OT: Magnus Carlsen brouhahas

[Onus]

on one hand, it's exceedingly rare for carlsen to lose as white especially against such a relatively weak opponent, rating wise. it's odd that niemann seemed to predict the uncommon line carlsen played. on the other hand, it's probably just a coincidence and niemann likely just happened to play the game of his life. it happens. cheating accusations in chess are typically braindead, alireza firouzja got banned from chess.com because it looked weird that a 14-year-old iranian kid was beating grandmasters. turns out he's just really **** good. and man, what a bitter press release this guy released. he just keeps making himself look like a sore loser

Carlsen is saying if you’re playing the game of your life you would have to pause and think about what to do next at some point and Nieman never seemed stressed or had to think about the next move. He couldn’t even explain what he was doing after. GMs can remember games that they played 10 years ago let alone 10 min ago.

[BoatsNZones]

maybe 30 years ago... computers have gotten alot faster then ibms from the 90's

some would argue that the game at the highest level is pretty boring now because the computer can tell you the perfect line up to like 30 moves, so now one has to memorize that many opening moves instead of 10 or so. i like looking at these games from the 1800s because these guys played in such a wild, aggressive way, paul morphy in particular, but they would get smoked today by probably any international master. bobby fisher, arguably the goat, if he played in the same manner today would probably just be an average grandmaster.

Fisher was far ahead of his time. Look at the game of the century analysed my stockfish on youtube. It's incredible he could pulled move like that at 13yo without the help of computers. I think he would dominate in any era as long as he has his head straight.

From an innate genius/talent perspective, Fischer is in any top 3 and would obviously challenge or be the champion currently.

[CobraCommander]

some would argue that the game at the highest level is pretty boring now because the computer can tell you the perfect line up to like 30 moves, so now one has to memorize that many opening moves instead of 10 or so. i like looking at these games from the 1800s because these guys played in such a wild, aggressive way, paul morphy in particular, but they would get smoked today by probably any international master. bobby fisher, arguably the goat, if he played in the same manner today would probably just be an average grandmaster.

Fisher was far ahead of his time. Look at the game of the century analysed my stockfish on youtube. It's incredible he could pulled move like that at 13yo without the help of computers. I think he would dominate in any era as long as he has his head straight.

From an innate genius/talent perspective, Fisher is in any top 3 and would obviously challenge or be the champion currently.

Fisher would be world champion if he was playing in this era -

[DutchManDanFan]

on one hand, it's exceedingly rare for carlsen to lose as white especially against such a relatively weak opponent, rating wise. it's odd that niemann seemed to predict the uncommon line carlsen played. on the other hand, it's probably just a coincidence and niemann likely just happened to play the game of his life. it happens. cheating accusations in chess are typically braindead, alireza firouzja got banned from chess.com because it looked weird that a 14-year-old iranian kid was beating grandmasters. turns out he's just really **** good. and man, what a bitter press release this guy released. he just keeps making himself look like a sore loser

It has nothing to do with being a sore loser. He didn’t play a good game. Good chance it was because he had all kind of thoughts about his opponent during the game. He felt something is wrong and maybe he knows something is wrong with a high likelyhood. But it’s very difficult to prove when someone is cheating in a very smart way. And without clear evidence...
But he doesn’t want to play against the guy anymore or want to compete in a tournament when Niemann is there as well. At least until this is sorted out one way or another. So what can he do?
I think there were other (better) ways to deal with this, but I can’t blame him for this. The problem is when he leaves a game or a tournament he gets questions about it.

This situation will lead to further investigations and better security during tournaments. If Niemann is/was cheating he will be caught one day. And if he never gets close to 2700 level again he probably was cheating and stopped doing so. But there’s also a chance he didn’t cheat. I really hope we don’t have to wait for the answer for too long.

[BoatsNZones]

In my view Steinitz is the original true chess genius/master that would dominate in any era given the foundations that he helped build, Fischer was the ultimate prodigy who peaked highest, and Magnus is the King of the computer age. Kasparov arguably the best career.

In basketball terms in this dynamic Steinitz is Russell/Chamberlain, Kasparov is Kareem, Fischer is Jordan (if he never came back for the 2nd 3 peat) and Magnus is Lebron.

[BoatsNZones]

I think we all know how this has to end: Magnus/Niemann heads up best of 7, with a Niemann victory that culminates on him dropping trow and emptying his bowels over Magnus' pieces. The chess-pocalypse.

[DutchManDanFan]

Fischer was one of the great champions but he probably would have lost against Karpov. Too much stability and too strong to roll over like he crushed his opponents in his amazing run to the title in 1972. For the myth of Fischer it was best he didn’t play the match against Karpov though.

[BoatsNZones]

Fischer was one of the great champions but he probably would have lost against Karpov. Too much stability and too strong to roll over like he crushed his opponents in his amazing run to the title in 1972. For the myth of Fischer it was best he didn’t play the match against Karpov though.

Fisher beat Taimanov (who was a world champion candidate) 6-0. That's virtually impossible. He absolutely crushed Spassky in the match of the century as you know. Karpov himself is on record saying he was unlikely to be able to defeat Fischer (in '75). Fischer simply saw the game on a different plane than his peers. Karpov was clearly capable of winning some matches, but nobody is touching early 70's Bobby Fischer prior to computer learning imo.

[Fencer reregistered]

He didn't agree. He had no choice, they were both in the same tournament.

He obviously had no evidence. Evidence are hard to come by. Still, he plays many many games every year and it's the first time he does this. When he says that Niemann wasn't concentrating in tough positions, he has a pretty big sample size of how GM reacts in different situations.

I mean, it was his choice to enter the tournament and to take a seat across from Niemann and play the first move.
If he knew he was going to resign anyway why sit down and pretend you're going to play? Why not just withdraw from the tournament when you find out Niemann is in it?
Strikes me as odd but maybe there's something I'm not getting about the situation?

From what I've read he was invited to the tournament before this whole thing started. Maybe he didn't want to withdraw because that's his living and he wants to play against other GMs. Can he resign before making a move? I don't know the rule.

1. Unless it was a knockout tournament, not playing the game is not equivalent to dropping out.

2. Yes, he could have not shown up and forfeited.

3. Maybe he was considering playing, and discovered he didn't feel up to it emotionally when he got to the table. (See the title of this thread.)

[falcolombardi]

I dont know anythingh about chess but the comments here on the game history are fascinating to read

Thanks for the interesting writing

[Fencer reregistered]

In my view Steinitz is the original true chess genius/master that would dominate in any era given the foundations that he helped build, Fischer was the ultimate prodigy who peaked highest, and Magnus is the King of the computer age. Kasparov arguably the best career.

In basketball terms in this dynamic Steinitz is Russell/Chamberlain, Kasparov is Kareem, Fischer is Jordan (if he never came back for the 2nd 3 peat) and Magnus is Lebron.

Such analogies are never perfect, obviously, but:

-- Steinetz like Russell for hugely advancing the theory of the game/sport? Yes. Steinitz also dominated for a long time.
-- Kasparov like Kareem for longevity? Not obvious. Steinetz and Capablanca have similar claims. Except -- Kasparov and Kareem are both political rebels.
-- Fischer as a top talent and self-destructive argumentative nutcase doesn't have a great basketball analogy. Given him quitting at the top, more than once, and also given him being an ****, I'm inclined to go with Jordan.
-- Tal as a top talent, who saw the game like almost nobody else did, but was derailed by health, makes me think of Bird.
-- Karpov as a boring machine and company man, grinding away at his opponent's weakness whatever it was, doesn't have a great basketball fit either. Maybe John Stockton, but that's disrespectful to Karpov's status in the game.
-- Capablanca just made everything simple, and dominated accordingly. Shaq? Duncan? Duncan is even from a place near Cuba.
-- Bottvinik as a system guy who kept losing and regaining the championship makes me think of Duncan even more.

[Fencer reregistered]

some would argue that the game at the highest level is pretty boring now because the computer can tell you the perfect line up to like 30 moves, so now one has to memorize that many opening moves instead of 10 or so. i like looking at these games from the 1800s because these guys played in such a wild, aggressive way, paul morphy in particular, but they would get smoked today by probably any international master. bobby fisher, arguably the goat, if he played in the same manner today would probably just be an average grandmaster.

Fisher was far ahead of his time. Look at the game of the century analysed my stockfish on youtube. It's incredible he could pulled move like that at 13yo without the help of computers. I think he would dominate in any era as long as he has his head straight.

From an innate genius/talent perspective, Fischer is in any top 3 and would obviously challenge or be the champion currently.

At the time of the Fischer/Spassky match, I had no idea how they thought of diddling around on the edge of the board in ways that turned out to be strategically very advantageous. Now that kind of thing is routine. I.e., they had the talent to anticipate how the game is played today.

Fischer and Carlsen had a lot in common -- prodigies who had little interest in or talent for opening preparation, and just wanted to get further into the game to a point where they expected to outplay their opponents. Now they're two of the most voiceforous cheating accusers as well.

[Fencer reregistered]

By the way -- this is not the most serious cheating scandal in chess. That would be the Topalov/Kramnik world championship match, with reciprocal cheating allegations, although I wasn't paying attention to chess at the time and missed it as it was happening.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Chess_Championship_2006
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/the-kramnik-vs-topalov-feud

Like Fischer, Kramnik forfeited a game as a protest and still won the match.

[CIN-C-STAR]

By the way -- this is not the most serious cheating scandal in chess. That would be the Topalov/Kramnik world championship match, with reciprocal cheating allegations, although I wasn't paying attention to chess at the time and missed it as it was happening.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Chess_Championship_2006
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/the-kramnik-vs-topalov-feud

Like Fischer, Kramnik forfeited a game as a protest and still won the match.

Yeah but this IS the most serious cheating scandal in chess that may or may not involve anal beads

[art_tatum]

The whole niemann couldn't explain what he did is just being parroted by everyone yet none of you actually watched his post game interview.
It's simply not true.

[Richard Miller]

cheating accusations in chess are typically braindead, alireza firouzja got banned from chess.com because it looked weird that a 14-year-old iranian kid was beating grandmasters. turns out he's just really **** good. and man, what a bitter press release this guy released. he just keeps making himself look like a sore loser

Only this guy seems to have a track record of cheating several times in the past, so that's a bit different.

[Johnny Firpo]

The whole niemann couldn't explain what he did is just being parroted by everyone yet none of you actually watched his post game interview.
It's simply not true.

I have watched it, and watched numerous analysis of it, I don't see how it's not true. It might not be important, he might have been in an emotional state, but he definitely did not explain the lines at all. About the GOAT discussion, it's obviously Magnus, but if we are talking about the gap between the best and the second best in an era, the largest gap belongs to Kasparov, I believe.

[MrBigShot]

If he has legitimate proof that Hans cheated on the board he should release it or stop talking. Not tense enough, really? Something that is verifiably true is exempt from legal recourse.

Magnus is showing himself to be an egotistical sore loser.

[B-easy]

Carlsens proof that Hans was cheating OTB is he wasn't concentrating enough. Lol.

[Zvaart]

on one hand, it's exceedingly rare for carlsen to lose as white especially against such a relatively weak opponent, rating wise. it's odd that niemann seemed to predict the uncommon line carlsen played. on the other hand, it's probably just a coincidence and niemann likely just happened to play the game of his life. it happens. cheating accusations in chess are typically braindead, alireza firouzja got banned from chess.com because it looked weird that a 14-year-old iranian kid was beating grandmasters. turns out he's just really **** good. and man, what a bitter press release this guy released. he just keeps making himself look like a sore loser

It has nothing to do with being a sore loser. He didn’t play a good game. Good chance it was because he had all kind of thoughts about his opponent during the game. He felt something is wrong and maybe he knows something is wrong with a high likelyhood. But it’s very difficult to prove when someone is cheating in a very smart way. And without clear evidence...
But he doesn’t want to play against the guy anymore or want to compete in a tournament when Niemann is there as well. At least until this is sorted out one way or another. So what can he do?
I think there were other (better) ways to deal with this, but I can’t blame him for this. The problem is when he leaves a game or a tournament he gets questions about it.

This situation will lead to further investigations and better security during tournaments. If Niemann is/was cheating he will be caught one day. And if he never gets close to 2700 level again he probably was cheating and stopped doing so. But there’s also a chance he didn’t cheat. I really hope we don’t have to wait for the answer for too long.

I fully understand Carlsen, i follow him and i know he is not a sore looser, so i tend to believe he smelled something fishy.

I'm glad he took a stand for what he thought was right and forfeited the next game. ffs, he was playing a cheater, Niemann admited he did it before.