Hans Niemann Ties for Fifth in U.S. Championship, Files $100 Million Lawsuit Against Carlsen, Chess.com, and Nakamura

Hans Niemann tied for fifth place in the 14 player round robin 2022 U.S. Chess Championship held at the Saint Louis Chess Club located across the street from the World Chess Hall of Fame. He scored 7/13, 1.5 points behind first place finisher Fabiano Caruana, the 2016 U.S. Chess Champion who drew the 2018 World Chess Championship match against Magnus Carlsen before losing 3-0 in the Rapid Tiebreak.

Niemann's performance rating of 2699 in the 2022 U.S. Chess Championship exactly matches his pre-tournament over the board rating of 2699. Keep in mind that 2700 is often denoted as the minimum rating level for an elite chess player. There has been a lot of reckless speculation about Niemann cheating at over the board chess, but there is no evidence that Niemann has cheated at over the board chess, and there is no evidence that Niemann cheated in the U.S. Championship, which is the most prestigious tournament of the year in American chess.  

Some of Niemann's accusers/critics have suggested that Niemann play strong players under controlled conditions to "prove" that his high over the board rating is legitimate and to prove that he is not cheating. If the U.S. Championship is not a sufficiently secure event and proving ground then that means there are few if any secure events left in over the board chess. Niemann's performance in this strong 13 player event is compelling evidence that his rating is a legitimate reflection of his playing strength and not due to cheating. Does this one tournament result definitively prove that Niemann never cheated at over the board chess? No, but the burden of proof is not on Niemann to prove that he is not cheating or has not cheated; the burden of proof rests with his accusers. However, the notion that Niemann playing over the board in controlled circumstances would reveal him to be a cheater lost credibility in the wake of Niemann's U.S. Championship performance in his first appearance in that event, and anyone who asserted that Niemann would be exposed when playing against America's top players looks uninformed.

In related news, Niemann has filed a $100 million federal lawsuit against World Chess Champion Magnus Carlsen, Chess.com, Grandmaster Hikarua Nakamura, Danny Rensch (an officer of Chess.com), and the Play Magnus Group (one of Carlsen's companies). You can read Niemann's 44 page complaint here. Niemann asserts five causes of action: Slander, libel, violations of the Sherman Act, tortious interference with contract and business expectancies, and civil conspiracy. 

Each count refers to a specific legal term of art with a specific legal meaning and a specific burden of proof necessary in order for Niemann to prevail. In non-lawyer terms, Niemann is asserting that the named defendants conspired together to defame Niemann in both written word and spoken word, that the named defendants conspired together to prevent Niemann from earning a living as a chess player, chess streamer, and chess coach, and that they interfered with specific contracts that Niemann already had in place to participate in chess tournaments and chess matches. Niemann's allegations are serious, but they are also difficult to prove in court. Niemann filed his lawsuit in the Eastern District of Missouri, presumably because this situation began in St. Louis when Carlsen withdrew from the Sinquefield Cup after losing to Niemann. Disputes over jurisdiction are a major aspect of litigation, and it will be interesting to see if one or more of the named defendants moves for dismissal based on improper subject matter jurisdiction and/or improper personal jurisdiction. It is also possible that one or more of the named defendants moves for summary judgment, which would be the assertion that even if Niemann's allegations are viewed in the most favorable light by the court he would not be able to meet the burden of proof on one or more of the causes of action.

I decline to speculate on how the court might rule on such motions, but this will be an interesting case to follow, and a case that potentially could have a significant impact not only in terms of the outcome of the litigation, but also on the chess community's methods of detecting chess cheating and the chess community's response when a player is suspected of cheating in the absence of credible evidence or a confession.

There is No Evidence That Hans Niemann Has Cheated in Over the Board Chess

It is interesting that people who actually know the strengths and limitations of using chess engines to analyze chess games while looking for signs of cheating find no evidence that Hans Niemann has cheated in over the board chess. International Master Ken Regan--who has a doctorate in complexity theory and is widely considered the leading expert regarding how to detect chess cheating--examined every game played by Niemann over the past two years and determined that the evidence does not support cheating allegations against Niemann.

In Let's Check: the elite are better than you know, Albert Silver provides a detailed description of the Chessbase tool "Let's Check," pointing out how it can (and has) been manipulated to make Niemann look like a cheater. The reality--as noted in the "Let's Check" article--is that, of all the participants in the Sinqufield Cup, Niemann's moves had the least correlation with the best moves selected by the top chess engines. In layman's terms, when Niemann beat Magnus Carlsen--after which Carlsen whined like a crybaby sore loser and withdrew from the tournament--Niemann played at a solid Grandmaster level while Carlsen played an awful game. One can speculate about why Carlsen played so poorly, but the larger point is that Carlsen lost because he played poorly and not because Niemann played at such a high level that only a supercomputer could match his moves.

It is worth noting that Carlsen not only declined to defend his World Champion title but he is also losing to other young, rising players in addition to losing to Niemann. The evidence suggests that it is more likely that (1) Carlsen is declining in playing strength, (2) Carlsen is keenly aware that he is declining in playing strength, and (3) Carlsen is disconcerted about his declining playing strength. That is not to say that Carlsen is not the best player in the world; the evidence also shows that Carlsen is still the best player in the world. The point is that the margin by which he is ahead of everyone else seems to be shrinking, and as Carlsen ages he is becoming more prone to having concentration lapses that cause him to lose to younger (and perhaps more ambitious) players. It is clearly not Carlsen's goal to break the record for longest time holding the World Champion title, so the only new thing left for him to achieve is reaching a 2900 rating, which seems statistically unlikely (as Carlsen has freely admitted). Thus, Carlsen's motivation and concentration may no longer be at peak value, and he has a host of young, highly motivated, and intensely focused players nipping at his heels.

There are many people whose lack of knowledge and understanding does not inhibit their propensity to make bold, unfounded allegations, but it is very important to uphold the principle of innocent until proven guilty. A person is not guilty of a specific offense because of something else that he did in the past, or because you don't like him, or because his behavior seems odd to you, or because his success seems implausible to you. A person should only be found guilty if there is credible evidence indicating guilt.

There is no credible evidence indicating that Hans Niemann cheated at over the board chess. Magnus Carlsen and all of Niemann's other accusers owe Niemann an apology--and could very well owe him money if Niemann decides to file a defamation suit. It should be noted that it can be expensive and difficult to prove defamation in court, so if Niemann chooses to not file suit that does not lend any credibility to what Niemann's accusers said about him: the burden of proof rests with the accuser, not the accused, in our legal system.

It will be interesting to see if FIDE's investigation of this matter results in sanctions against Carlsen and others. I predict that Carlsen will be reprimanded for his reckless statements, for withdrawing from the Sinquefield Cup, and for throwing a game to Niemann in the Generation Cup, but I doubt that FIDE will go beyond that, because Carlsen wields so much power and influence in the chess world.

National Chess Day at the World Chess Hall of Fame Fischer-Spassky Exhibit

In 1976, President Gerald Ford issued a Presidential proclamation establishing National Chess Day, celebrated on the second Saturday of each October. In 2022, the second Saturday fell on October 8, and I spent the entire weekend in Saint Louis, home to the World Chess Hall of Fame and the Saint Louis Chess Club. I arrived in Saint Louis late on Friday night, and I was happy to take some pictures of the exteriors of the World Chess Hall of Fame and the Saint Louis Chess Club in anticipation of touring both just a few hours later:

I had read about and seen pictures of the world's largest chess piece, but it was cool to actually stand in front of a 20 foot tall King weighing 10,860 pounds! The massive King stands guard in front of the World Chess Hall of Fame. Across the street, the Saint Louis Chess Club is undergoing a major expansion, as noted by the sign declaring "Our Next Move Coming Soon!"

The World Chess Hall of Fame opened at 10 a.m. on Saturday morning, and I was the first customer in the door. To the right of the entrance is the Gift Shop, but I stopped in there last so I would not have to carry my new treasures throughout the museum. The lobby had a display with several free chess posters, including one featuring the world's largest chess piece and another about the Fischer-Spassky exhibit.

The Fischer-Spassky exhibit--officially titled "1972 Fischer/Spassky: The Match, Its Origin, and Influence," and on view from August 18, 2022-April 30, 2023--is the main reason that I made this trip at this time. I had always wanted to visit the World Chess Hall of Fame, but there was no way that I was going to miss seeing this particular exhibit. Bobby Fischer left behind a mixed legacy, but purely from a chess standpoint he is my favorite player of all-time; his games have a clear, simple logic that belies the depth of his ideas, and playing over his games gives me the same sense of peace that I suspect that music aficionados feel when listening to the works of the all-time great composers. Fischer was an artistic genius and a fierce competitor--the only player both willing and able to win all 11 games in a U.S. Championship after 10 wins had already clinched the title. The mental illness that caused Fischer's retreat from the chess world and his descent into seclusion and paranoia is a personal tragedy for Fischer and a human tragedy for the world that was deprived of the full flower of Fischer's genius.

The World Chess Hall of Fame has three floors. Right now, the Fischer/Spassky exhibit takes up almost all of the display space on each floor. Before entering the main room on the first floor, there is a staircase, and next to the staircase is a television playing several videos of Fischer on a loop. The videos include Mike Wallace's "60 Minutes" interview with Fischer before the 1972 World Championship Match plus Fischer's appearances on the Bob Hope Show and on the Tonight Show featuring Johnny Carson.

The main room on the first floor focuses on Fischer's youth, and his rapid development into a world class chess player. Fischer was born in Chicago on March 9, 1943, and he spent part of his early childhood in Phoenix with his mother Regina and his older sister Joan. The family moved to Manhattan in 1949 before settling in Brooklyn in 1950. New York City was the epicenter of American chess at that time, and it is interesting to speculate about how Fischer's chess career would have turned out had he not spent his formative years in that environment.

One of the items on display is a copy of My Seven Chess Prodigies, a 1975 book written by John W. Collins, who mentored the young Fischer. In the book, Collins wrote, "Geniuses like Beethoven, Leonardo Da Vinci, Shakespeare, and Fischer come out of the head of Zeus, seem to be genetically programmed, know before being instructed." The book's inside front cover is inscribed with this message from Collins to Fischer, dated 24 June 1978: "For Bobby, With best wishes and the hope you will enjoy these maxims--Jack."

Fischer's participation in the Hawthorne Chess Club--based in Collins' home near where Fischer went to school--played an important role in his development. The exhibit includes a picture of Fischer playing against Collins at Collins' house, plus the actual furniture from the picture:

 

The exhibit includes a large display about Spassky's development from young player to World Champion. It should be remembered that Spassky was a great player in his own right, and not just an obstacle in the path of Fischer's rise to the top. 

Here is a collection of various medals that Spassky won:

The medal in the middle with the biggest ribbon is Spassky's board one gold medal from the 1970 Chess Olympiad, and the medal in the upper right with the blue ribbon is his 1969 World Chess Championship medal, awarded after he dethroned Tigran Petrosian.

Here is the trophy that Spassky won after capturing the 1955 World Junior Chess Championship:

Various video monitors include archival footage of events leading up to the match and recaps of the action during the match. Older visitors (or students of American mainstream media) will recognize Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather, and other prominent broadcasters of that era leading the coverage. On the third floor, there is a video monitor that includes interviews with Fischer biographer International Master John Donaldson, Grandmaster Yasser Seirawan, and Grandmaster Maurice Ashley.

The 1972 World Championship Match between Fischer and Spassky nearly ended before it began because of Fischer's numerous demands about a host of issues, from the prize fund to the noise made by cameras in the playing area to the size of the squares on the chessboard. Fischer showed up late in Iceland, lost the first game after a risky sacrifice that is still being analyzed/debated 50 years later, and then forfeited the second game after refusing to play in the main playing hall because he felt it was too noisy. Game three took place in a back room, and Fischer beat Spassky not just for the first time in the match but for the first time ever. Spassky only won one more game the rest of the way, as Fischer cruised to a 12.5-8.5 triumph. 

The whole exhibit is fascinating, and I spent most of the day methodically working my way through each item on display. There were three items that I was most looking forward to seeing, and they remain my three favorites: the replica of the table used in the match, the board and pieces used in Fischer's famous game three win, and the famous "red book" of Spassky's games that Fischer took with him everywhere while he prepared for the match (you can see the "red book" during Mike Wallace's interview of Fischer).

The chess table used in the match was handcrafted, and by contract only three tables were ever made: the original one is in Iceland, and one of the two identical replicas is on display in this exhibit. The board in the chess table can be popped out and swapped with a different board. Which board was used for a given game was determined by Fischer's mood that day! The board on display in the exhibit was signed by both Fischer and Spassky. Naturally, I went as close as possible to take a picture of the board, and I asked one of the workers to take a picture of me in front of the table:

Here are the board (signed by both players) and pieces used in Fischer's game three win, which will be forever remembered for Fischer's unorthodox 11th move (...Nh5). The pieces are set up as they were positioned after move 11:

The red book is in the center of a display case featuring various books and note cards that Fischer used to prepare for not only the World Championship match but also for the Candidates Matches:

Here is a close up of the "red book." Note that you can see some of Fischer's handwritten notes in the margin!

I also enjoyed looking at LeRoy Neiman's artwork about the match. His first encounter with Fischer involved almost bumping into him in the cafeteria in Iceland. Fischer was holding a chess book in one hand and his food tray in the other hand! Neiman captured that moment in his inimitable style:

Neiman described Fischer as a "rare bird," and he displayed great respect and compassion for Fischer's combination of genius and eccentricity; when the sound of Neiman making artwork annoyed Fischer during the match, Neiman kept changing his drawing implements until he found one that did not bother Fischer. That might be my favorite non-chess moment of the entire match; while others described Fischer as difficult or worse, Neiman understood what it means to be a genius at work striving for ideal conditions.

One wall on the top floor is a permanent touch screen display that includes a digital version of each inductee's plaque from the U.S. Chess Hall of Fame and from the World Chess Hall of Fame (the only physical plaques on display are for the inductees from the past two years, and those plaques are perched above the staircase after you reach the top floor). Part of the top floor has items from after the 1972 World Chess Championship Match. Spassky continued to compete in the World Chess Championship cycle, though he never again challenged for the title, while Fischer went into seclusion before reemerging in 1992 to play a 30 game match versus Spassky. 

The sad story of Fischer's final years is recounted, and there is a poignant video of Garry Kasparov visiting Fischer's grave in Iceland. Kasparov lamented the unfulfilled dreams to promote chess that died with Fischer's disappearance from mainstream chess, and Kasparov also expressed regret that he never met Fischer. One wall includes photos and items depicting how Rex and Jeanne Sinquefield have transformed St. Louis into not just the capital of U.S. chess but a world chess center.

My last stop at the World Chess Hall of Fame was the Gift Shop, where I bought a variety of items not only for myself but also for my daughter Rachel. 

After taking a break to eat, I made my first visit to the Saint Louis Chess Club. The U.S. Championship and the U.S. Women's Championship are being held there now, but the playing rooms are not open to the public. However, the main area on the first floor is open, and several of the top players came into the main area to analyze their games. I sat next to Grandmaster Awonder Liang and Grandmaster Sam Sevian as they went over their third round draw, and then I watched Grandmaster Levon Aronian and Grandmaster Ray Robson analyze their third round draw.

The "Saturday Night Main Event" is a Quick Rated tournament (G/10, two second increment) held each Saturday night at the Saint Louis Chess Club. I was the fifth seeded player, and I finished with 2.5/4. I won pretty easily in the first round and in the fourth round, but I was held to a draw by a 1300 in the second round and I lost to a 1787 in the third round. Four-time U.S. Blind Chess Champion (2018-2021) Jessica Lauser, who participated in the tournament, told me afterward that a Saint Louis 1300 is not a regular 1300. Based on my limited four game experience, I have to agree; it is known that a pool of local players who do not play much outside of their community can produce players who are either underrated or overrated compared to the national rating pool. I could have played better, but I am happy that I can say that I played in a rated event at the Saint Louis Chess Club. I previously played at the Marshall Chess Club, so I suppose that the Mechanics Institute is the most famous active U.S. chess club where I have not played.

I FaceTimed with Rachel right after the tournament ended, and she was impressed when I showed her the world's largest chess piece. "It is practically as tall as the building next to it!" Rachel exclaimed.

On Sunday, I went back to the Saint Louis Chess Club. The Club was not open yet, but I watched Nick Polson and FIDE Master Gabriela Antova playing speed chess on one of the chess tables outside of the club. The only other spectator was none other than Rex Sinquefield himself. I thanked him for what he has done and is doing for chess. Later, I took a picture of myself alongside him and Joy Bray, who is the general manager of both the World Chess Hall of Fame and the Saint Louis Chess Club:

Polson is one of the co-authors of a paper analyzing the statistical likelihood that Magnus Carlsen will achieve a 2900 rating. Polson told me that he presented his findings directly to Carlsen. I wondered how Carlsen reacted to the conclusion that he has less than a 5% chance of achieving this goal. Polson said that Carlsen is very realistic and objective about his rating, and that Carlsen was mainly interested in understanding what he needs to do to improve his odds. Polson told me that the K factor for players with 2700-plus ratings is not correct, and I had an interesting conversation with him about ELO ratings in general.

Polson also played some blitz games against Grandmaster Varuzhan Akobian. I told Akobian that I owe him a thank you because studying his games on the black side of the Czech Pirc helped me achieve some nice wins in rated tournament games. Akobian played the Czech Pirc in one of his blitz games versus Polson, and I joked that he was playing it in my honor since I had just mentioned the opening. 

After Akobian finished playing blitz, I took a picture with him:

I went back to the World Chess Hall of Fame to get a few more items at the Gift Shop and look at the Fischer/Spassky exhibit one more time, and then I went inside the Saint Louis Chess Club to follow round five action in the U.S. Chess Championship. I also played several blitz games. The afternoon went by very quickly, and soon it was time to make the drive home.

A lot has been said and written about Rex Sinquefield, the Saint Louis Chess Club, and the World Chess Hall of Fame--and everything wonderful that you have heard is true! I encourage anyone who loves chess to go to Saint Louis and experience this chess wonderland for yourself. Both facilities are first class operations, with employees who are friendly and helpful. Sinquefield is very down to earth and accessible. Most of the time that I was at the Saint Louis Chess Club on Saturday and Sunday he was seated in the main club area watching the U.S. Chess Championship games on the TV monitors. At first I was surprised that he did not have a chess version of the "luxury suites" that you see wealthy people sitting in at basketball games and football games, but after spending the weekend in Saint Louis I am not surprised: Sinquefield is not a very wealthy man who dabbles in chess; he is a chess lover who happens to be very wealthy, so he does not isolate himself from the chess community that he has built but instead he immerses himself in it.

Grandmaster Maxim Dlugy Fires Back at Magnus Carlsen and Chess.com

Grandmaster Maxim Dlugy has provided a detailed and strong refutation of recent allegations and inferences about his character and about his connection with Grandmaster Hans Niemann. In case you somehow missed it, World Chess Champion Magnus Carlsen has accused Niemann of cheating against him without providing any corroborating evidence to support the accusation. Dlugy's name got dragged into the mud when Carlsen made a calculated offhand comment about Dlugy being Niemann's mentor, implying that Dlugy somehow helped Niemann to cheat. Many large mainstream media outlets publicized Carlsen's reckless claims and innuendos without doing much research to assess the credibility of what Carlsen said.

It will be interesting to see if the same media outlets who ran with anti-Dlugy stories will give equal time to Dlugy's response. 

I encourage everyone to read Dlugy's entire statement, but for those who do not have the time or inclination to do so here are some key points (all quotations are from Dlugy's statement; unquoted material is my commentary):

1) "A grandmaster and a chess professional for more than 40 years, I have found myself dragged into the cheating controversy rocking the chess world, following the release of confidential emails by chess.com – a company with a huge financial stake in supporting the version of events pushed by chess world champion Magnus Carlsen.

The first bolt from the sky came when Magnus said that I was a mentor to Hans Niemann, a former student of mine with whom I've kept in occasional touch over the years, insinuating that I helped him cheat.

Then came calls from reporters seeking comment on two-year-old emails between chess.com and me that the website had agreed in written form to keep confidential and released without my consent. In a roundabout way, the exchanges could be purported to prop up claims made by Magnus….with whom chess.com just happens to be negotiating a huge financial deal.

So even though I had absolutely nothing to do with the now infamous match between Magnus and Hans, I am now compelled to defend myself against completely absurd and slanderous accusations made against me."

Those who are too young to know or those who have not researched chess history may not realize how strong GM Dlugy was at his peak, particularly as a blitz player. Dlugy won many in person blitz games and rated games against strong players in the pre-chess computer era when there was no way for him to receive electronic assistance. Dlugy won the 1985 World Junior Chess Championship, and he was the World Blitz Chess Association's highest rated player from 1988-92.

2) "I didn't have anything to do with Hans' success in his game against Magnus, contrary to what Magnus has insinuated, as I don't prepare Hans for his games. That is his own job and potentially the job of his current coach. Since 2014, I have also not given Hans advice on actual game preparation for any other tournaments, whether online or OTB, as in my opinion, only a full-time coach would have enough knowledge to be able to do this in a professional manner."

3) "It looks like Magnus has been told by advisors to avoid direct accusations and work with insinuations. He insinuated that Hans cheated in their game, without saying as much, and when it came time to say something of note, he insinuated that Hans has a mentor, myself, who is doing a great job helping him to play well, which to Magnus now is equivalent to cheating. He then came out openly and claimed Hans has cheated and he will not be playing in tournaments with him anymore. Magnus' plan is to try to prove 'Guilt by association'. If Hans has a mentor who is a cheat, by definition Hans must be a cheat and therefore he did cheat in their game, as he looked relaxed or rather 'not tense' when playing him. The public was then directed to check out my alleged cheating incidents in 2017 and 2020 on chess.com, which would firmly establish that since I admitted to violating Fair Play policies of chess.com, I clearly helped or advised Hans that the only way for him to make progress in chess is by cheating.

Since Hans has by then already admitted that he has cheated when he was 12 and 16, it would get social media firmly behind the World Champion's plan of further implicating Hans by connecting one 'cheat' with another.

There are a number of problems with this concept:

Although to cheat with an actual device you do need an accomplice who has access to the device with a chess engine running on it, you also need a connection to the device which given the precautions taken at many of the modern tournaments, especially the Sinquefield Cup, is not even remotely a possibility.

None of the specialists tasked to find anything wrong with the actual Carlsen-Niemann game in question, came up with anything substantive pointing to any outside influence in generating moves. In fact, Hans has on at least two occasions during that game relinquished much of his advantage gained in the early opening phase, but Magnus failed to capitalize on it. Kenneth Regan, the accepted foremost authority on the subject presented a detailed report where he found no evidence of Hans using an engine neither in that particular game nor in any other Over the Board game. This hardly gives merit to the idea of a 'device' passing moves to Hans during the game.

There is no plausible method known to me or anyone I know, including thousands of social media posts, where I could be acting as an accomplice to Hans' insinuated cheating in his game with Magnus. There is no device, there is no actual cheating and I was in New York City when the game was played."

Dlugy is correct to be appalled by Carlsen's "guilt by association" tactics. I would like to see FIDE and chess organizers take action against Carlsen for his reckless words and irresponsible conduct, but Carlsen wields so much power in the chess world that he seems to be protected against any punishment.

4) "The emails submitted by chess.com showed that I indeed violated their Fair Play Guidelines twice in 2017 in two tournaments where one of my students in a class was shouting out moves together with other students while consulting with the engine.

I realized that the accusations in 2017 had some truth to them a few months later only after I caught the student in question cheating. As soon as this happened I immediately reached out to Danny Rensch and admitted to the breach of fair play guidelines that I didn't know I had committed until that moment. I admitted this was a violation, though the recent videos of Magnus Carlsen receiving advice from one of the top British players David Howell (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNMcnrmb97g) to beat a major competitor in a money tournament on lichess.org seems to be a larger violation, as he willingly played the move which won the game on the spot. It can be seen clearly in the video that Magnus didn't take this too seriously, admitting that he was cheating on the spot.

In my case, I truly had no reason to believe that I had actually cheated and was adamant I did not cheat until I realized what was happening months later, as the thought that kids rated over 1000 points lower than me could be helping me play better never occurred to me. I think I was negligent in not imagining that such a thing could occur, but having apologized for it and having offered to return the prize money for the event, an offer Danny Rensch did not comment on, I think I did as much as anyone would under the circumstances....

In the Spring 2020 tournament which I played in after my account was fully reinstated 3 years after the 2017 events, I was kicked out by chess.com during the 9th round of the tournament where I had a score of 6.5/8, while NOT USING ANY OUTSIDE ASSISTANCE!

I was shocked by this, as I was playing the tournament from my apartment and could not understand what occurred. I was informed that I was kicked out for Fair Play Guidelines violations and that given the past history, I would have 72 hours to confess to anything regarding Fair Play Guideline violations or my account would be closed permanently.

This created quite a dilemma. On the one hand, from my previous discussions with Danny Rensch on the subject, it became quite obvious that he believes in chess.com methodology more than in anything else, although having recently studied the materials on the chess.com website, I found out that it turns out that 5 or 6 appeals per month are actually satisfied and those accounts are reinstated. I simply didn't have the time to deal with this situation, and since I took chess.com at their word that the email exchange would continue to be confidential and private as stated in all of their correspondence, I made the mistake of agreeing to admitting that I used some help in some of the games in the event. The flip side would be potentially worse.

When you are kicked from chess.com, rumors start circulating immediately that you cheated and therefore were kicked out. Remembering the messages I got back in 2017, I decided that it's best to admit to wrongdoing, and if they ever made this public, I would always be able to prove that I didn't cheat by simply analyzing the games in question. Sadly, it has come down to this. Since chess.com can now not be trusted with keeping their promises, I will have to do what I do best: Analyze chess games. My analysis of the games in question will be at the bottom of this statement. I would also like to mention that since I 'confessed' to violating Fair Play Guidelines, my account was reinstated by chess.com and until recently, I regularly played using this account, which I agreed with chess.com would remain anonymous. This account is known by a handful of my friends as well as my students. It is a titled GM Diamond account."

It is fascinating that video evidence of Carlsen cheating in an online event is ignored by media outlets that keep pounding away at Niemann and Dlugy. I have seen comments that what Carlsen did was "innocuous," but I don't get it--if you receive outside assistance during a game, then you cheated. There is a difference in severity between stealing $1,000,000 and stealing $1, but stealing is stealing; there is a difference between cheating in a World Championship Match and cheating in an online event, but cheating is cheating. Carlsen presents himself as someone who is concerned that cheating threatens the integrity of the sport, so he should apply his standard to himself.

5) "When my name was first brought up in this scandal, a number of articles made a point of mentioning that I was 'imprisoned for embezzlement in Russia' as further 'proof' that my character is that of a cheater.

This is in reference to my waiting for trial in a Russian holding cell 17 years ago, a deeply painful and damaging time in my and my family's life. At the time some business rivals with close ties to Putin's government used my friendship with Garry Kasparov (who besides his role in the chess world was one of Putin's most vocal critics) to have me arrested and force a sham trial.

Even with the full force of the Russian judicial system working with the prosecution to keep me detained, they eventually had to acquit me when none of the false evidence could stand up to scrutiny. After I was acquitted, Garry sent his own head of security to make sure I made it back to Moscow safely. That evening I had dinner with Garry and his mother before flying back to New York the following day."

Dlugy's statement concludes with detailed analysis of his Titled Tuesday games from Chess.com in 2020. Dlugy's point with this detailed analysis is to show that the way that he played is consistent with his prior demonstrated performance level, and inconsistent with the notion that he received outside assistance during those games. 

I am a strong amateur chess player, but I am not a chess Grandmaster or professional chess player, so I will defer to Grandmasters and chess professionals to definitively assess the details of Dlugy's chess analysis, but I understand enough to say that it is much more plausible that Dlugy played these games without outside assistance than that he received outside assistance.

The larger issue here is that Carlsen and Chess.com enjoy a mutually beneficial economic arrangement with each other, and they appear to be colluding--either in a coordinated fashion or merely because their interests coincide--to defame Niemann and others to convince the public that (1) Niemann could not possibly have beaten Carlsen without cheating, (2) Niemann should be ostracized, and (3) chess players should have full faith in anything said by Carlsen and in the anti-cheating policies utilized by Chess.com.

There are good reasons to question the validity of all three points. Niemann, who has admitted to online chess cheating in the past, is far from a hero, but Carlsen and Chess.com both have behaved far worse than Niemann has regarding a "scandal" that is based entirely on unfounded accusations and sweeping innuendos. If Carlsen and Chess.com stay on their current path, it would not be surprising to see them as named defendants in a civil lawsuit for defamation. Chess.com would also appear to have potential liability for breaching confidentiality regarding Dlugy's emails and regarding Chess.com's "confidential" information about Grandmasters who allegedly cheated (I put "confidential" in quotation marks because Chess.com's 72 page report about Niemann provides more than enough information for anyone to figure out who the accused Grandmasters are, rendering the purported confidentiality a flimsy sham).