Carlsen Defames Niemann Without Providing Corroborating Evidence

If you believe something negative about a person but have no evidence to prove it, and you say that something in a public forum, you open yourself up to the potential of being sued for slander. 

After American Grandmaster Hans Niemann defeated World Champion Magnus Carlsen in the third round of the Sinquefield Cup, Carlsen withdrew from the event while strongly implying--but not explicitly stating--that Niemann cheated to beat him. Other people, most notably Grandmaster Hikaru Nakamura, then made more direct accusations against Niemann, and I reacted in an article titled Put Up or Shut Up: Hans Niemann's Accusers Need to Provide Evidence or Apologize: "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."

Then, in round six of the online Generation Cup Tournament, Carlsen played one move against Hans Niemann before resigning and turning off his camera, prompting me to write an article titled Magnus Carlsen's Resignation After One Move Embarrases Himself and Harms Professional Chess in which I declared, "Carlsen is disrespecting the sport and profession of chess. He should not be invited to another tournament until he explains himself and commits to behaving better. Of course, a big problem here is that Carlsen and his companies control, organize, and run many of the biggest chess tournaments. It is unlikely that Carlsen will not invite himself to his own events, but it is not an exaggeration to say that Carlsen is creating a crisis in chess, starting with his decision to not defend his World Chess Championship title--which lessens that title's value and damages chess--and now with his petulant and unsportsmanlike behavior."

International Master Ken Regan, who is considered to be an authority on uncovering chess cheating, examined every online and over the board game played by Niemann in the past two years and concluded that there is no evidence that Niemann cheated during that time period.

On September 23, FIDE issued the following statement: 

Last week, World Champion Magnus Carlsen resigned in a game played in an online competition against GM Hans Niemann before making his move two. The week before, he left an over-the-board tournament after losing the game to the same Mr. Niemann. 

These were not FIDE events; however, as the world’s chess governing body, it is our duty to protect the integrity of the game and its image, and in view that the incident keeps escalating, we find it necessary to take a step forward. 

First of all, we strongly believe that the World Champion has a moral responsibility attached to his status, since he is viewed as a global ambassador of the game. His actions impact the reputation of his colleagues, sportive results, and eventually can be damaging to our game. We strongly believe that there were better ways to handle this situation.

At the same time, we share his deep concerns about the damage that cheating brings to chess. FIDE has led the fight against cheating for many years, and we reiterate our zero-tolerance policy toward cheating in any form. Whether it is online or “over the board”, cheating remains cheating. We are strongly committed to this fight, and we have invested in forming a group of specialists to devise sophisticated preventive measures that already apply at top FIDE events. 

As we have already done before, FIDE calls for reinforcing the cooperation between major online platforms, private events and top players - most of whom have already expressed their will to join efforts with FIDE.

FIDE is prepared to task its Fair Play commission with a thorough investigation of the incident, when the adequate initial proof is provided, and all parties involved disclose the information at their disposal. We are fully aware that, in some cases, uncertainty can harm players' performance. It also can be damaging to a player's reputation - that's why we insist on the anti-cheating protocols to be followed.

It is our hope that this whole situation could have a long-term positive effect, if tackled properly. We propose to launch a dedicated Panel, that would include representatives of the leading chess platforms, Grandmasters, anti-cheating experts and FIDE officers, in order to fight this risk and prevent it becomes a real plague.

Arkady Dvorkovich

FIDE President

The FIDE statement correctly criticized Carlsen's actions, but did not go far enough: there should be a zero tolerance policy not only for false accusations of cheating but also for unsubstantiated allegations of cheating. It should be obvious that falsely accusing someone--that is to say, accusing someone when you know the accusation is not true--is a serious offense, but it is also a serious offense to accuse someone without any evidence. That is to say, even if Carlsen sincerely believes that Niemann cheated, it is irresponsible and damaging for Carlsen to publicly accuse Niemann without presenting credible evidence. 

Unfortunately, Carlsen's behavior deteriorated even after FIDE's slap on the wrist rebuke.

During the Generation Cup Tournament, Carlsen gave an interview that did not shed much more light on his actions, but he mentioned that he intended to issue a statement after the event concluded. After Carlsen won the Generation Cup, he released the following statement:

Dear Chess World,

At the 2022 Sinquefield Cup, I made the unprecedented professional decision to withdraw from the tournament after my round three game against Hans Niemann. A week later during the Champions Chess Tour, I resigned against Hans Niemann after playing only one move.

I know that my actions have frustrated many in the chess community. I’m frustrated. I want to play chess. I want to continue to play chess at the highest level in the best events.

I believe that cheating in chess is a big deal and an existential threat to the game. I also believe that chess organizers and all those who care about the sanctity of the game we love should seriously consider increasing security measures and methods of cheat detection for over the board chess. When Niemann was invited last minute to the 2022 Sinquefield Cup, I strongly considered withdrawing prior to the event. I ultimately chose to play.

I believe that Niemann has cheated more — and more recently — than he has publicly admitted. His over the board progress has been unusual, and throughout our game in the Sinquefield Cup I had the impression that he wasn’t tense or even fully concentrating on the game in critical positions, while outplaying me as black in a way I think only a handful of players can do. This game contributed to changing my perspective.

We must do something about cheating, and for my part going forward, I don’t want to play against people that have cheated repeatedly in the past, because I don’t know what they are capable of doing in the future.

There is more that I would like to say. Unfortunately, at this time I am limited in what I can say without explicit permission from Niemann to speak openly. So far I have only been able to speak with my actions, and those actions have stated clearly that I am not willing to play chess with Niemann. I hope that the truth on this matter comes out, whatever it may be.

Sincerely,
Magnus Carlsen – World Chess Champion

Carlsen's statement talks about what he believes and how he feels, but provides no evidence to support his serious allegations. The notion that Niemann must be cheating because in Carlsen's not so humble opinion no one could beat him that easily without appearing to be "tense or even fully concentrating on the game in critical positions" is ridiculous. Anyone who has played tournament chess knows that players display (or attempt to conceal) a wide range of emotions during games, and that some players may seem to not be concentrating when they are in fact very much focused--chess players often close their eyes or look away from the board without losing concentration on the task at hand.

Carlsen is coming across as a slanderous crybaby who cannot accept losing to a much younger player who he believes to be inferior to him. In the context of this series of events, Niemann's previous cheating is not relevant; Niemann has acknowledged that cheating and been punished for it. What is most relevant is that Carlsen is treating high level chess tournaments as if they are his personal property to do with as he pleases, regardless of the impact that his words and actions may have not only on Niemann but also on other participants who are affected by Carlsen withdrawing and/or throwing games. Even if it were proven that Niemann cheated versus Carlsen, Carlsen should still be disciplined for his unsportsmanlike conduct, lest these tournaments lose any semblance of organization and structure.

I must emphasize that I take a hard-line stance against proven chess cheating. In my 2015 paper Preventing, Detecting and Punishing Chess Cheating in the Digital Age I proposed strong penalties for documented chess cheating:

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. 

Chess cheating is a serious problem that threatens the very future of the sport and strong measures are necessary to prevent, detect, and punish chess cheating so that the sport does not lose all credibility in the eyes of participants, fans and the general public.

If someone argued that Niemann should have received harsher penalties based on his prior cheating, I would likely agree with that--but the reality is that Niemann has paid the price under the rules that are in place, and Carlsen never publicly complained about Niemann until Niemann beat him. It would not be fair to retroactively punish Niemann again in the absence of proof that Niemann either cheated again or cheated more often than he has admitted or been proven to have cheated.

This situation is very damaging for chess no matter what the reality proves to be. If Carlsen is just a crybaby/sore loser who is defaming a promising young player who is clean then that is awful--but if whiny Carlsen is speaking the truth and Niemann is an active cheater then that is also awful. I hope that FIDE follows through on the pledge to get to the bottom of all this, and then acts accordingly based on whatever the evidence shows.

Brett Favre Has Received Too Many Free Passes From Adoring Media Members

I have never understood why so many media members adore Brett Favre. I understand that he was a great quarterback, and I have written about that. There is a difference between analyzing a player's accomplishments, and gushing over him like he is a hero, role model, and wonderful person.

Brett Favre repaid $1.1 million in ill-gotten gains from Mississippi welfare funds--though he has yet to repay the $228,000 interest due from having those funds at his disposal--but recent reports indicate that his criminal culpability may well extend beyond that: a series of text messages between Favre and then-Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant suggest that Bryant helped Favre to cover up massive welfare fraud.

The media displays great interest in some cases of sexual misconduct/misogyny, but Favre's repeated failures in those areas are glossed over. Google the name Jenn Sterger if you are interested in the details--and you can look up Favre's behavior with massage therapists as well, because that is not difficult to find. It would not be true to say that Favre's misconduct has been ignored--as I indicated, you can find the details online--but the point is that his misconduct has not permanently stained his reputation. He is a media member himself now, and he is generally spoken of in reverential terms.

Skip Bayless loves to call Terrell Owens "Team Obliterator," but Favre is the real team obliterator. As I wrote after Owens was belatedly inducted in the Pro Football Hall of Fame:

Owens' journey from deprivation and hardship to the Pro Football Hall of Fame is inspirational. I would rather have a guy who says "Who can make a play? I can!" and then does it, as opposed to a "gunslinger" who is going to sling interceptions with everything on the line. Favre was a great player and a deserving Hall of Famer in his own right but the media's hagiographic treatment of Favre while constantly belittling Owens shines a disconcerting light on how much personal bias influences the stories that are fed to us on air, in print and online.

I previously analyzed some of the disinformation techniques used by various media members against Owens specifically and also in other situations. Media members demonize Owens and others who they do not like, but they lionize Favre and others who they like.

The reality is that Favre is a criminal, a creep, and a bad teammate, but many media members ignore those aspects of the Brett Favre story. The ongoing investigation into the extent of Favre's involvement in the multi-million dollar welfare fraud case is treated as an afterthought, not as a headline-worthy story.

Charles Robinson is one of the few media members who is not driving or even riding the Favre hype train:

Lest we forget, in the final weeks of his career, the NFL said Favre failed to fully cooperate with a league investigation into whether he sent former New York Jets employee Jenn Sterger multiple unsolicited photos of his penis while both were with the team in 2008. The NFL fined Favre $50,000 in the wake of that investigation in 2010. Sterger certainly hasn’t forgotten, commenting on Favre’s latest issues Tuesday with a series of tweets, including: “Oh.. NOWWWWW he gets in trouble for inappropriate texts.”

Then there was the 2013 civil settlement over a lawsuit brought by two massage therapists in response to allegedly sexually suggestive text messages Favre sent while with the Jets in 2008. Or the questionable business dealings, one involving litigation over bankrupt digital sports media company Sqor (which was ultimately thrown out, but not until after Favre had been named as one of the defendants in a fraud lawsuit brought by an investor); and in another case, a U.S. Justice Department investigation of Rx Pro, a brand that Favre heavily endorsed that later came under scrutiny for statements made about pain-relieving creams that hadn’t been approved by the FDA.

Robinson quotes Jeff Pearlman, Favre's biographer and one of the Favre hagiographers, stating that he now feels like no one should read his Favre biography. That is probably the only Pearlman statement that I will ever agree with, because--as I indicated in my review of Pearlman's awful Walter Payton biography--no one should read anything that Pearlman writes.

Like anyone, Favre is innocent until proven guilty regarding the as-yet unproven portions of the welfare fraud case--but it is a fact that he paid back over $1 million that he was not entitled to receive, it is a fact that he has yet to pay back the interest, and it is a fact that his name has been linked to the larger investigation. Those facts are newsworthy, and those facts deserve much more coverage than they have been given. 

It is overly simplistic to assume that the disparities in media coverage are just based on race. Ray Lewis is a Black ex-NFL player who obstructed justice in an unsolved double murder for which he was a prime suspect and media members slobber over him shamelessly. I am not saying that race plays no part in poor media coverage; I suspect that racism is part of this particular problem, but that the larger problem has to do with a toxic mixture of money, popularity, charisma, and various personal/group agendas that shape not only how news is delivered but what news is discussed versus what news is buried.

Magnus Carlsen's Resignation After One Move Embarrases Himself and Harms Professional Chess

Magnus Carlsen's latest stunt embarrassed himself, damaged the credibility of professional chess, and impacted all of the participants in a major tournament with a $150,000 prize fund. In round six of the online Generation Cup Tournament, Carlsen played one move against Hans Niemann before resigning and turning off his camera. This comes on the heels of Carlsen abruptly withdrawing from the Sinquefield Cup while strongly implying that Niemann cheated to beat him. 

After Carlsen withdrew from the Sinquefield Cup, I wrote that 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." Carlsen is demonstrating that my concern was prescient. By throwing a game to Niemann without a fight and then competing hard against all of the other players, Carlsen has placed every player other than Niemann at a disadvantage. In short, there is no proof that Niemann cheated against Carlsen, but there is proof that Carlsen threw a game. As Grandmaster Jon Ludvig Hammer--a fellow Norwegian Grandmaster who has served as Carlsen's second--declared, "It's completely unacceptable behaviour to lose on purpose. It's the most unsportsmanlike [act] you can do in a competitive sport."

Carlsen is disrespecting the sport and profession of chess. He should not be invited to another tournament until he explains himself and commits to behaving better. Of course, a big problem here is that Carlsen and his companies control, organize, and run many of the biggest chess tournaments. It is unlikely that Carlsen will not invite himself to his own events, but it is not an exaggeration to say that Carlsen is creating a crisis in chess, starting with his decision to not defend his World Chess Championship title--which lessens that title's value and damages chess--and now with his petulant and unsportsmanlike behavior.

Uninformed people who know little about chess and even less about statistical analysis do not hesitate to express their opinions on social media, so it is worth noting that Dr. Ken Regan--an International Master who is an expert at detecting chess cheating--examined every over the board and online game played by Niemann for the past two years and found no evidence of cheating.

Niemann does not have to prove that he is innocent. Carlsen and others who besmirch Niemann overtly and/or implicitly have the burden of proof to demonstrate that Niemann has done something that is against the rules--and if Carlsen is unwilling or unable to do that, then chess organizers and the chess world should draw conclusions accordingly and not welcome Carlsen's participation. 

I hope that we are not witnessing Carlsen unravel psychologically in a manner similar to the way that previous champions such as Morphy, Steinitz, and Fischer unraveled.

The Cleveland Browns Flunk Situational Football

In the 1940s and 1950s, the Cleveland Browns were one of the most dominant teams in pro football history, reaching the championship game for 10 straight years (1946-55, including four AAFC seasons and six NFL seasons) and winning seven titles. 

Since the Browns returned to the NFL in 1999, they have been one of the most inept, poorly managed, and poorly coached teams in NFL history. 

The Browns are currently coached by Kevin Stefanski. Stefanski is a young coach, and maybe he will develop into a great coach, but coaches younger than he is now (40) have won Super Bowls--including Mike Tomlin of the division rival Pittsburgh Steelers, Jon Gruden (then with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers), and, most recently, Sean McVay of the L.A. Rams.

Let's just say that right now Stefanski does not appear to be on the fast track to becoming a Super Bowl-winning coach.

A fundamental part of NFL success is understanding situational football, meaning that the coaching staff instructs the players how to make decisions and plays that maximize the opportunity for success in any given situation. 

I have been watching NFL football since the 1970s, I have been a Cleveland Browns fan for that entire time, and it pains me to say that the last time that the Cleveland Browns consistently understood the concept of situational football was when Bill Belichick coached the team in the 1990s. That era ended unceremoniously in 1995 when Browns' owner Art Modell moved the team to Baltimore and fired Belichick. You could fill a wing in the Pro Football Hall of Fame just with coaches fired by Modell: start with Paul Brown, then add Marty Schottenheimer (who had a Hall of Fame caliber career but has not yet been inducted), and finish with Belichick, who won six Super Bowls after being dumped by Modell.

Sunday's debacle versus the New York Jets is just the latest example of the Browns snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The Browns led 24-17 and had the ball deep inside the Jets' territory with the fourth quarter clock winding down to the two minute mark. The Jets had no timeouts left, so the Browns were one first down and a few kneeldowns away from victory. Kareem Hunt took a handoff with 2:09 left, but instead of making sure that he stayed inbounds so that the clock would run all the way down to the two minute warning he fought for meaningless extra yards and ended up going out of bounds with 2:02 left. The goal of the next play should have been obvious: gain yardage if possible but above all don't fumble--and don't score, because the only way that the Jets could win is by getting the ball back. Instead, Nick Chubb raced around the left side of the offensive line and run into the end zone. The Browns now led 30-17 with 1:55 left. What could go wrong?

Here is the list (in addition to the miscues by Hunt and Chubb, the two plays that made all of the ensuing mayhem possible):

1) Cade York missed the extra point.

2) The Browns blew a coverage and gave up a 66 yard touchdown pass.

3) Onside kicks are rarely successful, but the Browns mishandled the ball and the Jets recovered (this is not new for the Browns; they also failed to recover an onside kick in week 14 versus the Ravens last season, but won anyway because the defense saved the day).

4) The Jets marched down the field in six plays, never needing a single third down conversion before scoring a 15 yard touchdown pass with :22 remaining.

5) The Browns still had a chance to win by reaching field goal range, and they have a kicker who made a 58 yard game-winning field goal last week (although he also had just missed an extra point)--but when the Browns were just one medium-range pass completion away from entering field goal range, quarterback Jacoby Brissett threw an interception. The Jets did not try to score a touchdown on the interception return, instead kneeling down to seal the victory.

How rare is it for an NFL team to blow a lead of at least 13 points with less than two minutes remaining? The last 2229 teams to enjoy such leads won the game. Not surprisingly, the previous team to blow such a lead was the Cleveland Browns in 2001 versus the Chicago Bears. When it mattered most versus the Jets, the Browns repeatedly failed to understand situational football and to execute fundamental plays, including kneeling down to keep the clock running, making an extra point, making sure that no defensive back is beaten deep with a two score lead with less than two minutes remaining, recovering an onside kick, getting one defensive stop, and running a two-minute drill to get into field goal range. If the Browns' special teams, defense, or offense understood situational football then the team would not have made so many plays that were not only bad but stupid. Situational football is all about what the coaches teach and how well they teach it. A well-coached team might lose but a well-coached team will not beat itself.

The Browns have had some awful teams since 1999 that simply did not have enough good players to be competitive no matter who coached them (though the coaches were generally awful, too), but even when the Browns have had reasonably talented teams (like they have now) they are done in by their own ineptitude.

After the loss to the Jets, Stefanski said that it is his responsibility to tell Chubb to kneel down before the play--but that comment just shows that even in the postgame press conference Stefanski still missed the point; this is not something to figure out or discuss in the heat of the moment: this is what you are supposed to be practicing and thinking about repeatedly, so that when situations arise the whole team understands what the correct play is.

ESPN's NFL Rewind show contrasted the Browns' meltdown with the end of the Patriots-Steelers game. The Patriots knew to kneel down, run out the clock, and win 17-14. As a Browns fan, it is great to see the Steelers lose, but every time Belichick's Patriots execute sound situational football I think about how many Super Bowls the Browns might have won if there had been a way to get rid of Modell, keep Belichick, and keep the team in Cleveland.

In his postgame press conference, Stefanski mentioned that the Browns are a young team. I cannot recall Belichick ever using that excuse--or any other excuse--after a loss. Steelers' coach Mike Tomlin often says, "The standard is the standard." In Pittsburgh, the standard has been three coaches in the Super Bowl era (Chuck Noll, Bill Cowher, and Mike Tomlin), each of whom has won at least one Super Bowl. It does not take 20 years--or even five years--to build a Super Bowl contender if you know what you are doing. The great Bill Walsh took over an inept San Francisco team and won a Super Bowl three years later, which he considered to be the standard: "I am often asked how long it should take to turn an NFL franchise around. My short answer is: three years. Not every team will win the Super Bowl in its third season under a new coach (as we did in San Francisco in 1981) but it is reasonable to expect at least some signs of improvement by that time...There are reasons why some teams are able to remain competitive year after year while others never seem to get over the hump...My point is that it takes a concerted commitment from ownership, the front office, the coaching staff and the players for a team to succeed. It's the old 'a-chain-is-only-as-strong-as-its-weakest-link-theory' theory. If one of the four areas is weak, it's extremely difficult to overcome that flaw." Notice that Walsh's blueprint does not include tanking, which has been proven to not work in the NBA, and is not effective (or necessary) in the NFL.

The Browns are approaching a quarter century of historic ineptitude (including a three season run of 3-13, 1-15, and 0-16) briefly interrupted by just two playoff appearances and a single playoff win. In a league designed with parity as the goal, this is disgraceful and inexcusable.

He's Back: Tom Brady Returns in Style

Before Sunday night's Tampa Bay-Dallas game, NBC played a video of Michael Jordan talking about how he took almost two years off before coming back but Tom Brady's retirement did not last even two months. Jordan described the deep attachment that he and Brady feel for their respective sports, and he urged everyone to enjoy watching Brady because such greatness is rarely seen. Few people would understand Brady's retirement and return better than Jordan. Jordan did not win his first game back, but he did lead the Chicago Bulls to three consecutive NBA titles before retiring again (and coming back one more time, with less success).

In his first game back from his retirement--and is it really a retirement if you did not miss any regular season games?--Brady led the Buccaneers to a 19-3 win over the Cowboys, lifting his personal record against Dallas to 7-0. Brady became the oldest starting quarterback in NFL history (45 years old), and a video montage shown during the game proved that his release time and throwing motion now are indistinguishable from his release time and throwing motion from early in his career and from the middle of his career. Brady's numbers were solid but not great by his lofty standards--18-27, 212 yards, one touchdown, one interception, 87.3 passer rating--but he made the throws that needed to be made, he mixed the pass with the run very well, and he limited his mistakes to one bad throw, the interception that he freely admitted was his fault.

During his postgame interview with NBC's Melissa Stark, Brady said, "I always play the game for my team, my teammates and the organization. Just being around them is something I always enjoy. It keeps me very grounded, very humble. I feel like just one of the guys. Not many places where I can go where I feel like just one of the guys, but the locker room's definitely one of those places."

Last season, Brady led the NFL with a career-high 5316 passing yards plus 43 passing TDs (the second highest total of his career, topped only by his 50 TDs in 2007 for the 16-0 New England Patriots). From the standpoints of physical skill set and motivation level, it would seem that Brady can be an elite quarterback for the foreseeable future--but football is a violent game in which a season or career can come to a crashing halt after just one play. Brady has been incredibly durable save for the 2008 season when he missed 15 games after tearing his ACL in the opener, but Sunday night provided a reminder of how tenuous NFL life can be: late in the game, Dallas quarterback Dak Prescott's right hand crashed into the hands of a pass rusher on two consecutive plays, resulting in a hand injury that apparently will require surgery and cause him to miss several weeks (the exact diagnosis will not be official until further examination is done, but Prescott and Dallas owner Jerry Jones both stated the expectation that Prescott will be out for an extended period).

Brady may ride off into the sunset as a Super Bowl champion, but he already had that opportunity after the 2020 season and instead he returned in 2021. Jordan kept coming back until his balky, swollen knees forced him to accept that the end had arrived. I once compared the end of Jordan's career to the end of Jerry Rice's career: 

There is a beauty and a sadness to the way that Jordan and Rice's careers ended. There is great beauty in loving the game so much that you continue to play even though you have nothing left to prove and you risk being mocked by cynical writers, young fans who don't remember your greatness and jealous rivals who couldn't touch you in your prime but salivate at the chance to embarrass you now. Yet, there is sadness when one watches a singular performer unable to dominate the game in his usual manner. Ray Lewis can be heard on NFL Films saying, "The same thing that will make you laugh will make you cry." Watching the end of Air Jordan's career and the conclusion of Flash 80's run, I understand that statement perfectly. I take two memories from Jordan's Wizards career: first, his soaring, two handed block of Ron Mercer, pinning the ball to the glass to preserve a win against Jordan's old team, the Chicago Bulls. That clip was later shown in a Nike commercial, with a Jordan voiceover intoning "Love is playing every game like it's your last." I'm not ashamed to say that I got goose bumps every time that spot ran; second, the image of Jordan dragging his bad leg up and down the court, trying to act like everything was fine—his heart and determination made you smile and the intimations of his (and our) mortality made you cry. For Rice, my two memories of his dénouement are the aforementioned Monday night comeback from the ACL injury and the fact that last year, on a Seattle team with wide receivers who drop so many passes they should change their names to Edward Scissorhands, Seattle did not even attempt to utilize him at the end of a 27-20 playoff loss to the St. Louis Rams.

Jerry Rice's retirement leaves me feeling the same way that I did after Michael Jordan’s last season with the Wizards: I am sad that Jerry Rice will no longer play in the NFL—and yet I am glad that he left now rather than spend a season sitting on the bench. Yes, the same thing that will make you laugh will make you cry.

Kobe Bryant once vowed to play until the wheels fell off, and he pretty much accomplished that, summoning up the requisite energy to drop 60 points in his career finale after being hobbled by multiple injuries that limited him to just 107 out of a possible 246 games in his final three seasons. 

Will Brady leave on top, or will he ride it out until the wheels fall off? Jordan is right that we should savor Brady's greatness--not only because such greatness is rare, but because it could end suddenly and unexpectedly.

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.