Gukesh Dommeraju Becomes the 18th World Chess Champion After Capitalizing on Ding Liren's Game 14 Blunder

"I might smile, but I ain't no joke."--Dilated Peoples, "Kindness for Weakness" 

By defeating Ding Liren in game 14 of the World Chess Championship, Gukesh Dommeraju not only became the 18th World Chess Champion, but at age 18 he also became the youngest World Chess Champion ever, surpassing the record held by Garry Kasparov, who was 22 when he became World Chess Champion in 1985. Magnus Carlsen, who relinquished the title in 2023 by declining to play in the World Chess Championship but is still the world's highest rated chess player, was also 22--but a few months older than Kasparov was in 1985--when he first became World Chess Champion in 2013.

With the match tied 6.5-6.5, Ding had the advantage of playing White, and he only needed a draw to send the match to Rapid tiebreaks, which favored him on paper since his Rapid rating is much higher than Gukesh's Rapid rating. The players reached a position in which Gukesh enjoyed a one Pawn advantage, but the game was well within the drawing zone with correct play before Ding--behind on the clock as he was during most of the match--hastily blundered away the game and the match by playing a move that enabled Gukesh to trade off the remaining pieces; this transformed the position into a pure King and Pawn ending that Gukesh could win by force. At first it seemed that Gukesh may not have realized that Ding had blundered, but soon Gukesh's eyes widened and he struggled to keep a straight face. Gukesh's reaction tipped Ding off, Ding put his head in his hands in pure anguish, and after Gukesh played the correct trading sequence Ding extended his hand to resign the game and the match.

One of the basic endgame principles generally known by strong players--even ones who are well below the Grandmaster level--is to not trade into a pure King and Pawn ending unless you have calculated the ensuing moves all the way to the desired result (win or draw, depending on whether you are ahead or behind), because King and Pawn endings are a matter of strict counting, not instinct. Ding violated this fundamental principle, and as a result he lost the game and the crown.

Ding joins a long, distinguished list of great players who made ghastly blunders, a list that includes other World Chess Champions. It is difficult for a non-chess player to understand how a world class player can make a seemingly obvious error, but it is important to realize the high stress level of chess competition--or, to put it in cruder terms, "Pressure busts pipes." It is a mistake to think of chess as just another board game. Chess is not only a sport, but it is a grueling, violent sport, increasingly dominated by young players who have the necessary mental, emotional, and physical strength to prevail under the sport's challenging conditions.

Gukesh's win exemplifies two significant demographic shifts that have happened in chess: the best players are getting younger and younger, and Asian countries--most notably India and China--have emerged as dominant forces. As noted above, Gukesh is by far the youngest World Chess Champion ever, breaking a record that had stood for more than twice as long as he has been alive, and this is just the latest example of the extent to which young players have become dominant in chess. Regarding the rising fortunes of Asian countries in chess, consider that in the 1970s it was headline news when an Asian player won a game against a Grandmaster; at that time it would have been difficult to conceive of a World Chess Championship match featuring one Asian player--let alone two--but now Gukesh is the second Indian player to win the World Chess Championship, following in the footsteps of his hero and mentor Viswanathan Anand.

As recently as two years ago, it would not have seemed likely that either Ding or Gukesh would become World Champion in the near future, because Carlsen was dominant (as he continues to be whenever he chooses to play). Ding was considered by some to be a potential challenger, but if Carlsen had not resigned the title then Carlsen would have faced Ian Nepomniachtchi in 2023; however, Carlsen had already beaten Nepomniachtchi 7.5-3.5 in the 2021 World Chess Championship, and Carlsen decided that spending several months to prepare for a World Chess Championship match is less fun than playing in various big money tournaments around the world. After Carlsen dropped out, Ding--who had finished second to Nepomniachtchi in the 2022 Candidates Tournament--took his spot, and then Ding became World Chess Champion in 2023 by defeating Nepomniachtchi 2.5-1.5 in the Rapid Tiebreak after the players tied 7-7 in the Classical portion of the match. Gukesh earned the right to challenge Ding in the 2024 World Chess Championship by winning the next Candidates Tournament with a score of 9/14, finishing a half point ahead of Hikaru Nakamura, Ian Nepomniachtchi, and Fabiano Caruana.

After a tough year during which Ding struggled to regain top form, he fought hard versus Gukesh from beginning to end--stunning observers by winning game one after not winning a Classical game in the previous 304 days, and then bouncing back to win game 12 to tie the match after losing game 11--but in the end Gukesh's energy and fighting spirit proved to be too much; throughout the match, Gukesh pressed on in positions where other players might just accede to a draw, and that willingness to fight for every inch--reminiscent of Bobby Fischer's attitude that the game is not a draw until he says so--wore Ding down.

Ding and Gukesh both have unassuming demeanors, and that makes it easy to underestimate them, as the stereotype is that a champion athlete is bold and brash. Media commentators are particularly fond of doing armchair psychoanalysis of Ding's body language, and Ding contributes to this by being so brutally honest about how he feels at any given moment. What commentators seem to miss or misunderstand is that for a mentally strong person it is possible to feel devastated for a moment but then resiliently bounce back. Ding lost game 2 in last year's World Chess Championship match, looked devastated afterward, trailed for most of the match--and then won game 12 en route to eventually claiming the title. This time, he lost game 11, looked devastated afterward, and then bounced back to win game 12 before drawing game 13 and falling just short in game 14. 

Gukesh has a quiet but fierce determination. His playing style is similar to Carlsen's in the sense that both players--to use a tennis analogy--keep hitting the ball over the net until their opponent falters and misses a shot; it is not necessary to hit the ball spectacularly, but just to hit it well enough that the opponent is forced to make a return shot. It will be interesting to watch Gukesh continue to develop as a player--he is likely not even close to his prime yet--and it will be fascinating to see how long he reigns as World Chess Champion. Emanuel Lasker held the World Chess Champion title for a record 27 years (1894-1921), but in his era there was not a regular cycle of World Chess Championship matches; he successfully defended his title five times before losing to Jose Raul Capablanca; unless the current rules change, Gukesh will have to defend his title every other year, meaning that a 27 year reign would require at least 13 successful title defenses. Carlsen defended his title in five matches without a defeat before voluntarily relinquishing the crown without a fight, while Kasparov--the longest reigning champion of modern times--defended his title in five matches and reigned for 15 years before losing to Vladimir Kramnik in 2000.

The 2024 World Chess Championship match featured a lot of fighting chess and was not just a parade of colorless draws. The most disappointing thing was the nature and quality of some of the questions asked in the post-game press conferences. During the Ding-Nepomniachtchi match, I wondered Why Do People Who Ask Idiotic Questions Receive Media Credentials?, and during this match it was disappointing to once again see Mike Klein at every post-game press conference asking questions that made little sense and had little relevance. With the match tied 6-6, Klein asked both players who has the momentum; momentum is something for commentators to speculate about--often incorrectly--not something to ask a player about in the middle of a competition. After the exciting game 13 draw, Klein asked a rambling question about how quickly Gukesh walked into the playing hall prior to the game, as if there is some brilliant insight to be gained by how fast a player is walking. In The Image: A Guide to Pseudoevents in America, Daniel Boorstin lamented that the role of news reporters shifted from covering significant events that happened to trying to create excitement out of nothing: "If he cannot find a story, then he must make one--by the questions he asks of public figures, by the surprising human interest he unfolds from some commonplace event, or by 'the news behind the news.'" That is a perfect description of what Klein and far too many credentialed media members do. I am a writer and not a video creator, but someone needs to give Klein the Mark Schwartz treatment, as I suggested last year in Dreaming of Becoming a Journalist Covering the World Chess Championship.

I hope that the next World Chess Championship features fighting chess--and better post-game questions.

Vladimir Kramnik Loses His Mind After Losing an Online Blitz Game to Hans Niemann

Grandmaster Hans Niemann can now play at Chess.com again after settling his lawsuit against Chess.com and former World Champion Magnus Carlsen, with both Chess.com and Carlsen publicly acknowledging that there is no evidence that Niemann cheated in over the board games in general and specifically in the Sinquefield Cup game when Niemann defeated Carlsen. Niemann returned to Chess.com in style, beating former World Champion Vladimir Kramnik in a blitz game. Instead of taking the loss like a man, Kramnik accepted a rematch, but replied to Niemann's e4 with ...f6, and then answered d4 with ...g5, allowing Fool's Mate. Kramnik was trolling Niemann, who resigned rather than playing Qh5 mate. Niemann responded to Kramnik's disgraceful display by simply saying that he has much respect for Kramnik and does not understand why Kramnik did this. Niemann apparently felt that he took the high road by resigning, but if I had been in his shoes I would have checkmated Kramnik and trolled back by saying something like, "I beat this guy so thoroughly last game that he forgot how to play chess and fell into the Fool's Mate." If Kramnik wanted to lose like a fool, Niemann should have fulfilled his wish.

Kramnik behaved like a petulant child--just like Carlsen did after losing to Niemann--because Kramnik is too arrogant and insecure to admit that Niemann outplayed him. Rather than losing with dignity and grace, Kramnik--echoing Carlsen's shameful behavior when Carlsen resigned against Niemann after one move rather than play against him in the online $150,000 Generation Cup tournament--chose to make a mockery of the rematch game, likely assuming that people will pay more attention and credence to the implication that Niemann is a cheater than to the fact that Niemann outclassed Kramnik in the prior game. 

If you have followed Kramnik's career, then you know that he has never lost a post-mortem analysis session; his post-game press conference performance after drawing with future World Champion Ding Liren is legendary--and not in a good way, because Kramnik comes across as either incredibly delusional or insufferably arrogant. If you don't watch the whole video, at least check out around the one minute mark when Kramnik is running his big mouth about how he is winning before Ding quietly but confidently refutes Kramnik's moves. Kramnik still insists that he is better, but Ding just chuckles and says, "I don't think so."

In short, Kramnik has always been a sore loser (or "drawer" in the game with Ding Liren), so his behavior after Niemann beat him is par for the course. What first Carlsen and now Kramnik are making abundantly clear is that the tight circle of elite Grandmasters who are invited to big money tournaments to play against each other do not want an interloper joining their club. They don't like Niemann, they don't respect Niemann, and they don't want him to ever be included. It is not clear if Niemann will ever become a top 10 player--his peak to this point has been 31st in the world rankings earlier this year--but it is very clear that Carlsen and Kramnik are afraid of the mere possibility that Niemann will crack the exclusive private club where a handful of chess players make far more money than even other Grandmasters make.

It is worth emphasizing that there is no evidence that Niemann has ever cheated in over the board competition, nor is there any reason to believe that he cheated in his recent win versus Kramnik--but there is plenty of evidence about who Kramnik is and how he will be remembered by knowledgeable, objective observers.

History will not remember Kramnik as a great World Champion or as one of the 10 greatest players of all-time; yes, he beat Garry Kasparov in the 2000 World Championship match, but by that time Kasparov had already reigned as the World Champion for 15 years. Kramnik's reign lasted just over half as long as Kasparov's. Kramnik spent eight years as World Champion before losing the title to Viswanathan Anand, who Kasparov defeated 10.5-7.5 in the 1995 World Championship match. 

When Kasparov retired from top level chess in 2005, he remained the highest rated player in the world, and he had received the Chess Oscar--the chess world's Player of the Year award--a record 11 times, including in both 2001 and 2002 when Kramnik was the World Champion. Anatoly Karpov is second with nine Chess Oscars, while Kramnik received the award just twice. 

Shamefully, Kramnik did everything in his power to avoid a World Chess Championship rematch with Kasparov, knowing full well that Kasparov had an excellent chance of retaking the crown. An exasperated Kasparov criticized Kramnik's refusal to arrange a rematch:

I believe it is the duty of the world champion to defend his title against the most dangerous opponent. When I beat Karpov in 1985 I was forced to defend my title against him within eight months. The organizers and the public believed that Kramnik was the most dangerous opponent, so I had to play him--I had no choice. Kramnik knows this and now he is champion he must prove to the world he is "real" by facing his most dangerous opponent--me.

In the last six months I have proved I am still the world number one and I beat Kramnik recently. But now Kramnik, who was not made to win a qualifier to play me, implies that I must qualify to play him. I don't want to diminish the importance of his victory. He deserved to win. But it is Kramnik's turn to prove Kasparov didn't go mad in London. The public need another match to prove Kramnik is the real thing.

Kasparov and Kramnik played 10 tournament games against each other after their 2000 World Championship match, with Kasparov scoring one win and nine draws. Kasparov's victory came on the White side of the Ruy Lopez Berlin Defense, demonstrating that he had figured out how to defeat the main weapon Kramnik used to wrest the title away from Kasparov. 

As noted above, after losing or drawing games Kramnik tends to insist that he was winning all the way until the end, despite the fact that his assertions are often demonstrably false--but if we take Kramnik at his word that he has squandered numerous winning positions then perhaps he is the biggest choker in the history of elite level chess; after all, Kramnik committed one of the most ghastly blunders ever made by an elite player when he fell into a mate in one in the second game of his six game match versus the supercomputer Deep Fritz.

How can chess be promoted as a big-time sport and be taken seriously by the public if top players behave like whining crybabies when they lose, and if top players (and media members) throw around unsubstantiated cheating allegations? Grandmaster Hikaru Nakamura recently whined about being dragged into Niemann's lawsuit, but Nakamura was not dragged into anything: he opened his mouth to spew unsubstantiated cheating allegations against Niemann and as a direct result of that Niemann sued him. "Start no stuff and there will be no stuff" would be a good mantra for Nakamura to live by in the future. Further, if Nakamura is truly interested in promoting chess as opposed to just generating more clicks and obtaining more viewers, then he should think twice about making unsubstantiated accusations that cast aspersions on the sport. There is a reason that the NBA fines owners, coaches, and players who make negative statements about officiating: such statements are bad for the league.

Nakamura is more of a chess streamer than a full-time player at this point, so he may figure that anything that creates content is good for his business model in the long run. Kramnik has retired from top level play for the most part, but he often speaks about promoting the game, as does Carlsen--but Carlsen and Kramnik seem much more interested in promoting themselves and their brands than in promoting the game. For instance, Carlsen's refusal to defend his World Championship title is bad for chess: why should anyone outside of the chess community take the World Championship seriously if the World Champion does not take it seriously? Note that Carlsen has not retired from chess; he is very busy playing in a host of big money tournaments--usually invitation-only--which is not only lucrative for him but also keeps his name in public view, which helps him promote his businesses and corporate sponsorships that are providing the bulk of his income now.

There is good reason to believe that the ratings of the top chess players are inflated now because they have essentially created a separate rating pool amongst themselves (and the ratings of other chess players are likely deflated, but that is a topic for another day). Instead of whining about losing games to Niemann, it would be great to see Carlsen--and other elite players--participate more often in open tournaments so that they put their money--and their rating points--where their big mouths are.

Magnus Carlsen and Chess.com Reached a Settlement Agreement With Hans Niemann

Magnus Carlsen and Chess.com have reached a settlement agreement resolving Hans Niemann's claims against them, thus avoiding further litigation. On June 27, 2023, Judge Audrey Fleissig of the Eastern District of Missouri dismissed with prejudice the antitrust claims in Niemann's federal district court lawsuit against Carlsen, Chess.com, and Hikaru Nakamura--meaning that Niemann can never file that same claim against the same parties based on the same set of alleged facts--but Niemann retained the right to file his defamation claims at the state court level, and he had made clear his intention to do so. 

After Niemann beat Carlsen over the board in the prestigious Sinquefield Cup tournament last year, Carlsen--despite zero credible evidence that Niemann cheated against him in that Sinquefield Cup game--not only withdrew from the Sinquefield Cup but he later resigned after one move versus Niemann in a major tournament with a $150,000 prize fund, thereby skewing the pairings for all of the tournament's participants; as I wrote at that time, "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.'"

Each party issued a statement regarding the settlement:

Chess.com: "We are pleased to report that we have reached an agreement with Hans Niemann to put our differences behind us and move forward together without further litigation. At this time, Hans has been fully reinstated to Chess.com, and we look forward to his participation in our events. We would also like to reaffirm that we stand by the findings in our October 2022 public report regarding Hans, including that we found no determinative evidence that he has cheated in any in-person games. We all love chess and appreciate all of the passionate fans and community members who allow us to do what we do."

Magnus Carlsen: "I acknowledge and understand Chess.com's report, including its statement that there is no determinative evidence that Niemann cheated in his game against me at the Sinquefield Cup. I am willing to play Niemann in future events, should we be paired together."

Hans Niemann: "I am pleased that my lawsuit against Magnus Carlsen and Chess.com has been resolved in a mutually acceptable manner, and that I am returning to Chess.com. I look forward to competing against Magnus in chess rather than in court and am grateful to my attorneys at Oved & Oved for believing in me and helping me resolve the case."

It is not clear if Chess.com or Carlsen paid any money to Niemann as part of this settlement. The key elements of this settlement are (1) the public acknowledgment by both Chess.com and Carlsen that there is no evidence that Niemann cheated in any in-person games, (2) Carlsen stating that he will play against Niemann in future events, and (3) Chess.com fully reinstating Niemann. In short, this is a win for Niemann regarding his assertion that he has not cheated in over the board play, regarding his attempt to be reinstated at Chess.com, and regarding his participation in over the board events without concern that Carlsen would refuse to play against him or refuse to play in the same events with him.

It is worth emphasizing that Niemann's 2699 performance rating in the 2022 U.S. Championship--his debut appearance in that event, taking place under intense scrutiny in the wake of the anti-Niemann actions and statements by Carlsen, Chess.com, Nakamura, and others--matched his pre-tournament rating of 2699. A 2700 FIDE rating is considered the benchmark for elite status, so Niemann demonstrated--in an event with strict anti-cheating measures--that he can play at or near elite level in a major tournament against top Grandmasters. Niemann is relatively young and he is known for being a hard-working chess player, so it is reasonable to assume that he could push his rating well above 2700 (he achieved his peak rating of 2708 in May 2023).

There is a regrettable and growing trend to deny the meaning and value of objective truth/objective standards, and to base decisions on feelings as opposed to evidence, which has created what is often referred to as "cancel culture": a person or organization can be "canceled" because of how people feel about that person or organization regardless of whether there is any evidence that the accused person or organization violated any laws or committed any misconduct. That is what Chess.com and Carlsen attempted to do to Niemann: cancel him because of how they feel about him, regardless of what the evidence shows. It should be added that this type of flawed thinking regarding the meaning and value of objective truth/objective standards has also led to the popularization of the idea that people should be rewarded with scholarships and jobs based not on the objective merits of each applicant but on subjective determinations of equity and entitlement; discussion of that idea is beyond the scope of this article, but the implications of reorganizing society based on subjective feelings are significant: do you want your fate in the hands of the best qualified person to make a medical diagnosis, to decide a court case, or to fly a plane, or do you want your fate in the hands of a person who has subjectively been deemed worthy of receiving an unearned benefit in the name of equity/entitlement? America is founded on principles of equality, while Orwell's Animal Farm depicts what happens when a society is founded on the principle that everyone is equal but some people are more equal than others; when merit and objectivity are replaced with feelings and subjectivity, chaos ensues.

Here, the reality is that both Carlsen and Chess.com acted improperly because they defamed Niemann without evidence supporting their assertions, and because their actions harmed Niemann's status as a professional chess player. I am not a Niemann fan and I condemn his admitted online cheating, but unless or until past online cheating is considered disqualifying for over the board play one's online conduct and one's over the board conduct are separate issues. Further, Chess.com had already dealt with Niemann's prior online cheating, so the principle of res judicata (that which has been litigated before cannot be litigated again) should have applied in the sense that Niemann should not be punished twice for the same offense; he was punished for his proven online cheating, so it was wrong for Chess.com to ban Niemann after Carlsen's petulant behavior and unfounded accusations/insinuations.

Ding Liren Exploits Ian Nepomniachtchi's Blunder to Win Game 12 and Tie the World Chess Championship at 6-6

Even in today's era with computer-assisted preparation, top level chess does not have to consist primarily of draws if both players are willing to fight. Fighting chess creates winning chances for both players, and fighting chess also creates a state of heightened psychological tension that can result in blunders. As Viswanathan Anand once put it, success at top level chess is "a question of nerves." If we want to see perfect--or at least "ideal"--chess then we can watch two computers play against each other. As a strong amateur chess player, I enjoy playing fighting chess and I enjoy watching top level players who play fighting chess.

The 2023 World Chess Championship pitting Ding Liren versus Ian Nepomniachtchi has featured fighting chess in almost every game, and after 12 games the score is tied 6-6 with each player winning three games. The first player to score 7.5 points wins the match, and there will be tiebreaker games if the match ends in a 7-7 tie.

Nepomniachtchi won game two after a game one draw, and he has never trailed during the match. He enjoyed a one point lead from game seven until his collapse in game 12 today, when he built an advantageous position only to squander his edge by playing too quickly before committing a one move blunder that lost the game. Game 12 featured daring play by both players. 

Chess fans who complain about too many draws should not then make fun of top level players who blunder while playing enterprising chess. Taking risks to win also means that you can lose. I respect  Nepomniachtchi's fighting spirit, and as someone whose fighting spirit has led both to great victories and ignominious defeats I can empathize with how he must be feeling after game 12.

A drawn chess game may or may not feature highly accurate play, but a decisive game inevitably includes at least one mistake. There is a tendency for some people to assume that the level of play in matches featuring many decisive games is lower than the level of play in matches that have fewer decisive games. In 2018, Carlsen retained his World Chess Championship title with three wins in rapid play after he and challenger Fabiano Caruana drew all 12 classical games that they contested. One should not assume that the 12 classical games were error-free just because they were all draws, nor should one assume that Carlsen would win a match against the current match competitors based on his prior results. Each match takes on its own flavor.

Objectively speaking, based on chess ratings it is reasonable to suggest that Magnus Carlsen--who declined to defend his World Championship title--is still the world's strongest chess player. However, the notion that if he had played in this World Chess Championship match he would have made fewer mistakes than the current match participants is not supported by the evidence. It is easy to forget--and many people seem to have forgotten--that Carlsen made many mistakes in his World Chess Championship matches. For example, Carlsen missed a winning continuation in game one of his match versus Caruana and the game ended in a draw. Also, in game six of his 2014 match versus Anand, Carlsen made a ghastly blunder that should have cost him the game on the spot--but Anand returned the favor by overlooking the winning move.

In short, Carlsen is a great player and a resourceful fighter but even in his prime he did not play perfect chess, so it is not fair to the current World Chess Championship players to compare them unfavorably to a player who declined to participate. Chess can be a very tension-filled game because a chess player can play 50 correct moves in a row, build up an overwhelming position, and then throw away the game with just one mistake. Most other sports are not like that; if a basketball team takes a 20 point lead, the opposing team cannot come back on one play, and the same concept holds true for baseball, hockey, and football: a large lead cannot be erased by just one mistake.

Chess tests every fiber of your mind, body, and soul. That is one reason why chess is a great game, and that is why I have so much respect for uncompromising players who fight to win every game. Bobby Fischer used to say that a game was not drawn until he said it was drawn, a mindset that resulted in him winning the 1963-64 U.S. Championship with an 11-0 score before later winning 20 straight games against elite Grandmasters without yielding a single draw en route to capturing the World Championship in 1972. That stubborn attitude served Fischer well in chess, even if it may have been counterproductive for him away from the 64 square board. 

In some ways, Nepomniachtchi is fighting against himself as he tries to become the World Chess Champion. If he succeeds in this attempt despite his agonizing game 12 loss, he can truly say that he did it his way. If he falls short, he is young enough to make another attempt to reach the summit, and he can decide if his uncompromising approach may need some modification, at least in terms of the time he spends on each move before making very committal and potential risky decisions.

Ding is harder to read. He comes across as a low energy person, but rest assured that anyone who has qualified for a World Chess Championship match has a fierce fighting spirit regardless of his demeanor. I do not look at his facial expressions or body language and conclude that he is in psychological peril each time that he loses a game, because he has repeatedly demonstrated that he is strong enough to overcome adversity. 

Whoever wins this match is a worthy successor to Carlsen.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

Magnus Carlsen's Decision to Not Defend His World Championship Title is Bad for Chess

A famous saying in the chess world is "The threat is stronger than the execution," but now that Magnus Carlsen has announced that he will not defend his World Chess Championship title we also see that the execution of a threat can be quite damaging.

Before the beginning of the Candidates Tournament to determine his challenger, Carlsen stated that he was not likely to defend his title unless a member of the younger generation such as Alireza Firouzja won the event. Carlsen noted that he had already defeated representatives of the prior generation and representatives of his own generation. I cannot recall another champion in any sport suggesting that his or her enthusiasm for fighting for the crown depended primarily on the identity or age of the challenger. A championship mentality is epitomized by trying to defeat whoever the challenger is.

As it turned out, Ian Nepomniachtchi--the challenger who lost the most recent World Chess Championship match to Carlsen--won the Candidates Tournament for the second consecutive time. Shortly after Nepomniachtchi prevailed, Carlsen declared, "I am not motivated to play another match; I simply feel that I don't have a lot to gain. Although I'm sure a match would be interesting for historical reasons and all of that, I don't have any inclination to play, and I will simply not play the match." Carlsen added, "The matches themselves have been at times interesting, at times a little bit of fun. But overall, I feel like it's my time to go from the world championship matches. I enjoy playing tournaments a lot. Obviously, I enjoy them a lot more than I enjoy the world championship, and frankly I don't see myself stopping as a chess player any time soon."

Carlsen made the announcement on International Chess Day, and to emphasize the point that he is only retiring from World Championship play but not from competitive chess, he promptly won the SuperUnited Rapid & Blitz Tournament, finishing atop a strong field that included Nepomniachtchi and Firouzja.

There have been 16 officially recognized, undisputed World Chess Champions, starting with Wilhelm Steinitz--whose claim to the title is undisputed, though the exact starting date of his reign is disputed--and running in an unbroken chain through Carlsen, who became World Chess Champion in 2013. There were also six "FIDE World Chess Champions" crowned from 1993-2006, and the less that is said about the split title era the better, but a brief summary of the lamentable time when chess imitated boxing's alphabet soup of champions can be found in my article about Viswanathan Anand defeating Vladimir Kramnik in the 2008 match that finally reunified the World Chess Championship title.

Becoming World Chess Champion is the dream of all serious chess players. When the World Chess Champion announces that he will not defend his title he thereby cheapens the value of that title, and this is even more true when the World Chess Champion makes it clear that he intends to keep playing chess. Thus, his message is that being the World Chess Champion does not matter very much, and in fact other chess competitions matter more to him.

Prior to Carlsen, only two of the undisputed World Chess Champions failed to defend their titles. Alexander Alekhine died while he was World Chess Champion, and Bobby Fischer refused to agree to match terms with challenger Anatoly Karpov, resulting in Karpov receiving the title by default in 1975. In the wake of Alekhine's demise, FIDE took over the organization of the World Chess Championship, starting with a round robin event in 1948 that crowned Mikhail Botvinnik as Alekhine's successor. Karpov, eager to prove worthy of Fischer's forfeited throne, ran off an incredible series of tournament victories and held the title until 1985, when he lost a match to challenger Garry Kasparov. 

This is not about whether Carlsen has a right to resign his title but keep playing tournament chess; he obviously has that right. The point is examining to what extent Carlsen has a responsibility to defend his title for, as he put it, "historical reasons." I would argue that the World Champion should keep defending his title until someone beats him, or until he has broken the record for holding the title for the longest time (which is either 27 years by Emanuel Lasker, or 28 years by Wilhelm Steinitz if you count the start of his reign in 1866). 

I am nowhere near the caliber of chess player that Magnus Carlsen is, but I have won the Dayton Chess Club Championship a record 10 times. I considered it a point of pride to fight for the title every year, and I only missed one DCC Championship from 1987 until the club disbanded in 2020. I won my 10th title in 2015 as a new father who was also in the middle of attending law school, and I did not hesitate to play in the 2016 event even though I knew that it would be very challenging to win a repeat title considering my life circumstances at that time; I intended to either win again, or "validate" my successor by participating in the tournament. Over that 33 year period, I was rarely the highest rated player in the tournament, and I don't believe that I was ever the highest rated player in the years that I won (I was the highest rated player some years when I failed to win, but that is another story for another time). The point is that either championships matter or they don't matter. To me, a championship--whether for city, state, country, or the world--means something, and it means something more even than events that offer bigger cash prizes. 

Magnus Carlsen has made it clear that being World Chess Champion does not matter very much to him, and that is sad for chess. I understand that the current cycle requires him to do a lot of preparation for one high pressure match, and then go through that process again without much respite. No one said that being a champion is easy. I also understand that Carlsen would prefer that the World Chess Championship match not be played with classical slow time controls--but there is something to be said for maintaining the tradition of playing slow time control chess in which most games are not decided by chaotic time scrambles. There are separate World Chess Championships for Rapid and Blitz, and Carlsen has already won both of those titles on multiple occasions. The World Chess Championship played at a slow time control is something special and different.

I respect Carlsen's accomplishments and I acknowledge his right to make this decision, but as a chess champion on a local level, as a dedicated participant in rated chess events, and as a chess fan I am profoundly disappointed.

Ian Nepomniachtchi Wins The Candidates Tournament For the Second Time in a Row

Ian Nepomniachtchi won the 2022 Candidates Tournament with a round to spare, earning the right to challenge World Champion Magnus Carlsen in a match. Nepomniachtchi finished with 9.5/14, 1.5 points ahead of second place finisher Ding Liren. Carlsen defeated Nepomniachtchi 7.5-3.5 in the 2021 World Chess Championship match.

Vasily Smyslov was the first player who won consecutive Candidates Tournaments. Smyslov won the famous 1953 Zurich Candidates Tournament before achieving a 12-12 draw in a match versus World Champion Mikhail Botvinnik, who retained the title based on the World Championship match rules in place at that time. Then, Smyslov won the 1956 Amsterdam Candidates Tournament before beating Botvinnik 12.5-9.5 to claim the World Champion title. Botvinnik was entitled to an automatic rematch the next year, and he defeated Smyslov 12.5-10.5. Remarkably, Smyslov advanced to the Candidates Final in 1984 at the age of 63 before bowing to Garry Kasparov, who soon became the youngest World Chess Champion in recorded history.

FIDE--the governing body of international chess--organized Candidates Tournaments on a regular basis from 1950-1992. The tournaments were generally held every three years. In 1993, World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov and his challenger Nigel Short broke away from FIDE to hold a non-sanctioned World Chess Championship match, and for the next 14 years there was both a FIDE World Chess Champion and a linear Classical World Chess Champion. 

Viswanathan Anand's 6.5-4.5 victory over Vladimir Kramnik in 2008 completed the reunification of the World Chess Championship, as FIDE World Champion Anand defeated the man who had wrested the linear Classical title from Kasparov in 2000. Kramnik had won a reunification match against FIDE World Champion Veselin Topalov in 2006, but then FIDE held a World Championship Tournament in 2007; Kramnik participated under protest (he felt that the World Championship should be determined by match play, not tournament play), and he finished tied for second (with Boris Gelfand) in that event behind Anand.

Other players in addition to Smyslov and Nepomniachtchi who earned the right to be the World Championship challenger in consecutive full Candidates cycles are Boris Spassky (1965, 1968), Viktor Korchnoi (1978, 1981), and Anatoly Karpov (1987, 1990). Spassky lost to World Champion Tigran Petrosian in 1966, but dethroned Petrosian in 1969. Korchnoi lost World Championship matches to Karpov in 1978 and 1981. Karpov lost World Championship matches to reigning World Champion Garry Kasparov in 1987 and 1990. The above list does not include players who played in consecutive World Championship matches without having to go through a full qualifying cycle, such as Botvinnik (who benefited from an automatic rematch clause in 1958 and 1961). It should also be mentioned that Anand won full Candidates cycles in 1995 and 2014. Anand lost the 1995 Professional Chess Association World Championship match to linear Classical World Champion Kasparov 10.5-7.5, and Anand lost the 2014 World Championship match to Magnus Carlsen 6.5-4.5 (Carlsen had dethroned Anand 6.5-3.5 in 2013).

Smyslov and Spassky showed that a player can bounce back from losing a World Championship match to beat the World Champion the next time around. There has been much speculation about how psychologically devastating it must have been for Nepomniatchtchi to lose to Carlsen the way that he did (repeatedly blundering from equal or even superior positions), but in the wake of that defeat Nepomniatchtchi has shown no ill effects; it will be interesting to see if the strength of character that he has shown while earning the right to challenge for the World Championship again will enable him to avenge his loss to Carlsen.

However, the next Carlsen-Nepomniachtchi match may not be decided by psychological factors; if both players play their best, Carlsen is the stronger player. Another factor may prove most important: Carlsen has intimated that if a new challenger did not emerge from this Candidates cycle then he may retire from World Championship matches, because he apparently feels that he has nothing to prove after beating representatives from the previous generation (including Anand) and his own generation. That is a strange attitude for an all-time great to take--one would expect him to feel motivated to beat any challenger who emerges from the pack--and we will soon find out if Carlsen was posturing, if he was seeking publicity to possibly increase the prize fund for the match, or if he is serious about leaving the World Championship scene undefeated in World Championship match play.

If Carlsen withdraws, Nepomniachtchi will play a World Championship match against Liren, based on Liren finishing second in the 2022 Candidates Tournament. 

The perils of prognostication are very apparent when one looks at how wildly off the mark many of the "expert" predictions about the Candidates Tournament turned out to be. Chess Life Online's commentator GM Jacob Aagard has written some wonderful instructional books, but if you want to make money wagering on chess you would be well-advised to bet the opposite of whatever he predicts. Nepomniachtchi was supposed to fade down the stretch, but instead he dominated the entire event, clinching victory with a round to spare and emerging as the only player to not lose a game. Ding Liren was supposed to be rusty after not playing much over the board chess since the COVID-19 pandemic began, but he finished second. Teimour Radjabov supposedly did not even belong in the field, but he finished a strong third (edging out Hikaru Nakamura on tiebreaks) just a half point off the pace for second. The future may belong to 19 year old Alireza Firouzja, but in the present he struggled to avoid finishing last, ending up in sixth place 3.5 points behind the winner and just .5 points out of the basement.