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).
No comments:
Post a Comment