Carlsen resigns on move 2

[Paul Cooksey]

.

[JustinHorton]

Correct but irrelevant. Carlsen does not need Niemann's permission to say anything, he can only be asking to be held harmless should anything he says turn out to be untrue.

I think he would if they had any discussion that was agreed to be legally confidential. Mediation often handled this way.

Yes, but does that usually apply to situations where somebody's reputation has been discussed around the whole world and where the outcome of the process is also likely to be globally known?

[Nick Burrows]

There's another way of looking at this. If the selection of the cut off for where book knowledge is deemed to expire is arbitrary and it seems that it is, then the methods may well be detecting engine influenced moves. What they cannot tell is whether the engines were consulted during the game or prior to it. If the engine analysis is in a book the player may have read and remembered, that's not going to be known either unless they build a massive database continually updated with all published theory.

In a prior conversation, Professor Regan told me that when he does a "full test" he elimates book moves by 2300+ players manually, by cross referencing with known theory.

[Roger de Coverly]

which reminds me that I was just musing the other day about a recent scandal in the south-west of England. We can't discuss it at length on here, but it involved not shoes but a cap, and I have often wondered whether the player concerned was ever required to play without it.

There was a Blitz tournament where the player had an appalling result, That was perhaps more suspicious than his good results, which are explainable by becoming a strong player. Players with a rapid sight of the board as demonstrated by playing quickly even at normal move rates would also be more than adequate players at Blitz.

[Roger de Coverly]

In a prior conversation, Professor Regan told me that when he does a "full test" he elimates book moves by 2300+ players manually, by cross referencing with known theory.

That's not a very strong test if it relies on the theory knowledge of a retired player. You feel the active top GMs know "unknown" theory. There was an example of that in the first game of the Nepo v Carlsen match where Carlsen's approach of sacrificing a pawn regardless had only been seen, possibly by accident, in games at lower levels. The speed with which both players made the moves suggested they both knew it, including the hidden trap which can justify Black's play.

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=2122296

[MJMcCready]

Well the problem is without hard evidence it's all just conjecture.

[Geoff Chandler]

The good news is cheats at chess.om will be toning down their computer use.
Those with ultra suspicious minds might want to look and see who have had
a sudden drops or in their ratings or have gone quiet.

Also if Hans was cheating online, who beat him online? The only logical
explanation of how you beat someone using a computer is to use….

[Matt Bridgeman]

which reminds me that I was just musing the other day about a recent scandal in the south-west of England. We can't discuss it at length on here, but it involved not shoes but a cap, and I have often wondered whether the player concerned was ever required to play without it.

There was a Blitz tournament where the player had an appalling result, That was perhaps more suspicious than his good results, which are explainable by becoming a strong player. Players with a rapid sight of the board as demonstrated by playing quickly even at normal move rates would also be more than adequate players at Blitz.

And the ironic thing was that if you read the match reports back in his club games, he’d developed a huge reputation for blitzing out moves and using next to no time, sometimes even ending games with more time than he started. He should have been a brilliant blitz player not a total beginner. How he ever got the area to back him and shut down our forum discussions is beyond me.

[Mick Norris]

OK. I've managed to find time to listen to the podcast with David Smerdon - not the whole podcast, but the entire segment involving Smerdon talking about cheating and the Carlsen/Niemann controversy. It goes from 55:30 to 1:39:00 (ignore the timings given on the web page) and I, too, recommend most strongly that it be listened to. There's no big reveal or anything, there's no judgments handed down from on high, but it would be genuinely better to listen to somebody well-informed talking in a level-headed and comprehensible manner about the issues involved in this controversy, in full, than to look at any summary I could give you. Please do listen if you can find three-quarters of an hour to do so.

I've done that now, and I'd recommend it too; good use of my time

[Mick Norris]

Like Geoff, I've listened to Rowson but not yet Smerdon, and I'd really recommend it although I know it is a big time commitment

Too late in your case, but anyone looking for real information about the nuts and bolts rather than ( interesting ) psychological stuff really should go to Smerdon first.

Having been in a lot of Psychology talks at Universities this year (4 so far, 3 more to come), I found Rowson very interesting; it might be especially useful for people who have made their mind up to hear the potential other side of the argument, or at least how what they say might impact on people who don't agree with them

I've listened to Smerdon; despite having a maths degree, I don't feel in any way qualified to judge, but I did strongly get the impression that he knows what he is talking about

[JustinHorton]

I've now listened to the Rowson segment, and I can recommend that too.

(It's by no means the most important thing he says, by the way, but he mentions this from Kamsky, which I hadn't seen before.)

[Chris Rice]

The FIDE Fair Play Commission step in:

"FIDE's FPL to form investigatory panel for Carlsen-Niemann controversy

Following the recent developments in the Carlsen-Niemann controversy, FIDE's Fair Play Commission (FPL) has decided to act ex-officio and create an Investigatory Panel (IP). Three members of the Commission will form this panel, and it will also have the possibility to call for a consultation with external experts wherever analysis is required.

The focus of the investigation would be twofold: checking the World Champion's claims of alleged cheating by Niemann and Niemann's self-statement regarding online cheating.

As stated by Fair Play Chairperson Salomeja Zaksaite, the FPL is ready to examine the circumstances, compile and analyze all the data and evidence available, and ascertain the facts and allegations that have been made public. The panel will ensure a fair ruling, protecting the rights of both parties during the investigation.

"In the best interest of the chess community, we would kindly ask the public to refrain from speculations on the outcomes and potential sanctions until all available facts are well considered, and a proper investigation is finalized," added Dr Zaksaite."

[Matt Bridgeman]

The FIDE Fair Play Commission step in:

"FIDE's FPL to form investigatory panel for Carlsen-Niemann controversy

Following the recent developments in the Carlsen-Niemann controversy, FIDE's Fair Play Commission (FPL) has decided to act ex-officio and create an Investigatory Panel (IP). Three members of the Commission will form this panel, and it will also have the possibility to call for a consultation with external experts wherever analysis is required.

The focus of the investigation would be twofold: checking the World Champion's claims of alleged cheating by Niemann and Niemann's self-statement regarding online cheating.

As stated by Fair Play Chairperson Salomeja Zaksaite, the FPL is ready to examine the circumstances, compile and analyze all the data and evidence available, and ascertain the facts and allegations that have been made public. The panel will ensure a fair ruling, protecting the rights of both parties during the investigation.

"In the best interest of the chess community, we would kindly ask the public to refrain from speculations on the outcomes and potential sanctions until all available facts are well considered, and a proper investigation is finalized," added Dr Zaksaite."

Well I’m sure there will be lots of speculation! I’d speculate Hans might just about squeak through the OTB scrutiny, but will be totally screwed when they examine his online activities in depth.

[JustinHorton]

Mmm. But do they have the right to examine his online activities, which did not take place within their authority.

[Mick Norris]

Mmm. But do they have the right to examine his online activities, which did not take place within their authority.

You can download the Ethics and Disciplinary Code here

4.2j says it applies to all FIDE titled players (referring back to 4.1)

4.7a references events that count

There's no obvious reference to online events, but 6.5a references cyber bullying

6.19 is the start of the Fair Play section

I've only glanced at this document though