To be fair to Hans, his claim is he cheated in a prize money tournament when he was 12. If he cheated in prize money games besides that it would be different, but I think most people are willing to forgive a 12 year old.

He's admitted to cheating at 12 years old and at 16 years old (just 3 years ago)

And the worst part is that Chess.com released a statement saying they've suspended Niemann's account because they have evidence that his cheating was not limited to these two instances. They've invited him to look at the evidence and respond privately to their concerns but it is not publicly known if he has done so.

Yes, the maturity jump from 16 to 19 is marginal at best. If you generalize from crime statistics, a 19 year old is actually more likely to be dishonest than a 16 year old. Criminality peaks in the late teens and drops in the early 20s.

https://pinkerton.com/our-insights/blog/age-crime-curve

(Yes yes I know, Pinkerton are evil. they have the best plot of this correlation I could find. The crime-age correlation is the strongest that exists in the entire field of criminology.)

I wonder if you plotted "risk/reward" behavior during that same time if you'd get a similar curve, just going to show that adolescents are bad at risk/reward calculations.

It is relevant to remember that he "admitted" to cheating on two different occasions only after he was caught and banned for doing so. He did not voluntarily come forward and confess of his own volition.

This is the biggest suspicious fact. That he only cheated two times and was caught both times is a bit hard to believe.

Just 3 years ago in that age is a lot. Also he said that he didn't cheat in prize money tournaments or tournaments at all at 16, he cheated because he wanted to boost his rating and play better players, not saying that is okay. I don't know if he cheated against Magnus or not, but to say that he cheated because something he did at twelve is stupid. Magnus saying that Hans wasn't tense and concentrated is far more important than this other stuff.

He only (recently) admitted to those two cases because he was publicly outed. It seems extremely unlikely that the only two times he was caught was also the only two times he cheated. I think it's very probable he has cheated dozens or hundreds of times and not been caught or not been publicly outed for it.

Right but the claim he made is at 16 he cheated only in no-stakes games, not for prize money.

That argument doesn’t make sense to me. If someone has acknowledged that they will cheat when there are NO stakes, why does that make it less likely they will cheat if something is on the line?

If anything someone who is already known to cheat “just because” is even more likely to cheat when there is something to gain.

The claim in the original comment that I replied to was that Hans had admitted to cheating in "real, official, prize money online tournaments", which was when he was 12.

As for cheating and stakes I think it all depends. His claim is he cheated when he was 16 to boost his rating so he could player higher level opponents on stream and boost his career. If you accept that claim it would make sense that he rationalized it that he was just cheating to get to his "true" Elo and stopped cheating once he got there. Now Chess.Com seems to believe that he cheated beyond that but they haven't specified more at this point.

How can a game be no-stakes and also rating-boosting?

It sounds like he's saying he cheated to get to where he was going faster, but that he would have gotten there eventually so it's fine.

It would be like Armstrong saying he only cheated during trials and training.

Well steroids and doping are different because they effect your body but sure, if Armstrong had cheated during trials with something like a small motor but not during the actual tour it would have tarnished his legacy but I don't think it would have ruined it like his cheating did.

You realize you're putting your trust in the word of someone admitting they cheated. It only goes downhill from there.

> He's admitted to cheating at 12 years old and at 16 years old (just 3 years ago)

I see the pattern forming. He clearly has improved his play since but he could also have improved the cheating technique, as others pointed out, just needing a hint or two in the most decisive moments of the game. Has he not cheated against Magnus it's a pity that he got accused with no proofs.

Chess.com (Magnus is a 20% shareholder) did put out a public statement calling out Niemann for cheating more than the once or twice that Niemann admitted to. Chess.com forwarded evidence to Niemann. We're still waiting for a response.

The Chess.com merger has not closed yet. Magnus is not an owner.

If it's reasonable for a 12yo to be able to play in a for-money tourney, then I don't think it's unreasonable to think they should know the difference between right and wrong.

Then why should they be able to win money off adults?

Classic "have your cake and eat it too". If you want to play in tournaments with adult prizes then you should expect adult consequences for misbehavior.

They shouldn't be able to. But either way, kids don't have adult brains, and there's nothing anyone can do about that. They are physically different. You can't expect a 12 year old to dunk a basketball, and you can't expect a 12 year old to think like an adult.

He admitted to cheating at 16. He's only 19 now.

Look, maybe he did not cheat but it's hard to prove he didn't nor that he did. The fact that historically he's not blemish free makes it harder to celebrate his victory. Tough luck indeed..

It's one thing to say an old man cheated when he was 12 years old, it's yet another to say a 19 year old did it just a handful of years ago. He's still a kid.

My intuition is that there's evidence out there that shows he cheated more, but people grow up a lot from age 12 to 19. That time period is basically the entirety of adolescence! I don't think it's fair to pin the actions of their 12 year old self on a 19 year old.

> but people grow up a lot from age 12 to 19.

I did broadly equivalent stupid shit when I was 12, 16, 19... I don't think I mellowed out until I was 25-30. 19 is young, 19 year olds are generally still in their peak stupid teenager years. Crime stats back this up: https://pinkerton.com/our-insights/blog/age-crime-curve

Again, as so many others have already pointed out, he was caught cheating at age 12 and again at age 16.

It's a third of his life ago. Were you the same person at 19 as you were at 12?

The trust is broken and equating it to fractions of someones life is the wrong measure. What has he done since he cheated at 12? Oh, he cheated in random games at 16. Surefire way to rebuild trust...

He cheated at 16 by his own admission.

A third of a life at 19 is barely a life at all

It is very unlikely a 2700 GM can beat Magnus on black pieces.

Moreover the live coverage showed an Hans way too relaxed about moves with 100% accuracy he was pulling.

He could also not give an explanation about of his moves in the game in an interview.

This, coupled with Magnus complaining about low security standards in the tournament make all the things very suspicious.

But cheating wouldn't explain a relaxed state. You could easily expect that he'd be nervous as fuck to cheat OTB against Carlsen. This is just wildly speculative and ultimately meaningless.

Sherlock Holmes used to say that a clue is just a clue, two clues are just two clues, but three clues make a proof.

Except that you can't really call things a clue if you're just looking for things to confirm your existing opinion. Any stance Hans could have had during that game could be construed as indication of him cheating.

People just spewing their garbage everywhere around this. It is amazing. It is almost like politics. It is crazy how people are getting about this issue.

But you can't go about punishing him this way.

If FIDE or Chess.com or whoever wanted to ban him from events for his past behavior--or players simply wanted to ostracize him by refusing to play in tournaments with him--they needed to have banned/ostracized him for that behavior. I don't think anyone would complain if Niemann were caught cheating and then permanently banned. That's what Carlsen implies he's after and it's fine.

In contrast, this is "well, you cheated in the past, but we're going to let you play, unless you play really well, in which case we'll assume you cheated". This is just not a sane way to go about it, and creates the scenario in which Niemann is playing with a sort of externally-imposed skill cap. An accusation has to come with evidence specific to that accusation, not some hazy combination of past history + unease with his play. This all sounds like a slow-motion tantrum, which Carlsen can get away with because he's Magnus Carlsen.

> This all sounds like a slow-motion tantrum, which Carlsen can get away with because he's Magnus Carlsen.

Unlike Hans history of cheating, Magnus does not have a history of baseless accusations when he loses (which he has on many occasions).

> which Carlsen can get away with because he's Magnus Carlsen.

Exactly.

I could also decide to cheat when being in the top players in the world. Even better, because I would only need to use my cheats sometimes and hide it even better because my knowledge holds up enough.

Yes and I think this is the real risk that Magnus or others who cares about chess are worried about. Not the 1200 player who plays like the world champion which is blatently obvious, but a 2700 player who selectively uses computer assistance to play like a 2800 and get into the elite circuit of the top players (which also is where all the money is).

The second best player in the world would be best positioned to cheat; they'd need a small advantage to become best.

And the best player in the world could cheat, too, reducing their mental load and taking it easy.

Both cases would likely be exposed by the cheaters getting lazy.

I don't think you become the best or second best player through a mindset that includes "I'll cheat if that's what it takes to reach the top".

All the history of doping in the Olympics would disagree.

It is possible that some people can reach quite a high level but top out in their natural abilities well below the absolute top of the game and be incentivized to cheat to break through their personal, natural ceiling.

Or even further, look at professional cycling in the 90s and 2000s. It wasn't just people doping to break through their ceiling to reach the top, literally everyone at the top was doping and it was necessary to be able to keep up.

Even worse than "some people are cheating to make it to the elite level" would be "everyone at the elite level is cheating, you can't compete without cheating".

No, but once you’re there, it becomes an easier mental hurdle to jump over, because they’re already incredibly talented and skilled. They can justify it with phrases like “it’s just a small edge to help. I could easily do it myself with more training but this is easier/faster/more bulletproof”. you’ll find that at the top level morals can be corrupted easier because it’s such a small edge needed. Oh, i’ll only use the move generator once, i’ll only use it to catch obvious blunders, etc.

Lance Armstrong would like a word with you.

Only two kinds of bike racers: cheaters and losers.

> Maybe Hans did cheat OTB, maybe he didn't, but the tough part about reputation is it is very hard to build and very easy to break.

The problem is this was true a month ago. And a year ago. And 2 years ago. If he should be banned by reputation then it should have already happened. If they do it now they just weaponize cheating accusations.

As an outsider to the chess world, this all seems like a roundabout way of saying "we have no evidence that he cheated, but in lieu of evidence let's go with gut feelings".

A documented history of cheating online counts as "no evidence" in your book?

Is a conviction evidence of a future crime? No, it isn't.

It certainly doesn't help his case. If you have had troubles with the law prior to a new crime, it gets taken into consideration negatively by the judge. Same with cheaters. It means he is a cheater by definition and has the moral compass to cheat again.

It is zero evidence that Hans has ever cheated OTB, yeah.

Past criminal behavior is routinely admitted as evidence in court.

It's not proof, but it is evidence.

You're refusing to see this, by the way. You're capable of understanding what I said without me saying it.

This isn't a court, and it isn't criminal behavior. If it was a court and it was criminal behavior, we'd expect innocent until proven guilty and the benefit of the doubt. Which no one is giving Hans.

Is criminal activity as a minor used as evidence in Adult trials? I feel like that should hold less water

Not exactly. Chess GMs have a somewhat "over-fitted gut." On studies done on their memory, they could routinely recall a chess board after seeing that board for only a few moments provided that the layout the pieces could be reached in a regular game. When the board was laid out in an unlikely manner, they performed no better than the control group.[1]

Let's say you arrive home with your 2y/o child and are greeted with dog shit on the floor. If I asked the 2y/o who shat on the floor they wouldn't be able to answer, but you could easily deduce that the dog did it. Why? Because you have an immense bank of experience concerning everyday causality that the 2y/o doesn't have.

Magnus has a bank of human chess moves in his mind, that we don't. He knows that the dog shat on the floor.

And keep in mind that Magnus has not thrown this accusation around in the past, even in the face of defeat.

[1]: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brain-study-shows...

It kinda smacks of some deficit in the modern game. Consider a hypothetical chess player who does not cheat, never has cheated, but through some combination of the occasional atypical move or odd behavior, makes players think they are cheating.

They seem to be saying that such behavior can confer an advantage — that to seem to be cheating is itself cheating.

I say we carry on like normal. Either Niemann's success falls apart, he messes up and gets caught, or we find out he's actually onto something brilliant.

That comment seems pretty damning. Maybe it would help your point to link rebuttal.

He did cheat in impactful events, and he admitted it.

I cheated with your wife, but would you like to go to dinner with me to discuss business? I promise I won't do it again.

Thanks

That's exactly what this means.