When friends asked me why I stopped playing over the board the answer is because I never played in a FIDE-rated tournament that had any anti-cheating measures in place. I have no idea why Finegold's opinion is unpopular and it actually feels like it's the most obvious way to handle things. Eventually cheating will define the game of chess if people keep treating like the elephant in the room; it needs to be in the limelight because if more isn't done to prevent cheating it could literally destroy this game.
With military tech it's already impossible to stop. Sure there's not enough money in chess for such tools to possibly be used, but theoretically what's already possible is quite far beyond detection. But discussing the more realistic methods and stopping them is fir sure a must. It's a cost issue mostly. You have to make the cheating more expensive than the security measures. It's a cat and mouse game. Even military tech where electronics made from titanium or undetectable alloys are used, or directed signals, quantum communication, etc have counter measures. But at the state secret level it would be a real mess. Those tools are used to scam things worth trillions or billions though not millions or thousands of dollars like in chess.
@@gregorymorse8423 I think cheating in chess is a lot like defecating: you can imagine plenty of very impressive ways of doing it but 95% of it is simply done on the toilet with a phone in hand. I once joked that a large EMP should be emitted every 2-5 seconds but in reality I'd have been happy with a few simple checks at the main entrance and then maybe in/out of the toilets. At a few big tournaments they had security checking bags for explosives (sometimes with sniffer dogs to boot) so why couldn't they check for phones while they're at it? Obviously high prize-money tournaments or prestigious invitationals like the Sinquefield Cup should have done more to prevent cheating from the start (not just after Round 3).
@@ExtraCheeseProject agreed. But imagine if two nation states decided to have a chess race for bragging and national pride. I'm just saying chess isn't prepared to deal with that. But that sort of drama stopped being used around 50 years ago. Mostly everything is money driven more than national conscious driven nowadays. Which is why I agree with you mostly. I think phone I toilet is too risky. I think signals from a spectator who is using a phone is more likely. Perfect plausible deniability.
@@mariogonzalez5513 Ben is saying the only way people will know Hans cheated is if he confesses. So if you're listing out the reasons, it's "he confesses, or..." we don't know, so "he confesses", because it's the only possibility (in Ben's opinion).
I remember attending a Fide event in Singapore back in 2019. There were literally no safeguards in place. No metal detectors, no checks, no nothing. Sure, phones were "banned", but only at the "venue", which was an exhibition hall in a hotel. When you go to the bathrooms of the hotel, they literally don't check if you are using phones. I remember overhearing some kid talk to his mum on the phone and he said his game wasn't over. Sure it wasn't cheating or malicious, but the fact that phones could be used so easily means that OTB events held by fide is not at all free from cheating.
that would be a brilliant PR stunt for Hans.. if he were to come out and admonish holders of tournaments for not executing sufficient measures of checking that people don't smuggle engines into the chess hall to ensure the indisputability of a player's achievement.. sort of spin himself as also the victim (if he didnt cheat)..
@@NOT-A-Monolith obviously a tournament attended by world number 1 would be more strict than a competition in singapore attended by only ims but my point is that cheating otb is possible
I'm incredibly good at a couple meaningless video games and I get Ben's point. Being accused of 'hacking' or cheating is a compliment for me because I know I'm not cheating. The difference is I'm not a professional and I don't make a living off it and so the accusations are meaningless. For Hans the accusations could end his career.
@@Hopefully2025 I guess you're right, honestly the games I was referring to pull way more viewers than any chess tournament and have way bigger prize pools lol
There were no accusations other than by random internet comments. Everything else was just a discussion of their suspicioun. I really disagree that we should silence that kind of conversation.
@LoveandlightYeah but it's weird because they're now in another tournament together a week later... so if Hans beats Magnus again, is Magnus going to quit that tournament too?
It shouldn't allow baseless accusations. If people want to discuss about security measures fine, but if people accuse or insinuate cheating without proof they should receive punishment.
@@conelord1984 Okay so 'accuse without proof' is an oxymoron; if somebody has proof they will be 'reporting' somebody. Regardless, why should an accuser receive punishment? Sounds like you've got it a**-backward to me
@@conelord1984 I'm with Finegold on this actually. I think open honest discussion of suspicion is fine. I'm not suggesting that we would halt everything over an accusation, but we shouldn't bar people from voicing an accusation, suspicion, feeling, or whatever. I'm also not saying it's okay to baselessly accuse someone of cheating, yet I personally think it's wrong to threaten punishment for people who do so unless the behavior becomes abusive. What abusive means should not be given an exact definition. If the refs feel that it's too much they can take action. An example is where a player repeatedly accuses one or more players of cheating to the point that it becomes annoying. Is someone just happens to be a little paranoid and accuses another of cheating, let it be.
Ben once accused me of cheating because on stream I suggested the same puzzle solution that he was thinking. It turns out our solution was a big advantage but the correct solution was a forced mate. To Ben's point, I took it as a great compliment!
Yeah and they can play in an electromagnetically shielded room. Both players also undergo a metal detector scan and x-ray body-scan before each game. That would do it.
@@danieljohansson839 It’s hardly a fluke in a one-off game. A rating difference of 200 points means an average score of 0.25:0.75. They also played in the crypto cup and Hans won one and lost three which is what you’d expect from their ratings. Magnus would be an overwhelming favorite in a match though since the probabilities multiply
@@stuarthys9879 You can't really compare ratings like that. Magnus hasn't lost as White in years in classical time control. So objectively it definitely looks like a fluke. But honestly, seeing some breakdowns of the game I think Magnus only had like 87 accuracy according to Stockfish so feels more like a bad game from him than a fluke game by Hans. I don't think Hans cheated, so I don't have any stake in this, just enjoying the drama and looking forward to the coming rematch.
@@Moldylocks The statistics are reliable. If you look at Hans' results he has higher ratio of decisive games than the top players, so he's both more likely to win and more likely to lose. That's why he's more likely to beat Carlsen than other guys who just try to hold for a draw. I agree though Magnus didn't play very well. I'm rated about 2000 and the way Magnus played looked like someone around my rating whereas Hans played more like you'd expect from a GM. I guess he was just having a bad day, but I think it's ridiculous for people to conclude cheating was involved and I don't think it was fluke, just ordinary probably based on the player's styles and strengths.
I like that quote, "maybe he did cheat, I just don't think he did." I was waiting for the ULTIMATE plot twist when at the end of the tournament Hans and Magnus both come out in a joint statement how they orchestrated the whole thing and Magnus would be like this is why I am struggling with caring about chess, because this little nonsense where I never say he cheated or anything, and the whole chess world dissolves into accusations of vibrators and plugs.
@@upisntdownsilly So much I figured. But why would one even want to get a higher rating without playing like it? Isn't playing chess about proving that your ideas and understanding of the game are better than your opponents? And isn't the fun becoming better by experience? I still don't get it.
@@fundhund62 hes already good, although people dont talk about him that way since they literally only know like 5 top players and streamers, niemann is indeed top 50 in the world, and deserves to be recognised for that, he just cheated to get better opponents without needing to use his brain to get up there, also theres no proving in chess, its not an ego boost, its more of a 'the game is wonderful and im getting such meaningful and fulfilling moments from these big brain plays' and not 'omg i played so well i cant believe it lets go i can think better than my opponent'
There's another aspect to cheating that has not been discussed anywhere that I know of. When you suspect your opponent of cheating, it becomes a big distraction that can affect your game adversely. I think this happens quite a lot in US tournaments. In the Chicago Open, for example, players get up and walk around, go to the restroom, look at other games, joke around with their buddies, and come back whenever they want. (Cellphones are supposed to be turned off and not be taken into restrooms, but this is hard to enforce.) When a player comes back in a complicated position and plays an especially strong move that the player at the board did not see, the player at the board can be distracted for the rest of the game.
@@ludomirsteinbruck9376 no you don't, you are a professional player but the game organisers are not professionals. They obviously need to find a way to not allow cheating with harsher methods At least phones must be enforced to stay in a room that a player can't reach before the game is over and if they really want to have a phone with them, they should have a dumbphone.
If your paranoia prevents you from thinking straight, as opposed to actual evidence or facts, then it's mainly your problem. You can easily suspect your every opponent of cheating with some anal beads or some ultrasound or some other ridiculous tricks, and no amount of security measures would calm those fears. You can always make up some more and more technically possible ways the other person could be cheating
Exactly, I was thinking about the same thing yesterday: if somebody would accuse me of cheating and I am not I would be flattered. No need to explain anything in postgame interviews as my chess would speak for itself.
I remember when games would adjourn after a sealed move. Players would return to the hotel and go to work on the position with their team, then resume the game the next day after studying the position all night. Imagine that today?
I played a tournament once where my opponent - rated 300 points higher than I - repeatedly came to the board, moved immediately, and then left. I told the tournament director, who took no action, but agreed to keep an eye on him. Strict anti-cheating measures were in place, and the game was a draw. I don’t think he was cheating. He is stronger than I am, had no reason to cheat, and he didn’t win. But, his behavior was odd, and the TD made an announcement about not ~ appearing to cheat ~ before the next round. So, people can appear to cheat even when they are not.
But Hans did admit he was cheating before and not once but twice. Until the website announced came and contradicted him that he cheated a lot more than that. So he's a renowned cheater and a liar. And you think now that we can take his word that he didn't cheat?
@@amberxv4777 Except that the Sinquefeld Cup organizers have announced they have found no evidence of him cheating in that tournament. I have no faith in what Hans says, but I take seriously what the tourney organizer says, and acknowledge that there’s a big difference between online chess and over-the-board chess. in other words, we all know that Hansen has cheated online, and probably will continue to do so. However, I don’t think he cheated in the Sinquefeld Cup.
Thing I don't understand is that it's so unlike Magnus to do something like this, if he didn't have serious notions about cheating. Magnus has always been fair to his opponents and graceful even in defeat. I feel like either Magnus did this because he couldn't simply believe that such a low rated young player which already proved to play unfairly online could beat him OTB, while not having any assistance, or Hans actually found a way to cheat and Magnus picked up on it. If this was any other player other than Magnus making this statement it would have been ignored, but he has a long reputation of being a good samaritan in the chess world so his actions cannot simply be ignored.
I’m really confused-more than usual-isn’t Hans playing in Magnus’ tour? BTW: totally agree with you about Magnus’ conduct. I looked down the list and saw Mamedhyarov and MVL and realized how brave they were to have subpar showings yet stick it out.
that would indicate that the actual reason magnus withdrew, rather than hans and the cheating background of his, is another one: could be the mole in his team leaking stuff.
Watch after all of this Magnus actually withdrew over something completely unrelated like a domestic dispute or something, and just didn't comment on the accusations because he doesn't like Hans.
My problem with Magnus is his toys-out-the-pram narcissism- 'He cheated in MY game therefore I'M walking out!'. Where is the collective here, the idea that if we have a potential problem we should all come together to sort it out? His actions just stink of an 'I am bigger than chess' attitude.
Ben is always on top of these things - while everyone is umming and ahhing about whether Hans cheated, Ben is focused on what the implications are for the rest of the tournament, how it affects a person's career, and how FIDE needs to deal with cheating and World Champions resigining from tournaments without good reason. Spot on as always.
it's also super obnoxious of Magnus not to have clarified. If you are going to withdraw, at the very least you owe people an explanation. And either accuse a person or don't, this vague implication and then letting everyone else take the heat for you is not ethical behavior.
_"Hans plays well when the board is live and does not play well when it's not live."_ So what are you saying? That he's got a radio transmitter-receiver on his person?
he could have a chip in him that buzzes morse code, or an inner ear piece.. there's been tons of stuff like that out for a long time. He isn't saying anything about it it seems like, he is just saying that look hans plays better when the board is live.. and of course people know that it's easier to cheat with the board live than when not live, as you showed with your response.
@@ekklesiast He may have been getting signals from someone across the playing room. ALl they would need to do is put a pair of glasses on and that would be enough information to let him know there's a winning move to be found in the current position.
The reason I quit playing OTB chess when I was a kid is because I had an experience where an opponent cheated by literally moving his knight to an adjacent square. Eventually I complained to an arbiter and went through a horrible experience. Decided to never play OTB after that. Cheating OTB is a huge deterrent to chess becoming popular
How can someone cheat like that? Was it in bullet games? Or was it in rapid slow games? Cuz in a slow game, you just can't cheat like that, you can see them.
If it's a classical game and you write down the moves this should be preventable. Also I'm sure this kind of nonsense doesn't happen when players are a little older.
2:50 “that’s not how cheating works” well I’m not a cheater so I don’t know, but I don’t think Ben’s right here. He’s saying “once a cheater always a cheater” and that’s neither right nor fair. Besides, Magnus didn’t withdraw because he thinks Hans cheated some OTHER time. And if Hans were to admit cheating tomorrow or on his death bed, Magnus is still a dick.
Hans cheated when he was a child. Most people cheated at something in their youth. The only difference is that Hans was so advanced as a young chess player that his cheating was more meaningful. I absolutely cannot hold this against him unless he has been cheating as an adult.
@@TheCriticalArchitect He was still a kid rofl people grow up. There is no way of knowing and people are just conspiracy baiting at this point without like rock hard evidence.
@@TheCriticalArchitect a kid. Not a kid anymore. And you don't KNOW he cheated more, so why are you saying it like it's fact? Incredibly unhealthy for the community
I disagree somewhat, and think that at the world champion level, it is completely valid to withdraw for reasons of mental or physical health, however I don't think it should be done without giving an explicit reason why.
Ben to tell you the truth, I can't say I was ever a big fan of yours. However your words here completely changed my mind. Your attitude seems so very mature and I feel you are spot on. Was looking for someone to explore this "line" and couldn't find anyone else but you.
2 options here: 1) He didn't cheat > he is a genius (beating Magnus at that age on a very rare MC's opening with black!) 2) He cheated > he is a genius (until nobody realize how he managed to!)
If withdrawing is such a no-no the organizers should be requiring players sign contracts with heavy punishments/fines for withdrawing except for certain medical/bereavement reasons. If they don't have enough leverage to do that then that is the privilege the players enjoy.
I’ve been saying this forever, yet people are still bashing Magnus. He has every right to withdraw, just like any other player. The world champ title doesn’t come with special obligations and if it did, Magnus clearly wants none of it anyways
There are contracts that Magnus signed and he breached them. Magnus will have had to atleast pay back any appearance fees or money he made already from the organisers. I don’t know if there are other forms of fines however, possibly there was
Maybe I’m missing something, but it seems to me easy to determine if he were cheating. He said he happened to review the line (or a very similar line) that morning. Why couldn’t someone just revisit his review? Wouldn’t it be saved somewhere?
0:34 the truth is only what you can prove. Probably Magnus will not say anything, unless he already made his complains to organizers and the new rules is what came out of it.
The issue I suppose and I don’t know the history here or too much, however I’m guessing that if your good enough to crush Magnus into literal withdrawal, you really don’t need to ever cheat online, you just win until winning is boring and you do silly openings like Magnus just for fun, then win anyway. So why cheat online if you can crush the literal best in world?
Hans doesn't typically crush players like Magnus easily. Magnus played an uncharacteristically bad game, Hans capitalized (despite not playing perfectly himself), and that's basically it. Magnus occasionally loses to players much weaker than him even in classical chess (Andrey Esipenko famously beat him in 2021 while rated under 2700), that doesn't mean he doesn't usually wipe the floor even with super GMs. Hans is much closer to your average GM who loses as often as he wins.
btw it's not that simple, it's funny because people would have no point saying this very point that i'm going to make if it's used for coping for magnus beating the best in the world once doesn't make you the best in the world
I've only played in 2 tnmts in my life many years ago, I think they were Swiss. Obviously you don't play everyone like a round robin where you play white/black against everyone. Now I just play club chess. Can you explain why it's more inappropriate to WD from a RR vs a Swiss? How does it affect a RR more than a Swiss? It's it because with a Swiss they can just replace the withdrawn player with someone else according to his rating? Thanks 👍
Because in a round Robin you don't play the cheater again. Plus everyone has to play the cheater which makes the same disadvantage for all players, keeping it balanced
In a Swiss every round's pairings are determined after the end of the previous round, so a player who withdraws just won't get paired. In a RR the pairings are predetermined from the start of the tournament, so someone leaving in the middle of the tournament inevitably creates uneven playing conditions for the remaining players.
There is much more evidence that Magnus Carlsen is having some type of breakdown than Hans Niemann cheated. Magnus said he will not defend his world title, and withdrew from a round robin tournament. He insinuated that Hans cheated when he played him without having any evidence or having the courage to say so directly, or to explain his comments. Not since Bobby Fischer have we seen such behavior from a world champion. Like Bobby, Magnus must deal with the fact that he will at some point no longer be world champion, and this is hard to accept. Many of the chess commentators on this situation are people who have given up playing in over the board tournaments because it is easier to make money commentating and playing online. By contrast in the last few years Hans has played in a large number of over the board games, and has advanced into the top one hundred list of players in the world. The only scandal in this situation is the behavior of Magnus Carlsen.
So u mean withdrawing from a tournament is a scandal? Is he d first person to ever withdraw from a tournament? Why is his first withdrawal a scandal to u? Big boy, only tin I see is hate in ur heart! Cure it! It could kill u.
@@nkamiabam3716 In the manner he did, yes; With no statement and allowing mud slinging to take place. Hans isn't the only individual who took part in that tournament his actions have repercussions for all players involved not just them two. Just like Ben alluded to in the video.
@@nkamiabam3716 Yes, it is quite scandal, especially when is it done by world champion in tournament with average ELO rating above 2750. Its not like random noob leaving random open tournament and Magnus should really explain himslef, not just some bullshit cryptic tweet.
Can you explain why all these high level Chess people seem to not care about cheating online? With the rise of Esports, online cheating is hugely known and seen as a serious issue. Everyone seems to be taking the Cycling/MLB approach where “LoTs Of PeOpLe Do It sO iTs OkAy” which is idiotic. As a former collegiate athlete that also plays decently high level chess, the fact that everyone acts like online doesnt matter is absolutely *insane* to me. Its actually worse in a lot of ways. If you’re a AAA player that might make the majors and huge amounts of money from cheating, theres a reason, if you’re doing it to win a pickup game that *literally doesnt matter* (equivalent of online cheating) it’s actually way way worse. It says the only thing that is stopping you from cheating is if its hard and makes you a garbage person with no respect for the game. I have no idea how literally no one is pushing this narrative, Chess is wholly unprepared for cheating like MLB was for steroids in the 90’s.
Cheating is a problem... but in online competitions it is common to the point of being almost expected to happen. That's why real e-Sport competitions need to be done in a controlled environment with standardised hardware and referees watching carefully. I don't think anyone says online cheating is ok, but the point here is that FIDE govern ratings and the organisers of the Sinquefield Cup decide who plays or not. Kicking up a fuss to create a trial by social media is not professional behaviour in any sport.
@@idisplaypace2411 really?? Are you daft?? if he caught him cheating isn't the appropriate action reporting him, even if you suspect it, this is still the appropriate action, instead of not proving, insinuating and leaving your followers and loyalists to attack and destroy him though you have not shown and probably will not show any proof
My opinion is that all efforts should be in the direction of keeping the game clean, that is all that matters. With the technology today, actually catching a cheater can be almost impossible. The fact that Magnus retired is more his own personal damage: he is allowed, he didn’t offend the officials so I don’t understand why attacking him. Instead, Let’s think: if he didn’t retire, would we talk today about Hans cheating? Will everyone be with eyes on Hans from now on? Also, there is no moral difference in cheating online or cheating at the board: it’s CHEATING
Magnus can withdraw if he wants. He may not release a statement if he thinks Hans cheated. If Magnus withdrew for his own reasons then he owes Hans a statement I think. At the same time, Hans got caught cheating online and did not tell the complete truth.
Big Magnus simp. It's a d*ck move to apply for a round-robin tournament and drop out. If you sign up for something you just have to stick to it. Even if you think that one person has cheated/cheats. It's like ordering food at a restaurant and leaving right after without waiting for the food to show up and not paying the bill. Magnus might have had his "personal" reasons to quit but as far as we can see it's just because he lost. Period.
People always accuse me of cheating because I'm 2500 and have only played three months. I simply close the engine, allowing me to rebute with a clear conscious.
I'm no GM, but I almost understand why somebody would withdraw if they REALLY thought cheating was going on. This goes for any sport. So I kind of disagree a bit with Ben here, which is rare...
I think it depends.. apparently quite a few GMs have thought hans was cheating for years so. If it's gotten to that point, and nothing has been done about it, then it's fine for magnus to withdraw in order to hopefully finally get something done about it..
That only makes sense if all his opponents were cheating. There were 10 players - Magnus should have had a quick word with the organisers and keep playing. Reality: Hans is a strong player and he beat Magnus fair and square... and Magnus must know this after analysing the game he played...
@@davidlloyd1526Both of us are too low rated to know that. Only Magnus and Hans know. I also think that the reality is that he didn't cheat. But you are entirely wrong on the other point. It makes no difference how many players there are, if you are SURE there is foul play going on, you don't have to continue with the tainted scores and the facade. The tournament is a over at that point. And you could not ask a sportsman to keep participating in a tournament just because "others are still playing". that's beyond ridiculous
This is such a strange opinion man, just continue and pretend nothing happened. The tournament should be voided and the cheater should have to pay everyone compensation. Chess cheating is no joke and not a trivial matter and it needs to stop being treated that way.
In Magnus's defense, I think he is at a stage of his career where he is looking for legacy, and he doesn't want to hand his over to someone he thinks is cheating. Let's imagine Hans was cheating, and Magnus didn't withdraw. There would have been no controversy and no increased anti-cheating measures. Hans would have ended up winning the tournament (he was 2 1/2 on the third day, until the 15min broadcast delay was implemented, and didn't win a single game after that), and that win would have launched Hans career for real while at the same time downplaying Magnus's status as world champ (played in a major tournament and was beaten by a raising star). If Magnus is trying to leave a legacy as the greatest player of this era, possibly of all time, allowing someone you think is cheating to use you as a stepping stone isn't a good move.
Yeah and on the other hand, if Hans wasn’t cheating, which he likely wasn’t, then Magnus ripped that chance away from because he was salty about losing. Regardless of his legacy, if Hans wasn’t cheating then he deserved to win and launch his career. I frankly don’t care if he cheated to get there, he still had to play OTB against the very best chess players in the world. Cheaters have to keep cheating to win, especially at that level. So either Hans has some kind of insane cheating tech that no one at FIDE can detect including analyzing his moves after, or Magnus completely trashed a round robin tournament and a young stars career in the process to protect his “legacy” which by the way includes voluntarily stepping away from the WCC. Some legacy he creating huh?
Great legacy though withdrawing from everything when you may or may not have passed your prime. I get you in that being so far above everyone else for so long is hard. Winning becomes meaningless, then you start losing to some younger people, I imagine that must feel devastating (and Hans rubbed it in with the "losing to an idiot like me" comment). But the legacy is already there. No one can take that away from you. People don't lose respect for Kasparov because he's grown older and is not in the same form as he was before. The guy is an absolute legend and everybody knows that. On the contrary, if Hans manages to establish himself in the world's elite and, you know, there's no instance of proven cheating OTB that leads to his downfall, what a great stepping stone for his career to beat the world champion and be suspected of cheating because "he was just too good for the aging world champion to handle".
Magnus trying to leave a legacy? When asked about the impact of him not defending his title, he could have said: "WCC is great even if I don't play on it, they're all great players". What did he say? "Not my problem" xD
@@Bearable124 "Hans has some kind of insane cheating tech". Try to think about the context: cheating in sports. Cyclists have been caught swapping bikes mid race which contains electric engines hidden in the frame. It was identified by inspecting races infrared cameras detecting a higher temperature caused by the engine inside the frame. Better thermal insulation is making it almost impossible to detect, so now, they have to check racers to make sure the bikes aren't swap, while allowing bike swaps for mechanical failure. Some guys on EPO wake up in the middle of the night to exercise to avoid heart failure. People pass off other people's piss as their own as a way to defeat drug tests. Guys are microdosing steroids to avoid detection. ... The incentives of high level chess are the same as those of high level sports: fame and money. What does it take to cheat at Chess? You just need a way to receive a simple sign to tell you what is the next piece you have to move. Could be as simple as a spectator putting his hand in his pocket/scratching his ear/..., or as funny as having a vibrating device up your bung hole. It's very naïve to think Chess is safe from a well prepared cheater or that all Chess players are honorable people who wouldn't think of cheating.
@@sylver76 it’s also fairly arrogant to assume you know better than FIDE or SLCC when it comes to cheating in chess. They investigated and found no signs of unfair play at Sinquefield correct? Even after the increased security and insane burden of stress he was out under, Hans still managed to play great chess, finding winning moves and positions, but ultimately drawing most games. Look at his game with Alireza or Nepo. Of course people will find a way to cheat in any sport, but the onus is on the accuser or the organization to find and prove it. In this case, the accuser has not even technically accused Hans of anything. Magnus has possibly wrecked this kids chance at winning a major tournament and he doesn’t even have the balls to come out and actually accuse him. So if there’s no accusation and there’s no proof of cheating in this tourney at all then what is left? Magnus withdrew from a Round Robin after losing with white to a young up and comer.
Magnus withdrawing from a round robin because he thinks Hans cheated is like if the Pope refused to go to church because he thought someone in there was secretly an atheist
@@davidlloyd1526 It had something to do with Hans. Magnus knew Hans was a cheater, Magnus probably requested additional security or whatnot, organizers refused and after the loss Magnus just walked out. Not saying it was right thing to do but that is what I think happened.
Correlation does not mean causation. Televised events tend to be bigger, more prestigious, and have bigger prize pools. It wpuld make sense that Hans studied hard for them, and thus played better as a result.
That's ridiculous. Even if that were true, your logic would hold for every player and then everyone's performance rating would be relatively unchanged.
@@trucid2 you're insinuating 2 things. The first is that chess players study less for events that don't use the DGT boards. AND that only Hans then studies harder for events that use DGT boards. And you're right correlation doesn't prove causation. But it's highly suspicious how strong the correlation is. So it would be good if he could explain the performance difference in these events.
Magnus is going thru his 'I'm bigger than chess/Fischer' moment.. What happens if you big someone up too much. Always thought Kasparov was more of a beast at his peak than Magnus.
I cheated just once when i was a kid on the internet when i was like 1600 against a 2000. of course i was arrogant and ignored engine suggestions and got flagged in a slightly worse in a drawn game but i'm a weirdo.
That’s another completely worthless point that made me suspect Hans more. If the best guy on the planet thought I was cheating I would be milking the hell out of that. Based on the persona he acts out, you’d think that’s exactly what he would do too if he didn’t cheat. Funny how he goes from “he played very poorly and he should be embarrassed” to being the most defensive person on the planet.
@@ETBrooD No he was banned after he publicly admitted to cheating online. He made that ban public while claiming he was being treated unfairly. That chess platform then made a statement saying that Hans recent ban was because he lied about how much and how recently he cheated on their platform. Hans hasn’t responded to that statement from what I can tell
"For a game to be [FIDE] rated each player must have a minimum of two hours in which to complete all the moves, assuming the game lasts 60 moves". I have played in FIDE-rated tournaments where the players are unrated or have ratings below 1500, and I think that two hours is loo long for such players. These tournaments typically had numerous children playing; these kids often looked bored and sometimes went off to play on their mobiles whilst they were waiting for their opponents to move. I think that a minimum of one hour would be preferable for players rated below 1500 because it would make it more reasonable to expect that everyone follows the rules.
If you look at his centipawn count on some of his games, it definitely is somewhat suspicious, but still, you can’t be 100% sure. Some of those games with high centipawn counts look wierd, but what do I know.
"To me that's not the main issue [Niemann cheated or not]. [...] The main issue is that Magnus dropped from a round robin." Really? How on earth did you come to that conclusion? Is it a cultural thing? It seems that a majority of Americans don't believe Hans Niemann cheated. Why? Is it because he's an American? This gives me flashbacks to Lance Armstrong because this is exactly how you Americans reacted to the allegations that Lance Armstrong were cheating. Until he admitted to being the worst cheater in history... that is. I remember the discussions about whether Lance cheated was heavily debated in Europe and a lot of Europeans was very suspicious against Lance Armstrong, but when I read US based news, posts in forums where there was a lot of Americans or talked with American friends and family, you (Americans) hailed Lance for being a fantastic sportsman, and you wouldn't listen to any talk about doping. You called it a "witch hunt". Sounds familiar? Do a little research and you will easily find articles in American news site that defended Armstrong right up til the infamous interview with Oprah, and I'm sure that it is tons of articles that has been deleted after Armstrong admitted to use of doping. I agree that everyone is innocent to proven guilty, but Hans Niemann has been caught cheating. Twice! That is exactly what he admits to. Isn't that strange? He's literally using the fact that he was caught cheating to his advantage by admitting that he has cheated, but that was "when I was 16 years old" and now "I'm older and much more mature now". Right... Well it's barely three years ago, and he's only a 19 year old teenager now so excuse me for being a little doubtful of that he has matured exceptionally in the three last years. His rating has skyrocketed in this three years. A coincidence? Maybe, but the majority of Americans seems to know that he hasn't cheated and/or don't care. The worse thing is while you are willing to sweeping under the rug that Niemann in fact is a cheater you choose to point at Magnus Carlsen as being the bad person. I'm sorry, but this so quintessentially American.
@@davidlloyd1526 Of course, but "bad looser" is a relative and subjective term. Take a look at Jan Nepomnjashchij for example. He looked bitter during every press conference during the last World Cup. Yes, Magnus has sometimes walked quickly past the press zone after he has lost, but he has - as far as I can remember - always attended the press conference afterwards. From the interviews I've seen, he can be mad, but he's always mad at himself. He often answers: "What went wrong today?". "I played lousy. There's not much more to say about it." He never complained about anyone but himself. At the same time, I have seen other GMs who have left the table without setting up the pieces when they have finished playing, I have never seen Magnus do that. So yes, I've seen Magnus be in a bad mood after losing a game of chess, but does that make him a bad loser? The fact that he dropped out of the tournament and sent the famous tweet is something that has been hotly discussed in the Norwegian media as well. Those I have seen speak out who know Magnus personally are also put off by the whole situation and everyone wants Magnus to make a statement.
Personally, If someone cheats at all, ever, i would ban them. Why? Well, i would be very suspicions of them for the rest of their career, and even if we never caught them cheating again, once a cheater, always a cheater(they have proved they have a cheater mindset). and i dont think thats fair for the other players to have to deal with.
Long long time ago, in 1967, Bobby Fischer, when in the lead, withdrew from the Sousse Interzonal Tournament, after a dispute with the organizers. It made many headlines back then. In the first edition of his autobiography (1977), Viktor Kortchnoi writes: "What Fischer does, it seems to me, is often in line with the general interest of the chess world, but Fischer does not realize that he himself is part of the chess world and that he has obligations towards that chess world: he hasn't got the moral right to deny the chess world his talent." That's how I feel about Carlsen's behaviour right now. I can't say anything about Niemann's being still a cheater though. It;'s clear that he has been cheating in the past, and the same goes for his trainer Maxim Dlugy. As you (BF) say: the only one who can admit that he is still cheating, is Niemann himself. Unless, of course, he gets caught by security/organizers in the nearby future.
Magnus's actions in this matter have been disgusting. If he's got something, he should disclose it. If he just has a hunch, he should say that too. He has ruined Hans' career.
Nonsense. If this ends up ruining the career of Hans, then it was his own rampant cheating online and probably over the board as well that ended his career. Magnus just brought that cheating to the front of the discussion
I would've agreed with you, but saying Hans' career is ruined is ridiculous. Hans is completely fine, he's only banned from one chess platform. There are enough others. And he's not going to get banned from OTB tournaments. The more he plays, the more he can prove that he's legit, so over time his reputation can only improve.
The reaction from the top GMs should tell you everything about their opinion of Neiman. Magnus is clearly not alone. So is everyone just supposed to shut up and take the cheating they suspect just because Hans wasn’t caught? And for Ben: Magnus can withdraw from anything he wants. He’s top 3 greatest players ever if not the greatest.
I feel like there is three mistakes (or inaccuracies) in your reasoning. The first one is that you kind of assume that Magnus withdrew because he was mad, whilst he probably withdraw to draw attention to Hans possible cheating. Although it is very inconvenient on the short term, it might be a good thing on the long run -both for the Hans situation in particular, and about cheating in general. The second one is when you discuss the effect of withdrawing for a round Robin. You discuss it in general term instead of this one in particular, and even present a potential situation that didn't occur here. When Magnus withdrew, he knew it wasn't a GM norm tournament, and to some extend he knew the effects of his withdrawal on other participant. Third one is when you dicuss the effect for the organizers. Of course in principe having the "main" paticipant withdrawing in the middle of the event is annoying, but in that case I think it drew much more attention to the tournament than it took away from it (and Magnus probaly knew that beforehand). Anyway, that was my two cents. Video was interesting. Maybe one reason why this stuff bring you viewers is because it's not actually about chess, but brings a lot of society issues. Well and because we people love drama.
I honestly do not see why it is such a big deal that magnus withdrew, sure on one hand it sucks for the people who still wanted to play him, but after all should he not be able to have the last word in whether or not he wants to play the game or wants to play the tournament or not?
I get accused of cheating frequently because one would have to cheat to play the worst move possible so often. That takes skill.
dammit... I lol'd
Exactly, how would you know the worst move unless you were using an engine.
@@dannygjk That's why I always play the second worst move.
Imagine being 3000 in anti chess and 200 regular
I lose on turn 2 every time I play as white
When friends asked me why I stopped playing over the board the answer is because I never played in a FIDE-rated tournament that had any anti-cheating measures in place. I have no idea why Finegold's opinion is unpopular and it actually feels like it's the most obvious way to handle things. Eventually cheating will define the game of chess if people keep treating like the elephant in the room; it needs to be in the limelight because if more isn't done to prevent cheating it could literally destroy this game.
I agree , it's human nature and it can only get worse.
It's easy to jam wireless communication. However a player can have a wired system installed on their body.
With military tech it's already impossible to stop. Sure there's not enough money in chess for such tools to possibly be used, but theoretically what's already possible is quite far beyond detection. But discussing the more realistic methods and stopping them is fir sure a must.
It's a cost issue mostly. You have to make the cheating more expensive than the security measures. It's a cat and mouse game. Even military tech where electronics made from titanium or undetectable alloys are used, or directed signals, quantum communication, etc have counter measures. But at the state secret level it would be a real mess. Those tools are used to scam things worth trillions or billions though not millions or thousands of dollars like in chess.
@@gregorymorse8423 I think cheating in chess is a lot like defecating: you can imagine plenty of very impressive ways of doing it but 95% of it is simply done on the toilet with a phone in hand. I once joked that a large EMP should be emitted every 2-5 seconds but in reality I'd have been happy with a few simple checks at the main entrance and then maybe in/out of the toilets. At a few big tournaments they had security checking bags for explosives (sometimes with sniffer dogs to boot) so why couldn't they check for phones while they're at it? Obviously high prize-money tournaments or prestigious invitationals like the Sinquefield Cup should have done more to prevent cheating from the start (not just after Round 3).
@@ExtraCheeseProject agreed. But imagine if two nation states decided to have a chess race for bragging and national pride. I'm just saying chess isn't prepared to deal with that. But that sort of drama stopped being used around 50 years ago. Mostly everything is money driven more than national conscious driven nowadays. Which is why I agree with you mostly. I think phone I toilet is too risky. I think signals from a spectator who is using a phone is more likely. Perfect plausible deniability.
“It may not be a compliment on your character, but Hans can’t really expect many of those anyway”… savage
'either by his admission, or his admission' finegold being the funniest person ever even when talking about unfunny things
It is a little funny
That was good but I prefered "not going to jail for cilantro"
I didn't get it... =[
@@mariogonzalez5513 Ben is saying the only way people will know Hans cheated is if he confesses. So if you're listing out the reasons, it's "he confesses, or..." we don't know, so "he confesses", because it's the only possibility (in Ben's opinion).
I remember attending a Fide event in Singapore back in 2019. There were literally no safeguards in place. No metal detectors, no checks, no nothing. Sure, phones were "banned", but only at the "venue", which was an exhibition hall in a hotel. When you go to the bathrooms of the hotel, they literally don't check if you are using phones. I remember overhearing some kid talk to his mum on the phone and he said his game wasn't over. Sure it wasn't cheating or malicious, but the fact that phones could be used so easily means that OTB events held by fide is not at all free from cheating.
This event did have safeguards tho and metal detectors and body checks
that would be a brilliant PR stunt for Hans.. if he were to come out and admonish holders of tournaments for not executing sufficient measures of checking that people don't smuggle engines into the chess hall to ensure the indisputability of a player's achievement.. sort of spin himself as also the victim (if he didnt cheat)..
@@NOT-A-Monolith obviously a tournament attended by world number 1 would be more strict than a competition in singapore attended by only ims but my point is that cheating otb is possible
@@NOT-A-Monolith ....but you get to the good secure tournaments by cheating at the lax ones, right?
I'm incredibly good at a couple meaningless video games and I get Ben's point. Being accused of 'hacking' or cheating is a compliment for me because I know I'm not cheating.
The difference is I'm not a professional and I don't make a living off it and so the accusations are meaningless. For Hans the accusations could end his career.
You mean like as meaningless as chess? Lol.
@@Hopefully2025 I guess you're right, honestly the games I was referring to pull way more viewers than any chess tournament and have way bigger prize pools lol
There were no accusations other than by random internet comments.
Everything else was just a discussion of their suspicioun. I really disagree that we should silence that kind of conversation.
@LoveandlightYeah but it's weird because they're now in another tournament together a week later... so if Hans beats Magnus again, is Magnus going to quit that tournament too?
@@TH-dg2mm Granted that's not *that* big of an accomplishment
The important part is that you said fide should allow people to discuss possible cheating
It shouldn't allow baseless accusations. If people want to discuss about security measures fine, but if people accuse or insinuate cheating without proof they should receive punishment.
@@conelord1984 SNOWFLAKE
@@conelord1984 Okay so 'accuse without proof' is an oxymoron; if somebody has proof they will be 'reporting' somebody. Regardless, why should an accuser receive punishment? Sounds like you've got it a**-backward to me
@@conelord1984 I'm with Finegold on this actually. I think open honest discussion of suspicion is fine. I'm not suggesting that we would halt everything over an accusation, but we shouldn't bar people from voicing an accusation, suspicion, feeling, or whatever. I'm also not saying it's okay to baselessly accuse someone of cheating, yet I personally think it's wrong to threaten punishment for people who do so unless the behavior becomes abusive. What abusive means should not be given an exact definition. If the refs feel that it's too much they can take action. An example is where a player repeatedly accuses one or more players of cheating to the point that it becomes annoying. Is someone just happens to be a little paranoid and accuses another of cheating, let it be.
I can't imagine anyone disagreeing with this opinion. Clickbait title
Ben once accused me of cheating because on stream I suggested the same puzzle solution that he was thinking. It turns out our solution was a big advantage but the correct solution was a forced mate. To Ben's point, I took it as a great compliment!
Magnus and Hans are missing a golden opportunity to have a pay per view match with each other. They would make millions.
Yeah and they can play in an electromagnetically shielded room. Both players also undergo a metal detector scan and x-ray body-scan before each game. That would do it.
Hans would be crushed.
If he cheated or not is irrelevant. Cause if he didnt cheat it was still a huuuge fluke.
@@danieljohansson839
It’s hardly a fluke in a one-off game. A rating difference of 200 points means an average score of 0.25:0.75. They also played in the crypto cup and Hans won one and lost three which is what you’d expect from their ratings. Magnus would be an overwhelming favorite in a match though since the probabilities multiply
@@stuarthys9879 You can't really compare ratings like that. Magnus hasn't lost as White in years in classical time control. So objectively it definitely looks like a fluke. But honestly, seeing some breakdowns of the game I think Magnus only had like 87 accuracy according to Stockfish so feels more like a bad game from him than a fluke game by Hans. I don't think Hans cheated, so I don't have any stake in this, just enjoying the drama and looking forward to the coming rematch.
@@Moldylocks
The statistics are reliable. If you look at Hans' results he has higher ratio of decisive games than the top players, so he's both more likely to win and more likely to lose. That's why he's more likely to beat Carlsen than other guys who just try to hold for a draw. I agree though Magnus didn't play very well. I'm rated about 2000 and the way Magnus played looked like someone around my rating whereas Hans played more like you'd expect from a GM. I guess he was just having a bad day, but I think it's ridiculous for people to conclude cheating was involved and I don't think it was fluke, just ordinary probably based on the player's styles and strengths.
I like that quote, "maybe he did cheat, I just don't think he did." I was waiting for the ULTIMATE plot twist when at the end of the tournament Hans and Magnus both come out in a joint statement how they orchestrated the whole thing and Magnus would be like this is why I am struggling with caring about chess, because this little nonsense where I never say he cheated or anything, and the whole chess world dissolves into accusations of vibrators and plugs.
Or if he makes a statement that he only did this to grow Ben Finegolds channel because his content was getting stale before this chess drama happened
Ayo
The combination of $$$ and internet gaming is a breeding ground for cheating. It's never going away.
Pandora unboxed
I don't get it, though. What's even interesting about being prompted by a computer? Especially if you are a strong player (IM or GM) yourself?
@@fundhund62 cheating online is to get to a higher rating with less effort to play against stronger opponent, real life probably for prize money
@@upisntdownsilly So much I figured. But why would one even want to get a higher rating without playing like it? Isn't playing chess about proving that your ideas and understanding of the game are better than your opponents? And isn't the fun becoming better by experience?
I still don't get it.
@@fundhund62 hes already good, although people dont talk about him that way since they literally only know like 5 top players and streamers, niemann is indeed top 50 in the world, and deserves to be recognised for that, he just cheated to get better opponents without needing to use his brain to get up there, also theres no proving in chess, its not an ego boost, its more of a 'the game is wonderful and im getting such meaningful and fulfilling moments from these big brain plays' and not 'omg i played so well i cant believe it lets go i can think better than my opponent'
There's another aspect to cheating that has not been discussed anywhere that I know of. When you suspect your opponent of cheating, it becomes a big distraction that can affect your game adversely. I think this happens quite a lot in US tournaments. In the Chicago Open, for example, players get up and walk around, go to the restroom, look at other games, joke around with their buddies, and come back whenever they want. (Cellphones are supposed to be turned off and not be taken into restrooms, but this is hard to enforce.) When a player comes back in a complicated position and plays an especially strong move that the player at the board did not see, the player at the board can be distracted for the rest of the game.
I guess you have to simply deal with it If you are a Professional chess player
@@ludomirsteinbruck9376 no you don't, you are a professional player but the game organisers are not professionals.
They obviously need to find a way to not allow cheating with harsher methods
At least phones must be enforced to stay in a room that a player can't reach before the game is over and if they really want to have a phone with them, they should have a dumbphone.
If your paranoia prevents you from thinking straight, as opposed to actual evidence or facts, then it's mainly your problem. You can easily suspect your every opponent of cheating with some anal beads or some ultrasound or some other ridiculous tricks, and no amount of security measures would calm those fears. You can always make up some more and more technically possible ways the other person could be cheating
@@NJ-wb1cz the guy wants everyone to play in some faraday cage crap or something lol
@@NJ-wb1cz Anal Beads has becoming very popular in the chess community lately...
"It may not be a compliment on your character, but Hans can't really expect those anyway" LMAO
This is why I love you Ben: you're not afraid to express an unpopular opinion. And you backed up your view pretty well.
Very suspicious
What is?
Anything that moves is suspicious
I thought my humor was dry, then I found my Finegold.
He's GM in Dad Jokes, that's for sure
@@Moldylocks Super-GM Benneth Finegold. The Myth, the man, the Legend.
The main thing is that Magnus is an alcoholic, and nobody talks about that.
are you serious about that? If so, what makes you think so?
Bruh he isnt an alcoholic
Exactly, I was thinking about the same thing yesterday: if somebody would accuse me of cheating and I am not I would be flattered. No need to explain anything in postgame interviews as my chess would speak for itself.
the issue is not getting invited to tournaments because of the accusations
I remember when games would adjourn after a sealed move. Players would return to the hotel and go to work on the position with their team, then resume the game the next day after studying the position all night. Imagine that today?
Pro tip for all cheaters out there, cheat 1 move per game and you will never be caught xD
Thanks, now I can lose in 11 instead of in 10 moves!
I always cheat on my first move
It doesn't work like that because you would not know what to do next
So if the computer says mate in six then you only play the first correct move and not the next five? 🤣
Wow, who knew you could have duplicate usernames on RUclips!
Ben combines a ruthless intellectual logic with the funniest of wit. But above all he’s honest and I suspect incorruptible.
I have never won a single game of chess in my life. No-one has ever accused me of cheating.
Amen.
even though you were?
I played a tournament once where my opponent - rated 300 points higher than I - repeatedly came to the board, moved immediately, and then left. I told the tournament director, who took no action, but agreed to keep an eye on him. Strict anti-cheating measures were in place, and the game was a draw. I don’t think he was cheating. He is stronger than I am, had no reason to cheat, and he didn’t win. But, his behavior was odd, and the TD made an announcement about not
~ appearing to cheat ~ before the next round. So, people can appear to cheat even when they are not.
But Hans did admit he was cheating before and not once but twice. Until the website announced came and contradicted him that he cheated a lot more than that. So he's a renowned cheater and a liar. And you think now that we can take his word that he didn't cheat?
@@amberxv4777 Except that the Sinquefeld Cup organizers have announced they have found no evidence of him cheating in that tournament. I have no faith in what Hans says, but I take seriously what the tourney organizer says, and acknowledge that there’s a big difference between online chess and over-the-board chess.
in other words, we all know that Hansen has cheated online, and probably will continue to do so. However, I don’t think he cheated in the Sinquefeld Cup.
Best opinion I heard on this subject. So much emotional reaction everywhere else.
Asmr did a video on it you should check it out
The truth hurts
i wonder how much hans' trash talking in interviews contributed to magnus' overreaction
Magnus showed his inner man child.
Thing I don't understand is that it's so unlike Magnus to do something like this, if he didn't have serious notions about cheating. Magnus has always been fair to his opponents and graceful even in defeat. I feel like either Magnus did this because he couldn't simply believe that such a low rated young player which already proved to play unfairly online could beat him OTB, while not having any assistance, or Hans actually found a way to cheat and Magnus picked up on it. If this was any other player other than Magnus making this statement it would have been ignored, but he has a long reputation of being a good samaritan in the chess world so his actions cannot simply be ignored.
I agree. Magnus has lost a lot of matches, and never done this. Why is that?
With Ben you have to sit through four shit post to finally get his real and insightful option.
only to just realize it's yet another shitpost
I’m really confused-more than usual-isn’t Hans playing in Magnus’ tour? BTW: totally agree with you about Magnus’ conduct. I looked down the list and saw Mamedhyarov and MVL and realized how brave they were to have subpar showings yet stick it out.
that would indicate that the actual reason magnus withdrew, rather than hans and the cheating background of his, is another one: could be the mole in his team leaking stuff.
Watch after all of this Magnus actually withdrew over something completely unrelated like a domestic dispute or something, and just didn't comment on the accusations because he doesn't like Hans.
An instructive opinion. The pressure is building on Carlsen to provide a proper explanation. Come on Carlsen-“your move”!
Magnus made a statement by playing only 1 move today.
Ben always with the best take
My problem with Magnus is his toys-out-the-pram narcissism- 'He cheated in MY game therefore I'M walking out!'. Where is the collective here, the idea that if we have a potential problem we should all come together to sort it out? His actions just stink of an 'I am bigger than chess' attitude.
There's a 15 min TV feed delay btw. Magnus is the biggest baby in the history of chess.
Ben is always on top of these things - while everyone is umming and ahhing about whether Hans cheated, Ben is focused on what the implications are for the rest of the tournament, how it affects a person's career, and how FIDE needs to deal with cheating and World Champions resigining from tournaments without good reason. Spot on as always.
it's also super obnoxious of Magnus not to have clarified. If you are going to withdraw, at the very least you owe people an explanation. And either accuse a person or don't, this vague implication and then letting everyone else take the heat for you is not ethical behavior.
_"Hans plays well when the board is live and does not play well when it's not live."_
So what are you saying? That he's got a radio transmitter-receiver on his person?
he could have a chip in him that buzzes morse code, or an inner ear piece.. there's been tons of stuff like that out for a long time. He isn't saying anything about it it seems like, he is just saying that look hans plays better when the board is live..
and of course people know that it's easier to cheat with the board live than when not live, as you showed with your response.
@@mattkaye6559 how do you avoid metal detector?
@@ekklesiast He may have been getting signals from someone across the playing room. ALl they would need to do is put a pair of glasses on and that would be enough information to let him know there's a winning move to be found in the current position.
The reason I quit playing OTB chess when I was a kid is because I had an experience where an opponent cheated by literally moving his knight to an adjacent square. Eventually I complained to an arbiter and went through a horrible experience. Decided to never play OTB after that. Cheating OTB is a huge deterrent to chess becoming popular
Did you annotate your game?
How can someone cheat like that? Was it in bullet games? Or was it in rapid slow games? Cuz in a slow game, you just can't cheat like that, you can see them.
@@tolkienfan1972 Yes, thankfully!
@@-_Nuke_- Where I live, at lower levels, there were only a couple of arbiters managing the entire tournament
If it's a classical game and you write down the moves this should be preventable. Also I'm sure this kind of nonsense doesn't happen when players are a little older.
BF lookin to get those CLICKS!!
Most reasonable opinion on this issue on the internet.
what about hikaru's?
Hey ben, what did Carly Rae Jepsen say about Hans' cheating?
2:50 “that’s not how cheating works” well I’m not a cheater so I don’t know, but I don’t think Ben’s right here. He’s saying “once a cheater always a cheater” and that’s neither right nor fair. Besides, Magnus didn’t withdraw because he thinks Hans cheated some OTHER time. And if Hans were to admit cheating tomorrow or on his death bed, Magnus is still a dick.
He's more like it Will do it seversl times until their ethics finally kick in. If your ethics kicks so fast then, You directo don't cheat
You cheat more than you get caught cheating almost certainly.
Round Robin argument is helpful. Anti-cheating measures also helpful. Feeling good about not cheating helpful. In conclusion, Ben is helpful
I have only cheated 34,937 times
Hans cheated when he was a child. Most people cheated at something in their youth. The only difference is that Hans was so advanced as a young chess player that his cheating was more meaningful. I absolutely cannot hold this against him unless he has been cheating as an adult.
@@TheCriticalArchitect He was still a kid rofl people grow up. There is no way of knowing and people are just conspiracy baiting at this point without like rock hard evidence.
@@TheCriticalArchitect a kid. Not a kid anymore. And you don't KNOW he cheated more, so why are you saying it like it's fact? Incredibly unhealthy for the community
@@TheCriticalArchitect And don't forget 25? 30? 50? When else did he cheat?
@@wicked5999 he cheated with 16 a teenager now he is 19 still a teenager, so in your logic he is in the same age range..
@@ScreeAT ok how about ties then. Twenties? Same age group as seventies.
Magnus withdrawing is the real scandal
I disagree somewhat, and think that at the world champion level, it is completely valid to withdraw for reasons of mental or physical health, however I don't think it should be done without giving an explicit reason why.
Yes, but at this point he could say "it wasn't because I think Hans cheated". He chooses not to...
Ben to tell you the truth, I can't say I was ever a big fan of yours. However your words here completely changed my mind. Your attitude seems so very mature and I feel you are spot on. Was looking for someone to explore this "line" and couldn't find anyone else but you.
2 options here:
1) He didn't cheat > he is a genius (beating Magnus at that age on a very rare MC's opening with black!)
2) He cheated > he is a genius (until nobody realize how he managed to!)
If withdrawing is such a no-no the organizers should be requiring players sign contracts with heavy punishments/fines for withdrawing except for certain medical/bereavement reasons. If they don't have enough leverage to do that then that is the privilege the players enjoy.
I’ve been saying this forever, yet people are still bashing Magnus. He has every right to withdraw, just like any other player. The world champ title doesn’t come with special obligations and if it did, Magnus clearly wants none of it anyways
There are contracts that Magnus signed and he breached them. Magnus will have had to atleast pay back any appearance fees or money he made already from the organisers. I don’t know if there are other forms of fines however, possibly there was
@@loafes1352 which contracts did he breach?
@@alekhinesgun9997 the one to play in the tournament genius
@@blackhitler8572 Thanks genius! How the fuck does some schmuck on youtube know the contents of Magnus' contract is the point I was getting at.
Maybe I’m missing something, but it seems to me easy to determine if he were cheating. He said he happened to review the line (or a very similar line) that morning. Why couldn’t someone just revisit his review? Wouldn’t it be saved somewhere?
Cannot agree with your comments more! A breath of fresh air to hear a voice of reason here! You're awesome! :)
2:11 lmfao "Hans can't expect those anyway"
I actually agree with Big Ben, we should both get drug tested.
What drugs are we testing?
@@jackbandit2114 PEDs
0:34 the truth is only what you can prove. Probably Magnus will not say anything, unless he already made his complains to organizers and the new rules is what came out of it.
The issue I suppose and I don’t know the history here or too much, however I’m guessing that if your good enough to crush Magnus into literal withdrawal, you really don’t need to ever cheat online, you just win until winning is boring and you do silly openings like Magnus just for fun, then win anyway.
So why cheat online if you can crush the literal best in world?
Hans doesn't typically crush players like Magnus easily. Magnus played an uncharacteristically bad game, Hans capitalized (despite not playing perfectly himself), and that's basically it. Magnus occasionally loses to players much weaker than him even in classical chess (Andrey Esipenko famously beat him in 2021 while rated under 2700), that doesn't mean he doesn't usually wipe the floor even with super GMs.
Hans is much closer to your average GM who loses as often as he wins.
btw it's not that simple, it's funny because people would have no point saying this very point that i'm going to make if it's used for coping for magnus
beating the best in the world once doesn't make you the best in the world
Why is nobody talking about Ben shaking in his chair the whole time ?
thank you
I've only played in 2 tnmts in my life many years ago, I think they were Swiss. Obviously you don't play everyone like a round robin where you play white/black against everyone. Now I just play club chess.
Can you explain why it's more inappropriate to WD from a RR vs a Swiss? How does it affect a RR more than a Swiss? It's it because with a Swiss they can just replace the withdrawn player with someone else according to his rating?
Thanks 👍
Because in a round Robin you don't play the cheater again. Plus everyone has to play the cheater which makes the same disadvantage for all players, keeping it balanced
Your comment doesn't make any sense (or dollars)
@@yotoober1 your small chessticles are probably worth a few cents, definitely not a dollar
In a Swiss every round's pairings are determined after the end of the previous round, so a player who withdraws just won't get paired. In a RR the pairings are predetermined from the start of the tournament, so someone leaving in the middle of the tournament inevitably creates uneven playing conditions for the remaining players.
There is much more evidence that Magnus Carlsen is having some type of breakdown than Hans Niemann cheated. Magnus said he will not defend his world title, and withdrew from a round robin tournament. He insinuated that Hans cheated when he played him without having any evidence or having the courage to say so directly, or to explain his comments. Not since Bobby Fischer have we seen such behavior from a world champion. Like Bobby, Magnus must deal with the fact that he will at some point no longer be world champion, and this is hard to accept. Many of the chess commentators on this situation are people who have given up playing in over the board tournaments because it is easier to make money commentating and playing online. By contrast in the last few years Hans has played in a large number of over the board games, and has advanced into the top one hundred list of players in the world. The only scandal in this situation is the behavior of Magnus Carlsen.
So u mean withdrawing from a tournament is a scandal? Is he d first person to ever withdraw from a tournament? Why is his first withdrawal a scandal to u? Big boy, only tin I see is hate in ur heart! Cure it! It could kill u.
@@nkamiabam3716 In the manner he did, yes; With no statement and allowing mud slinging to take place. Hans isn't the only individual who took part in that tournament his actions have repercussions for all players involved not just them two. Just like Ben alluded to in the video.
@@nkamiabam3716 Stop hating on Karl Gerhard Roth; it could kill you.
Magnus did not insinuate cheating, but he watched the insinuations grow.
@@nkamiabam3716 Yes, it is quite scandal, especially when is it done by world champion in tournament with average ELO rating above 2750. Its not like random noob leaving random open tournament and Magnus should really explain himslef, not just some bullshit cryptic tweet.
Can you explain why all these high level Chess people seem to not care about cheating online?
With the rise of Esports, online cheating is hugely known and seen as a serious issue.
Everyone seems to be taking the Cycling/MLB approach where “LoTs Of PeOpLe Do It sO iTs OkAy” which is idiotic.
As a former collegiate athlete that also plays decently high level chess, the fact that everyone acts like online doesnt matter is absolutely *insane* to me.
Its actually worse in a lot of ways. If you’re a AAA player that might make the majors and huge amounts of money from cheating, theres a reason, if you’re doing it to win a pickup game that *literally doesnt matter* (equivalent of online cheating) it’s actually way way worse. It says the only thing that is stopping you from cheating is if its hard and makes you a garbage person with no respect for the game.
I have no idea how literally no one is pushing this narrative, Chess is wholly unprepared for cheating like MLB was for steroids in the 90’s.
Cheating is a problem... but in online competitions it is common to the point of being almost expected to happen. That's why real e-Sport competitions need to be done in a controlled environment with standardised hardware and referees watching carefully.
I don't think anyone says online cheating is ok, but the point here is that FIDE govern ratings and the organisers of the Sinquefield Cup decide who plays or not. Kicking up a fuss to create a trial by social media is not professional behaviour in any sport.
Only cheat on the first move, I guarantee you will never get caught 😆
what did Carly Rae Jepsen say then?
Totally agree that Magnus didn't handle this well. Poor sportsmenship
Yea for being the TOP player no excuse for what he did with no explanation.
Ye he should have just let Hans cheat and get away with it
@@idisplaypace2411 really?? Are you daft?? if he caught him cheating isn't the appropriate action reporting him, even if you suspect it, this is still the appropriate action, instead of not proving, insinuating and leaving your followers and loyalists to attack and destroy him though you have not shown and probably will not show any proof
@@ikebee4551 i was being sarcastic
My opinion is that all efforts should be in the direction of keeping the game clean, that is all that matters. With the technology today, actually catching a cheater can be almost impossible. The fact that Magnus retired is more his own personal damage: he is allowed, he didn’t offend the officials so I don’t understand why attacking him. Instead, Let’s think: if he didn’t retire, would we talk today about Hans cheating? Will everyone be with eyes on Hans from now on? Also, there is no moral difference in cheating online or cheating at the board: it’s CHEATING
Really? 'coz I want to talk about how much of a bad loser Carlsen is... Or are you saying he would have retired if he won?
Magnus can withdraw if he wants. He may not release a statement if he thinks Hans cheated. If Magnus withdrew for his own reasons then he owes Hans a statement I think. At the same time, Hans got caught cheating online and did not tell the complete truth.
Big Magnus simp. It's a d*ck move to apply for a round-robin tournament and drop out. If you sign up for something you just have to stick to it. Even if you think that one person has cheated/cheats. It's like ordering food at a restaurant and leaving right after without waiting for the food to show up and not paying the bill. Magnus might have had his "personal" reasons to quit but as far as we can see it's just because he lost. Period.
People always accuse me of cheating because I'm 2500 and have only played three months. I simply close the engine, allowing me to rebute with a clear conscious.
New word rebute: A combination of rebut and refute.
I'm no GM, but I almost understand why somebody would withdraw if they REALLY thought cheating was going on. This goes for any sport.
So I kind of disagree a bit with Ben here, which is rare...
I think it depends.. apparently quite a few GMs have thought hans was cheating for years so. If it's gotten to that point, and nothing has been done about it, then it's fine for magnus to withdraw in order to hopefully finally get something done about it..
It’s not typical for competitors in any sport to accuse competition of cheating.
That only makes sense if all his opponents were cheating. There were 10 players - Magnus should have had a quick word with the organisers and keep playing.
Reality: Hans is a strong player and he beat Magnus fair and square... and Magnus must know this after analysing the game he played...
@@davidlloyd1526Both of us are too low rated to know that. Only Magnus and Hans know. I also think that the reality is that he didn't cheat.
But you are entirely wrong on the other point. It makes no difference how many players there are, if you are SURE there is foul play going on, you don't have to continue with the tainted scores and the facade. The tournament is a over at that point. And you could not ask a sportsman to keep participating in a tournament just because "others are still playing". that's beyond ridiculous
This is such a strange opinion man, just continue and pretend nothing happened. The tournament should be voided and the cheater should have to pay everyone compensation. Chess cheating is no joke and not a trivial matter and it needs to stop being treated that way.
In Magnus's defense, I think he is at a stage of his career where he is looking for legacy, and he doesn't want to hand his over to someone he thinks is cheating.
Let's imagine Hans was cheating, and Magnus didn't withdraw. There would have been no controversy and no increased anti-cheating measures. Hans would have ended up winning the tournament (he was 2 1/2 on the third day, until the 15min broadcast delay was implemented, and didn't win a single game after that), and that win would have launched Hans career for real while at the same time downplaying Magnus's status as world champ (played in a major tournament and was beaten by a raising star).
If Magnus is trying to leave a legacy as the greatest player of this era, possibly of all time, allowing someone you think is cheating to use you as a stepping stone isn't a good move.
Yeah and on the other hand, if Hans wasn’t cheating, which he likely wasn’t, then Magnus ripped that chance away from because he was salty about losing. Regardless of his legacy, if Hans wasn’t cheating then he deserved to win and launch his career. I frankly don’t care if he cheated to get there, he still had to play OTB against the very best chess players in the world. Cheaters have to keep cheating to win, especially at that level. So either Hans has some kind of insane cheating tech that no one at FIDE can detect including analyzing his moves after, or Magnus completely trashed a round robin tournament and a young stars career in the process to protect his “legacy” which by the way includes voluntarily stepping away from the WCC. Some legacy he creating huh?
Great legacy though withdrawing from everything when you may or may not have passed your prime.
I get you in that being so far above everyone else for so long is hard. Winning becomes meaningless, then you start losing to some younger people, I imagine that must feel devastating (and Hans rubbed it in with the "losing to an idiot like me" comment).
But the legacy is already there. No one can take that away from you. People don't lose respect for Kasparov because he's grown older and is not in the same form as he was before. The guy is an absolute legend and everybody knows that.
On the contrary, if Hans manages to establish himself in the world's elite and, you know, there's no instance of proven cheating OTB that leads to his downfall, what a great stepping stone for his career to beat the world champion and be suspected of cheating because "he was just too good for the aging world champion to handle".
Magnus trying to leave a legacy?
When asked about the impact of him not defending his title, he could have said: "WCC is great even if I don't play on it, they're all great players". What did he say? "Not my problem" xD
@@Bearable124 "Hans has some kind of insane cheating tech".
Try to think about the context: cheating in sports.
Cyclists have been caught swapping bikes mid race which contains electric engines hidden in the frame. It was identified by inspecting races infrared cameras detecting a higher temperature caused by the engine inside the frame. Better thermal insulation is making it almost impossible to detect, so now, they have to check racers to make sure the bikes aren't swap, while allowing bike swaps for mechanical failure.
Some guys on EPO wake up in the middle of the night to exercise to avoid heart failure.
People pass off other people's piss as their own as a way to defeat drug tests. Guys are microdosing steroids to avoid detection.
...
The incentives of high level chess are the same as those of high level sports: fame and money.
What does it take to cheat at Chess? You just need a way to receive a simple sign to tell you what is the next piece you have to move. Could be as simple as a spectator putting his hand in his pocket/scratching his ear/..., or as funny as having a vibrating device up your bung hole.
It's very naïve to think Chess is safe from a well prepared cheater or that all Chess players are honorable people who wouldn't think of cheating.
@@sylver76 it’s also fairly arrogant to assume you know better than FIDE or SLCC when it comes to cheating in chess. They investigated and found no signs of unfair play at Sinquefield correct? Even after the increased security and insane burden of stress he was out under, Hans still managed to play great chess, finding winning moves and positions, but ultimately drawing most games. Look at his game with Alireza or Nepo. Of course people will find a way to cheat in any sport, but the onus is on the accuser or the organization to find and prove it. In this case, the accuser has not even technically accused Hans of anything. Magnus has possibly wrecked this kids chance at winning a major tournament and he doesn’t even have the balls to come out and actually accuse him. So if there’s no accusation and there’s no proof of cheating in this tourney at all then what is left? Magnus withdrew from a Round Robin after losing with white to a young up and comer.
I agree with GM Ben's reasoning, and opinion. I also like his sense of hummer and I'm glad to be better looking than he is. 😊
He does have a good sense of luxury cars
@@r.mcdonnell8614 LOL! That's a + in my book.
For a big event like the Sinequefield cup the main way of cheating would be some complicity from the staff.
not exactly, technology have grown to counter anticheating measures
@@Warcheiftan and we haven't seen evidence of Hans possessing that tech.
@@JohnS-il1dr nor would you
Magnus withdrawing from a round robin because he thinks Hans cheated is like if the Pope refused to go to church because he thought someone in there was secretly an atheist
XD
No you are completely wrong
Obviously, it was not Magnus mad at cheater, it was Magnus mad at tournament organizers for some reason, and that's the reason he cannot talk.
If so, he should clarify at least that it had nothing to do with Hans.
@@davidlloyd1526 It had something to do with Hans. Magnus knew Hans was a cheater, Magnus probably requested additional security or whatnot, organizers refused and after the loss Magnus just walked out.
Not saying it was right thing to do but that is what I think happened.
How do I find myself and the light? By seeking the path that leads to the truth.
Correlation does not mean causation. Televised events tend to be bigger, more prestigious, and have bigger prize pools. It wpuld make sense that Hans studied hard for them, and thus played better as a result.
That's ridiculous. Even if that were true, your logic would hold for every player and then everyone's performance rating would be relatively unchanged.
@@bricehatcher8391 What's ridiculous is accusing people of cheating when there are perfectly reasonable alternative explanations.
@@trucid2 I didn't say anything about him cheating or not cheating or alternatives. All I said is that your comment makes less than 0 sense.
@@bricehatcher8391 You don't think it's possible that Hans studied harder than the other players? On what basis do you discard this explanation?
@@trucid2 you're insinuating 2 things. The first is that chess players study less for events that don't use the DGT boards. AND that only Hans then studies harder for events that use DGT boards.
And you're right correlation doesn't prove causation. But it's highly suspicious how strong the correlation is. So it would be good if he could explain the performance difference in these events.
Where is the post about Hans performing poorly with a broadcast delay?
Magnus is going thru his 'I'm bigger than chess/Fischer' moment.. What happens if you big someone up too much. Always thought Kasparov was more of a beast at his peak than Magnus.
I cheated just once when i was a kid on the internet when i was like 1600 against a 2000. of course i was arrogant and ignored engine suggestions and got flagged in a slightly worse in a drawn game but i'm a weirdo.
cheating is ok if you are cheating to lose with grace ;)
If I beat Sauron and he accused me of cheating and he proceeded to drop off the face of the earth. I would die of satisfaction.
That’s another completely worthless point that made me suspect Hans more. If the best guy on the planet thought I was cheating I would be milking the hell out of that. Based on the persona he acts out, you’d think that’s exactly what he would do too if he didn’t cheat. Funny how he goes from “he played very poorly and he should be embarrassed” to being the most defensive person on the planet.
@@Bhubnipz He got banned from the biggest chess platform after Carlsen dropped out of the tournament.
@@ETBrooD
No he was banned after he publicly admitted to cheating online. He made that ban public while claiming he was being treated unfairly. That chess platform then made a statement saying that Hans recent ban was because he lied about how much and how recently he cheated on their platform. Hans hasn’t responded to that statement from what I can tell
@@Bhubnipz That is false, Niemann got banned before his recent admission to cheating.
"For a game to be [FIDE] rated each player must have a minimum of two hours in which to complete all the moves, assuming the game lasts 60 moves".
I have played in FIDE-rated tournaments where the players are unrated or have ratings below 1500, and I think that two hours is loo long for such players. These tournaments typically had numerous children playing; these kids often looked bored and sometimes went off to play on their mobiles whilst they were waiting for their opponents to move.
I think that a minimum of one hour would be preferable for players rated below 1500 because it would make it more reasonable to expect that everyone follows the rules.
It's true I never played in a round robin, but I once played in a square thrush.
How dare someone have an incredibly rational take.
That Carly Rae Jepsen joke caught me off guard 😂
If you look at his centipawn count on some of his games, it definitely is somewhat suspicious, but still, you can’t be 100% sure. Some of those games with high centipawn counts look wierd, but what do I know.
Why let a confirmed cheater into a tournament? Why play a confirmed cheater? Is this normal in the chess world? -someone not from the chess world
"To me that's not the main issue [Niemann cheated or not]. [...] The main issue is that Magnus dropped from a round robin." Really? How on earth did you come to that conclusion? Is it a cultural thing? It seems that a majority of Americans don't believe Hans Niemann cheated. Why? Is it because he's an American?
This gives me flashbacks to Lance Armstrong because this is exactly how you Americans reacted to the allegations that Lance Armstrong were cheating. Until he admitted to being the worst cheater in history... that is. I remember the discussions about whether Lance cheated was heavily debated in Europe and a lot of Europeans was very suspicious against Lance Armstrong, but when I read US based news, posts in forums where there was a lot of Americans or talked with American friends and family, you (Americans) hailed Lance for being a fantastic sportsman, and you wouldn't listen to any talk about doping. You called it a "witch hunt". Sounds familiar? Do a little research and you will easily find articles in American news site that defended Armstrong right up til the infamous interview with Oprah, and I'm sure that it is tons of articles that has been deleted after Armstrong admitted to use of doping.
I agree that everyone is innocent to proven guilty, but Hans Niemann has been caught cheating. Twice! That is exactly what he admits to. Isn't that strange? He's literally using the fact that he was caught cheating to his advantage by admitting that he has cheated, but that was "when I was 16 years old" and now "I'm older and much more mature now". Right... Well it's barely three years ago, and he's only a 19 year old teenager now so excuse me for being a little doubtful of that he has matured exceptionally in the three last years. His rating has skyrocketed in this three years. A coincidence? Maybe, but the majority of Americans seems to know that he hasn't cheated and/or don't care. The worse thing is while you are willing to sweeping under the rug that Niemann in fact is a cheater you choose to point at Magnus Carlsen as being the bad person. I'm sorry, but this so quintessentially American.
Can it be both? Hans is a cheater and Magnus Carlsen has always been a bad loser.
@@davidlloyd1526 Of course, but "bad looser" is a relative and subjective term. Take a look at Jan Nepomnjashchij for example. He looked bitter during every press conference during the last World Cup. Yes, Magnus has sometimes walked quickly past the press zone after he has lost, but he has - as far as I can remember - always attended the press conference afterwards. From the interviews I've seen, he can be mad, but he's always mad at himself. He often answers: "What went wrong today?". "I played lousy. There's not much more to say about it." He never complained about anyone but himself. At the same time, I have seen other GMs who have left the table without setting up the pieces when they have finished playing, I have never seen Magnus do that.
So yes, I've seen Magnus be in a bad mood after losing a game of chess, but does that make him a bad loser? The fact that he dropped out of the tournament and sent the famous tweet is something that has been hotly discussed in the Norwegian media as well. Those I have seen speak out who know Magnus personally are also put off by the whole situation and everyone wants Magnus to make a statement.
Why is Ben's chair keep wiggling/vibrating?
It's a vibrating chair that massages his back.
havent youtube sent a 100k sub plaque? anyways, congrats on +100k now!
Magnus is the Salieri of chess
"Hikaru Magnus and I get a lot more engagement because of this incident" the exact moment I liked the video lmao
Personally, If someone cheats at all, ever, i would ban them. Why? Well, i would be very suspicions of them for the rest of their career, and even if we never caught them cheating again, once a cheater, always a cheater(they have proved they have a cheater mindset).
and i dont think thats fair for the other players to have to deal with.
Long long time ago, in 1967, Bobby Fischer, when in the lead, withdrew from the Sousse Interzonal Tournament, after a dispute with the organizers. It made many headlines back then.
In the first edition of his autobiography (1977), Viktor Kortchnoi writes: "What Fischer does, it seems to me, is often in line with the general interest of the chess world, but Fischer does not realize that he himself is part of the chess world and that he has obligations towards that chess world: he hasn't got the moral right to deny the chess world his talent."
That's how I feel about Carlsen's behaviour right now.
I can't say anything about Niemann's being still a cheater though. It;'s clear that he has been cheating in the past, and the same goes for his trainer Maxim Dlugy. As you (BF) say: the only one who can admit that he is still cheating, is Niemann himself. Unless, of course, he gets caught by security/organizers in the nearby future.
Magnus's actions in this matter have been disgusting. If he's got something, he should disclose it. If he just has a hunch, he should say that too. He has ruined Hans' career.
Ruined? He just jump started his steaming career if he chooses that route lol
95% of casual chess players/watchers had no idea who he was
Nonsense. If this ends up ruining the career of Hans, then it was his own rampant cheating online and probably over the board as well that ended his career. Magnus just brought that cheating to the front of the discussion
I would've agreed with you, but saying Hans' career is ruined is ridiculous. Hans is completely fine, he's only banned from one chess platform. There are enough others. And he's not going to get banned from OTB tournaments. The more he plays, the more he can prove that he's legit, so over time his reputation can only improve.
The reaction from the top GMs should tell you everything about their opinion of Neiman. Magnus is clearly not alone.
So is everyone just supposed to shut up and take the cheating they suspect just because Hans wasn’t caught?
And for Ben: Magnus can withdraw from anything he wants. He’s top 3 greatest players ever if not the greatest.
I feel like there is three mistakes (or inaccuracies) in your reasoning.
The first one is that you kind of assume that Magnus withdrew because he was mad, whilst he probably withdraw to draw attention to Hans possible cheating. Although it is very inconvenient on the short term, it might be a good thing on the long run -both for the Hans situation in particular, and about cheating in general.
The second one is when you discuss the effect of withdrawing for a round Robin. You discuss it in general term instead of this one in particular, and even present a potential situation that didn't occur here. When Magnus withdrew, he knew it wasn't a GM norm tournament, and to some extend he knew the effects of his withdrawal on other participant.
Third one is when you dicuss the effect for the organizers. Of course in principe having the "main" paticipant withdrawing in the middle of the event is annoying, but in that case I think it drew much more attention to the tournament than it took away from it (and Magnus probaly knew that beforehand).
Anyway, that was my two cents. Video was interesting. Maybe one reason why this stuff bring you viewers is because it's not actually about chess, but brings a lot of society issues. Well and because we people love drama.
«A compliment on your character.. but Hans can't expect any of those anyway» LMAO truth hurts
Just me, or do these takes not seem spicy. I kinda wish more people had mild takes, rather than all the takes we’ve gotten on the issue
You would think a chess engine would be able to tell when someone cheats or if.
The live games were junior and scholastic events. You can't just site some random internet study and claim it as fact.
I love that he couldn't resist going off on a cilantro dad joke tangent...
I honestly do not see why it is such a big deal that magnus withdrew, sure on one hand it sucks for the people who still wanted to play him, but after all should he not be able to have the last word in whether or not he wants to play the game or wants to play the tournament or not?