To be clear, Niemann did not say he only cheated twice. He said he cheated in a tournament when he was 12, and then, an unspecified number of games (that was more than one) when he was 16.
I drunk water when I was 12, and then again when I was 16. This statement is true, and it does not say that I never drunk water except when I was either 12 or 16.
Just heard it in the website. This is exactly the conversation I needed to make sense of this ordeal. Thank you so much for assembling this great episode, Ben.
Halfway through just wanted to say that I thoroughly enjoyed the discussion with GM Johnathan. Never could I expect that this chess drama could also raise so many ethical and by extension philosophical issues and I felt Johnathan was the perfect guy to navigate all the ethical dilemmas. Kudos as well to Ben for being for a fantastic interviewer and the brilliant questions asked.
I enjoyed this episode quite a bit. Both guests offered levelheaded opinions on a topic so deficient in them. As an aside, GM Rowson's plug worked, as I picked up a copy of his book.
Magnus played a chess game against an annoying teenager and suffered a humiliating defeat, and so now he's throwing a tantrum. But because it's Magnus Carlsen throwing the tantrum, the chess world is putting up with it and even characterising the tantrum as Magnus being on a noble crusade to stamp out injustice. Magnus is doubly emotional about the loss because he just gave up his world championship title, and probably assumed that the public would still consider him the REAL world champion even lacking a title. But if Magnus (only thirty-one years old btw) starts getting knocked-off by guys like Hans Niemann, his reputation as the world strongest player won't endure for long and even his "legacy" might be affected.
I’d say Magnus doesn’t really care about losing a game or 2 to Hans. If he doesn’t care about the World Title, why would he care about a loss? You can tell he is annoyed especially when Hans has a $9mil ebezzlement fraudster as a mentor and coach
@@shamsheed1726 He cares about being considered the best. He's voluntarily giving up the world title, so not being world champion is no reflection on his playing strength.
@@giorus his recent actions suggest that is likely how he perceives it. If it was simply a “principled stand” he would demand better anti cheating measures, but he is essentially launching a targeted attack on Hans. And he didn’t even initiate this “discussion” on cheating until after he lost.
Its on mine, Apple Podcasts has been quite dodgy lately though overall. podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/bonus-pod-gm-jonathan-rowson-and-gm-david-smerdon/id1185023674?i=1000580966031
Tuned out the moment we became super concerned about why women aren't playing more in chess. This has been established clinically and in the psychology field for decades. Almost limitless citations. What a waste of time. The research is done and there isn't anything sexist about it.
What flashes on Magnus screen during his match against Niemann. His screen flashes to something and back to the chess match. It's about 4:22 in on the video of the match I watched.
Well I am talking about the famous Chess speaks for itself game. I am just asking what is always popping up on Magnus screen, and why should any player be wearing headphones. I won't say everything I am hearing about, but come on people, you need to start thinking for yourselves and step outside the box and observe these streamers. You can watch it happen in front of your eyes and you all are so ga ga over Magnus you actually believe it's just his music page. Watch the first game in their match at Miami. If you don't think it's possible that the biggest names in chess might be involved in big cheat scam for big time money you are fooling yourself. Lol
What's sad is what is going on is called fraud. And then they get caught and they try throwing Hans under the bus, because a big cheating baby lost as white. Oh I don't only review Hans games and look at his absolute normal rise compared to these other guys. I don't know how people believe a word out of their mouths after every redirection, and totally bogus and inaccurate statements being uttered out of the top 10 streamers or players. And yeah you bet they are only looking at their chat feeds. Their eyes never ever dart to another area all together, and Botez gals are only looking at their phones to watch chat. My ass. A lot of these people will be in prison for a very long time. Trust me. Deception of the public, corruption of tournaments to take all the cash at every event they play and all the money gets split up not to mention tax evasion. These Chess geeks and computer nerds really thought they were going to get away with it. I get it, it's hard to realize that your favorite players and streamers are a bunch of cheaters but this goes back to what Fisher said about Kasparov. Hikaru deserves a Oscar for the stuff he does to protect them. Lol
I keep hearing people say the evidence against Hans would not stand up in court, that someone is innocent until proven guilty and reasonable doubt must be applied. But those concepts are only used in criminal cases. This is not a criminal case. It is a civil matter. In a civil case there is no innocence until proven guilty. Rather a preponderance of the evidence is the standard used. That means if there is 51% of the evidence against someone, then judgment is rendered against that party. Even if it is proven that Hans cheated, there is no criminal punishment, as this is a civil matter, not a criminal offense. We need to stop using terms reserved for criminal cases in this situation.
Tort law is more about establishing blame for 1 or more parties & determination of share of such blame as well as determination of amount of harm/damages caused by the party or parties at blame. This situation is more akin to criminal law where Hams has been accused of something that he either did or didn't do which is where the reasonable doubt doctrine makes more sense. If hans did this new cheating or if everybody who might invite him to a tournament thinks he did its really like a career killing death sentence and the injustice of being falsely condemned is the greater miscarriage of justice
@@jimlang7461 Circumstantial evidence is evidence. People are convicted of murder on circumstantial evidence, even when a dead body is not found. I did not say there was evidence, but that the standard of proof in a civil case is a preponderance of evidence, rather than beyond any reasonable doubt or "guilty until proven innocent." Those phrases, which are being used a lot, do not apply in a situation like this.
That is pedantic and irrelevant. Due process isn’t just legalese, it is an important standard in any functioning society. It doesn’t matter whether this is a criminal case or not, what is important is that accusations that can essentially ruin this person’s career are not put forth without sufficient evidence. And all of the “evidence” has either been debunked or is irrational speculation.
Smerdon is so innocent, and believes that his respondents tell the truth. What is the chance that if you are a cheater and participate in a study, and you answer positively to the question: have you ever cheated, and then you get the subsequent question, do you still cheat, that you will feel you have revealed enough and answer negatively? I do not know the quantiative answer, but I can tell you it is well above 50%.
Depressing interviews in my view. Both of them implicitly defending the 19 year old. Hard to put a finger on this, but it's my feeling. In a court of law you can be convicted on indirect and circumstantial evidence and those two seem to think that wouldn't do it here - even though his punishment won't be jail. The first claiming those in the anticheater disposition says to themselves "once a cheater, always a cheater". I think that's an oversimplification of what those in the anticheating camp thinks - the majority in that camp just thinks cheating is reprehensible and a threat to the game. They put two and two together in ways that those two men haven't so far. Then he says the anticheaters says to themselves "look how brilliantly Hans played, he can't play that brilliantly" and "he beat Magnus in the endgame - nobody does that". Yeah well that's part of analyzing the probability of Hans cheating. Is he playing too well for his level? As Carlsen says only a known few can outplay him as black in the way Hans did - and that's a fact and that to me is evidence of very unusual performance by Hans while the first interviewee claims that's entirely possible for a talented 19 year old to play that well. It's not.
Totally agree, they were defending Hans when the circumstantial evidence is against Hans. You are absolutely correct, circumstantial evidence is used in court everyday, in civil and in criminal cases. My person opinion (with no evidence) is that Hans probably cheated in St. Louis and overnight Magnus and his team were convinced sufficiently that he withdrew rather than continue. I thought his resignation on the 2nd move in their next game was a powerful statement of how he felt. None of have convincing evidence, but the circumstantial evidence is not in Hans favor.
Their interviews center on over-the-board (OTB) cheating. While Hans has shown to be willing to cheat online as he's already admitted, it doesn't follow that he cheated in that game against Magnus or over the board. People have analyzed his tournament play during Sinquefield Cup and have said Hans played to his strength rating and that Magnus played a very poor game. Even players such as Finegold, who would bet that Hans probably cheated OTB, have come out and said that his game against Magnus isn't suspicious. When you examine the evidence provided by players, neutral people probably shouldn't be convinced because there's nothing really compelling against Hans: most evidence of cheating seems centered around the online arena, which isn't really relevant since he's already admitted to it. Even outside of FIDE's high bar to punish someone for cheating, in the world of fans analyzing the games that Hans has played, all analysis seems inconclusive or seriously flawed. The only analysis from a reputable source suggests that Hans hasn't cheated OTB. The circumstantial evidence isn't compelling when we look at how it relates OTB. What Magnus has come out with isn't compelling. It's no wonder why more neutral people aren't buying into it just yet. You don't ban someone with what we have so far.
But that is a circular argument: Hans is cheating because he can't be that good, and he can't be that good because he is a cheater. If Magnus had been defeated by Alireza nobody would have said anything, just because they didn't suspect him prior to the game.
@@GalaxiaTokyo Who said Hans is not a good player? He is a very good player. No one would have said anything if Magnus was beaten by Alireza, because Magnus would not have withdrawn if he was beaten by Alireza and because Alireza has never been accused of cheating online like Hans has, and Magnus was aware of Hans' banishment for cheating online when he withdrew.
We can learn a lot in chess life: Someone is a multiple cheater, likewise the mentor and trainer. Someone has the highest rating win in a short period of time. Someone can not explain his moves properly in analyses. Someone plays better online than in delayed OTB games. Someone is the most accurate player according to chess programs. Someone is lying in explanations of several body language experts. Someone blames his youth and a strange accent for everything. Someone has a questionable personality in screaming on his stream. Someone has a criminal as role model on Netflix. Someone is more intelligent than someone else.
Chess Cheater, Hans Niemann Gets Caught Lying With Body Language - “Body language speaks for itself” ruclips.net/video/OK9ZkoSQNFs/видео.html and Grandmaster and BIG LIAR? Hans Niemann Chess Cheating Scandal - Expert REACTION Video ruclips.net/video/-4rmIS3BjjI/видео.html Are you still of the same opinion after watching the different psychologists?
@@mychessvideos61 Are you still of the same opinion after watching the different psychologists and listening to their analyses? Chess Cheater, Hans Niemann Gets Caught Lying With Body Language - “Body language speaks for itself” ruclips.net/video/OK9ZkoSQNFs/видео.html and Grandmaster and BIG LIAR? Hans Niemann Chess Cheating Scandal - Expert REACTION Video ruclips.net/video/-4rmIS3BjjI/видео.html
And someone has found information by following the movement that is mostly false or is not substantiated evidence (like for analyses for example) and I do not particularly defend hans. You are acting in a specific way with him because of what magnus said. But hey, if you look for people who have already cheated online and who are very very highly ranked believe me there are more than you really think (it's obviously still bad I'm not saying the opposite). But it looks like he killed someone. People are hypocrites, they just want drama but deep inside they don't even care if he cheated or not, at night they sleep peacefully. Doing so is counterproductive for people who are really trying to fight cheating, being that extreme even makes people cheat, you just have to think a little bit, with a modicum of logic it's understandable.
Photo of GM Smerdon via Wikimedia commons.
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Smerdon_David_(29002963974).jpg
To be clear, Niemann did not say he only cheated twice. He said he cheated in a tournament when he was 12, and then, an unspecified number of games (that was more than one) when he was 16.
I drunk water when I was 12, and then again when I was 16. This statement is true, and it does not say that I never drunk water except when I was either 12 or 16.
Ben Finegold sent me here
Go Ben!
Ben is awesome. I disagree wildly with him in this instance though..
Just heard it in the website. This is exactly the conversation I needed to make sense of this ordeal. Thank you so much for assembling this great episode, Ben.
Halfway through just wanted to say that I thoroughly enjoyed the discussion with GM Johnathan. Never could I expect that this chess drama could also raise so many ethical and by extension philosophical issues and I felt Johnathan was the perfect guy to navigate all the ethical dilemmas. Kudos as well to Ben for being for a fantastic interviewer and the brilliant questions asked.
I enjoyed this episode quite a bit. Both guests offered levelheaded opinions on a topic so deficient in them. As an aside, GM Rowson's plug worked, as I picked up a copy of his book.
You're in for a treat. "The Moves that Matter" is one of the greatest books I've read in many years!
Magnus played a chess game against an annoying teenager and suffered a humiliating defeat, and so now he's throwing a tantrum. But because it's Magnus Carlsen throwing the tantrum, the chess world is putting up with it and even characterising the tantrum as Magnus being on a noble crusade to stamp out injustice. Magnus is doubly emotional about the loss because he just gave up his world championship title, and probably assumed that the public would still consider him the REAL world champion even lacking a title. But if Magnus (only thirty-one years old btw) starts getting knocked-off by guys like Hans Niemann, his reputation as the world strongest player won't endure for long and even his "legacy" might be affected.
You nailed it.
I’d say Magnus doesn’t really care about losing a game or 2 to Hans.
If he doesn’t care about the World Title, why would he care about a loss? You can tell he is annoyed especially when Hans has a $9mil ebezzlement fraudster as a mentor and coach
@@shamsheed1726 He cares about being considered the best. He's voluntarily giving up the world title, so not being world champion is no reflection on his playing strength.
@@profd65 And losing one game to Hans would imply to him not being the best ? Interesting theory...
@@giorus his recent actions suggest that is likely how he perceives it. If it was simply a “principled stand” he would demand better anti cheating measures, but he is essentially launching a targeted attack on Hans. And he didn’t even initiate this “discussion” on cheating until after he lost.
Next they’ll blame me for slipping him the moves
This is a really great episode
Fabi : " either Hans is a genius or he is a alien. He is out of my leguae "
Btw Fabi IS a genius and an alien 😄😄😄
Is it only me or is this not on podcast app for iPhone yet ?
Its on mine, Apple Podcasts has been quite dodgy lately though overall.
podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/bonus-pod-gm-jonathan-rowson-and-gm-david-smerdon/id1185023674?i=1000580966031
Very , very good ! Thank you !
This must be heard 'round the world!
Tuned out the moment we became super concerned about why women aren't playing more in chess. This has been established clinically and in the psychology field for decades. Almost limitless citations. What a waste of time. The research is done and there isn't anything sexist about it.
What flashes on Magnus screen during his match against Niemann. His screen flashes to something and back to the chess match. It's about 4:22 in on the video of the match I watched.
Sorry but what are you talking about?
?
Well I am talking about the famous Chess speaks for itself game. I am just asking what is always popping up on Magnus screen, and why should any player be wearing headphones. I won't say everything I am hearing about, but come on people, you need to start thinking for yourselves and step outside the box and observe these streamers. You can watch it happen in front of your eyes and you all are so ga ga over Magnus you actually believe it's just his music page. Watch the first game in their match at Miami. If you don't think it's possible that the biggest names in chess might be involved in big cheat scam for big time money you are fooling yourself. Lol
What's sad is what is going on is called fraud. And then they get caught and they try throwing Hans under the bus, because a big cheating baby lost as white. Oh I don't only review Hans games and look at his absolute normal rise compared to these other guys. I don't know how people believe a word out of their mouths after every redirection, and totally bogus and inaccurate statements being uttered out of the top 10 streamers or players. And yeah you bet they are only looking at their chat feeds. Their eyes never ever dart to another area all together, and Botez gals are only looking at their phones to watch chat. My ass. A lot of these people will be in prison for a very long time. Trust me. Deception of the public, corruption of tournaments to take all the cash at every event they play and all the money gets split up not to mention tax evasion. These Chess geeks and computer nerds really thought they were going to get away with it. I get it, it's hard to realize that your favorite players and streamers are a bunch of cheaters but this goes back to what Fisher said about Kasparov. Hikaru deserves a Oscar for the stuff he does to protect them. Lol
@@overthetarget334 So you say Magnus was cheating? And he lost anyway? 1🤔
This is great
This is a guy ie Jonathan who played 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Bf5 against me
Great guest
I keep hearing people say the evidence against Hans would not stand up in court, that someone is innocent until proven guilty and reasonable doubt must be applied. But those concepts are only used in criminal cases. This is not a criminal case. It is a civil matter. In a civil case there is no innocence until proven guilty. Rather a preponderance of the evidence is the standard used. That means if there is 51% of the evidence against someone, then judgment is rendered against that party. Even if it is proven that Hans cheated, there is no criminal punishment, as this is a civil matter, not a criminal offense. We need to stop using terms reserved for criminal cases in this situation.
Tort law is more about establishing blame for 1 or more parties & determination of share of such blame as well as determination of amount of harm/damages caused by the party or parties at blame.
This situation is more akin to criminal law where Hams has been accused of something that he either did or didn't do which is where the reasonable doubt doctrine makes more sense. If hans did this new cheating or if everybody who might invite him to a tournament thinks he did its really like a career killing death sentence and the injustice of being falsely condemned is the greater miscarriage of justice
A preponderance of the evidence, when there is zero evidence.
Uh no, there's been accusations of a moral crime, so criminal principles are most relevant.
@@jimlang7461 Circumstantial evidence is evidence. People are convicted of murder on circumstantial evidence, even when a dead body is not found. I did not say there was evidence, but that the standard of proof in a civil case is a preponderance of evidence, rather than beyond any reasonable doubt or "guilty until proven innocent." Those phrases, which are being used a lot, do not apply in a situation like this.
That is pedantic and irrelevant. Due process isn’t just legalese, it is an important standard in any functioning society. It doesn’t matter whether this is a criminal case or not, what is important is that accusations that can essentially ruin this person’s career are not put forth without sufficient evidence.
And all of the “evidence” has either been debunked or is irrational speculation.
Smerdon is so innocent, and believes that his respondents tell the truth. What is the chance that if you are a cheater and participate in a study, and you answer positively to the question: have you ever cheated, and then you get the subsequent question, do you still cheat, that you will feel you have revealed enough and answer negatively?
I do not know the quantiative answer, but I can tell you it is well above 50%.
Smash the like 👍 button
The let's check analysis is still strange that it rates hans so much higher than everyone else.
That was done by someone who knows nothing about statistics and has been debunked multiple times.
Engine correlation on chessbase is crowdsourced.
Depressing interviews in my view. Both of them implicitly defending the 19 year old. Hard to put a finger on this, but it's my feeling. In a court of law you can be convicted on indirect and circumstantial evidence and those two seem to think that wouldn't do it here - even though his punishment won't be jail. The first claiming those in the anticheater disposition says to themselves "once a cheater, always a cheater". I think that's an oversimplification of what those in the anticheating camp thinks - the majority in that camp just thinks cheating is reprehensible and a threat to the game. They put two and two together in ways that those two men haven't so far. Then he says the anticheaters says to themselves "look how brilliantly Hans played, he can't play that brilliantly" and "he beat Magnus in the endgame - nobody does that". Yeah well that's part of analyzing the probability of Hans cheating. Is he playing too well for his level? As Carlsen says only a known few can outplay him as black in the way Hans did - and that's a fact and that to me is evidence of very unusual performance by Hans while the first interviewee claims that's entirely possible for a talented 19 year old to play that well. It's not.
Totally agree, they were defending Hans when the circumstantial evidence is against Hans. You are absolutely correct, circumstantial evidence is used in court everyday, in civil and in criminal cases. My person opinion (with no evidence) is that Hans probably cheated in St. Louis and overnight Magnus and his team were convinced sufficiently that he withdrew rather than continue. I thought his resignation on the 2nd move in their next game was a powerful statement of how he felt. None of have convincing evidence, but the circumstantial evidence is not in Hans favor.
Their interviews center on over-the-board (OTB) cheating. While Hans has shown to be willing to cheat online as he's already admitted, it doesn't follow that he cheated in that game against Magnus or over the board. People have analyzed his tournament play during Sinquefield Cup and have said Hans played to his strength rating and that Magnus played a very poor game. Even players such as Finegold, who would bet that Hans probably cheated OTB, have come out and said that his game against Magnus isn't suspicious. When you examine the evidence provided by players, neutral people probably shouldn't be convinced because there's nothing really compelling against Hans: most evidence of cheating seems centered around the online arena, which isn't really relevant since he's already admitted to it. Even outside of FIDE's high bar to punish someone for cheating, in the world of fans analyzing the games that Hans has played, all analysis seems inconclusive or seriously flawed. The only analysis from a reputable source suggests that Hans hasn't cheated OTB.
The circumstantial evidence isn't compelling when we look at how it relates OTB. What Magnus has come out with isn't compelling. It's no wonder why more neutral people aren't buying into it just yet. You don't ban someone with what we have so far.
You can't be convicted on zero evidence.
But that is a circular argument: Hans is cheating because he can't be that good, and he can't be that good because he is a cheater. If Magnus had been defeated by Alireza nobody would have said anything, just because they didn't suspect him prior to the game.
@@GalaxiaTokyo Who said Hans is not a good player? He is a very good player. No one would have said anything if Magnus was beaten by Alireza, because Magnus would not have withdrawn if he was beaten by Alireza and because Alireza has never been accused of cheating online like Hans has, and Magnus was aware of Hans' banishment for cheating online when he withdrew.
We can learn a lot in chess life:
Someone is a multiple cheater, likewise the mentor and trainer.
Someone has the highest rating win in a short period of time.
Someone can not explain his moves properly in analyses.
Someone plays better online than in delayed OTB games.
Someone is the most accurate player according to chess programs.
Someone is lying in explanations of several body language experts.
Someone blames his youth and a strange accent for everything.
Someone has a questionable personality in screaming on his stream.
Someone has a criminal as role model on Netflix.
Someone is more intelligent than someone else.
Body language experts? Next you will be citing astrologers, and palm readers. Body language 'experts' are a complete joke.
Chess Cheater, Hans Niemann Gets Caught Lying With Body Language - “Body language speaks for itself” ruclips.net/video/OK9ZkoSQNFs/видео.html and
Grandmaster and BIG LIAR? Hans Niemann Chess Cheating Scandal - Expert REACTION Video ruclips.net/video/-4rmIS3BjjI/видео.html
Are you still of the same opinion after watching the different psychologists?
@@mychessvideos61 Are you still of the same opinion after watching the different psychologists and listening to their analyses?
Chess Cheater, Hans Niemann Gets Caught Lying With Body Language - “Body language speaks for itself” ruclips.net/video/OK9ZkoSQNFs/видео.html and
Grandmaster and BIG LIAR? Hans Niemann Chess Cheating Scandal - Expert REACTION Video ruclips.net/video/-4rmIS3BjjI/видео.html
@@mychessvideos61 ugh. I guess it makes sense that people that would irrationally accuse someone with zero evidence would listen to quacks like that.
And someone has found information by following the movement that is mostly false or is not substantiated evidence (like for analyses for example) and I do not particularly defend hans. You are acting in a specific way with him because of what magnus said. But hey, if you look for people who have already cheated online and who are very very highly ranked believe me there are more than you really think (it's obviously still bad I'm not saying the opposite). But it looks like he killed someone. People are hypocrites, they just want drama but deep inside they don't even care if he cheated or not, at night they sleep peacefully. Doing so is counterproductive for people who are really trying to fight cheating, being that extreme even makes people cheat, you just have to think a little bit, with a modicum of logic it's understandable.