Put Up or Shut Up: Hans Niemann's Accusers Need to Provide Evidence or Apologize

Rising American chess star Hans Niemann defeated World Champion Magnus Carlsen on Sunday in the third round of the Sinquefield Cup. The next day, Carlsen withdrew from the event, and his only public comment to date has been a not very subtle tweet stating "I've withdrawn from the tournament. I've always enjoyed playing in the@STLChessClub, and hope to be back in the future" accompanied by a video clip of José Mourinho saying: "If I speak I am in big trouble." Mourinho is a soccer manager who has gotten in trouble by making cheating allegations against opponents. You do not need a decoder ring to figure out that Carlsen is accusing Niemann of cheating without explicitly accusing Niemann of cheating.

There is a word describing what Carslen did: cowardly.

There are other applicable words, too, that I will not mention, other than to state that I respect Magnus Carlsen's accomplishments, but he is acting like a sore loser and a crybaby.

If your opponent cheated and you can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, then say so and provide the evidence. If you can't prove it, then shut up and take your loss like a responsible and mature adult.

I play tournament chess at a high amateur level (peak USCF rating of 2190, which means that at my best I ranked ahead of 97% of all rated players in the United States), so I understand very well how painful it feels to lose a tournament game--particularly if you believe (rightly or wrongly) that you are much better than your opponent. However, after I lose a game, I shake my opponent's hand and I move on to the next game. I would never belittle or diminish my opponent, regardless of what I think of my opponent's playing strength. I have lost to lower rated players who did not act particularly gracious in victory, but I accepted that as the cost of losing to such players, and I took that as added incentive to not lose to them again.

The chess community's response to this situation has been varied. Some players support Carlsen, some support Niemann, and some have retreated to neutral corners. Grandmaster Hikarua Nakamura went further than Carlsen by defaming Niemann and expressing skepticism that Niemann is legitimately a 2700 strength player, which by definition is accusing Niemann of cheating to reach the 2700 rating level. Nakamura provided no evidence to support his allegations and suppositions. 

It must be noted that Niemann has admitted that he cheated in online games as both a 12 year old and a 16 year old (he is 19 now), but he insists that he never cheated in over the board games and that he did not cheat against Carlsen. I would agree with anyone who says that Niemann should have been punished more severely for his prior cheating offenses, but under the current rules he has served his time (he was banned from Chess.com for a period) and he should be presumed innocent now unless/until there is evidence proving his guilt.

No one has presented a shred of evidence proving that Niemann has cheated in over the board games at all or against Carlsen specifically. Past offenses do not make you automatically guilty for all time, and in many instances past offenses are not even admissible in court as evidence because the prejudicial impact outweighs the probative value.

"Cancel culture" is out of control. An accusation--or even the implication of an accusation--can be enough to ruin a person's reputation or career. Niemann mentioned that at least one tournament invitation to him has been withdrawn in the wake of this nonsense. Chessbase.com provided a very good, unbiased recap of what has happened thus far, and as a licensed attorney I found one reader's comment particularly on point:

As a semi-retired US litigation attorney (NY State and Federal Bars), former Assistant District Attorney and Judge, I find it fascinating to watch Mr. Nakamura dig the defamation of character litigation hole that he now finds himself sitting in. Unless he can demonstrate with specificity how Mr. Niemann actually cheated in his otb game against Mr. Carlsen, he will likely have no viable defense should Mr. Niemann sue him for defamation of character seeking monetary damages for injury to his reputation and career. What Mr. Niemann may have done as a twelve or sixteen year old in online competition will likely not be probative at trial and may well be ruled inadmissible at trial. Likewise, suggestions that Mr. Niemann subject himself to a polygraph examination will not be probative. Polygraph examinations are not reliable and are generally not admissible as evidence at trial. (I have seen people lie and pass polygraphs. It's a skill that is taught and can readily be learned)

Chess.com has also created needless potential liability for itself by barring Mr. Niemann from its site and competitions absent a clear finding that Mr. Niemann cheated otb against Mr. Carlsen. Note also, that at a trial, it is likely that Chess.com will be forced in discovery to reveal to Mr. Niemann's experts any algorithm used by them forming the basis of a cheating accusation against Mr. Niemann.

I suspect that Mr. Carlsen has received the benefit of legal counsel as he has clearly refrained from making a direct charge of cheating against Mr. Niemann.

Grandmaster Jacob Aagaard wrote an article titled "Paranoia and Insanity" that took direct aim at Carlsen and Nakamura (I have not corrected minor grammatical and punctuation errors):

I have seen nothing out of the ordinary in the last two days. Hans playing reasonably well against opponents that are not playing that well. His big confidence. His awkwardness in front of the camera. His highly intuitive way of thinking. His lack of accuracy in variations. Him blundering when suggesting things, he thinks he might have looked at.

I also did not see anything out of the ordinary from Carlsen. Entitlement. Lack of responsibility. Lack of accountability. A Norwegian troll army ready to defame a man who only 400 days ago was a minor. Carlsen has acted badly in many situations after losing in the past. In that way, he reminds me of Federer, who was a badly behaved teenager. Become the best player in the world and behaved excellently. Then started losing to Djokovic and needed a period to adjust to reality.

People say that Carlsen does not behave badly when he is losing in his Meltwater Tour to Praggnanandhaa. It is partly because it is like Federer losing a set. It is partly because Praggnanandhaa is deferential to Magnus. Hans is not. Hans wants to kill the king. Wants to take the throne. He has no remorse over this at all.

Some people on Twitter is saying that Nakamura and Nepomniachtchi are backing up these accusations of cheating. I watched the Nakamura YouTube video and found it to be ridiculous, but also void of an actual accusation of cheating. When Nakamura is saying that no 2700 calculates this poorly, he is flat out wrong. I can also show positional mistakes from Nakamura that undermines the credibility of the playing strength of the former no. 2. Mistakes that Hans would simply not believe a GM had made. Because they are his strengths and Nakamura’s weaknesses.

There are many GMs who are suspicious. There are also many GMs who think this is ridiculous. There are also many GMs that are without real skills outside playing chess in exactly one way...

What I have seen is the nasty side of the Internet and poor behaviour from various individuals, who are totally within my experience of them as human beings. You may disagree with my presumptions of what happened here, but the simplest explanation is often the right one. Magnus could not accept that he could lose to someone he thinks of as "a joke" and came up with a different explanation. And the internet is full of his fans, happy to make meat out of it and they all know that Hans' hair works as an antenna. And they know it with certainty.

I cannot say for sure if Niemann cheated versus Carlsen or not, but I can say for sure that there is no publicly available evidence that he cheated. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a bedrock foundation not just of our legal system but of a free and open society. Lynching--whether literal or figurative--has no place in our culture.

What should be done now? Here are some steps to not only resolve this situation, but to make it less likely that such situations will happen in the future:

1) Carlsen should be compelled to return any appearance fees, prize money, and compensation that he received in connection with his participation in the Sinquefield Cup. His withdrawal disrupts the smooth operation of the event, and it means that the other participants will not all play the same number of games. Further, there is no justifiable reason that a player should be paid for not completing the playing schedule unless there is a medical emergency or other legitimate exigent circumstance.

2) Niemann should strongly consider suing Nakamura and anyone else who publicly defamed him by accusing him of cheating.

3) In general, the business and legal consequences of false accusations should be just as severe as the business and legal consequences of the alleged offense. In other words, if the business punishment for chess cheating is a six month ban, then a player who makes a demonstrably baseless cheating allegation should be banned for six months--and if the legal consequence is a specific fine and jail time, then a person who makes a demonstrably baseless cheating allegation should receive that same fine and that same amount of jail time.

Further, although no one can compel Carlsen to speak publicly if he declines to do so, if I were an organizer I would be disinclined to invite him to my event until he clarifies why he withdrew and under what circumstances he is willing to play. I realize that because of Carlsen's power and prestige he can write his own ticket to any event in which he wants to play, but in an ideal and fair world that would not be the case. No player should be bigger than the sport, and no person should be exempt from conducting himself with honor and integrity.

Let me emphasize that I deplore cheating in any form. I have written that chess cheaters should be punished swiftly and severely:

Someone who is caught in the act of cheating with physical evidence proving the cheating should be banned from tournament play for at least five years and should be forced to return any prizes won while cheating. Someone who is disqualified for cheating based on a preponderance of circumstantial evidence should be banned from tournament play for at least two years and should be forced to return any prizes won while cheating. Repeat offenders in either category should be banned for life. These rules should be incorporated into the bylaws of national chess federations and FIDE and bans issued by one such body should be enforced by all other such bodies.

The critical point is that before there is punishment there must be proof. Here, the "internet court" has declared Niemann guilty without presenting any evidence. That is not only wrong, but it is dangerous. If you don't feel personally threatened by the notion that a gang of people can arbitrarily deem someone guilty and then publicly shame that person, then you are very shortsighted and foolish. What is being done to Niemann today could be done to anyone else tomorrow--including you or someone you love. Unsubstantiated allegations are toxic because a burden is placed on the accused to prove a negative, when the burden should always be on the accuser to prove his or her case.

Baseball Vision and Chess Vision Function in Very Similar Ways

Superficially it may seem that hitting a baseball and finding the best chess move are completely different activities mentally, psychologically and physically but in fact baseball vision and chess vision are structured the same way--and to a large extent they are both learned skills, not natural talents. A fascinating Sports Illustrated article by David Epstein titled WHY PUJOLS CAN'T (AND A-ROD WOULDN'T) TOUCH THIS PITCH explains that elite performers--whether they are baseball hitters or chess Grandmasters--do not have better vision or quicker reaction times than regular people; in fact, Albert Pujols--one of the greatest hitters of all-time--ranked on the 66th percentile for reaction time when he was tested by researchers from Washington University in St. Louis. So why can Pujols hit Major League fastballs so effectively and why is he not able to hit the pitch mentioned in the article's title, a softball thrown by Jennie Finch?

The answers to those two questions have nothing to do with reaction time and everything to do with how the brain "chunks" data. Epstein explains:

For four decades, scientists have been constructing a picture of how elite athletes intercept speeding objects. The intuitive explanation is that the Albert Pujolses and Roger Federers of the world simply have the genetic gift of quicker reflexes, which give them more time to react to the ball. Except that isn't true.

When people are tested for their simple reaction time--how fast they can press a button in response to a light--most of them, whether they are teachers, lawyers or pro athletes, take around 200 milliseconds, or one fifth of a second. That is about the minimum time it takes for the retina at the back of the human eye to receive information, for that information to be conveyed across synapses--the gaps between neurons, each of which takes a few milliseconds to cross--to the primary visual cortex in the back of the brain, and for the brain to send a message to the spinal cord that puts the muscles in motion. All this happens in the blink of an eye. (It takes 150 milliseconds just to execute a blink when a light is shone in your face.) But as quick as 200 milliseconds is, in the realm of 100-mph baseball pitches and 140-mph tennis serves, it is far too slow.

A typical major league fastball travels about 10 feet in just the 75 milliseconds that it takes for sensory cells in the retina to confirm that a baseball is in view and for information about the flight path and velocity of the ball to be relayed to the brain. The entire flight of the baseball from the pitcher's hand to the plate takes just 400 milliseconds. And because it takes half that time merely to initiate muscular action, a major league batter has to know where he is swinging shortly after the ball leaves the pitcher's hand--well before it's even halfway to the plate.

The window for actually making contact with the ball, when it is in reach of the bat, is five milliseconds, and because the angle of the ball relative to the hitter's eye changes so rapidly as the ball gets closer to the plate, the advice to "keep your eye on the ball" is impossible to follow. Humans don't have a visual system fast enough to track the ball all the way in. A batter could just as well close his eyes once the ball is halfway to home plate. Given the speed of the pitch and the limitations of our physiology, it seems to be a miracle that anybody hits the ball at all.

When Janet Starkes tested the visual perception abilities of elite Canadian volleyball players and novice Canadian volleyball players by showing them still photos for a fraction of a second and asking them if a ball was visible, she made a fascinating discovery: the elite players could tell at a glance whether or not a ball was in a picture, while the novice players could not. She later tested field hockey players and got the same result. Epstein writes:

Not only could elite field hockey players tell in less time than the blink of an eye whether or not a ball was in the frame, but they could also accurately reconstruct the playing field. This held true among basketball and soccer players too. It was as if every elite athlete miraculously had a photographic memory when it came to her sport.

The question, then, is how important these perceptual abilities are to top athletes--and whether they are the result of genetic gifts. And there's no better place to look for an answer than in a type of competition in which the action is slow, deliberate and devoid of the constraints of muscle and sinew.

That brings us straight to chess and the famous study conducted by Adriaan de Groot in the 1940s. De Groot, a Dutch psychologist and chess Master, showed various chess positions from actual games to players ranging in strength from amateur to elite Grandmaster. Grandmasters had instant, almost total recall of the chess positions, while the weaker players had correspondingly less accurate recall--but when William G. Chase and Herbert A. Simon repeated de Groot's experiment in 1973 they also showed the players random positions of pieces that could not occur in a real game and they made an important discovery: the Grandmasters could not remember the random positions any better than the amateurs could. The critical difference between a Grandmaster's recall and an amateur's recall is that the Grandmaster "chunks" information: for instance, instead of seeing a Bishop and three pawns, a Grandmaster sees the formation known as a "fianchettoed Bishop." Similarly, a great hitter is not actually watching a pitched ball--as mentioned above, the human visual system is not capable of tracking the ball in real time--but rather he is picking up subtle cues from the pitcher's body such as shoulder position and hand location. Starkes' elite volleyball players could quickly find the ball based on viewing the picture as an organic whole instead of many disparate parts--and that is exactly how a Grandmaster views a chessboard.

Epstein writes, "Studies that track the eye movements of experienced performers, whether chess players, pianists, surgeons or athletes, have found that as they gain experience, they are quicker to sift through visual information and separate the wheat from the chaff. Experts swiftly discard irrelevant input and cut to the data that are most important in determining their next move. While novices dwell on individual pieces or players, experts focus more attention on spaces between pieces or players that are relevant to the unifying relationship of parts in the whole."

This ability to see "the unifying relationship of parts in the whole" is crucial to the success of a great tennis player like Roger Federer, a great boxer like Muhammad Ali and a great basketball rebounder like Dennis Rodman; a novice waits to see the tennis ball, the incoming punch or the basketball hitting the rim but an expert takes in the whole picture at once by deciphering visual cues learned from hours and hours of practice. I know from my personal experience playing pickup basketball that some players just have an inexplicable knack to go get the ball, a knack that is often not the product of being the quickest player, the strongest player or the best jumper. Similarly, my experience as an Expert level chess player is that I can "see" patterns and tactics quicker than the vast majority of chess players but that Masters and Grandmasters "see" patterns and tactics even quicker; I have a particularly vivid memory of watching a young Hikaru Nakamura--who became the youngest master in U.S. history, a record that has since been broken--glance at an endgame position that had puzzled two strong Masters for the better part of a half hour and almost instantly "see" the best sequence of moves for both sides. There is talent involved in such wizardry but I think that many people underestimate just how much hard work is involved as well.

So, if Pujols is a Grandmaster of seeing baseball pitches then why can't he hit Finch's softball pitches? Epstein notes, "Since Pujols had no mental database of Finch's body movements, her pitch tendencies or even the spin of a softball, he could not predict what was coming, and he was left reacting at the last moment...It is only by recognizing body cues and patterns unconsciously that Pujols can determine whether or not he should swing at a ball when it has barely left the pitcher's hand." Pujols' advantage on a baseball diamond is not physical or genetic as much as it is the product of years of training his mind and his body to perform one specific task; facing Finch is as perplexing to him as it was for a Grandmaster to try to memorize a nonsensical chess position that cannot be "chunked" into logical constituent parts.

Epstein concludes, "...the perceptual sports skills that separate experts from dilettantes are learned, or downloaded (like software), through practice. They don't come standard as part of the human machine. That fact helped spawn the best-known theory in modern sports expertise, and one that has no place for genes."

The theory in question is referred to variously as the "10,000 hour rule" or "deliberate practice" and it suggests that mastery of a sport, a musical instrument or almost any other endeavor is closely linked to putting in 10,000 hours of practice to hone one's perception and technique.

In Basketball, Chess and Boxing, Part II, I quoted Philip E. Ross, who wrote in Scientific American about the importance of this kind of deliberate practice: "To accumulate this body of structured knowledge, Grandmasters typically engage in years of effortful study, continually tackling challenges that lie just beyond their competence. The top performers in music, mathematics and sports appear to gain their expertise in the same way, motivated by competition and the joy of victory."

Does this mean that anyone can become a Major League baseball player or a Grandmaster? Of course not. Many skills and attributes are necessary to reach the highest level in any field. However, it does mean that the seemingly supernatural way that a baseball player quickly "sees" a pitch and that a Grandmaster instantly "sees" a winning move is not in fact supernatural at all but rather the product of hard work. We cannot all become pro baseball players or Grandmasters but we all can become better at what we most love to do if we are willing to work very hard at it; that should provide motivation to keep trying to reach whatever your potential is, as opposed to lamenting that you may not be able to become the absolute best at something: Albert Pujols and Hikaru Nakamura worked very hard to fulfill their respective potentials and they set great examples for all of us to follow: focus on the learning process and the work instead of being preoccupied with possible outcomes.

A Wonderful Accomplishment: Wisconsin Prodigy Becomes Youngest USCF National Master

Nine year old Awonder Liang just became the youngest National Master in U.S. history, winning his first two games in the Midwest Open Team Chess Festival (MOTCF) to push his U.S. Chess Federation rating to 2206. The average USCF rating used to be in the 1500 range but the recent proliferation of scholastic tournaments that created a large pool of young players who have ratings below 1000 reduced the average rating to less than 1100; even though the average rating has shifted downward, one truth has remained constant: only about one percent of U.S. tournament players ever reach the 2200 level and receive the treasured white and blue National Master certificate.

This is just the latest in a series of impressive records set by Liang. In April 2011, he became the youngest Expert in U.S. history (eight years, seven days old). Players in the Expert class, signified by a rating between 2000 and 2199, are ranked on approximately the 95th to 98th percentiles among USCF members but even though this category is elite from a statistical standpoint it does not carry the cachet in the chess community that National Master does. Liang is also the youngest player to defeat an International Master in a rated game and the youngest player to defeat a Grandmaster in a rated game.

Awonder's brother, Adream, was the 23rd highest rated 11 year old player on the USCF's February 2013 rating list; after gaining 42 points in MOTCF he is within 82 points of becoming an Expert and within 282 points of becoming a National Master.

Bobby Fischer earned the USCF National Master title as a 14 year old in 1957 after increasing his rating by more than 500 points in one year, a phenomenal improvement that vaulted him from being just a very talented young player to setting him on the path to become arguably the greatest player of all time. Fischer later said of this period, "I just got good"; a more precise explanation is that Fischer's rating progress reflected a potent combination of natural talent honed by tremendous determination and a tireless work ethic. In 1958, Fischer qualified for the Candidates matches (the final stage to determine the challenger for the World Chess Championship) and thus became the youngest Grandmaster ever. It is not fair or meaningful to compare Fischer's accomplishments to the accomplishments of the players who came after him; Fischer reached National Master and Grandmaster status without the benefit of training with strong computer engines and at a time when there were far fewer National Masters and Grandmasters than there are now. Fischer was one of the very top players in the U.S. at 14 and he was a world class competitor at 15, while today's record setting National Masters and Grandmasters have not distanced themselves from their contemporaries to nearly the same extent. Fischer's record for being the youngest Grandmaster stood until 1991, when computers had just begun to make their impact felt in chess training. Since 1991, more than 30 players have become Grandmasters before reaching the age of 16, an accomplishment that is still significant but that no longer means as much as it did when Fischer battled for the World Championship as a teenager.

Fischer's record as the youngest USCF National Master stood until 1981, when it was broken by 11 year old Stuart Rachels (Rachels later earned the International Master title and was co-U.S. Champion in 1989-90 before retiring from tournament chess to become a philosophy professor). Rachels held the record until 1994, when Jordy Mont-Reynaud became a National Master as a 10 year old. Vinay Bhat soon surpassed Mont-Reynaud and Bhat held the record until 1997, when Hikaru Nakamura--who is now one of the top 10 players in the world--became a National Master less than three months after his 10th birthday. Nicholas Nip officially broke Nakamura's record in 2008 but there is some controversy about how Nip gained his rating points and it is highly unusual that Nip has not played a single rated game since becoming a National Master. In December 2010, Samuel Sevian became a National Master less than one month before his 10th birthday; unlike Nip, Sevian continued to play tournament chess and he later surpassed the 2400 rating level, becoming a USCF Senior Master (the highest title awarded by the USCF). Sevian's current USCF rating is 2471.

Awonder Liang did not play the final three rounds of MOTCF, ensuring that his rating would not fall below 2200. In an individual tournament a player would be expected to complete all of the regularly scheduled rounds unless he became ill (or was out of contention for a prize) but in a team event it is common for a team to rotate five players among the four boards either for matchup purposes or just to keep the players fresh. Regardless of why Liang only played two rounds, his chess career profile does not resemble Nip's at all; Liang has generally played in strong open tournaments where he predominantly faced Masters and Experts: over the past 12 months, 86 of his 121 opponents have been rated at least 2000, which means he has been facing (and scoring well against) the top five percent of U.S. players.

I have personally witnessed some of Liang's history-making career. We both participated in MOTCF 2013, the 2012 Indianapolis Open, the 2012 Chicago Open and the 2011 FIDE Americas Championship in Chicago but I have only had the chance to play him once; we squared off on board two in the final round of the 2013 Cardinal Open: a victory would have enabled me to tie for first place in the U2100 section but Liang--who was a half point behind me entering the round--prevailed and finished in a four way tie for second place. If Liang had not beaten me in that game then he would still be a few points shy of 2200, so it literally can be said that he would not yet be a National Master without me! Here is that game, lightly annotated; Liang slowly but steadily outplayed me, eventually winning because of the strength of his connected passed pawns:

David Friedman (2050) - Awonder Liang (2094) [B87]

Cardinal Open (U2100 Section) 1/27/13 Round 5

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bc4 e6 7. Bb3 b5 8. O-O Be7 9. Qf3 Qc7 10. Qg3 O-O 11. Bh6 Ne8 12. Rad1 Bd7 13. f4 Nc6 14. Nxc6 Bxc6 (My opponent spent almost 30 minutes thinking about which way to recapture. I thought that I stood well here--not just because he spent so much time on this move but also because my K-side attack looked strong to me.) 15. f5 (A. Sokolov played the text against Gelfand in the 1989 USSR Chmp [1-0, 64 moves]) 15... Kh8 16. Be3 b4 17. Ne2!? (17. Na4 is the correct move, as Sokolov played against Gelfand. White threatens to invade on b6 and also to take on e6.) 17... e5 (I underestimated this move; I did not think that Black could afford to create such a hole on d5 but the point is that White cannot exploit this hole and White's N is suddenly a very clumsy piece.) 18. c3 (This maintains material equality but enables Black to create two powerful connected passed pawns in the center. 18. Qf3 Nf6 19. Ng3 Qb7 did not appeal to me during the game but White should be able to hold after 20. Bd5 Bxd5 21. exd5 Rac8 22. Rd2) 18... Nf6 19. Bd5? (cxb4 offers more resistance than the text.) 19...Nxe4 20. Bxe4 Bxe4 21. cxb4 Qb7 22. a3 Bc6 23.Rd2 f6 24. Qg4 Rg8 25. Ng3 d5 26. Bc5 Bxc5+ 27. bxc5 d4 28. Re1 Qb5 29. Ne4? (29. Rc1 is a better try but it will be very difficult for White to maintain an effective blockade.) 29...Bxe4 (Black will soon have an extra pawn in addition to owning connected passers. The game is over.) 30. Qxe4 Qxc5 31. Rd3 Rac8 32. Rh3 Rgd8 33. Qh4?? (A blunder in a lost position. White must blockade the d pawn.) d3+ 34. Kf1 h6 35. Qg4 d2 36. Rd1 Rd4 37. Qe2 Qd5 38. Rf3 Rc1 39. Rc3 Rf4+ 40. Kg1 Qd4+ 41. Kh1 Rxd1+ 42. Qxd1 Rf1+ 0-1

While the 2013 MOTCF event will always be most remembered for Liang's record, the first place team also has several notable young players who have already made names for themselves in the chess world. Walker Griggs, a 17 year old who earned the National Master title at age 15, led the CCLian Defense team (named for the Columbus Chess Lessons organization) to the MOTCF championship with four match points in five rounds; four teams finished a half point behind (including my squad, Friedman's Fanatics). Griggs' teammates are Maggie Feng, Luke Xie and Vikran Raman. Feng, an Expert, won the silver medal in the 2012 Pan-American Youth Chess Championship in the girls under 12 division; Xie, who is also an Expert, was the fifth highest rated 10 year old player on the USCF's February 2013 rating list.

The Dayton Chess Club hosted MOTCF; the DCC has existed since 1959 and is thriving thanks to the leadership of club owners Riley and Sharon Driver. DCC Vice President Chris Bechtold did a great job promoting MOTCF and helping put together several of the teams. Michael Schauer deserves credit not only for serving as MOTCF's Tournament Director but also for running the club's weekly Quick Chess events that attract players from as far south as Cincinnati and as far west as Indiana.