Carlsen resigns on move 2

[JustinHorton]

Against Niemann, of course

[Stephen Westmoreland]

Was watching. Wow.. Does FIDE need to intervene? What happens now?

[JustinHorton]

Also, what happens right now? Is he to be permitted to continue in the tournament?

[Stephen Westmoreland]

Isn't it his own set of tournaments?!

[David Sedgwick]

I don't want to speculate about what should or will happen next, but:

1. I can't deny having a feeling of relief that it's not my problem.

2. I don't know who the tournament arbiters are, but they have my sympathy and my support.

[Matt Mackenzie]

Why doesn't Carlsen just say he thinks Niemann is a cheat and be done with it, would arguably be less bad than this sort of carry on.

[Chris Rice]

Isn't it his own set of tournaments?!

Presumably it can't be otherwise why would he have let Niemann play? The only reason I can think of as to why he would is that he wants to publicly humiliate Niemann without incurring any legal ramifications by calling him a cheat.

[Geoff Chandler]

Of all the speculation about what comes next after St. Louis...nobody predicted that one.

[Chris Rice]

To be fair to Carlsen, Niemann's two moves were played with 100% accuracy and did speak for themselves.

[Tim Harding]

Maybe the rules would have excluded Carlsen from the tournament if he resigned without making a move or silently defaulted?

Time for Magnus to explain or be banned I think. Or both.

[Geoff Chandler]

Also, what happens right now? Is he to be permitted to continue in the tournament?

Hi Justin,

I'm thinking legally he has complied with his contact, he did play a game.
There is nothing in the FIDE rules about when and when you cannot resign.
(Can FIDE get involved in this one. An online inconsequential non FIDE event? )

Carlsen has resigned after two moves in an online game v a self confessed online cheat.
Whether he will carry on this onto OTB games, where there is no evidence, is another matter.

[IM Jack Rudd]

If I were the arbiter, I'd seriously consider some sanctions based on rule 11.1.

11.1
The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute.

[Tim Harding]

If I were the arbiter, I'd seriously consider some sanctions based on rule 11.1.

11.1
The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute.

Yes and there is much more. The 2022 Arbiter Manual page 64 has a section on How to deal with false accusations which clearly applies to Magnus - especially after Professor Regan's defence of Niemann in the interview currently airing on chess24.

The manual says:

In case of a false accusation by a player, the Arbiter shall penalize him/her
according to Article 12. 2 of the Laws of Chess. For further procedures, see
Section 3, Part A.

And the interpretation immediately following says

If a player has genuine concerns about another competitor, and does not share that
opinion with other players, then no action should be taken against the player making
the accusation. Where the accusation is malicious or is shared with other players,
especially when it starts a vendetta, the player making the accusations should be
punished severely and reported to FIDE.

In my opinion Magnus Carlsen has made a false accusation more than once, it appears malicious and has clearly started a vendetta.

So although the present event online is not a FIDE event, I think FIDE has grounds to immediately start an inquiry into Magnus which could and maybe should result in him receiving a ban.

[JustinHorton]

I'm thinking legally he has complied with his contract, he did play a game.

I had no idea you had read his contract

[David Guthrie]

Its interesting that that the majority of the people commentating on this incident seem to be anti Carlsen's behaviour. While no one has produced any evidence that Neiman has used computer assistance in OTB play, on a human level I can understand why Carlsen isn't happy:

(1) As the almost undisputed strongest human player of all time, and the first world champion to develop his playing strength almost solely during the computer era, it could well be argued that Carlsen is likely to have better intuition than any other human as to whether or not a player is playing with computer assistance;
(2) Neiman's rapid rise in playing strength over the past couple years from a "mere" 2500/2600 player to a player capable of playing on level terms with the world's elite is quite remarkable;
(3) You don't have to be overly cynical to come up with a theory that Chess.com's allegations of Neiman's use of computer assistance whilst playing on their website could have been Neiman experimenting with using computer assistance and seeing how much he could get away with without getting caught.

Obviously, if this were a criminal law case, the principles of innocent until proven guilty and proof beyond reasonable doubt would apply, but in the court of public opinion, the rules are less clear. I still think someone should call Neiman's bluff and take up his offer to play naked (or alternatively play under special conditions which rule out any possibility of using outside assistance) to see if he can still perform at the same level.