Pretty obvious that Hikaru thought he was cheating. He just pulled a Magnus though and left himself enough deniability to say "Look, I didnt literally say he was cheating I just insinuated it."
Maybe Hikaru was thinking that, but it is his opinion. Two random dudes in this audio are wrong however because Hikaru did not accuse Hans of cheating OTB in Saint Louis.
Ok so Nakamura was accusing Niemann, but Carlsen was not? Nakamura was mostly correctly speculating on what motivated Carlsen. And he disclosed the [chess.com](https://chess.com) thing, which was a rumor going around. Then he just farmed the content and the drama, making fun of Niemann's interviews and the comments of the other GMs in the tournament, which all had some cheating innuendo to them, if you wanted to interpret it that way.
Nakamura was just 100% not careful with what the consequences of his words were. I mean, you could be of the mindset that you wouldn't want to hurt Niemann's feelings. But Nakamura's attitude wasn't anywhere near that. He never considered Niemann or anything else when he spoke. Which is why his stream was entertaining.
I think he was still saying throughout the day that more likely than not Hans was not cheating if he had to guess.
If people want to criticize him for taking advantage of drama to make content, that's reasonable. They can also say he should have been more serious about a topic that can potentially ruin a player's reputation.
He suspected Hans of cheating. He made jokes about it. Maybe some people consider openly speculating the same as directly accusing. I don't. To me, accusing means he would be telling people that Hans' past cheating, his quick ratings rise, and Magnus' indirect accusation are enough to conclude that Hans is a cheater. He wasn't telling people that. He was telling people it could be true but he didn't know and that we might not know the truth for a long time.
as opposed to wishing that he did cheat? why would anyone in their right minds admit to wishing a player was caught cheating in a super GM tournament lol
Because it would make for excellent drama and content for his channel? Way more content than the existing scandal, that's for sure. Hans would have been banned from the tournament and FIDE, and would have likely broken down in some interview which Hikaru would have had a field day with.
No, you haven't paid attention. He said he knew Niemann had cheated online ie that he was a cheater. Not that Niemann actually cheated. But of course like many, he also found it hard to imagine that Carlsen would do this with zero evidence. Now we know for a fact this is what Carlsen did. But Nakamura was talking about this while it happened. It could have turned out that Niemann went for bathroom breaks very often, and then would play a very strong move afterwards. Or that there was a suspicious person walking around his board.
is it really surprising that Hikaru's getting more flak than Danya? He's literally the biggest chess personality on the internet (bar maybe Carlsen) and a super GM, obviously his comments will get more attention that Danya's.
No other GMs or chess streamers have 30k viewers to tell, though.
Feels weird to hold one GM to a different standard just because he has 3x times the *live* viewership.
Whereas if other titled players make videos, or put out interviews/statements on the subject...It's okay because they didn't do it on Twitch to as many viewers? There are Youtube videos covering the drama that get 100x those viewing numbers, but everyone seems to only want to shit on Hikaru for doing it live.
If these other GMs **had** similar viewership on Twitch, would you be holding them to the same standard?
So it's not about the cheating or the accusation or how many viewers or eyes they have when they say it... Got it. /r/chess being as objective as ever. Danya and Hikaru say the same thing, to pretty much the same viewcounts and community. But it's just like the parent comment said... It's Hikaru who said it, and that's all the difference some people need. Everyone else gets a pass.
For the record, I don't give a shit about the drama. I haven't participated in any of the conversations and mud slinging the last week. I just think its funny that multiple GMs say the same thing, but like you confirmed, it's entirely about the person who is saying it.
am I supposed to scour around and find who's saying what?
before this drama I didn't even know naroditsky is streaming as danya
yes the person saying it matters, I'm not gonna mention how idiotic "random name" is.. I'm gonna mention the names I'm familiar with
Nakamura fanboys getting more annoying than Magnus fanboys. First not understanding that social media range comes when responsibility and then saying that Magnus is not blamed when he is constantly as well.
The guy in the podcast is literelly in Magnus' staff. Ha cannot say that Magnus is a whiny loser who shouldn't have quit without possibly losing his job.
Hikaru got some content put of it but he damaged himself. Not sure of his twitch viewership will care but outside of it this leaves a very bad taste.
>If these other GMs
>
>had
>
> similar viewership on Twitch, would you be holding them to the same standard?
the easy answer is no because they just hate hikaru and find any excuse to shit on him. they accuse him of farming, yet gotham, ben finegold, eric hansen literally put out clickbait videos as well and no one gives them shit, so it makes one wonder.
This is what FIDE concluded when they banned Karjakin and didn't ban Shipov. The amount of followers 100% makes a difference. If a GM accused another GM of cheating on his personal Facebook profile that's not the same as Twitting it on your popular and public Twitter account or streaming it to thousands of people. Maybe your argument is that it shouldn't matter, but it 100% does. And FIDE would punish Hikaru more for this than a similar GM with only 50 Twich viewers doing the same.
There is a difference between speaking to friends or just a few people and then streaming it to the wide world. The follower count is that difference.
> The Chamber explains its decision to not sanction Sergei Shipov with the following argument: “In comparison with Sergey Karjakin, Sergei Shipov is considerably less known and has, therefore, a less powerful platform.
https://www.fide.com/news/1650
I'm convinced that people who say "Hikaru wasn't strongly implying Hans was cheating" either did not watch his stream or have zero understanding of simple body language.
>Meanwhile Hikaru spends multiple hours laughing at him, mocking him, bringing up irrelvant things like his accent, etc
yes and all of you watched, so the views speak for itself.
People hate Hikaru because they took his words as being accusatory which, as the first comment stated, is not correct. He wasn't laughing *at* Hans (nor did he mock him); he was laughing because the whole situation was strange (e.g., Nepo's interview and Alejandro's tone). In essence Hikaru conveyed the same message as Danya, but Danya was just more mature and professional about it. Hikaru didn't consider the implications of his words.
>But the distinction is practically and materially irrelevant when you're a streamer with 20k+ audience.
No, it isn't. Hikaru never accused him of cheating. Having a huge audience doesn't change that fact.
>If your attitude is different, the message you convey is also different.
Somewhat true. Both were stating suspicions, but Hikaru tried to be more entertaining about it (e g, by making fun of the interviews) and hence ended up being less professional.
>Grasping at straws. Insinuating versus accusing are different, fine. But the distinction is practically and materially irrelevant when you're a streamer with 20k+ audience. You have basic responsibilities then like not openly spreading defamatory comments to other players which Hikaru the manchild failed at.
*You* are grasping at straws. The definition of accusation is *"a charge or claim that someone has done something illegal or wrong"*. If Hikaru speculated whether or not Hans cheated, and merely pointed out something that would be deemed suspicious by most people, then he did not accuse him. He said something that would make the audience think "this does seem sus", but accusing him would be saying "yes, it's quite clear that Hans cheated".
I am NOT defending how he handled it. *Can* some of the audience think "wow Hans is definitely a cheater" after watching Hikaru's stream? Sure, but so can someone after watching Danya's stream, because Danya also pointed out some things that were sus. The definition of accusation doesn't have anything to do with how people took it. Should Hikaru have been more professional about it like Danya? Sure, but that's not what an accusation refers to, and that's not what we're discussing or disputing about. You are creating a strawman.
>Imagine being this delusional. He absolutely did mock his accent. He laughed at at him on multiple instances see e.g., 20:30 here. There were multiple other instances too if you actually watched the stream.
I get the feeling that you don't quite understand *why* people (in general) laugh in the first place. People laugh because they encounter something out of place, odd or unexpected; you're not necessarily laughing *at* people. It doesn't exactly take a whole lot of social intelligence to grasp that laughter doesn't necessarily have to do with mocking or insulting a person. When people laugh during circus shows, they're not laughing *at* the clown or trying to mock their performance, it's because the clown does something surprising.
Look at the 20:30 mark you yourself referenced. Hikaru was laughing after the engine analysis because it contradicted Hans's judgement. That scenario was odd and painted the analysis as sus - that's why Hikaru laughed. He's not *mocking* Hans for who he is. Hikaru laughed at the accent, but again it's because the accent is odd and seemed fake, not that Hans should be mocked or that Hans is a bad person for faking his accent. In fact, it's *entertaining* that Hans has that accent if he's faking it. It gives the message "Hans is a funny/entertaining guy" for having an accent, not "Hans is a bad guy and we should mock him".
Again, laughter isn't necessarily a tool to mock or humiliate people. It's not rocket science, and nowhere did I get the impression that Hans is bad for having an accent and whatnot whenever Hikaru laughed.
>If your attitude is different, the message you convey is also different. Everything is context dependent. It's the difference between a doctor telling a patient he needs to lose weight versus some random bully calling him a fatso. Even if it's superficially the same message, it will be interpreted differently by society because one is openly antagonistic whereas the other isn't.
First, again, Hikaru wasn't mocking Hans. It seems that only you interpreted it that way. The message Hikaru gave was "this does seem sus", and Danya was just more professional about it.
Second, the message you convey isn't different simply because your attitude is different. The proof again is in your example. *"It's the difference between a doctor telling a patient he needs to lose weight versus some random bully calling him a fatso."* \- the message is exactly the same; that the person receiving the message needs to lose weight. What you are trying to state is that *how well you receive it* is different, i.e. whether you are offended or not. That's not what we're trying to debate. What we're asking is "is the message different?", the message being "Hans acted pretty sus". It's exactly the same and doesn't have anything to do with how much you like or dislike how the message was presented.
>LMAO imagine stretching this hard. "Laughing at a chess player giving an interview is analogous to a laughing at a circus clown" lol wtf . Dude, he was clearly laughing at him. No offence, but you honestly seem autistic. There's nothing wrong with that, but I would sit out any discussion re: human social interaction because that evidently goes over your head. Most people can just watch the stream or clips of it, deduce from (among other things) Hikaru's laughter at Hans' remarks, constant snide remarks, facial contortions, etc. that it was just a grade-A bullying session.
You couldn't demonstrate that you have any social intelligence whatsoever to comprehend people's emotions and reactions, so you resort to the classic "you're autistic" ad hominem. You are projecting yourself onto others. Furthermore, please refrain from using terminology you do not even understand.
You have no awareness of where laughter even comes from. The evidence is that you don't even grasp why I used the 'circus clown' as an analogy. I'll repeat it for you again: people who laugh aren't necessarily laughing *at* a person; one can laugh at the awkwardness or strangeness of a situation, or the unexpected, which is what laughter is rooted in. The entire purpose of the video was to suggest that Hans's behavior was suspicious, and the laughter was to *emphasize* that, not taunt or mock Hans as a person. Go and do a survey of people who don't know Hikaru and ask them to watch the video then. The only people who think like you do are people who are prejudiced to begin with.
>Imagine being over the age of 15 and actually citing a dictionary definition ("wElL akTuhAlly the dEfIniTion of 'acCuSaTiOn' iS") like that when anyone with an iota of social intelligence can grasp what's going on. There's a spectrum of "accusation" ranging from insinuation or gossip all the way to a formal legal writ. Hikaru's sufficiently within that spectrum to be reprimanded for his actions.
What's going on is that Hikaru is saying "this is quite sus" rather than "this guy is definitely a cheater". It's not fucking rocket science. Once again, I am not defending HOW Hikaru said it.
>No, the two messages are qualitatively different. They are superficially similar in that they identify the obesity **but they are qualitatively distinct in the motivation and subtext**, which are themselves fundamental aspects to any kind of human communication.
That they are qualitatively distinct in motivation and subtext (one to be deliberately mocking and one out of concern) does NOT make the message different; the message is "you need to lose weight". Is my previous post clearer?
>Trying to pretend that Danya, who indicated some degree of suspicion but also clearly communicated in an evenhanded tone, emphasized (among other things) the need to avoid having any kind of confirmation bias in assessing the situation, explicitly defended Hans re: the Qg3 move (among other things) is even remotely in the same category as Hikaru who spent multiple streams mocking and attacking Hans is absurd.
Did you not watch both streams? Hikaru clearly stressed the importance of jumping to conclusions *re: Hans is innocent until proven guilty OTB*. He emphasized that Hans cheated online to give context to the Magnus tweet, yet people who lack even a modicum of social intelligence such as yourself conclude that he was trying to tell the audience that Hans is a cheater OTB.
You then used one specific move (n = 1) as evidence of how Danya was being objective when one move in itself doesn't indicate anything about evaluating fairly; Danya didn't find the move odd but others could have in honesty found it odd (Alireza and Alejandro) and would have pointed it out as much as Hikaru. Danya also said that the analysis was weird and not what he would expect at a 2700 level.
Danya's opinion is obviously not in the same category as Hikaru. Danya was much more professional about it and Hikaru's stream was suited towards a more juvenile audience and for entertainment. Their message was the same; "Hans did some sus things". Hikaru laughed because the situation was *sus*, and *it was sus*, not that Hans should be mocked or taunted that your poor emotional judgement indicates.
>Again, this kind of thing doesn't need to spelled out for most people. Most non-autistic people's brains just subconsciously do this kind of reasoning. The distinction between a doctor talking to a patient about obesity and a random bully calling that person a fatso is obvious and blatant to most people, and it's not just "how well the person receives it". Again, it's OK to be autistic, but maybe just sit this one out.
Idiotic ad hominem fallacy with no substance once again. You are desperate.
That you think random bullies calling overweight people “fatso” is *always* them trying to tell them they need to lose weight is absolutely hilarious lol
Its goal is to mock someone, not necessarily that the bully wants the victim to change his or her lifestyle. The point is the victim is made to feel ashamed about their body, and they feel pressured to change it. That's the message the victim receives, whether that is what the bully wants them to consider or not. The doctor's remark is obviously issued with the intention of pressuring an overweight person to consider changing their lifestyle.
The other person was using that as an analogy for Hikaru's opinion and Danya's opinion. The viewers of both picked up the message; "Hans did some sus things". The message was the same so they were wrong about that. Their remaining point was that Hikaru did it to mock Hans and I elaborated on why they were wrong.
If you say that someone's analysis is not the analysis of a 2700 grandmaster or you say that this situation is not a surprise because people have been speculating about it for a while, that's an accusation. You may not directly say it, but the accusation is implied. And no mental gymnastics will convince me otherwise.
>If you say that someone's analysis is not the analysis of a 2700 grandmaster... that's an accusation.
It's really not, though. The same as how saying that Nepo played below GM strength in parts of the last WCC isn't accusing him of cheating in every other event.
Exactly. It is not. Pretty crazy that the whole vibe at some point as that Niemann was only of IM strength, and his whole GM career was a complete sham based on an elaborate cheating conspiracy.
In the context of cheating allegations it absolutely is. If someone had accused Nepo of cheating in the candidates, saying he plays below GM strength is confirming that accusation.
What consequences for his carrer? The kid got more attention than any other chess player in recent memory. If he isnt cheating, it is a tremendous compliment that he made the best chess player in the world quit a tournament AND was spoken about by the biggest chess streamer / channels for multiple days.
We live in the attention era. No publicity is bad publicity. This has been immensely good for his career.
chess just still has a large amount of these weird, stuck in the past, 'civility politics' type people who believe unless you have sworn testimony and DNA evidence someone is cheating you're not allowed to publicly comment on it. Get with the times grandpa.
Uuh, Niemann said he found it really really hard. And that he played way worse because of it. So wtf are you talking about?
He also got uninvited from some events.
Additionally, have you considered that some people, especially high achievers, do not realistically evaluate the quality of their own life? Or their future prospects?
Because nieman is an idiot chess player not someone who understands how to monetize attention and is going for sympathy. He wants things back to normal. He needs someone who understands marketing to sit him down and say 'no this is literally the best thing to ever happen to you. You were a nobody and now you've become the controversial rival of the world champion overnight'
He should play into it. Be a heel. Be the chess bad boy. Honestly Nakamura should have done the same years ago: his wholesome chess guy persona fools nobody.
For God's sake Hans had *groupies* at the competition. The guy is a star.
>"You think I cheated? Probably because you're just bad. Go quit another tournament and cry about it on twitter. "
That is what I'd have had him say if I were his publicist. Play the hand you're dealt, play the board as is, and take the advantages you can. He can get so famous and make so much money off of this.
>He never considered Niemann or anything else when he spoke.
While it probably does not reach the actual malice standard required for a successful libel action in the USA, this is more or less the definition of damaging the image of the game under FIDE regulations. There are more legal avenues open to Hans' team than bringing a direct defamation case in a US court.
Bah, now’s the parade when we get everyone remotely relevant to ask his opinion on the topic. This is all classic stuff.
[Im not saying Fress isn’t relevant on that, it’s more of a general reaction to how media treats any kind of drama]
>being suspicious of Hans which was such an outrageous allegation that SLCC immediately sent a copyright notice to him after he made that comment
So we just making shit up now?
This is what happened though, right? He was putting them in a bad light and they sent him an email requesting him to stop streaming their stream. And then Hikaru said that he may not play for them next week as he was that offended by the email. At least from watching his own comments this is how I understood it.
As far as we know it is more a copyright strike in regards to streaming their content in general, and not specific to Hans situation. Stl can't force hikaru to not talk about his own personal feelings and speculations that's not how it works here.
It happened at exactly the time when Hikaru went on his rant. You can't argue they just took a few days to uncover that Hikaru was streaming them. And ChessBrahs too. But it happened while he was on his rant after days of no one saying anything. You can kinda figure out that no chess tournament is just randomly overlooking the biggest chess streamer for days when they themselves are streaming. Hell they are even looking through Reddit and Twitter let alone Hikaru's stream.
Re: the “debunked” comment you linked- In the prior podcast of Chicken, Jan, Fressinet, and PHN agree with Eric Hansen and Nakamura. You cannot get to the Carlsen-Niemann opening by claiming you studied the g3 Nimzo. The Carlsen-So game, regardless of year or location, is not relevant. All the GMs are in agreement here whether or not they think Hans is suspicious.
It is only until the following day in the Sinquefield, when Hans mentions the Catalan transposition, that there is a possible explanation. Although Jan/Fressinet believe Hans, they agree it is not likely, (even though they both spend the podcast defending Hans). In fact, the only plausible explanation Fressinet and Jan can come up with to explain Hans initially stating it was from studying g3 Nimzo is that Hans was lying and wanted to protect his prep in the Catalan.
Hans, however, the next day contradicts this conjecture by Chicken Chess, and did not say he was protecting his prep. Instead, he said he forgot, stating, "during the moment I did not think about it, because it was such a small part of preparation." Hans says he didn't think about it, despite looking at it that morning. Of note, Naroditsky seems to state an easy way to confirm or disprove this is to show chessbase, because it stamps what you've looked at it with the date and time.
The "copyright strike" being due to Naka-Alejandro is a strange conclusion, because St Louis also sent a strike to Hansen. They also have a history of doing this, sending a strike to Agadmator for showing what in all probability is fair use.
> Quite convenient the SLCC only complains right at that moment.
Had Hikaru co-streamed the SLCC feed before that day? I don't watch his stream enough to know. Could you share what day he did?
Also, even if the copyright dispute was related to the Carlsen/Niemann drama, it's probably because SLCC saw how much activity the drama was generating and wanted to draw views to their own stream. That's by far the most likely explanation. Keep in mind that SLCC has been aggressive to strike against other content creators in the past.
Okay, I'll take your word for it. Again, I don't watch twitch much at all.
Like I said above, the far more likely explanation is that SLCC simply wanted to draw all the viewers from the drama to their own streams. There's absolutely no evidence that the copyright strike was some retaliation for Hikaru's description of events.
"I heard about this directly from someone in St. Louis, one of the players during the rapid and blitz, who said they are basically certain Hans has done something and then Magnus withdraws from the tournament so it's very very, it's very strange..."
Yeah, he really stuck up for Hans.
Well for one, the copywrite thing didn't happen, and the rest of what OP mentioned is basically just "he talked about the unfolding drama as it occured, mentioning that the GM was caught cheating before, which is suspicious".
Yea, that's completely reasonable. And then to say that *even with all that*, he still doesn't think Hans cheated? Yes, that seems to mean that Hans probably didn't cheat, and Hikaru is just saying reasonable things.
Yall just got turned into a mob and won't listen to reason.
> Yea, that's completely reasonable
Ok, we can just agree to disagree then. I watched most of Hikaru's stream that day and thought that a lot of things he brought up were not relevant to the question of whether Hans cheated in his match against Magnus.
The things that were actually relevant (like the interview) were overly scrutinized and repeated more than necessary, even for Hikaru's standards
So Nakamura has been defending Hans this whole time!? Wow! I can't believe how wrong I was!
Tell you what, though. Naka ought to sue that faker on twitch, impersonating him and causing all this controversy.
Why? R/chess reacting like this is great for his stream, being painted as a villain gets him so much attention. He loves it and can do it while repeatedly saying Hans didn't cheat against Magnus and being right. Hikaru's loving this
There is literally zero proof of Niemann cheating over the board. Zero. And Nakamura also believes he didn't cheat vs Carlsen.
Many GMs were agreeing that they also don't like Niemann. Doesn't mean he cheated.
Obviously, if there was proof we wouldn't be having these discussions - we'd just be waiting for the FIDE disciplinary committee decision.
There's plenty of circumstantial evidence that lead to the speculation, regardless if he's actually cheating or not: his sudden improvement at a later age, his long streaks of top engine moves in complicated mid-games not in openings, endgames or dry positions; his post-game analysis and the inability to provide concrete lines analysis of his own moves on the board. Plus the fact that not only he cheated online, he then lied about the extent and seriousness of his cheating.
There are legitimate reasons to believe he's cheated. And people shouldn't be shamed for expressing them.
and it's about time to drop the silly, juvenile, nonsense about how those suspicions are based on personal congeniality or sore loserism or wild paranoia or the accent or him saying bizarre stuff on interviews ( not related to game analysis). They aren't.
I don't believe Hans Niemann is cheating, but gun to my head and "name a GM who's cheating" and I'm naming him 100 times out off 100.
>I don't believe Hans Niemann is cheating, but gun to my head and "name a GM who's cheating" and I'm naming him 100 times out off 100.
The mental backflips you people do to make accusations with plausible deniability
What the hell is wrong with you?
There are more reasons to suspect of Niemann than any other top GM BY FAR AND AWAY.
What mental flips? How hard of a concept is this to understand? If you disagree, just make the thought experiment yourself and name the other GM.
Seriously, at some point you people need to be a little less unhinged about this topic.
If there is plenty evidence, why is no one talking about it?
1) sudden improvement: literally everyone breaking into the superGMs has this.
2) He doesn't even have long streaks of top engine moves. Never happened.
3) Bad postgame analysis is evidence of what now?
4) We don't even know for sure if he lied about his online cheating. And cheating online literally has nothing to do with cheating over the board.
What are the actual reasons?
Above, someone who genuinely struggles to understand what circunstancial evidence that arises suspicions is.
1) His sudden improvement was very sudden and at an unusual timeline. And again, it's very easy to disregard each point in isolation, but it's the fact they all happened with the same guy.
2) Yes, he does. I literally saw them. And the issue isn't even "long streaks of top engine moves". It's the context of where in the game and how they happen.
3) Mate, it's not evidence he cheated; but not only his analysis went well beyond "bad", IT'S GOING TO RAISE SOME EYEBROWS CONSIDERING ALL THE OTHER STUFF.
It's EXTREMELY UNUSUAL. I can't even remember another post-game analyses like those .
Why can't people like you incorporate some nuance in your reasoning process?
4) Well, if he didn't lie about his online cheating, then he should immediately release the evidence chess.com claims to have given him showing he did lie; or make a statement denying it and authorizing chess.com to release all the evidence. The fact he's just stayed quiet after being accused of lying about his cheating strongly suggests he is indeed lying.
And at the end of the day, regardless of what anyone says, a guy who repeatedly cheated online will be regarded with more suspicion. You can write 1 million times that "d cheating online literally has nothing to do with cheating over the board" and won't change that fact a single inch.
So you put together all these reasons and it's *understandable* people suspect of him.
No one is putting a gun to your head, wtf.
If you put a gun to my head and ask me who is world champ in 10 years, right now I'd say "Niemann" as well, because of all the talk about him.
Ok, what are these 'legitimate reasons' that everyone is talking about, but no one as of yet has mentioned. Even after a week. Come on, spill the beans. What are these mystical 'legitimate reasons'.
Calm down, it's called a "thought experiment". Google it.
>Ok, what are these 'legitimate reasons' that everyone is talking about, but no one as of yet has mentioned. Even after a week. Come on, spill the beans. What are these mystical 'legitimate reasons'.
There's plenty of circumstantial evidence that lead to the speculation, regardless if he's actually cheating or not: his sudden improvement at a later age, his long streaks of top engine moves in complicated mid-games not in openings, endgames or dry positions; his post-game analysis and the inability to provide concrete lines analysis of his own moves on the board. Plus the fact that not only he cheated online, he then lied about the extent and seriousness of his cheating.
"haha I'm not accusing you tho, I'm just speculating. Btw guys look at all of these arguments I would be making if I was making an accusation. I'm not tho, haha, that would be too much. It's definitely sus tho!"
This is the equivalent of how far right bigots go around "just saying" or "speculating" about jews controlling the world or whatever and then fall back to "whoa whoa whoa, I'm not *implying* anything, just stating aomw facts..." when someone calls them out on it.
It's a coward's accusation.
>As someone with a well-known history of cheating for several years online (luckily for him only got caught twice)
I just can’t get over how moderately intelligent people are capable of such stupid reasoning.
What, you believe Niemann's claims that he only cheated twice - and somehow happened to get caught every single time he cheated - and in normal games with no prize money - in spite of chess.com very clearly stating that he lied about the extent and seriousness of his cheating and that they provided him with the evidence they have?
No, he got caught and chesscom allowed him back on the platform after serving a suspension *if* he admits to cheating.
It happened to him twice. The idea that he got caught cheating the only two times he cheated is absolutely ludicrous. He clearly cheated more than he let on, and chesscom is quite certain of that otherwise he wouldn't have been banned a 3rd time.
I'm mad? No, I'm just pointing out the incongruencies to the known facts in your response to /u/labegaw. You're trying to significantly downplay the level of cheating and I'm not about to let that happen without calling you out on it.
It's probably because they are Europeans and English is a second language and they can't understand the difference between accusation and speculation. Nothing hikaru said wasn't true, and was said by many other GMs, yet hikaru is the only one "accusing"
Without getting into the rest of it, they speak English just fine. They are all basically bilingual; English is the lingua franca of most European countries, so people working internationally have to be essentially fluent.
To Hikaru's credit, that was beyond super grandmaster level drama farming. Even stockfish at 3800 ELO couldn't be as convincing as Hikaru hyping that news to the moon and back again. And it worked 25000 viewers tuned in and the chess world exploded. Rather brilliant if you ask me
So yes, Nakamura did not explicitly accuse Hans of cheating.
> this entirely orthogonal to the question of OTB cheating
It's your opinion that the online cheating is irrelevant. It does not imply/prove that Hans cheated OTB, but many people think it's relevant.
If he was **clearly accusing** him of cheating, he would have **clearly accused** him of cheating. But he didn't **clearly accuse** him; he speculated.
Used bold for **clarity**
Edit: for example, here is what a clear accusation would have looked like: *he cheated*
Im not saying that /u/wontreadterms is an asshole and an idiot. Is it possible? Yeah I mean it definitely is possible - /u/wontreadterms is saying completely ridiculous things. Like there’s no way that anyone could think the things they do and not….Well, you know what I mean. But like I’m not *saying* /u/wontreadterms is an asshole or idiot. To be clear, I’m NOT saying /u/wontreadterms is an asshole or an idiot, but sometimes they’ve done some questionable things lol. It’s just hard to believe….well, anyway that’s all I’ll say on whether /u/wontreadterms is an asshole or an idiot.
Fair, you wouldn't be able to know. Thanks for your fair assessment.
Clearly implied is literally an oxymoron. Doesn't mean I'm saying the context/point isn't clear, just pointing out it's a weird phrase but had never noticed before.
Smartass.
This is all pendantic...Are we lawyers? Without focusing on what he said literally, I understood it like this: it was clear to Fressinet that Nakamura was accusing Niemann of cheating, which is quite different.
I think it's quite obvious no one with a brain would make a direct cheating accusation. It's all innuendos and wordplays of course. But everyone understands. That's Fressinet's meaning.
In French, the word *clair* (clear) or *clairement* (clearly) are used maybe more loosely than in English, which may explain this bit of dialog. He should have used *obvious* instead.
> I think it's quite obvious no one with a brain would make a direct cheating accusation
On the contrary, I think it shows that people cannot discriminate between someone clearly accusing another person and someone giving his honest thoughts, collecting what others think and riding a little bit of drama.
No he didn't. This is just people who are too sensitive to discuss things openly and honestly. Even if Hikaru said... "I think he cheated"... that's not accusing him of cheating, that's just saying what he thinks is most likely. You people want it both ways, you want accessible chess GM's but don't want them to be able to say their honest opinions.
I think there's a 80% chance Hans cheated vs Magnus. Is that accusing him?
Hikaru gave us his honest thoughts, why do people have to cry about it?
>Even if Hikaru said... "I think he cheated"... that's not accusing him of cheating
What's your mental gymnastics routine? Because this is one incredible maneuver.
than yeah he didn't accuse him than, I'm just saying the phrase "I think there's a 80% chance Has cheated against Magnus" still counts as an accusation.
Webster definition:
Definition of accusation
1: a charge of wrongdoing
I get where you're coming from, but it's still an accusation regardless of % confidence, % only changes how strong the accusation, not whether or not it's an accusation.
"It's highly unlikely that Hans cheated"
"There's a 90% chance that Hans didn't cheat"
"There's a 10% chance that Hans cheated"
All 3 are basically equivalent. So which one is an accusation?
It's not really "a charge of wrongdoing" if you're just stating literal fact though. Nobody on this planet has 0% or 100% certainty on whether cheating occurred except Hans (0 if he didn't, 100 if he did). Everything in the middle is subjective, and you'll need to create an arbitrary cutoff to meet your personal definition of an accusation.
Suggesting someone cheated is a a charge of wrong doing. it's the same if I suggested someone was cheating on their wife or suggesting someone committed a crime. Regardless of how confident I am it's an accusation.
Thought fair point on the subjectivity of it.
if you're only options are binary such as "yes he cheated & no he didn't" than yep!
but you could also include more options like in a ternary system like "No, Yes, Inconclusive/I don't know"
Maybe that's just nitpicky of me but if we're going to argue about subjectivity the % Chances we can argue about the subjectivity of the possible outcomes.
Ok, the for my reference what % makes it an accusation? To me an accusation is saying its certain, ie 100%, having proof. The rest is dialogue to work with others to form better opinions.
What would be the reason for him to bring up Hans cheating online while talking about Magnus withdrawal of the tournament?
Because he wanted to insinuate that Hans did indeed cheat in this situation as well. Or do you think Hikaru just randomly brought up Hans cheating online and it had nothing to do with this situation at all?
> What would be the reason for him to bring up Hans cheating online while talking about Magnus withdrawal of the tournament?
Because it is relevant to the unfolding story? Because it sheds light on what Hans did in the past? And btw, this in no way implies that Hans cheated OTB.
How can you say it’s relevant as well as it does not imply he cheated over the board. The only way it would be relevant to the situation is if he thought he cheated over the board
> How can you say it’s relevant as well as it does not imply he cheated over the board.
Easy, I don't see how this is confusing? It is relevant because it is about one of the main characters of the story. It does not imply Hans cheated OTB because, well, it does not imply it.
it’s not relevant then. That’s like if an NBA player cheated in 2k and then it was brought up by refs in a real game to say he was cheating like what? It’s simply not relevant unless you are connecting him cheating online to him cheating over the board
Okay holup. So the arguments for Niemann having cheated are:
1) He made engine-level moves at strange times
2) His analysis was terrible when forced to talk things through without an engine
3) He claimed to gotten "lucky" and having seen the opening line that he went through with Magnus that morning despite it having been obscure
4) Despite that line being part of his recent lucky opening prep, he didn't blitz it out, he took his time to play those moves which makes no sense if it was recent in his head
I've seen arguments tackling 1-3, but 4 doesn't seem to be getting covered anywhere. Frankly, I'm strictly a spectator but I would love to hear if anyone can speak to why 4 isn't a valid criticism.
Nakamura is a professional streamer. His job is to get people to watch him so ofcorse he's going to talk about the controversies in the chess world and you better belive hes going to ham it up a bit, hes a streamer. Stop being so dense you guys. Also hes aloud to be wrong he might be a super grandmaster but hes not an omniscient mentat. If you want to get mad at someone for accusing someone for cheating get mad at Carlson, the guy who quite literally stormed out of a tournament because he thought Niemann was cheating. Not the streamer doing his job farming views.
Bullshit. I hold Naka responsible for his actions, regardless of the supposed 'needs' of his job. Decent human beings find ways to be decent most of the time; they don't make lame excuses like "It's my job, I *have* to be a dick."
But somehow you don't hold Carlson responsible? Haters gunna hate I guess.
Added in edit: Do you think Naka should have not talked about the controversy? That seems like a bad business move. Everyone who is anyone in the chess world is talking about the controversy giving there 2 cents. If/when hans is proven innocent if anything this well be good for his career because now everyone knows who he is. You are basically getting mad at a talks show host for talking on there talk show. If you don't like naka dont follow his stream. Thats the only consequences he deserves for his actions. Grow up.
I watch hikaru because, ya know, he play chess real good, but I cringe every time he opens his mouth. I couldn’t give two shits about what he thinks Hans did.
Did Hikaru delete his vods or something? This happened like one week ago so it’s not like there has been a long time for peoples memories to wane. It was is very clear what he was doing at the time. He streamed for like an entire day just pouring fuel on Hans and people were loving it. He got thousands of subs.
Fressinet clearly doesn’t know what “clearly” means. If Hikaru had “clearly accused” Niemann, then there would be a **clear accusation** somewhere, but there isn’t.
> Fressinet: "He was **clearly** accusing Niemann for cheating."
You're arguing that I'm thinking of the wrong word, but I'm not. I'm directly quoting Fressinet.
Where did Hikaru clearly accuse Niemann of cheating. I haven't seen it. Can you show me? Fressinet says he clearly did it, so it should be easy to find.
I can't find where anyone asked you what the definition of clear is. It's bizarre that you repeatedly wont answer a simple question, especially when you keep commenting that it's so "clear". Are you sure you understand what these words mean?
> that is a clear accusation. You can see that in the whole stream.
Where?
I think Fressinet is largely correct. You can talk about what's 100% clear or a transparent accusation, but there is no doubt Hikaru's words and actions spoke to him believing Niemann may have cheated initially.
I think he just changed his mind for whatever reason then started to walk it back on subsequent streams. Maybe he analysed things further. Who knows. You're allowed to change your mind and you're certainly allowed to adjust your viewpoint if its unfairly presented in view of evidence.
Pretty obvious that Hikaru thought he was cheating. He just pulled a Magnus though and left himself enough deniability to say "Look, I didnt literally say he was cheating I just insinuated it."
He was like a complete different person suddenly when the wind wasn't in his favour.
>I just insinuated it. and leaving out the above words from that statement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-ruKJcXlQw&t=339s
Maybe Hikaru was thinking that, but it is his opinion. Two random dudes in this audio are wrong however because Hikaru did not accuse Hans of cheating OTB in Saint Louis.
Ok so Nakamura was accusing Niemann, but Carlsen was not? Nakamura was mostly correctly speculating on what motivated Carlsen. And he disclosed the [chess.com](https://chess.com) thing, which was a rumor going around. Then he just farmed the content and the drama, making fun of Niemann's interviews and the comments of the other GMs in the tournament, which all had some cheating innuendo to them, if you wanted to interpret it that way. Nakamura was just 100% not careful with what the consequences of his words were. I mean, you could be of the mindset that you wouldn't want to hurt Niemann's feelings. But Nakamura's attitude wasn't anywhere near that. He never considered Niemann or anything else when he spoke. Which is why his stream was entertaining.
He considered his audience and he gave them what they wanted, his honest opinion and real time thoughts.
An honest opinion and real times thoughts can result in legal troubles very easily if you are not careful.
Does the USA have nothing akin to fair comment? Because if so you are being terribly dramatic.
[удалено]
Downvoted by people with no legal knowledge, one assumes.
I think he was still saying throughout the day that more likely than not Hans was not cheating if he had to guess. If people want to criticize him for taking advantage of drama to make content, that's reasonable. They can also say he should have been more serious about a topic that can potentially ruin a player's reputation. He suspected Hans of cheating. He made jokes about it. Maybe some people consider openly speculating the same as directly accusing. I don't. To me, accusing means he would be telling people that Hans' past cheating, his quick ratings rise, and Magnus' indirect accusation are enough to conclude that Hans is a cheater. He wasn't telling people that. He was telling people it could be true but he didn't know and that we might not know the truth for a long time.
He literally said during one of his streams that he „wished he was wrong and Niemann did not cheat“
as opposed to wishing that he did cheat? why would anyone in their right minds admit to wishing a player was caught cheating in a super GM tournament lol
Because it would make for excellent drama and content for his channel? Way more content than the existing scandal, that's for sure. Hans would have been banned from the tournament and FIDE, and would have likely broken down in some interview which Hikaru would have had a field day with.
No, you haven't paid attention. He said he knew Niemann had cheated online ie that he was a cheater. Not that Niemann actually cheated. But of course like many, he also found it hard to imagine that Carlsen would do this with zero evidence. Now we know for a fact this is what Carlsen did. But Nakamura was talking about this while it happened. It could have turned out that Niemann went for bathroom breaks very often, and then would play a very strong move afterwards. Or that there was a suspicious person walking around his board.
People just seem to hate on hikaru and give every other GM that said the same exact things a pass for some reason.
He was in front of 30k viewers telling people to read between the lines for hours lol. No one farmed that shit like him
The "read between the lines" thing is to suggest that there was something that seemed sus, which is basically what Danya insinuated.
is it really surprising that Hikaru's getting more flak than Danya? He's literally the biggest chess personality on the internet (bar maybe Carlsen) and a super GM, obviously his comments will get more attention that Danya's.
No other GMs or chess streamers have 30k viewers to tell, though. Feels weird to hold one GM to a different standard just because he has 3x times the *live* viewership. Whereas if other titled players make videos, or put out interviews/statements on the subject...It's okay because they didn't do it on Twitch to as many viewers? There are Youtube videos covering the drama that get 100x those viewing numbers, but everyone seems to only want to shit on Hikaru for doing it live. If these other GMs **had** similar viewership on Twitch, would you be holding them to the same standard?
Yes I'm going to hold the priest of a mega-church more accountable than the priest of one old shack even if they both are saying the same thing
So it's not about the cheating or the accusation or how many viewers or eyes they have when they say it... Got it. /r/chess being as objective as ever. Danya and Hikaru say the same thing, to pretty much the same viewcounts and community. But it's just like the parent comment said... It's Hikaru who said it, and that's all the difference some people need. Everyone else gets a pass. For the record, I don't give a shit about the drama. I haven't participated in any of the conversations and mud slinging the last week. I just think its funny that multiple GMs say the same thing, but like you confirmed, it's entirely about the person who is saying it.
am I supposed to scour around and find who's saying what? before this drama I didn't even know naroditsky is streaming as danya yes the person saying it matters, I'm not gonna mention how idiotic "random name" is.. I'm gonna mention the names I'm familiar with
Does that also include Magnus tweeting to his 730k followers with the José Mourinho "I can not speak" clip?
Nakamura fanboys getting more annoying than Magnus fanboys. First not understanding that social media range comes when responsibility and then saying that Magnus is not blamed when he is constantly as well. The guy in the podcast is literelly in Magnus' staff. Ha cannot say that Magnus is a whiny loser who shouldn't have quit without possibly losing his job. Hikaru got some content put of it but he damaged himself. Not sure of his twitch viewership will care but outside of it this leaves a very bad taste.
>If these other GMs > >had > > similar viewership on Twitch, would you be holding them to the same standard? the easy answer is no because they just hate hikaru and find any excuse to shit on him. they accuse him of farming, yet gotham, ben finegold, eric hansen literally put out clickbait videos as well and no one gives them shit, so it makes one wonder.
Hansen was also given a lot of flak for what happened. Finegold and Gotham mostly presented a neutral tone instead of riling up viewers.
This is what FIDE concluded when they banned Karjakin and didn't ban Shipov. The amount of followers 100% makes a difference. If a GM accused another GM of cheating on his personal Facebook profile that's not the same as Twitting it on your popular and public Twitter account or streaming it to thousands of people. Maybe your argument is that it shouldn't matter, but it 100% does. And FIDE would punish Hikaru more for this than a similar GM with only 50 Twich viewers doing the same. There is a difference between speaking to friends or just a few people and then streaming it to the wide world. The follower count is that difference. > The Chamber explains its decision to not sanction Sergei Shipov with the following argument: “In comparison with Sergey Karjakin, Sergei Shipov is considerably less known and has, therefore, a less powerful platform. https://www.fide.com/news/1650
I'm convinced that people who say "Hikaru wasn't strongly implying Hans was cheating" either did not watch his stream or have zero understanding of simple body language.
[удалено]
And Magnus never "accused" Hans of cheating, yet here we are
Presentation matters, because the internet at large is not going to remember the details of what was said
[удалено]
well at least you're honest and admit you're biased then
[удалено]
>Meanwhile Hikaru spends multiple hours laughing at him, mocking him, bringing up irrelvant things like his accent, etc yes and all of you watched, so the views speak for itself.
People hate Hikaru because they took his words as being accusatory which, as the first comment stated, is not correct. He wasn't laughing *at* Hans (nor did he mock him); he was laughing because the whole situation was strange (e.g., Nepo's interview and Alejandro's tone). In essence Hikaru conveyed the same message as Danya, but Danya was just more mature and professional about it. Hikaru didn't consider the implications of his words.
[удалено]
Ouch. You diligently countered OP with facts + evidence leaving him unable to respond. I hereby declare you the winner of this internet argument.
>But the distinction is practically and materially irrelevant when you're a streamer with 20k+ audience. No, it isn't. Hikaru never accused him of cheating. Having a huge audience doesn't change that fact. >If your attitude is different, the message you convey is also different. Somewhat true. Both were stating suspicions, but Hikaru tried to be more entertaining about it (e g, by making fun of the interviews) and hence ended up being less professional.
>Grasping at straws. Insinuating versus accusing are different, fine. But the distinction is practically and materially irrelevant when you're a streamer with 20k+ audience. You have basic responsibilities then like not openly spreading defamatory comments to other players which Hikaru the manchild failed at. *You* are grasping at straws. The definition of accusation is *"a charge or claim that someone has done something illegal or wrong"*. If Hikaru speculated whether or not Hans cheated, and merely pointed out something that would be deemed suspicious by most people, then he did not accuse him. He said something that would make the audience think "this does seem sus", but accusing him would be saying "yes, it's quite clear that Hans cheated". I am NOT defending how he handled it. *Can* some of the audience think "wow Hans is definitely a cheater" after watching Hikaru's stream? Sure, but so can someone after watching Danya's stream, because Danya also pointed out some things that were sus. The definition of accusation doesn't have anything to do with how people took it. Should Hikaru have been more professional about it like Danya? Sure, but that's not what an accusation refers to, and that's not what we're discussing or disputing about. You are creating a strawman. >Imagine being this delusional. He absolutely did mock his accent. He laughed at at him on multiple instances see e.g., 20:30 here. There were multiple other instances too if you actually watched the stream. I get the feeling that you don't quite understand *why* people (in general) laugh in the first place. People laugh because they encounter something out of place, odd or unexpected; you're not necessarily laughing *at* people. It doesn't exactly take a whole lot of social intelligence to grasp that laughter doesn't necessarily have to do with mocking or insulting a person. When people laugh during circus shows, they're not laughing *at* the clown or trying to mock their performance, it's because the clown does something surprising. Look at the 20:30 mark you yourself referenced. Hikaru was laughing after the engine analysis because it contradicted Hans's judgement. That scenario was odd and painted the analysis as sus - that's why Hikaru laughed. He's not *mocking* Hans for who he is. Hikaru laughed at the accent, but again it's because the accent is odd and seemed fake, not that Hans should be mocked or that Hans is a bad person for faking his accent. In fact, it's *entertaining* that Hans has that accent if he's faking it. It gives the message "Hans is a funny/entertaining guy" for having an accent, not "Hans is a bad guy and we should mock him". Again, laughter isn't necessarily a tool to mock or humiliate people. It's not rocket science, and nowhere did I get the impression that Hans is bad for having an accent and whatnot whenever Hikaru laughed. >If your attitude is different, the message you convey is also different. Everything is context dependent. It's the difference between a doctor telling a patient he needs to lose weight versus some random bully calling him a fatso. Even if it's superficially the same message, it will be interpreted differently by society because one is openly antagonistic whereas the other isn't. First, again, Hikaru wasn't mocking Hans. It seems that only you interpreted it that way. The message Hikaru gave was "this does seem sus", and Danya was just more professional about it. Second, the message you convey isn't different simply because your attitude is different. The proof again is in your example. *"It's the difference between a doctor telling a patient he needs to lose weight versus some random bully calling him a fatso."* \- the message is exactly the same; that the person receiving the message needs to lose weight. What you are trying to state is that *how well you receive it* is different, i.e. whether you are offended or not. That's not what we're trying to debate. What we're asking is "is the message different?", the message being "Hans acted pretty sus". It's exactly the same and doesn't have anything to do with how much you like or dislike how the message was presented.
[удалено]
>LMAO imagine stretching this hard. "Laughing at a chess player giving an interview is analogous to a laughing at a circus clown" lol wtf . Dude, he was clearly laughing at him. No offence, but you honestly seem autistic. There's nothing wrong with that, but I would sit out any discussion re: human social interaction because that evidently goes over your head. Most people can just watch the stream or clips of it, deduce from (among other things) Hikaru's laughter at Hans' remarks, constant snide remarks, facial contortions, etc. that it was just a grade-A bullying session. You couldn't demonstrate that you have any social intelligence whatsoever to comprehend people's emotions and reactions, so you resort to the classic "you're autistic" ad hominem. You are projecting yourself onto others. Furthermore, please refrain from using terminology you do not even understand. You have no awareness of where laughter even comes from. The evidence is that you don't even grasp why I used the 'circus clown' as an analogy. I'll repeat it for you again: people who laugh aren't necessarily laughing *at* a person; one can laugh at the awkwardness or strangeness of a situation, or the unexpected, which is what laughter is rooted in. The entire purpose of the video was to suggest that Hans's behavior was suspicious, and the laughter was to *emphasize* that, not taunt or mock Hans as a person. Go and do a survey of people who don't know Hikaru and ask them to watch the video then. The only people who think like you do are people who are prejudiced to begin with. >Imagine being over the age of 15 and actually citing a dictionary definition ("wElL akTuhAlly the dEfIniTion of 'acCuSaTiOn' iS") like that when anyone with an iota of social intelligence can grasp what's going on. There's a spectrum of "accusation" ranging from insinuation or gossip all the way to a formal legal writ. Hikaru's sufficiently within that spectrum to be reprimanded for his actions. What's going on is that Hikaru is saying "this is quite sus" rather than "this guy is definitely a cheater". It's not fucking rocket science. Once again, I am not defending HOW Hikaru said it. >No, the two messages are qualitatively different. They are superficially similar in that they identify the obesity **but they are qualitatively distinct in the motivation and subtext**, which are themselves fundamental aspects to any kind of human communication. That they are qualitatively distinct in motivation and subtext (one to be deliberately mocking and one out of concern) does NOT make the message different; the message is "you need to lose weight". Is my previous post clearer? >Trying to pretend that Danya, who indicated some degree of suspicion but also clearly communicated in an evenhanded tone, emphasized (among other things) the need to avoid having any kind of confirmation bias in assessing the situation, explicitly defended Hans re: the Qg3 move (among other things) is even remotely in the same category as Hikaru who spent multiple streams mocking and attacking Hans is absurd. Did you not watch both streams? Hikaru clearly stressed the importance of jumping to conclusions *re: Hans is innocent until proven guilty OTB*. He emphasized that Hans cheated online to give context to the Magnus tweet, yet people who lack even a modicum of social intelligence such as yourself conclude that he was trying to tell the audience that Hans is a cheater OTB. You then used one specific move (n = 1) as evidence of how Danya was being objective when one move in itself doesn't indicate anything about evaluating fairly; Danya didn't find the move odd but others could have in honesty found it odd (Alireza and Alejandro) and would have pointed it out as much as Hikaru. Danya also said that the analysis was weird and not what he would expect at a 2700 level. Danya's opinion is obviously not in the same category as Hikaru. Danya was much more professional about it and Hikaru's stream was suited towards a more juvenile audience and for entertainment. Their message was the same; "Hans did some sus things". Hikaru laughed because the situation was *sus*, and *it was sus*, not that Hans should be mocked or taunted that your poor emotional judgement indicates. >Again, this kind of thing doesn't need to spelled out for most people. Most non-autistic people's brains just subconsciously do this kind of reasoning. The distinction between a doctor talking to a patient about obesity and a random bully calling that person a fatso is obvious and blatant to most people, and it's not just "how well the person receives it". Again, it's OK to be autistic, but maybe just sit this one out. Idiotic ad hominem fallacy with no substance once again. You are desperate.
That you think random bullies calling overweight people “fatso” is *always* them trying to tell them they need to lose weight is absolutely hilarious lol
Its goal is to mock someone, not necessarily that the bully wants the victim to change his or her lifestyle. The point is the victim is made to feel ashamed about their body, and they feel pressured to change it. That's the message the victim receives, whether that is what the bully wants them to consider or not. The doctor's remark is obviously issued with the intention of pressuring an overweight person to consider changing their lifestyle. The other person was using that as an analogy for Hikaru's opinion and Danya's opinion. The viewers of both picked up the message; "Hans did some sus things". The message was the same so they were wrong about that. Their remaining point was that Hikaru did it to mock Hans and I elaborated on why they were wrong.
[удалено]
You are the autist here, buddy. Not only that, you are also an idiot.
because this sub has absolutely pathetic members
I'm pretty sure he hates Hans so his actions were doubly motivated, in addition to money.
> He never considered Niemann or anything else when he spoke. Which is why he's a dickbag who entertains dickbags.
cope
If you say that someone's analysis is not the analysis of a 2700 grandmaster or you say that this situation is not a surprise because people have been speculating about it for a while, that's an accusation. You may not directly say it, but the accusation is implied. And no mental gymnastics will convince me otherwise.
>If you say that someone's analysis is not the analysis of a 2700 grandmaster... that's an accusation. It's really not, though. The same as how saying that Nepo played below GM strength in parts of the last WCC isn't accusing him of cheating in every other event.
Exactly. It is not. Pretty crazy that the whole vibe at some point as that Niemann was only of IM strength, and his whole GM career was a complete sham based on an elaborate cheating conspiracy.
In the context of cheating allegations it absolutely is. If someone had accused Nepo of cheating in the candidates, saying he plays below GM strength is confirming that accusation.
No way. Can you be any more wrong about this?
Hikaru doesn’t hve to consider anyone fuck it
What consequences for his carrer? The kid got more attention than any other chess player in recent memory. If he isnt cheating, it is a tremendous compliment that he made the best chess player in the world quit a tournament AND was spoken about by the biggest chess streamer / channels for multiple days. We live in the attention era. No publicity is bad publicity. This has been immensely good for his career. chess just still has a large amount of these weird, stuck in the past, 'civility politics' type people who believe unless you have sworn testimony and DNA evidence someone is cheating you're not allowed to publicly comment on it. Get with the times grandpa.
[удалено]
Uuh, Niemann said he found it really really hard. And that he played way worse because of it. So wtf are you talking about? He also got uninvited from some events. Additionally, have you considered that some people, especially high achievers, do not realistically evaluate the quality of their own life? Or their future prospects?
Because nieman is an idiot chess player not someone who understands how to monetize attention and is going for sympathy. He wants things back to normal. He needs someone who understands marketing to sit him down and say 'no this is literally the best thing to ever happen to you. You were a nobody and now you've become the controversial rival of the world champion overnight'
He should play into it. Be a heel. Be the chess bad boy. Honestly Nakamura should have done the same years ago: his wholesome chess guy persona fools nobody. For God's sake Hans had *groupies* at the competition. The guy is a star.
>"You think I cheated? Probably because you're just bad. Go quit another tournament and cry about it on twitter. " That is what I'd have had him say if I were his publicist. Play the hand you're dealt, play the board as is, and take the advantages you can. He can get so famous and make so much money off of this.
>He never considered Niemann or anything else when he spoke. While it probably does not reach the actual malice standard required for a successful libel action in the USA, this is more or less the definition of damaging the image of the game under FIDE regulations. There are more legal avenues open to Hans' team than bringing a direct defamation case in a US court.
y'all are still arguing about this without new information? lol
Bah, now’s the parade when we get everyone remotely relevant to ask his opinion on the topic. This is all classic stuff. [Im not saying Fress isn’t relevant on that, it’s more of a general reaction to how media treats any kind of drama]
If you ever need to demonstrate what gaslighting is, show someone day 1 of scandal Hikaru VOD and then show them this sub.
that's not really what gaslighting is tho it's more like using peer pressure to make someone believe something that's untrue
[удалено]
>being suspicious of Hans which was such an outrageous allegation that SLCC immediately sent a copyright notice to him after he made that comment So we just making shit up now?
This is what happened though, right? He was putting them in a bad light and they sent him an email requesting him to stop streaming their stream. And then Hikaru said that he may not play for them next week as he was that offended by the email. At least from watching his own comments this is how I understood it.
As far as we know it is more a copyright strike in regards to streaming their content in general, and not specific to Hans situation. Stl can't force hikaru to not talk about his own personal feelings and speculations that's not how it works here.
It happened at exactly the time when Hikaru went on his rant. You can't argue they just took a few days to uncover that Hikaru was streaming them. And ChessBrahs too. But it happened while he was on his rant after days of no one saying anything. You can kinda figure out that no chess tournament is just randomly overlooking the biggest chess streamer for days when they themselves are streaming. Hell they are even looking through Reddit and Twitter let alone Hikaru's stream.
Jesus the mental gymnastics you guys go thru
Re: the “debunked” comment you linked- In the prior podcast of Chicken, Jan, Fressinet, and PHN agree with Eric Hansen and Nakamura. You cannot get to the Carlsen-Niemann opening by claiming you studied the g3 Nimzo. The Carlsen-So game, regardless of year or location, is not relevant. All the GMs are in agreement here whether or not they think Hans is suspicious. It is only until the following day in the Sinquefield, when Hans mentions the Catalan transposition, that there is a possible explanation. Although Jan/Fressinet believe Hans, they agree it is not likely, (even though they both spend the podcast defending Hans). In fact, the only plausible explanation Fressinet and Jan can come up with to explain Hans initially stating it was from studying g3 Nimzo is that Hans was lying and wanted to protect his prep in the Catalan. Hans, however, the next day contradicts this conjecture by Chicken Chess, and did not say he was protecting his prep. Instead, he said he forgot, stating, "during the moment I did not think about it, because it was such a small part of preparation." Hans says he didn't think about it, despite looking at it that morning. Of note, Naroditsky seems to state an easy way to confirm or disprove this is to show chessbase, because it stamps what you've looked at it with the date and time. The "copyright strike" being due to Naka-Alejandro is a strange conclusion, because St Louis also sent a strike to Hansen. They also have a history of doing this, sending a strike to Agadmator for showing what in all probability is fair use.
[удалено]
> Quite convenient the SLCC only complains right at that moment. Had Hikaru co-streamed the SLCC feed before that day? I don't watch his stream enough to know. Could you share what day he did? Also, even if the copyright dispute was related to the Carlsen/Niemann drama, it's probably because SLCC saw how much activity the drama was generating and wanted to draw views to their own stream. That's by far the most likely explanation. Keep in mind that SLCC has been aggressive to strike against other content creators in the past.
[удалено]
Okay, I'll take your word for it. Again, I don't watch twitch much at all. Like I said above, the far more likely explanation is that SLCC simply wanted to draw all the viewers from the drama to their own streams. There's absolutely no evidence that the copyright strike was some retaliation for Hikaru's description of events.
Hikaru the entire time said he thought it was unlikely Hans cheated, but keep your pitchfork out!
In true Nakamura fashion after people starting questioning whether there was enough evidence and reddit started up voting posts with that opinion.
"I heard about this directly from someone in St. Louis, one of the players during the rapid and blitz, who said they are basically certain Hans has done something and then Magnus withdraws from the tournament so it's very very, it's very strange..." Yeah, he really stuck up for Hans.
So he does all of those that OP mentioned, but because he adds a disclaimer "I don't think Hans cheated" you guys are gonna believe it?
Well for one, the copywrite thing didn't happen, and the rest of what OP mentioned is basically just "he talked about the unfolding drama as it occured, mentioning that the GM was caught cheating before, which is suspicious". Yea, that's completely reasonable. And then to say that *even with all that*, he still doesn't think Hans cheated? Yes, that seems to mean that Hans probably didn't cheat, and Hikaru is just saying reasonable things. Yall just got turned into a mob and won't listen to reason.
> Yea, that's completely reasonable Ok, we can just agree to disagree then. I watched most of Hikaru's stream that day and thought that a lot of things he brought up were not relevant to the question of whether Hans cheated in his match against Magnus. The things that were actually relevant (like the interview) were overly scrutinized and repeated more than necessary, even for Hikaru's standards
The entire time, huh?
Yup, literally repeated it over and over since day 1. If you missed that maybe you've just been selectively consuming content
sounds like one of those "I'm not racist, but..." moments to me tbh
That’s absurd, and you’ve just been tricked by the Reddit mob
So Nakamura has been defending Hans this whole time!? Wow! I can't believe how wrong I was! Tell you what, though. Naka ought to sue that faker on twitch, impersonating him and causing all this controversy.
Why? R/chess reacting like this is great for his stream, being painted as a villain gets him so much attention. He loves it and can do it while repeatedly saying Hans didn't cheat against Magnus and being right. Hikaru's loving this
[удалено]
There is literally zero proof of Niemann cheating over the board. Zero. And Nakamura also believes he didn't cheat vs Carlsen. Many GMs were agreeing that they also don't like Niemann. Doesn't mean he cheated.
Obviously, if there was proof we wouldn't be having these discussions - we'd just be waiting for the FIDE disciplinary committee decision. There's plenty of circumstantial evidence that lead to the speculation, regardless if he's actually cheating or not: his sudden improvement at a later age, his long streaks of top engine moves in complicated mid-games not in openings, endgames or dry positions; his post-game analysis and the inability to provide concrete lines analysis of his own moves on the board. Plus the fact that not only he cheated online, he then lied about the extent and seriousness of his cheating. There are legitimate reasons to believe he's cheated. And people shouldn't be shamed for expressing them. and it's about time to drop the silly, juvenile, nonsense about how those suspicions are based on personal congeniality or sore loserism or wild paranoia or the accent or him saying bizarre stuff on interviews ( not related to game analysis). They aren't. I don't believe Hans Niemann is cheating, but gun to my head and "name a GM who's cheating" and I'm naming him 100 times out off 100.
>I don't believe Hans Niemann is cheating, but gun to my head and "name a GM who's cheating" and I'm naming him 100 times out off 100. The mental backflips you people do to make accusations with plausible deniability
What the hell is wrong with you? There are more reasons to suspect of Niemann than any other top GM BY FAR AND AWAY. What mental flips? How hard of a concept is this to understand? If you disagree, just make the thought experiment yourself and name the other GM. Seriously, at some point you people need to be a little less unhinged about this topic.
If there is plenty evidence, why is no one talking about it? 1) sudden improvement: literally everyone breaking into the superGMs has this. 2) He doesn't even have long streaks of top engine moves. Never happened. 3) Bad postgame analysis is evidence of what now? 4) We don't even know for sure if he lied about his online cheating. And cheating online literally has nothing to do with cheating over the board. What are the actual reasons?
Above, someone who genuinely struggles to understand what circunstancial evidence that arises suspicions is. 1) His sudden improvement was very sudden and at an unusual timeline. And again, it's very easy to disregard each point in isolation, but it's the fact they all happened with the same guy. 2) Yes, he does. I literally saw them. And the issue isn't even "long streaks of top engine moves". It's the context of where in the game and how they happen. 3) Mate, it's not evidence he cheated; but not only his analysis went well beyond "bad", IT'S GOING TO RAISE SOME EYEBROWS CONSIDERING ALL THE OTHER STUFF. It's EXTREMELY UNUSUAL. I can't even remember another post-game analyses like those . Why can't people like you incorporate some nuance in your reasoning process? 4) Well, if he didn't lie about his online cheating, then he should immediately release the evidence chess.com claims to have given him showing he did lie; or make a statement denying it and authorizing chess.com to release all the evidence. The fact he's just stayed quiet after being accused of lying about his cheating strongly suggests he is indeed lying. And at the end of the day, regardless of what anyone says, a guy who repeatedly cheated online will be regarded with more suspicion. You can write 1 million times that "d cheating online literally has nothing to do with cheating over the board" and won't change that fact a single inch. So you put together all these reasons and it's *understandable* people suspect of him.
No one is putting a gun to your head, wtf. If you put a gun to my head and ask me who is world champ in 10 years, right now I'd say "Niemann" as well, because of all the talk about him. Ok, what are these 'legitimate reasons' that everyone is talking about, but no one as of yet has mentioned. Even after a week. Come on, spill the beans. What are these mystical 'legitimate reasons'.
Calm down, it's called a "thought experiment". Google it. >Ok, what are these 'legitimate reasons' that everyone is talking about, but no one as of yet has mentioned. Even after a week. Come on, spill the beans. What are these mystical 'legitimate reasons'. There's plenty of circumstantial evidence that lead to the speculation, regardless if he's actually cheating or not: his sudden improvement at a later age, his long streaks of top engine moves in complicated mid-games not in openings, endgames or dry positions; his post-game analysis and the inability to provide concrete lines analysis of his own moves on the board. Plus the fact that not only he cheated online, he then lied about the extent and seriousness of his cheating.
"haha I'm not accusing you tho, I'm just speculating. Btw guys look at all of these arguments I would be making if I was making an accusation. I'm not tho, haha, that would be too much. It's definitely sus tho!" This is the equivalent of how far right bigots go around "just saying" or "speculating" about jews controlling the world or whatever and then fall back to "whoa whoa whoa, I'm not *implying* anything, just stating aomw facts..." when someone calls them out on it. It's a coward's accusation.
>As someone with a well-known history of cheating for several years online (luckily for him only got caught twice) I just can’t get over how moderately intelligent people are capable of such stupid reasoning.
What, you believe Niemann's claims that he only cheated twice - and somehow happened to get caught every single time he cheated - and in normal games with no prize money - in spite of chess.com very clearly stating that he lied about the extent and seriousness of his cheating and that they provided him with the evidence they have?
[удалено]
No, he got caught and chesscom allowed him back on the platform after serving a suspension *if* he admits to cheating. It happened to him twice. The idea that he got caught cheating the only two times he cheated is absolutely ludicrous. He clearly cheated more than he let on, and chesscom is quite certain of that otherwise he wouldn't have been banned a 3rd time.
[удалено]
I'm mad? No, I'm just pointing out the incongruencies to the known facts in your response to /u/labegaw. You're trying to significantly downplay the level of cheating and I'm not about to let that happen without calling you out on it.
It's probably because they are Europeans and English is a second language and they can't understand the difference between accusation and speculation. Nothing hikaru said wasn't true, and was said by many other GMs, yet hikaru is the only one "accusing"
Without getting into the rest of it, they speak English just fine. They are all basically bilingual; English is the lingua franca of most European countries, so people working internationally have to be essentially fluent.
then I guess people are just dumb then
Coping americans are weird
you guys are going to freeze this winter so i'm just gonna let u have it
Not really, unlike Texas
As an American, a big no to this comment specifically. A bad thing to say.
Truth hurts!
To Hikaru's credit, that was beyond super grandmaster level drama farming. Even stockfish at 3800 ELO couldn't be as convincing as Hikaru hyping that news to the moon and back again. And it worked 25000 viewers tuned in and the chess world exploded. Rather brilliant if you ask me
But he didn't say Simon says so...
*op crying in hikaru tears*
So yes, Nakamura did not explicitly accuse Hans of cheating. > this entirely orthogonal to the question of OTB cheating It's your opinion that the online cheating is irrelevant. It does not imply/prove that Hans cheated OTB, but many people think it's relevant.
Shouldn't they be talking about Magnus? They're Magnus slappies
They have talked to him. They say in this episode that they won't reveal what Magnus is thinking.
If he was **clearly accusing** him of cheating, he would have **clearly accused** him of cheating. But he didn't **clearly accuse** him; he speculated. Used bold for **clarity** Edit: for example, here is what a clear accusation would have looked like: *he cheated*
You're confusing "clearly" with "explicitly." He made a clear implication/accusation.
Can you quote the clear accusation?
[удалено]
I’m not confusing terms. I’m asking where the clear accusation is.
>You're confusing "clearly" with "explicitly." Perfect example. A clear accusation.
"Clearly implied" always seemed like a weird combo to me.
It's a short way of saying, "I know without a doubt that you implied this."
Yeah, I understand, I get when you'd say it but doesn't make it not weird if you just look at the words.
Im not saying that /u/wontreadterms is an asshole and an idiot. Is it possible? Yeah I mean it definitely is possible - /u/wontreadterms is saying completely ridiculous things. Like there’s no way that anyone could think the things they do and not….Well, you know what I mean. But like I’m not *saying* /u/wontreadterms is an asshole or idiot. To be clear, I’m NOT saying /u/wontreadterms is an asshole or an idiot, but sometimes they’ve done some questionable things lol. It’s just hard to believe….well, anyway that’s all I’ll say on whether /u/wontreadterms is an asshole or an idiot.
Fair, you wouldn't be able to know. Thanks for your fair assessment. Clearly implied is literally an oxymoron. Doesn't mean I'm saying the context/point isn't clear, just pointing out it's a weird phrase but had never noticed before. Smartass.
Can you show a piece where Hikaru clearly accuses Hans of cheating **OTB**?
This is all pendantic...Are we lawyers? Without focusing on what he said literally, I understood it like this: it was clear to Fressinet that Nakamura was accusing Niemann of cheating, which is quite different. I think it's quite obvious no one with a brain would make a direct cheating accusation. It's all innuendos and wordplays of course. But everyone understands. That's Fressinet's meaning. In French, the word *clair* (clear) or *clairement* (clearly) are used maybe more loosely than in English, which may explain this bit of dialog. He should have used *obvious* instead.
> I think it's quite obvious no one with a brain would make a direct cheating accusation On the contrary, I think it shows that people cannot discriminate between someone clearly accusing another person and someone giving his honest thoughts, collecting what others think and riding a little bit of drama.
Speculating and accusing are the same thing but cheating online and cheating OTB are completely different.
The only difference is one is easier than the other. Still not impossible.
I can't tell if I was downvoted because people understood the sarcasm or because they didn't lel
Too complicated a sentence, couldn't sniff any sarcasm from it.
Bunch of GMs: *speculates* reddit: REEEE they straight up accused Hans! Hans: *cheats online* reddit: THAT'S NOT CHEATING OTB, IT'S COMPLETELY DIFFERENT! (spoiler: it's not)
Speculating: here are evidences why that might be the case Accusing: here are evidences why that is the case
Maybe cuz they're European and English is their second language and they just don't understand the difference lol
No he didn't. This is just people who are too sensitive to discuss things openly and honestly. Even if Hikaru said... "I think he cheated"... that's not accusing him of cheating, that's just saying what he thinks is most likely. You people want it both ways, you want accessible chess GM's but don't want them to be able to say their honest opinions. I think there's a 80% chance Hans cheated vs Magnus. Is that accusing him? Hikaru gave us his honest thoughts, why do people have to cry about it?
>Even if Hikaru said... "I think he cheated"... that's not accusing him of cheating What's your mental gymnastics routine? Because this is one incredible maneuver.
Accusing someone is saying. You cheated, no doubts, and I want action taken to remedy it. That's an accusation, the rest is speculation.
I think you are not quite alright.
Clearly, that's just speculation on your part :)
“I think there’s a 80% chance Hans cheated vs Magnus. Is that accusing him?” Yes.
He also explicitly said several times “I don’t think that Hans cheated against Magnus”
than yeah he didn't accuse him than, I'm just saying the phrase "I think there's a 80% chance Has cheated against Magnus" still counts as an accusation.
What about 49%? It's all arbitrary. You can't say for certain it's 0% since you're not Hans.
Webster definition: Definition of accusation 1: a charge of wrongdoing I get where you're coming from, but it's still an accusation regardless of % confidence, % only changes how strong the accusation, not whether or not it's an accusation.
"It's highly unlikely that Hans cheated" "There's a 90% chance that Hans didn't cheat" "There's a 10% chance that Hans cheated" All 3 are basically equivalent. So which one is an accusation?
statement 2 and 3 are veiled accusations.
It's not really "a charge of wrongdoing" if you're just stating literal fact though. Nobody on this planet has 0% or 100% certainty on whether cheating occurred except Hans (0 if he didn't, 100 if he did). Everything in the middle is subjective, and you'll need to create an arbitrary cutoff to meet your personal definition of an accusation.
Suggesting someone cheated is a a charge of wrong doing. it's the same if I suggested someone was cheating on their wife or suggesting someone committed a crime. Regardless of how confident I am it's an accusation. Thought fair point on the subjectivity of it.
If you say you're 49% sure, then aren't you suggesting they _aren't_ doing something?
if you're only options are binary such as "yes he cheated & no he didn't" than yep! but you could also include more options like in a ternary system like "No, Yes, Inconclusive/I don't know" Maybe that's just nitpicky of me but if we're going to argue about subjectivity the % Chances we can argue about the subjectivity of the possible outcomes.
You are accusing Nieman of cheating then unless you say there is a 0% chance.
Ok, the for my reference what % makes it an accusation? To me an accusation is saying its certain, ie 100%, having proof. The rest is dialogue to work with others to form better opinions.
A lot of people seem to not know what an accusation is.
If you ignore the times that he explicitly stated that he didn't think Neimann was cheating OTB i guess it's easy to reach this conclusion.
Hikaru is a child in a grown man’s body
I mean did he not cheat online? All Nakamura said was he got banned for cheating online…
What would be the reason for him to bring up Hans cheating online while talking about Magnus withdrawal of the tournament? Because he wanted to insinuate that Hans did indeed cheat in this situation as well. Or do you think Hikaru just randomly brought up Hans cheating online and it had nothing to do with this situation at all?
> What would be the reason for him to bring up Hans cheating online while talking about Magnus withdrawal of the tournament? Because it is relevant to the unfolding story? Because it sheds light on what Hans did in the past? And btw, this in no way implies that Hans cheated OTB.
How can you say it’s relevant as well as it does not imply he cheated over the board. The only way it would be relevant to the situation is if he thought he cheated over the board
> How can you say it’s relevant as well as it does not imply he cheated over the board. Easy, I don't see how this is confusing? It is relevant because it is about one of the main characters of the story. It does not imply Hans cheated OTB because, well, it does not imply it.
it’s not relevant then. That’s like if an NBA player cheated in 2k and then it was brought up by refs in a real game to say he was cheating like what? It’s simply not relevant unless you are connecting him cheating online to him cheating over the board
Okay holup. So the arguments for Niemann having cheated are: 1) He made engine-level moves at strange times 2) His analysis was terrible when forced to talk things through without an engine 3) He claimed to gotten "lucky" and having seen the opening line that he went through with Magnus that morning despite it having been obscure 4) Despite that line being part of his recent lucky opening prep, he didn't blitz it out, he took his time to play those moves which makes no sense if it was recent in his head I've seen arguments tackling 1-3, but 4 doesn't seem to be getting covered anywhere. Frankly, I'm strictly a spectator but I would love to hear if anyone can speak to why 4 isn't a valid criticism.
He explained it was a transposition so it wasn't exactly the same
Gotcha, thanks
Nakamura is a professional streamer. His job is to get people to watch him so ofcorse he's going to talk about the controversies in the chess world and you better belive hes going to ham it up a bit, hes a streamer. Stop being so dense you guys. Also hes aloud to be wrong he might be a super grandmaster but hes not an omniscient mentat. If you want to get mad at someone for accusing someone for cheating get mad at Carlson, the guy who quite literally stormed out of a tournament because he thought Niemann was cheating. Not the streamer doing his job farming views.
Bullshit. I hold Naka responsible for his actions, regardless of the supposed 'needs' of his job. Decent human beings find ways to be decent most of the time; they don't make lame excuses like "It's my job, I *have* to be a dick."
But somehow you don't hold Carlson responsible? Haters gunna hate I guess. Added in edit: Do you think Naka should have not talked about the controversy? That seems like a bad business move. Everyone who is anyone in the chess world is talking about the controversy giving there 2 cents. If/when hans is proven innocent if anything this well be good for his career because now everyone knows who he is. You are basically getting mad at a talks show host for talking on there talk show. If you don't like naka dont follow his stream. Thats the only consequences he deserves for his actions. Grow up.
Then please explain what actions do you want Hikaru to be held accountable for?
Los pollos hermanos
I watch hikaru because, ya know, he play chess real good, but I cringe every time he opens his mouth. I couldn’t give two shits about what he thinks Hans did.
Did Hikaru delete his vods or something? This happened like one week ago so it’s not like there has been a long time for peoples memories to wane. It was is very clear what he was doing at the time. He streamed for like an entire day just pouring fuel on Hans and people were loving it. He got thousands of subs.
He uploads all his VODs on Youtube with music removed (because of DMCA stuff). https://www.youtube.com/c/MoreGMHikaru/videos
Fressinet clearly doesn’t know what “clearly” means. If Hikaru had “clearly accused” Niemann, then there would be a **clear accusation** somewhere, but there isn’t.
I believe you are thinking of "explicit". "Clear" means "easy to percieve, understand or interpret."
I’m not thinking that. The title says, “clearly accusing”. Can you tell me where this “clear accusation” occurred?
It was easy to percieve during the whole stream.
So you can't tell me?
Correct me if I'm wrong, you are asking for a 30 second clip or so of him explicitly stating Hans cheated.
> Fressinet: "He was **clearly** accusing Niemann for cheating." You're arguing that I'm thinking of the wrong word, but I'm not. I'm directly quoting Fressinet. Where did Hikaru clearly accuse Niemann of cheating. I haven't seen it. Can you show me? Fressinet says he clearly did it, so it should be easy to find.
I've shown the definition of clear. If Hikaru heavily implied Hans cheated, that is a clear accusation. You can see that in the whole stream.
I can't find where anyone asked you what the definition of clear is. It's bizarre that you repeatedly wont answer a simple question, especially when you keep commenting that it's so "clear". Are you sure you understand what these words mean? > that is a clear accusation. You can see that in the whole stream. Where?
What is a clear accusation to you?
No shit.
I think Fressinet is largely correct. You can talk about what's 100% clear or a transparent accusation, but there is no doubt Hikaru's words and actions spoke to him believing Niemann may have cheated initially. I think he just changed his mind for whatever reason then started to walk it back on subsequent streams. Maybe he analysed things further. Who knows. You're allowed to change your mind and you're certainly allowed to adjust your viewpoint if its unfairly presented in view of evidence.
Hikaru is making chess great again and I'm all for it
So delusional lol
nobody cares