it hasn't been proved that he actually cheated against Carlsen. It's very hard (and getting harder all the time) to detect or prove cheating at chess. If an athlete is shown to have abused drugs even once, that's it: he or she is punished (often by a long suspension). If a chess player is shown to have cheated, even once, the sport should exclude him. Whether permanently or for several years is an administrative decision.
Re: (Score:2)
If you were told that your doctor, or your banker, cheated "but not all the time", how would you feel?
Wrong question. The question is if you were told your doctor or your banker cheated in the past but there's no evidence of it being done in any recently relevant timescale, how would you feel now?
Or do you think people never change?
No one is suggesting Niemann is sporadically cheating occasionally now.
Re: (Score:2)
The question is if you were told your doctor or your banker cheated in the past but there's no evidence of it being done in any recently relevant timescale, how would you feel now?
Exactly the same. If he cheated in the past, for me to assume that he has turned over a new leaf would be a gamble. To put it another way, the relevant timescale is his adult life.
Or do you think people never change?
Substantially, that is what I believe. Of course there are exceptions. But the way to bet is on someone who is not known to have acted wrongly.
No one is suggesting Niemann is sporadically cheating occasionally now.
I don't care - and I don't suppose Carlsen does either. Someone who is known to have cheated often in a serious occupation with money at stake is not someone to trust.
Re: (Score:1)
It may be difficult to believe, but not impossible.
That's why I wrote "difficult to believe" rather than "impossible".
Re: (Score:2)
Is it really that difficult to believe, though? He could be unwinding a bit by looking at more silly plays and variations just so his mind didn't get in a rut, or the name of that opening has a name that piqued his interest when he saw it mentioned in a completely different context so he took a look at.
For the more general population it's well known what kind of rabbit holes you can fall into on TVTropes or Wikipedia; why would chess moves be any different?
Re: (Score:2)
For the more general population it's well known what kind of rabbit holes you can fall into on TVTropes or Wikipedia; why would chess moves be any different?
It'd be different because he'd be busy studying known lines. What you're describing is wasting time. That's not what elite players do or can afford to do.
Re: (Score:2)
I suck at chess, but there is something very strange about this whole story. There are a lot of vague accusations of "cheating" but I can't find anything, in any of these stories, that says SPECIFICALLY what Niemannn actually did that constitutes "cheating".
The only "evidence" seems to be nothing more than "He won a game that we think he shouldn't have won, therefore, he surely must be cheating." Seems very flimsy to me. What am I missing?
To my view the burden for what constitutes a successful accusation of cheating is pretty high. Normally I'm accustomed to the act of cheating being something done during a game/match/competition, not something done prior to it, unless it's literally either 1) equipment related, or 2) involves someone in the opponent's camp feeding one information, or feeding bad information to the opponent.
The only way I see to tamper with equipment in chess is to do something that causes discomfort to the opposing player,
official probe (Score:3, Funny)
Exactly how deep did this official probe go?
Re:official probe (Score:5, Funny)
Exactly how deep did this official probe go?
All the way.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
What is the regulation depth?
He was plugged but not connected (Score:2)
The probe revealed he was in fact wearing a butt plug but it was of the bejeweled fashion variety and contained no electronics or vibrators of any kind.
Re: (Score:3)
you definitely don't follow chess much to say nobody cares for drama, let alone saying nobody cares about Magnus Carlsen
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, no. People love drama in general. But it's stupid drama over stupid bullshit, that shouldn't not have taken well over a year to solve.
Magnus Carlsen is a little whiney, bitch. And Hans Niemann is a loser who has, for sure, cheated in the past. Both people suck in general, no matter how good they are at a game that doesn't matter.
Niemann has confessed to cheating (Score:5, Interesting)
And apparently his confession didn't even cover all his cheating. If you allow someone like that to continue to play competitively, or even just let him keep his status, you render your discipline pointless. No suspicion against a confessed or convicted cheater should be punishable, even if it turns out to be wrong. The cheater poisoned the game by destroying the trust. If you tolerate cheating even a little, you might as well stop counting.
Re: Niemann has confessed to cheating (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
He was a child. Get some perspective.
Re: (Score:2)
Entire religions are based n the idea that man can reform.
Re: (Score:1)
Online games are totally different than FIDE over the board. Online games rules and even the threshold for proof of cheating is much less than OTB. FIDE rules don't apply to online, and the reverse also applies. Online, chess.com simply accuses the player of cheating using some stats, disables their account, and often times the player just admits to cheating simply because they want to play again, even if they didn't cheat. Most of it is done in private.
TONS of grandmasters have been found cheating onli
Re: (Score:2)
The guy cheats once, he should get a warning. He cheats twice, he gets a suspension. He cheats 50 times- WTF is he ever allowed to play again?
Re: (Score:2)
I think your comment is stupid. That's it, done. You can't ever recover from this. Nothing you say now is relevant because you made a comment I consider stupid so everything you say will be considered stupid going forward. People don't change (according to your stupid comment), so I feel the need to afford your the same respect you are affording someone who admitted to cheating *long ago*, and who under analysis hasn't been identified as a cheat in any recent memory.
I wonder (Score:2)
Niemann had filed a $100 million defamation lawsuit against Chess.com, ... but it was dismissed by a judge in June, CNN previously reported.
I wonder if Niemann can refile the suite ? To me he was defamed due to the rush of judgement chess.com and others did.
Re: (Score:2)
That makes Carlson, and countless other GMs cheaters as well. Don't be stupid.
A life lesson. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I assume you mean Carlson's reputation.
Re: (Score:3)
Neimann is a victim. Why so many people are quick to destroy his reputation because scumbag Magnus Carlsen threw a tantrum after losing his streak and falsely accused him of cheating.
It's bullshit. Neimann's once bright future is in jeopardy and his reputation is forever marred because Magnus Carlsen is a crybaby and chess.com is corrupt.
So much drama in the world of chess! (Score:1)
The last time I got this upset about unsportsmanlike conduct in a board game was when my brother-in-law cheated at Scrabble last Friday.
*Yawn*
headline accuracy (Score:5, Insightful)
The governing body investigation did not find that he didn't cheat - it instead said they could not conclude that he did cheat. The distinction matters because the first statement implies a proof of innocence, which was not given, but instead the conclusion of a statistical analysis, by a single person, was that it could not be shown *from the data they looked at* that cheating did occur.
Lance Armstrong won seven medals before finally being caught.
Re: (Score:3)
The headline is not only inaccurate, it's also truncated. The full version adds "... but did cheat in up to 55 online games". He consistently cheated until he got caught. That there is no evidence he cheating in one particular game does not buys him a new virtue. Also the sentence "far less than the 100 suggested by Chess.com" is weird to me, 55 times is neither "far less" not more excusable than 100.
Re: (Score:2)
Right.
I expect that someone that wants to become a champion at any sport doesn't cheat even once.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? Here in reality, cheating at the top-level, in apparently everything, is disgracefully common. Do you think these people just suddenly start cheating when they reach the top?
Niemann cheated as a child. Hell, he's still just a kid. Odds are his prefrontal cortex still isn't fully developed. He also claims his cheating was to move up the ranks faster, which makes sense. Children are impatient, after all, and he probably didn't see anything wrong with it as he wasn't cheating in any game that mat
Re:headline accuracy (Score:4, Informative)
Niemann cheated as a child...he probably didn't see anything wrong with it as he wasn't cheating in any game that mattered.
He claimed he only cheated until he was 16, but the report confirmed that he continued to cheat beyond when he claimed and that he did so in matches that mattered. From the summary above:
According to the FIDE report, Regan also found "discrepancies" in Niemann's statement that he had only cheated between the ages of 12 and 16...[T]he games against Bok in August of 2020 occurred after he turned 17 in June. Another important discrepancy is that the cheating took place in rated online games," said the FIDE report.
Re: (Score:1)
between the ages of 12 and 16...[T]he games against Bok in August of 2020 occurred after he turned 17 in June.
Oh, no! Two months! That's ... really some discrepancy they found there. Totally changes everything ::eyeroll:: Of course, that's assuming you trust FIDEs conclusions, which I'm guessing is based on whatever they got from chess.com, which is not a trustworthy source.
Speaking of discrepancies, how about the massive difference between the numbers chess.com was throwing around and what we got from FIDE? That looks an awful lot like a corrupt organization lying to protect their own interests.
I'm hardly wo
Re: (Score:3)
What's different about Niemann? Only that he's at the center of Magnus Carlsen's little toddler tantrum. That's all this is. Carlson is trying to ruin this kids future because he was embarrassed. It's disgusting.
Seriously? Some cheating is okay? It's a "tantrum" to be bothered by cheating?
Well, if nothing else, things like this really illuminate the different mental worlds that people live in.
Re: (Score:1)
Are you just immune to facts? Carlsen's accusations were false. They were a complete fabrication. They were not true. Carlsen lied. This isn't difficult.
Carlsen was embarrassed that he lost, so he decided to lie and ruin a kids reputation and career.
Carlsen lied about Neimann cheating.
How many ways do I need to say it?
Re: (Score:2)
"we'll never know how many games they've found Carlsen cheating in"
I'm a decent chess player, 2300 rating. Carlsen was a world class player in his early teens and would have easily beat me at my current level. In my opinion he has never cheated and doesn't need to. Just look at what he can do when he's drunk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
We know that top players cheat all the time, in just about every competitive activity from professional sports to video games. It doesn't matter if the need to cheat to stay on top, many of them do anyway. No one can perform at their best 100% of the time, so a lot of top players feel justified in cheating to bring them up to their 'normal' level of performance. Others feel justified in cheating because they've seen other top players cheating and want to 'level the playing field'.
Odds are very good that
Re: (Score:2)
The headline is not only inaccurate, it's also truncated. The full version adds "... but did cheat in up to 55 online games"
That kind of says it all right there, doesn't it? A position is pretty lame if it needs this kind of headline manipulation to support it.
Carlsen should be found guilty on all 3 charges (Score:1)
If it was anyone else rather than the "golden boy of Chess", then FIDE would have thrown the book at them. This is disgusting favoritism towards Carlsen. He got butthurt because he was beaten fair and square by a youngster, and he cried like a baby. He's guilty of all the things. What a dirty dog
Re: (Score:3)
Found Niemann's Slashdot account!
The guy confessed to cheating before and was found to have cheated dozens of times. Saying you think a known cheater is cheating should absolutely not be punishable, especially given his incredibly lame excuse for being prepared for an opening Carlsen had never played before.
Re: Carlsen should be found guilty on all 3 charge (Score:2)
This isn't difficult to figure out (Score:3)
The American was caught cheating not once or twice, but repeatedly. So now, it is alleged that he cheated again but there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove conclusively that he did so.
Which is more likely: a confessed cheater didn't cheat again, or he simply found a way to cheat and get away with it?
My money's on the latter.
Re: (Score:3)
If you apply Occam's Razor it is equally likely and an equally simple explanation that someone whom he beat has used his past reputation against him to aid his tantrum throwing.
So yes it is quite plausible someone who confessed to cheating in the past didn't cheat this time. But it's far easier to simply pass judgement on someone than actually identify if cheating actually occurred.
Re: (Score:2)
So you allege Carlsen used his "past reputation" against Niemann "to aid his tantrum throwing?" Carlsen's current ratings are: Classical 2830, Rapid 2808, Blitz 2616, with an overall ranking of #1. Niemann's ratings are: Classical 2660, Rapid 2577, Blitz 2616 , with an overall ranking of #77. That's as of today, December 24, 2023. In fact, some have suggested that the increased scrutiny is making it harder for Niemann to...well, let's just say, conduct business as usual, and he appears to be on his w
Re: (Score:2)
No I alleged nothing about Carlsen's reputation. Reread my post.