News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Did Carlsen ever present any ideas as to how Niemann could have cheated at the tournament in question? Were these just baseless accusations? Seems like very bad form for Magnus. I realize being a prodigy and a champion in a field this competitive can go to your head, but damn.
If you ever hung out on reddit's anarchy chess sub, you'd quickly discover that most grand masters and chess players overall tend to be big cry babies who love drama and throwing fits and tantrums. These are grown men who have tied their personal worth to playing a board game competitively. It's acutely obvious most of them don't have a sense of what sportsmanship means.
For an example google the meaning of the "peepee in your Pampers" meme.
*pipi
"m"ost "g"randmasters are nothing to me
As if most grandmasters hang out there. Wtf are you on about. You're being sarcastic right? Right?
Google en passant
Well, Niemann has a history of cheating in online games (some with prizes). He admitted cheating in some games, and according to statistics cheated in some additional ones.
It's possible that Carlsen had this in the head when playing and that, in conjunction with a "ridiculous miracle" caused his reaction:
I think it would be fair to mention that Carlsen has never done anything like this before in his already long career.
I understand all that. What I meant was that I think it's bad form to accuse an opponent who beat you of cheating without evidence, and I would think that if you're at the top of your game, it looks even worse, and thus Carlsen would have even more incentive to mind the optics of it. This is the first I've ever heard of him behaving like this as well, but it looks bad nonetheless. I would think a better way to have gone about it would be to investigate my suspicions outside of the public eye first and only go public if I came up with evidence to support the claim. Being wrong about an accusation of cheating almost looks worse than actually cheating. I'd want to avoid that at all costs, if I were him.
The thing is I don't think there's any way Magnus would accuse him or forfeit the game unless he was sure.
I'm pretty sure what happened here is Magnus opened an obscure opening and when the move set exactly copies the pattern a computer would play you just know.
That's the level Magnus is at. His memorization is insane and I can almost guarantee he was 100% sure this kid was cheating.
Just because you don't have proof or can't see it doesn't mean Magnus can't.
I get it from a casual observer point youre like no way he could know. Trust me his memorization is that good.
Except, we now know he wasn't. Carlsen was salty because his ego was bruised by losing to someone he perceived as being beneath him. He wasn't seeing any 4d chess BS romantic mental projection of the game. He was just mad that he lost. Be aware, it wasn't that Niemann was unfairly landsliding Carlsen. Quite the opposite, Carlsen had already won two games against Niemann. When he lost the third game he got mad that someone else studied the same obscure opening as him and resigned on the fourth game after a single move. Just an adult tantrum. This is chess, everyone loses at some point or another, no matter how good you are or how large the skill gap with your opponent. Statistically in a large enough amount of games, you will lose some.
That would be plausible if Neimann knew the line but if u watch his post match interview it is obvious he's struggling with the logic that line follows. So I'm expected to believe Neimann could play the line flawlessly enough to make Magnus quit in the moment but afterwards can't justify his play and thought process?
Obvious tell he was cheating.
Yes Magnus knew right away.
I will defer my opinion to that of someone who knows more about chess than me. According to Grand-master Anatoly Karpov's analysis of the game:
Maybe Niemann cheated, maybe he didn't. But the true is that the reason Carlsen quit was because he got flustered. He could've, and as a matter of fact had previously, kicked Niemann's ass with skill. He could've made this a draw, keep playing the tournament and still dominate. But he played one bad game and had to throw a hissy fit of historical proportions.
You have no evidence and are obv biased against Carlson. Go watch the interview and then see if u still believe Hans. Carlson aside Hans does not have the skill to even remember his own thought process when working this obscure line? Proof right there.
It doesn't matter whether Niemann has or doesn't have skill to play whatever. That's not proof of anything. The point is Carlsen played like a fool and got mad at himself and decided to quit. Then to indirectly accuse Niemann of cheating without basis. And for your information, I don't have a bias against Carlsen, I hate all chess player equally.
You're pretty passionate about it for some odd reason. Sounds like u got mated in 4 and can't take it...lol
A chess player skewered my dog with a bishop and I can't get over it. I've played chess extensively, easily the most toxic and elitist group of twats I've ever met. Bloody chessplayers, they ruined chess.
I usually say the same thing about the British and the rest of the world, funny.
Which is far from easy in such cases.
I wouldn't be surprised if his reaction was made in the affect of the moment. We're all humans.