[WastingMyTime89]

> I'm with Carlsen on this. If you're caught or admit to cheating even once in a professional competitive career that's it - You should be out for good.

That’s absolutely not the rule and neither you nor Carlsen get to decide that.

There is no permissiveness here. Hans has played according to the rule of the tournament. There is no evidence of cheating. That’s it.

Unless you have proof of what you are advancing, you are just bullying a teenager. The conduct of the chess community has a whole has been nothing short of shameful in this instance.

[KingMob]

He's admitted to cheating in the past. The Bayesian priors for him currently cheating are not the same as for other people.

[WastingMyTime89]

Sorry but that’s garbage. You either have evidence or you don’t. You can’t just say: once guilty always guilty and be fine with that.

I find the general holier-than-thou self-righteous attitude expressed by most armchair commenters extremely off putting.

[Luc]

> holier-than-thou self-righteous attitude

That's what I see in your comments, haha.

Let the man protest. It appears to be quite effective. There is a long history of positive change coming from quiet, stubborn, non-violent protest outside the rules.

[NotYourLawyer]

The fact that he cheated before is evidence. It’s not proof, but it’s absolutely evidence.

[Aeolun]

> You can’t just say: once guilty always guilty and be fine with that.

You absolutely can. Billions of people do it every single day for less reason.

> I find the general holier-than-thou self-righteous attitude expressed by most armchair commenters extremely off putting.

I find the crowd chanting evidence, evidence, evidence off putting.

[LightG]

I suggest cavity inspections before all matches from now on.

[moonchrome]

The Hansen inspection

[Beltalowda]

> He's admitted to cheating in the past.

From what I can find: "he did admit that he had cheated in the past – first as a 12-year-old when a friend gave him some help in an online tournament and then as a 16-year-old playing unrated games while he was streaming."

A 12-year old cheating in a tournament! We cannot ever trust this man!

[Loughla]

For context at high levels of play.

Magnus Carlsen started playing at around age 5. Was in his first tournament at 8. Was winning and establishing a career in his teens. Was grand master in his early 20's.

So, cheating at 12 and 16 could equate to cheating now. That's only 3 or 7 years ago. Hans is 19.

[Beltalowda]

That doesn't change that a 12-year old is still a 12-year old though, and that a mere "7 years" (12 to 19) is a huge difference in terms of personal development. A 12-year olds brain is still developing.

The cheating when he was 16 was unrated, so that's less severe, but the same argument applies here really; how many 100% responsible 16 year olds do you know?

Should there be some consequences? Maybe? But people further upthread here are argueing for life-time bans, which seem ridiculously draconic for the actions of a teenager who can't buy alcohol or cigarettes, is below the age of consent for sexual activities, etc. in in many jurisdictions.

In my early teens I would shoplift for the fun of it and did some other things I'm not especially proud of today. That's been 30 years ago and I haven't stolen anything in just as many years (since I was 14 or 15).

I'm very uncomfortable writing off an entire person over actions they did as a teenager.

[JetSetIlly]

Thank-you for pointing this out. The defence that Niemann was "only a minor" when he engaged in his admitted cheating has always sat uncomfortably with me. As you say, Chess is game played at very high standards by children as well as adults. Cheating in that context is highly immoral in my view.

[Beltalowda]

I never said it's not immoral, but we're also talking about what are essentially children, which does not make it permissible, but I don't like judging adults (and 19 is only barely adult) over whatever they did as children/teens. There wouldn't be enough stones to cast if we started doing that.

[LegitShady]

chess.com disagrees, and says the Niemann's cheating is greater in both the amount and seriousness of cheating that has occured.

https://twitter.com/chesscom/status/1568010971616100352

>"Dear Chess Community,

>The last few days have been tumultuous for many in the chess community. At this time we have reached out to Hans Niemann to explain our decision to privately remove him from chess.com and our events. We have shared detailed evidence with him concerning our decision, including information that contradicts his statements regarding the amount and seriousness of his cheating on Chess.com. We have invited Hans to provide an explanation and response with the hope of finding a resolution where Hans can again participate on Chess.com. We want nothing more than to see the best chess players in the world succeed in the greatest events. We will always act to protect the integrity of the game that we all love."

Hans Niemann is not being honest.

[Beltalowda]

I can't really determine who is right on that; my response was intended just for "he's admitted to cheating in the past." If the chess.com allegations turn out to be true then it would of course be a different matter entirely.

[LegitShady]

nobody can determine who is right because they haven't made the allegations specific, but as a professional chess player if they say his cheating goes beyond what he's claimed, and they have evidence of it, he could sue them for defamation if it wasn't true. I suspect chess.com has the receipts.

[sebzim4500]

Fair enough but those priors should also be updated by a lot of evidence showing that he probably isn't cheating over the board:

* His blitz/rapid ratings went up just as much as his classical ratings. Cheating in OTB blitz is much harder, so you would expect his blitz rating to stay roughly the same if his recent rise was due to cheating.

* Ken Regan is generally the most trusted authority of cheating detection (you can find his papers online, his methodology is rigorous), and he says there is no evidence of Hans cheating OTB.

* AFAIK no strong player has described the game between Hans and Carlsen as suspicious. Even the (increasingly rare) ones that are fully on Magnus' side.

[pixelpoet]

Bayesian priors aren't really known for their rigour.

[Nokinside]

> That’s absolutely not the rule and neither you nor Carlsen get to decide that.

That should be the rule.

Everyone can help to make this new norm by refusing to play against players who have cheated. Carlsen is helping to make it the rule.

[FooHentai]

Does any of what you just said not also apply to Carlsen?

[bayindirh]

> There is no permissiveness here.

Shall we permissive against people who cheated, or who admitted to have cheated?

If this is permissible, or even acceptable why we have a word for this?

Note: Consider this as a meta question. This is not related to Hans or Magnus, but to humans at large, incl. me and you.