The great chess ‘cheating’ scandal revisited

Alert readers will recall the “cheating” scandal last year which arose between the then world champion, Magnus Carlsen — now still ranked as global numero uno in spite of renouncing his

title — and the American teenager, Hans Niemann.

The casus belli occurred when the two met over the board (OTB, as opposed to online) on September 4th 2022. It was a serious tournament game: the third round of the Sinquefield Cup in St

Louis. This was chess for blood.

Sensationally, playing with the black pieces, the teenager defeated the world champion, who promptly and unprecedentedly walked out of the entire event. The following week they clashed again

over the chessboard. The champion’s brusquely expressive gesture of resigning this fresh game after just one move, indicated that he refused to play against this particular opponent.

Carlsen’s gambit, also unprecedented, led to allegations of cheating and a scandal which ripped the chess world apart, with grandmasters and former champions taking entrenched positions on

both sides.

Not since the days of Bobby Fischer and Boris Spassky had chess hit the mainstream news in such prolonged and dramatic a fashion.

An eagerly awaited report by online chess giant Chess.com, was issued on October 4th. They had intended this to be the definitive judgement as to whether Niemann had cheated or not in his

famous victory against Magnus. Predictably, though, the report came down heavily on Carlsen’s side, resulting in screaming headlines that Niemann had cheated hundreds of times in online

games, but also with an innuendo that the teenager might have defeated Carlsen by dubious means in their over the board game from the tournament in St Louis.

Chess.com protested (rather too loudly) that they had not acted on Carlsen’s instructions or indeed previously communicated with him in any detail on this matter. Nevertheless, the damage

had been done, and Niemann’s reputation was in jeopardy of perpetual ruin. Carlsen’s financial relationship with Chess.com, with whom a multi-million dollar merger was in the offing, surely

had nothing to do with their judgement? Many commentators agreed that the behaviour of Chess.com  had been less than transparent, seemingly acting as advocate, jury and judge in their own

case.

Returning to the Chess.com report, in spite of the media furore, cooler heads such as the English Grandmaster Nigel Davies were more sceptical. He forthrightly noted in a tweet, “72 effing

pages but without any clue as to what constitutes academic rigour…”

He was supported in this viewpoint by an adviser to the English Chess Federation (ECF), Carl Portman, who tweeted, “It just gets worse. I have not read the full report but words like

‘likely’ are meaningless. In court, ‘likely, probably, might have and possibly’ are NOT enough to make a conviction…” Mr Portman should know about legal contexts, as he is the ECF manager of

Chess in Prisons.

Based purely on statistical probability, Chess.com claim Niemann cheated on many more occasions online than he had admitted. Niemann had indeed confessed to two instances of illicit online

consultation with chess computers earlier in his teenage years.

But had he cheated now to beat Carlsen in their over the board game?

I would say categorically no. If young players’ moves resemble those of a computer, this surely means that young players training intensively with a computer will end up playing like a

computer. I predicted this in my lecture to the Royal Institution almost thirty years ago, even before Garry Kasparov lost to IBM’s Deep Blue computer in their 1997 match. Furthermore, I

subsequently subjected the notorious game to computer analysis and, in fact, Niemann’s conduct of the endgame, in spite of his training with computers, was far from flawless. This fact alone

argues decisively against computer intervention.

Former Reuters chess correspondent Adam Black observed that had the mechanism suggested by some, as the means for cheating in an over-the-board game, been really viable, it would have been

far more profitably employed on the gaming tables of Las Vegas than the chess boards of St. Louis.

The Chess.com report also damned Niemann for a statistically improbable rapid rise in rating. I wonder what they would have said about the rise of the young Capablanca, Fischer and Kasparov

or, indeed, Carlsen himself, had mass online competition been available during their early years.

Crucially, the authors of the report from Chess.com were still insinuating  that Niemann’s OTB win against Carlsen, was suspicious. Their own report stated,  “Despite the public speculation

on these questions, in our view, there is no direct evidence that proves Hans cheated at the September 4, 2022 game with Magnus, or proves that he has cheated in other OTB games in the

past.”

However, the report’s authors then proceeded to undermine that “incontrovertible” statement: “We believe certain aspects of the September 4 game were suspicious, and Hans’s explanation of

his win post-event added to our suspicion.”

My consistent advice to Niemann had  been to consult M’Learned Friends. Niemann indeed took my advice, using the US law firm of Oved & Oved LLP and local Missouri counsel The Gartner Law

Firm. Going to law tends to act like acid poured over both untenable accusations and unwarranted insinuations.

The outcome of the case has now been announced. On August 28, Chess.com conceded that  Hans Niemann is back on their platform.

In the edition of The New York Times, also dated August 28 this year, Dylan Loeb McClain wrote the following:

Terms were not disclosed, but, in the parlance of chess, all of the parties appear to have called it a draw, meaning there were no winners — or losers.

Hikaru Nakamura, 35, who in addition to having nearly two million followers on Twitch is ranked No. 2 in the world, behind Carlsen, had addressed the controversy on his streaming channel,

seeming to side with Carlsen , while also denigrating Niemann’s abilities as a player.

Niemann’s suit named Carlsen, Nakamura and Chess.com as defendants.

In the statement announcing the settlement, Chess.com said it was rescinding its ban of Niemann and allowing him to participate in all activities on its site, including tournaments with cash

prizes that can be hundreds of thousands of dollars. Chess.com said it stood by the findings of its report about Niemann from last year.

In the announcement of the settlement, Carlsen acknowledged that there was “no determinative evidence that Niemann cheated in his game against me at the Sinquefield Cup.” He added, “I am

willing to play Niemann in future events.”

For his part, Niemann said he was pleased that the suit had been resolved in a “mutually acceptable manner” and that he would be allowed to play again on Chess.com, adding, “I look forward

to competing against Magnus in chess rather than in court.”

However, there is a twist which makes me believe that Chess.com were the first to offer a draw.

The court ruling in June indeed threw out the antitrust claims, but, crucially, not the defamation plea. The judge ruled, under Eleusinian stipulations of US jurisprudence, which I utterly

fail to comprehend, that the court had no jurisdiction because there was no diversity issue — that is, that at least one of the defendants was from the same state as Niemann. So Niemann was

going to have to refile the case in state court, meaning that the process would have started all over again. It was at that point that the parties to the suit began to negotiate. In my

column of August 26, I observed that Niemann’s legal eagles seemed to be offering little leeway. Within days it became clear that Oved & Oved, His Learned Friends, to whom he paid tribute in

his own statement, had by no means withdrawn their talons.

First, after 1… f6, Niemann smiles and buries his head in his hands – he knows what is about to happen. After Kramnik confirms the worst with 2… g5. Now Niemann could have won with 3. Qh5

checkmate. Disdaining an instant win,  Niemann instead renounced earthly gains by resigning himself and quite clearly states, “I have so much respect for this guy. Why does he …” . The whole

two moves are recorded on the Twitch platform.

Even more shocking, instead of going berserk with self-pitying rage, the newly wealthy Niemann, endowed with the perspective, equanimity and peace of mind that lifetime financial security

can bring, delivered a remarkable online homily in praise of Kramnik and in a staggering display of humility and conciliation, asked to take lessons from Kramnik, and pay for them! 

I am now assiduously scouring  the skies over Castle Keene in Clapham, searching for sightings of airborne hogs.

Sadly , they will not be appearing. On the morning of September 14, Niemann suddenly trashed his new found reputation for maturity and tolerance by offering another $10,000 reward, this time

for anyone who could offer evidence that Kramnik cheated in his 2006 title match against Topalov. With his back against the wall at that time, Topalov concocted some tenuous allegations

that Kramnik had been consulting a computer during his toilet breaks. The controversy blew up, blew over and was widely and wisely dismissed.

Reductio ad absurdum:  Kramnik’s play had been so bad that he could not conceivably have been assisted by a computer. Topalov’s problem was that his play had been  even worse. To dredge up

these ancient and discredited “Toiletgate” allegations is beneath Niemann’s dignity and seriously deleterious to his new found reputation for moderation. I would advise him to delete the

tweet (I now like to call them Xocets) and let us hear no more about it!

Although Niemann seems to have emerged with at least a draw from his legal struggles, there may still be one remaining piece of unjust collateral  damage. If so, it urgently needs to be

rectified.

In an additional attempt to damn Niemann by association, Carlsen had attributed Niemann’s success to having worked with former US Chess Federation President and junior world champion, the

Russian-born American grandmaster Maxim Dlugy.

This aside was accompanied by innuendo about Dlugy himself cheating on Chess.com. After initially denying they were the source, Chess.com later had to retract their denial of having leaked

this confidential correspondence. Dlugy responded at length to repudiate any attack on his reputation and it remains to be seen whether Dlugy’s integrity has also been vindicated by the

latest concordat.

My carrier pigeon, having winged its way towards Max Dlugy to learn his side of the story after recent twists and turns, has returned with the bombshell intelligence that Max is now also

consulting Oved & Oved. Watch this space for future inside track developments.

Meanwhile, let us remind ourselves of the game in question, available as usual to follow on-line at chessgames.com. The final word of exegesis on this contested battlefield follows; these

are based on the notes which appear in my latest (206th) book, which was published last month.

A mistake and a strange move for someone allegedly being assisted by computers or space-age nanotechnology. Black could maintain his substantive advantage with 31… Rc2

Another mistaken path from the allegedly bionic player of the black pieces. Better would have been 34… Rf5+!

You can tell that this is proving to be anything but a smooth outing for Carlsen. This could be why he was so provoked by Niemann’s calm and placid demeanour? Here White could again improve

on the text by 40. Rxb7 Ng5 41. Bh5 Nf3+ 42. Kf1 Rc2 43. h4 Rc5 44. Rb6+ Kg7 45. Be8 Nxh4 46. Rxa6 when, perhaps temporarily, material equality is once more realised.

A fatal blunder by Carlsen. In the two alternative improvements …

… White is still worse but either would make Black work harder for the win.

Yet another error: Niemann is having trouble converting his substantial advantage. Perhaps he is playing poor moves to subsequently establish plausible deniability? But then again, probably

not! Clearly better was 43… Kf6 44. Rxd2 Nf3+ when White is doomed.

48… Nxh2 49. e4 Kxe4 50. Be6 Kf4 51. Bc8 Nf3 52.Bxb7 Ne5 53. Bxa6 Nc6 54. Bb7 Nxa5 55. Bd5 h5 56.Bf7 h4 57. Bd5 Ke5 White resigns 0-1

A flawed performance from both contestants, but without doubt, a human — not a silicon — encounter.

By proceeding, you agree to our Terms & Conditions and our Privacy Policy.

If an account exists for this email address, you will shortly receive an email from us. You will then need to:

Please note, this link will only be valid for 24 hours. If you do not receive our email, please check your Junk Mail folder and add [email protected] to your safe list.