1ºAndrew Edwards It is not a direct accusation. Carlsen carefully worded his statement so he wouldn’t get sued. There is no proof yet, but many strongly believe the security was lax considering Neimann’s history of cheating. Plenty of circumstantial evidence though. Also, Carlsen is holding back, he may know a lot more than he is letting on about Niemann’s potential unconfessed cheating. If Niemann is innocent, he should allow Carlsen to speak up and show his evidence without threat of legal action. This would prove that he wasn’t cheating and has nothing to hide. If he does not allow this, it shows guilty behaviour. The problem is, Carlsen cannot show us his evidence as it would open him up to defamation lawsuits, especially if there isn’t enough to prove Niemann undoubtly cheated at the Sinquefield cup, which is likely.
2ºTaylor Duke Both direct and circumstantial evidence is legitimate proof that someone committed a crime. In fact, they are common in all state and federal criminal courts.
It is a fact that somebody could be convicted of a crime based only on circumstantial proof. Further, with the relatively common occurrence of false testimony and mistaken identification, circumstantial proof can be more reliable than direct evidence.
In California criminal trials, prosecutors frequently depend on circumstantial evidence to prove allegations against a defendant for a conviction. (On the other side, criminal defense attorneys will make arguments to cast reasonable doubt on the alleged circumstantial proof.)
3ºSo many comments wondering how cheating is possible over the board. It's actually rather simple and extremely hard to catch. Chess at that level is live streamed. A second person watches the live stream, utilizes a chess engine computer program to determine the best possible next move, and relays it to the player at the board through multiple different electronic devices of choice. Takes a matter of seconds in real time. Several players have been caught doing this since the advent of chess engine software. Hans has been caught cheating (and admitted to it) multiple times online. Hans games have been analyzed by computers after the games. He has multiple 100 percent accuracy games recently. The absolute best players of all time average 62-69 percent accuracy. With only players like Magnus and Bobby Fisher averaging slightly over 70 percent. The odds of a player making 45-50 perfect moves in a row each game across multiple tournaments is astronomical.
4ºTaylor Duke You went to a good school, I see. You should know that rejecting an argument on its source instead of on its merits is a logical fallacy and will not pass. Lets use Texas then. "In Texas state and federal courts, the law does not require direct evidence to prove guilt. Circumstantial evidence alone can be enough. In appeals in both Texas state and federal criminal cases, the Jackson v. Virginia standard applies. The Jackson standard says that all of the evidence in the case, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, must be enough so that a reasonable person could find that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Courts of appeal do not divide the evidence into the categories of direct and circumstantial evidence when considering the sufficiency of the evidence. Instead, they consider the evidence as a whole in light of all of the facts of the case to see whether it meets the standard." https://johnhelms.attorne...ntial-evidence/
5ºRoberto L Matos You can't go accusing people of cheating without proof. That is slander. There two sides. Yes he might have cheated and Yes, he didn't cheat. If it was the latter, how do you think he would feel being accused of what he didn't do? The Norwegian should have filed a complaint about the American to the Chess board and let them investigate. Coming out to ruin his reputation is wrong and he has only created an environment where future opponents will be scared of winning against him as they might be accused of cheating. It is funny he didn't accused the person he beat at the finals, of cheating.
6ºElizabeth Ramage It's not simply that he lost. The controversy stems from the fact that he lost, they scheduled a rematch, and Carlson used in opening in that rematch that he has never used before in professional chess. Niemann appeared to be prepared for it and made his move, and Carlson left the rematch immediately after.
Professional chess players prepare for matches by studying their opponents past moves. Carlson's argument essentially boils down to Niemann must be cheating because he was prepared to counter an opening Carlson had never moved, thus it is extremely unlikely He had prepped the counter beforehand.
7ºHis entire accusation of cheating is based around his assumption that he's the best. It's PURE ego in the simplest way.
The accusation is that Niemann used something like a Morse code buzzer in his shoe to have an outside viewer signal in moves that a computer calculated.
Carlsen's "eViDeNcE," is that he played some obscure moves that Niemann countered perfectly... The flawed part about that is, if Carlsen knows those obscure moves and can use them, what says Niemann couldn't have known them also and known how to respond to them? If he's a prodigy or whatever then you could kind of expect that... Once again, the entire underlying assumption behind Carlsen's "test," is Carlsen's own superiority.
8ºRoberto L Matos I actually just recently saw one of Hans’s game and clearly know how he’s cheating!! CNN here me out, he’s using magnets. He’s only using one hand to move the pieces while the other one controls the magnets from under the table. It’s genius!! It’s as though Hans wants us to only pay attention to the hand in charge of physically moving the pieces but yet somehow manages to fool us by only paying attention to his one hand. Luckily my mental ability allows me and cnn take notes, to some how divert my attention past the obvious!!!
9ºChisala Pac Chisenga it is not common, but it does happen. Players are wanded with a handheld metal detector quickly and not extremely thoroughly and they hand over phones, watches, things like that. Previous cheaters have been caught, but not limited to, using the following: Morse code from a spectator in the stands to the player, a vibrating device in the players shoe with a pattern for number and duration of vibrations to indicate which piece and what square to move it to, hiding a cell phone in the bathroom so when the player takes a break from the board, they can memorize the next 5-10 moves as predicted by the engine, silicone ear piece hidden under the players long hair, and a mini device hidden inside lip gloss tube. These have all happened and been discovered. There's no telling what else might be happening. The most glaring evidence against Hans in this case is that he has 20 games over the board where he played 100% accurate move for move with the engine. The next best player accuracy wise, has 2 games over 90%. A player who had a 98% accuracy during one game was caught using one of the methods above. Either he's the greatest chess player who ever lived by miles, or he's cheating at least some of the time.