Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

The Elephant in the Room

Let's face it, FIDE is struggling OTB to keep the games fair. There is no way they have resources to start trying to ban people based on online events. And that will hardly change.

Let's face it, FIDE is struggling OTB to keep the games fair. There is no way they have resources to start trying to ban people based on online events. And that will hardly change.

Thanks for the write-up. In retrospect, and considering his current "true skill level", the evidence tried against Niemann is even weaker than it looked, because he clearly has that skill level that they tried to argue he didn't grow to naturally. Also I don't think a player can even grow like that while cheating structurally. How would you learn, while basically conditioning yourself to lose in any real game?

Sure. He has admitted to cheating in two games as a teen. That is not nothing, but cheating in your teens should not be punished by a lifelong sentence, as some here argue. He clearly loves the game and is talented enough to play it without help. I think bans could work, but only if they allow for some form of redemption, for example after three or five years, also taking into account the age of the offending player, the type of game (casual, ranked or prize).

What is miss in Niemann's comments about this, is to simply acknowledge what he has done by cheating. I believe in forgiveness as much as the next person, but can't he at least confess what he needs forgiven? Hans has said that he is sorry for cheating back then, but his apology sounded weak and he hasn't explained to us why he is sorry. Maybe only because he got caught?

He should be sorry, because by cheating you disrespect your opponent and harm the entire game, not just the win you're stealing. I think such a statement from Hans (something along the lines of "I took a huge dump on the game you all love") would mean more to the community than playing the victim and using his mental health and covid as an explanation/excuse.

I don't know what to think about Carlsen. He seems to be hiding the evidence he is acting on. If he held the same evidence we do, these actions would be themselves unworthy of his stature. Perhaps he has seen evidence that was illegally obtained by chess.com. Then again, he knows more about the game than any of us, so it's not impossible he has seen something we wouldn't.

Thanks for the write-up. In retrospect, and considering his current "true skill level", the evidence tried against Niemann is even weaker than it looked, because he clearly has that skill level that they tried to argue he didn't grow to naturally. Also I don't think a player can even grow like that while cheating structurally. How would you learn, while basically conditioning yourself to lose in any real game? Sure. He has admitted to cheating in two games as a teen. That is not nothing, but cheating in your teens should not be punished by a lifelong sentence, as some here argue. He clearly loves the game and is talented enough to play it without help. I think bans could work, but only if they allow for some form of redemption, for example after three or five years, also taking into account the age of the offending player, the type of game (casual, ranked or prize). What is miss in Niemann's comments about this, is to simply acknowledge what he has done by cheating. I believe in forgiveness as much as the next person, but can't he at least confess what he needs forgiven? Hans has said that he is sorry for cheating back then, but his apology sounded weak and he hasn't explained to us why he is sorry. Maybe only because he got caught? He should be sorry, because by cheating you disrespect your opponent and harm the entire game, not just the win you're stealing. I think such a statement from Hans (something along the lines of "I took a huge dump on the game you all love") would mean more to the community than playing the victim and using his mental health and covid as an explanation/excuse. I don't know what to think about Carlsen. He seems to be hiding the evidence he is acting on. If he held the same evidence we do, these actions would be themselves unworthy of his stature. Perhaps he has seen evidence that was illegally obtained by chess.com. Then again, he knows more about the game than any of us, so it's not impossible he has seen something we wouldn't.

@biscuitfiend said in #19:

Is it possible to cheat, knowing that it is wrong, then later your moral compass changes (is "fixed", for lack of a better word)?

You conveniently leave this possibility out of your list, but if the answer to my question is "yes" then your argument falls apart.

No, my main argument, which I stated multiple times, is that it's not fair to other players to have to wonder if their opponent who has cheated in the past is willing to cheat again. When you choose to cheat in chess, your personal interests in regard to chess should permanently be secondary to protecting people who didn't cheat from any psychological barriers/distractions no matter how small of an affect that may have on people.

I think everyone can probably agree that if Niemann wasn't cheating against Magnus Carlsen, Magnus likely had some sort of mental barrier that somewhat inhibited his performance. It's simply ridiculously unfair that someone who hasn't cheated has to deal with any sort of additional obstacle due to playing against someone who has cheated in the past. Niemann can't control how other players feel about playing him, but ultimately his decision to cheat in the past has given him a lasting unfair psychological advantage.

If in the future a player were to cheat and then be permanently banned from chess after having learned his lesson and having permanently fixed his moral compass -- if that's possible -- that would be unfortunate, but every possible consideration needs to be made for everyone else first before considering the interests of the hopefully reformed cheater.

Since any sort of distraction or mental factor that causes a player to question his ability to beat his opponent can slightly degrade performance, and since it's unfair for a proven cheater to derive any sort of miniscule advantage BECAUSE of his past cheating, the only fair solution is a permanent ban from competing.

@biscuitfiend said in #19: > Is it possible to cheat, knowing that it is wrong, then later your moral compass changes (is "fixed", for lack of a better word)? > > You conveniently leave this possibility out of your list, but if the answer to my question is "yes" then your argument falls apart. No, my main argument, which I stated multiple times, is that it's not fair to other players to have to wonder if their opponent who has cheated in the past is willing to cheat again. When you choose to cheat in chess, your personal interests in regard to chess should permanently be secondary to protecting people who didn't cheat from any psychological barriers/distractions no matter how small of an affect that may have on people. I think everyone can probably agree that if Niemann wasn't cheating against Magnus Carlsen, Magnus likely had some sort of mental barrier that somewhat inhibited his performance. It's simply ridiculously unfair that someone who hasn't cheated has to deal with any sort of additional obstacle due to playing against someone who has cheated in the past. Niemann can't control how other players feel about playing him, but ultimately his decision to cheat in the past has given him a lasting unfair psychological advantage. If in the future a player were to cheat and then be permanently banned from chess after having learned his lesson and having permanently fixed his moral compass -- if that's possible -- that would be unfortunate, but every possible consideration needs to be made for everyone else first before considering the interests of the hopefully reformed cheater. Since any sort of distraction or mental factor that causes a player to question his ability to beat his opponent can slightly degrade performance, and since it's unfair for a proven cheater to derive any sort of miniscule advantage BECAUSE of his past cheating, the only fair solution is a permanent ban from competing.

@salkkuman said in #21:

Let's face it, FIDE is struggling OTB to keep the games fair. There is no way they have resources to start trying to ban people based on online events. And that will hardly change.

Resources? All they would have to do is cooperate with a few entities like lichess and chesscom to ban titled players who can be indisputably shown to have cheated. (I specify titled players because they have to identify themselves in order to have their title displayed, and realistically no one who is untitled is well known enough to derive a psychological advantage over their competition from cheating online.) I refuse to believe that FIDE can't find a way to work something out with chesscom and lichess to access evidence for bans of titled players, which is a rare event.

Of course, FIDE would have to establish this as a rule and then only ban people who cheat online after the rule goes into effect. I'm not suggesting that FIDE should create a new rule and retroactively enforce it to ban someone like Niemann.

@salkkuman said in #21: > Let's face it, FIDE is struggling OTB to keep the games fair. There is no way they have resources to start trying to ban people based on online events. And that will hardly change. Resources? All they would have to do is cooperate with a few entities like lichess and chesscom to ban titled players who can be indisputably shown to have cheated. (I specify titled players because they have to identify themselves in order to have their title displayed, and realistically no one who is untitled is well known enough to derive a psychological advantage over their competition from cheating online.) I refuse to believe that FIDE can't find a way to work something out with chesscom and lichess to access evidence for bans of titled players, which is a rare event. Of course, FIDE would have to establish this as a rule and then only ban people who cheat online after the rule goes into effect. I'm not suggesting that FIDE should create a new rule and retroactively enforce it to ban someone like Niemann.

@Titmouseace said in #12:

While the problem of cheating is indeed quite acute, it's important to keep the chesscom and their so-called (self-proclaimed) "experts" away from any official solution to that. It's even more important to remember that chesscom is an enterprise aiming at making money, and their interest in fair and professional chess is situational. In that regard, any discussion on anti-cheating measures in offline tournaments should kick off with a clear statement about the ample differences between online and offline chess, thus emphasizing the irrelevance of any measures undertaken by chesscom or other private online services for the real (= offline) chess competitions.

This is a bizarre comment. Chess is chess. It's the same game online and offline. Cheating in chess online is absolutely unacceptable behavior, especially for a titled player.

As for this conspiracy theory that chesscom can't be trusted to ban cheaters... Do you really think that false positive bans are a significant problem? Not everyone who cheats gets caught, but certainly everyone who gets caught cheated.

@Titmouseace said in #12: > While the problem of cheating is indeed quite acute, it's important to keep the chesscom and their so-called (self-proclaimed) "experts" away from any official solution to that. It's even more important to remember that chesscom is an enterprise aiming at making money, and their interest in fair and professional chess is situational. In that regard, any discussion on anti-cheating measures in offline tournaments should kick off with a clear statement about the ample differences between online and offline chess, thus emphasizing the irrelevance of any measures undertaken by chesscom or other private online services for the real (= offline) chess competitions. This is a bizarre comment. Chess is chess. It's the same game online and offline. Cheating in chess online is absolutely unacceptable behavior, especially for a titled player. As for this conspiracy theory that chesscom can't be trusted to ban cheaters... Do you really think that false positive bans are a significant problem? Not everyone who cheats gets caught, but certainly everyone who gets caught cheated.

But how magnus carlsen resign in just 2 moves

But how magnus carlsen resign in just 2 moves

Carlsen's desition not to play with Hans shows other potential cheaters that they are wasting their time... that's good move, and if Hans was clean he would understand that... I'm afraid that Hans isn't mature enough to understand that... and the whole situation showed just how mouch he respects the game, and other players... suing Carlsen and others... that's low...

Carlsen's desition not to play with Hans shows other potential cheaters that they are wasting their time... that's good move, and if Hans was clean he would understand that... I'm afraid that Hans isn't mature enough to understand that... and the whole situation showed just how mouch he respects the game, and other players... suing Carlsen and others... that's low...

@Wumpi said in #15:

Cheating of any kind, in any arena, by a player who's old enough to thoroughly understand that cheating is wrong needs to be met with a 0 tolerance policy by FIDE.

Cool, so you would agree then that Magnus Carlsen should be permanently banned for playing on a friend's account? That is cheating according to the lichess tos. And also the time he received help from David Howell during a titled tuesday event. Maybe they should both be permanently banned in the name of zero tolerance.

@Wumpi said in #15: > Cheating of any kind, in any arena, by a player who's old enough to thoroughly understand that cheating is wrong needs to be met with a 0 tolerance policy by FIDE. Cool, so you would agree then that Magnus Carlsen should be permanently banned for playing on a friend's account? That is cheating according to the lichess tos. And also the time he received help from David Howell during a titled tuesday event. Maybe they should both be permanently banned in the name of zero tolerance.

@mudbayrooks said in #28:

Cool, so you would agree then that Magnus Carlsen should be permanently banned for playing on a friend's account? That is cheating according to the lichess tos. And also the time he received help from David Howell during a titled tuesday event. Maybe they should both be permanently banned in the name of zero tolerance.

  1. I literally just said in my last reply that I think no one should be retroactively banned.
  2. I'm not engaging in animalistic tribal screech fights. I'm not on team Magnus against your team Niemann.

This sort of sarcastic nitpicking shows that you don't have any interest in discussing the actual issue. You just want to argue.

@mudbayrooks said in #28: > Cool, so you would agree then that Magnus Carlsen should be permanently banned for playing on a friend's account? That is cheating according to the lichess tos. And also the time he received help from David Howell during a titled tuesday event. Maybe they should both be permanently banned in the name of zero tolerance. 1. I literally just said in my last reply that I think no one should be retroactively banned. 2. I'm not engaging in animalistic tribal screech fights. I'm not on team Magnus against your team Niemann. This sort of sarcastic nitpicking shows that you don't have any interest in discussing the actual issue. You just want to argue.

my take at this is that magnus is being ridiculous! A GM, (let alone a 2700 GM) doesn't need to cheat to win. Magnus loses to 18 year olds but calls out neimen. he obviously has a grudge for some reason, and just because magnus is the champion doesn't mean so many people need to believe him. if i said magnus was cheating, nobody would believe me.

my take at this is that magnus is being ridiculous! A GM, (let alone a 2700 GM) doesn't need to cheat to win. Magnus loses to 18 year olds but calls out neimen. he obviously has a grudge for some reason, and just because magnus is the champion doesn't mean so many people need to believe him. if i said magnus was cheating, nobody would believe me.