Carlsen Defames Niemann Without Providing Corroborating Evidence

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

After American Grandmaster Hans Niemann defeated World Champion Magnus Carlsen in the third round of the Sinquefield Cup, Carlsen withdrew from the event while strongly implying--but not explicitly stating--that Niemann cheated to beat him. Other people, most notably Grandmaster Hikaru Nakamura, then made more direct accusations against Niemann, and I reacted in an article titled Put Up or Shut Up: Hans Niemann's Accusers Need to Provide Evidence or Apologize: "If your opponent cheated and you can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, then say so and provide the evidence. If you can't prove it, then shut up and take your loss like a responsible and mature adult."

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

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

On September 23, FIDE issued the following statement: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arkady Dvorkovich

FIDE President

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

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

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

Dear Chess World,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Magnus Carlsen – World Chess Champion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Cleveland Browns Flunk Situational Football

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1) Cade York missed the extra point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He's Back: Tom Brady Returns in Style

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is a word describing what Carslen did: cowardly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GM Ben Finegold Pays Tribute to Chess Legend IM Calvin Blocker

Grandmaster Ben Finegold recently posted a video in which he discusses International Master Calvin Blocker's chess career, notes that Blocker clearly played at Grandmaster strength at his peak, and analyzes three of Blocker's wins, including a brilliant victory as Black against three-time U.S. Chess Champion (1987, 1995, 1998) Nick DeFirmian. 

Finegold points out that Blocker's aggressive style of play often leads to decisive results, and that Blocker is a fearless player who turns down draws even against higher rated players. Blocker is a chess artist and chess perfectionist who will spend 45 minutes on a single move in a search for the truth in a chess position. Before I met Blocker, I remember hearing stories about how hard he would fight for the tiniest advantage, one example being his epic Ohio Chess Congress game versus Errol Leibowitz that lasted several hours and over 100 moves. 

I was delighted to watch Finegold's video, and I hope that it brings back great memories for the 40 and over crowd while providing an education to the younger chess aficionados:

Finegold weaves biographical details into the video and in the game analysis, but it is worth taking a deeper look at Blocker's career, particularly for those younger than 40 who may not fully appreciate Blocker's accomplishments.

International Master Calvin Blocker has won a record 15 Ohio Chess Championships (1981-82, 1984-89, 1995, 1997, 1999-2000, 2005, 2008, 2013). State chess championship records are lamentably incomplete, but Blocker must rank very highly on the list of most state chess championships won in one state; John Curdo, who has won at least 17 Massachusetts championships, is the only player I can think of who would be ahead of Blocker for sure. Blocker is not only an Ohio chess legend as a player, but he is a well-regarded coach whose students included Marc Esserman, who became an International Master and published chess author.

Blocker's first love was music, and he was a concert pianist as a teenager before shifting his focus to chess (if you ask Blocker, he will insist that he never gave up piano, but it can at least be said that he stopped receiving formal piano training and doing formal piano performances). Despite being a late starter by chess standards, Blocker became a FIDE Master at age 26 and an International Master at age 27. In the current era during which teenagers become Grandmasters, those numbers may not seem impressive, but Blocker lived in Ohio in the pre-computer chess/pre-internet era and in the context of those conditions his rise was remarkable.

Achieving a high standard in either music or chess is quite an accomplishment, but to do so in both fields is most impressive. 

Blocker never attained the Grandmaster title because of a lack of opportunities to play in Grandmaster norm tournaments. The U.S. Chess Federation (USCF) only has online rating records dating back to 1991, but I did some archival research in old Chess Life magazines, and I confirmed that in April 1990 Blocker ranked 13th in the United States with a 2650 USCF rating:

That means that Blocker was higher rated than many players who participated in the U.S. Closed Championship during that era. It is also worth noting that many of the top players were closely bunched together; Blocker was just 21 points lower rated than Michael Wilder (sixth on the list) and 31 points lower rated than Maxim Dlugy (fifth on the list). Points are harder to gain and easier to lose at the very top of the rating list--so 20 or 30 points at that level means more than 20 or 30 points at the amateur level--but any way you look at it Blocker was one of the very best chess players in the country at that time. 

Blocker did not maintain that lofty perch by protecting his rating, either; he was 47th on the list of most active players, having played 190 rated games in the previous calendar year:

When Blocker was at his peak, the International Master title and the Grandmaster title were much less commonly achieved than they are now. In 1989, the U.S. barely had three dozen Grandmasters and fewer than 65 International Masters:

Currently, the U.S. has over 100 Grandmasters. Are players that much stronger today than they were over 30 years ago? There certainly has been a proliferation of available basic knowledge via computer chess programs and via the internet, but knowledge is not the same as understanding; old school titled players not only knew where the pieces belong but they knew why the pieces belonged there. There is a difference between saying "I traded off his bishop to weaken his dark squares" and "I traded off his bishop because the engine says that gives me a .8 advantage."

Also, ratings have no intrinsic meaning outside of the context of the rating pool. In other words, being rated 2650 in 1989 when that places you 13th in the country is more impressive than being rated 2700 now when that does not even get you in the top 15. The ELO rating system is based on percentage expectancy and the difference between two ratings; that is why Bobby Fischer's 2785 rating is more impressive than Magnus Carlsen's 2800+ rating: Fischer was more than 100 points ahead of the rest of the world, while Carlsen's nearest competitors are much closer to him than that. We don't know who would win a hypothetical match between prime Fischer and prime Carlsen, but we do know that prime Fischer was much further ahead of his rivals than prime Carlsen is ahead of his rivals. Similarly, we don't know how prime Blocker would do against today's young guns, but we do know that prime Blocker learned chess at a relatively late age in a non-computer/non-internet era without being based in a national chess hotbed and he nearly cracked the top 10 in the entire country.

During my archival research, I found this gem from the March 1989 issue of Chess Life:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Julie Anne Desch used to write profiles of chess Masters. In the above article, Blocker talked about his varied interests, including piano, chess, running, and fencing. Blocker said, "Fencing is physical chess...chess is a physical game played on a mental plane and it's won at the mental level...fencing is a mental game played on a physical plane, and it's won on a physical level--on a level of competitiveness, stress, and stress management...but the training techniques in any physical sport are highly relative to chess."

Some commentators dismiss the connections and similarities between chess and physical sports but Blocker correctly notes that those connections are real and they are significant. This is not about making a trite statement such as "Chess is life and life is chess"; this is about the strong parallels between the mental and physical training regimens of chess champions compared to the mental and physical training regimens of other elite athletes.

Blocker is an extrovert and a showman; as entertaining as his games are, it can be even more entertaining to watch him talk about his games in a post-mortem session. In 1989, an issue of the Ohio Chess Bulletin showed a picture of Blocker analyzing an Ohio Chess Congress game while surrounded by a group of spectators (including me), and the caption said something to the effect of, "Blocker analyzes while spectators look on in awe." That was not hyperbole; I was in awe of him, and I was far from the only one. I first met Blocker at the 1989 Ohio Chess Congress, and he was the strongest chess player I had met up to that time.

I have known Blocker for over 30 years, and crossed swords with him over a dozen times in rated play, scoring just one draw (of which I am very proud). Any chess player over 40 years old in Ohio or the Midwest surely knows about Blocker, but when I was at a recent Ohio tournament it took my breath away for a moment when a much younger friend of mine saw Blocker--who attended the tournament but did not play--and asked me who he is. I explained simply, "He is an International Master who won 15 Ohio Chess Championships and was once ranked in the top 20 in the country with a 2650 USCF rating."

The passage of time is sobering, and those of us who know (or lived in!) the distant past have a responsibility to preserve the great names and events that deserve to be remembered. I appreciate Finegold's video, and I embrace the opportunity to supplement that video with what I know and what I have observed about IM Calvin Blocker.

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.

Nadal Moves Further Ahead of the Pack With 14th French Open Title/22nd Grand Slam Title

In January 2022, Rafael Nadal won the Australian Open, becoming the first man to capture 21 Grand Slam singles titles--breaking a three way tie with Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic. It is interesting to contrast the reaction to Nadal's feat with the typical reaction every time Federer accomplishes something: every breath Federer takes is construed as proof that he is supposedly the greatest tennis player of all-time, while Nadal's feats are often diminished or qualified in some fashion--but Nadal forges ahead, and he is making it increasingly difficult for anyone to rank Federer ahead of him. Nadal is now halfway through toward a calendar year Grand Slam--one of the few significant achievements not yet on his resume--after winning the French Open to extend his records for French Open titles (14) and Grand Slam titles (22, now two ahead of Federer and Djokovic).

When Nadal first started dominating Federer head to head, we were told that Nadal is just a clay court specialist whose body will break down prematurely due to his hard-charging style. Even after Nadal beat Federer at Wimbledon, there were still many commentators who stubbornly refused to admit that Nadal had surpassed Federer. Now that Nadal and Djokovic have emerged as the only Open Era players to win each Grand Slam at least twice, and now that Nadal is setting longevity records--including being the oldest French Open winner--after previously setting "youngest to" records, Nadal's critics are running out of arguments to make against his greatness: Nadal has maintained his head to head advantage versus Federer, Nadal has beaten Federer at Wimbledon, and Nadal has broken Federer's record for Grand Slam singles titles. Name an objection to Nadal being ranked ahead of Federer, and Nadal has refuted it.

Nadal's French Open dominance is unparalleled in tennis history, and may be unparalleled in sports history. Bjorn Borg won four straight French Open titles (1978-81) and a then-record six overall (1974-75, 1978-81) but Nadal has not only shattered those marks but his French Open titles alone outnumber the combined Grand Slam wins of every male player in tennis history except for Federer (20), Nadal (Djokovic), and Pete Sampras (14). Jimmy Connors (eight) and John McEnroe (seven) are top ten players of all-time but their combined Grand Slam win totals only exceed Nadal's French Open win total by one. 

From the perspectives of total accomplishments and longevity, Nadal is the Open Era's greatest player. Would Nadal have been able to beat Borg at the French Open if both players were in their respective primes? That question is unanswerable due to the vast differences between their eras. The most intriguing and unique aspect of Borg's career is that, at his best, he was both Federer and Nadal at the same time: Borg not only dominated the French Open the way that Nadal has, but Borg also won a then-unprecedented five straight Wimbledon titles. Borg's feat of winning both events in the same year three straight times (1978-80) has yet to be matched. Borg is likely the only player in the Open Era who could have beaten Federer at his best at Wimbledon and Nadal at his best at the French Open. For example, Pete Sampras--whose name at one time was mentioned prominently in the greatest player of all-time conversation--would not have stood a chance at the French Open against either Borg or Nadal. 

If Nadal can find a way to manage his chronic foot injury, he appears to have enough left to continue to add to his record Grand Slam singles win total, perhaps pushing that number to a level that will not be challenged for a long time.

The Triumph and Tragedy of Tiger Woods

Tiger Woods' ability to play competitive rounds at major golf championships after almost losing his leg in a car accident speaks volumes about not only his prodigious talent but also his determination, grit, and pain tolerance. Woods made the cut at the 2022 Masters ahead of several notable names, and he finished 47th. He then made the cut at the 2022 PGA Championship before withdrawing after limping through a difficult third round. There is much about Woods to be admired, emulated, and respected, both in terms of his dominance in his prime, and his determination to play through injury now.

However, obscured in the story of his remarkable comeback is why exactly he has to come back.

In February 2021, Woods suffered serious injuries in a one car accident during which he was entirely at fault due to driving far faster than the speed limit. Despite his vehicle event recorder demonstrating that he was driving in excess of 80 mph in a 45 mph zone at the time of the crash, Woods was not even issued a speeding ticket. His dangerous conduct not only caused serious injuries to himself, but he could have seriously injured or even killed innocent people. Even worse, this not the first time that Woods' reckless conduct behind the wheel potentially endangered other people. 

In May 2017, he was arrested for suspicion of DUI after police found him sitting unconscious in a damaged Mercedes Benz on the side of a road; he tested positive for five different drugs and had no explanation for how his car became damaged, but he was permitted to plead guilty to a lesser charge in exchange for entering a diversionary program. 

In November 2009, Woods crashed his car into a fire hydrant, a tree, and several hedges. He was cited for careless driving as a result of that incident. Fortunately, no one was injured other than Woods. 

Woods' injuries and the obstacles that he created for himself in his personal life are tragic notes to his golf career, but his reckless behavior behind the wheel could have led to fatal tragedies not only for himself but for innocent people and their families. While it would be inspiring to see Woods charge up the leaderboard at a major golf championship again, it would be even more inspiring if he conquers whatever causes him to get behind the wheel with such callous disregard not just for his life and limbs, but for the life and limbs of others. If Woods is only working on his golf, his life story may have a much more tragic ending than just falling short of breaking Jack Nicklaus' record for major championships won.

The NCAA Tournament Provides Drama, but Does it Provide Great Basketball?

The NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament (better known as "March Madness") is one of the sports world's most high-profile and beloved events. Passionate fans energetically cheer for their favorite schools (and, it must be noted, passionate fans wager on the outcomes of the games). No one can dispute March Madness' enduring popularity. However, passion and popularity should never be confused with high efficiency and skill set mastery; the notion that college basketball players and teams play a better and/or "purer" form of the game than NBA players and teams do is demonstrably false.

Put more bluntly and concisely, several of the biggest NCAA games of this season were almost unbearable to watch because the level of play was so bad.

Perhaps mismatches are to be expected during the NCAA Tournament's early stages, so this discussion will focus on the Elite Eight, the Final Four, and the Championship Game. If college basketball is a better and/or "purer" form of the game then surely this would be most evident in the most important games of the year featuring the top eight teams in the country.

In the first Elite Eight game of 2022, Villanova defeated Houston, 50-44. As the low score indicates, the pace of this game was painfully slow, bringing back nightmarish memories of the awful pre-shot clock era when stalling was a regularly used strategy; the NBA began using a 24 second shot clock in the 1954-55 season, but the NCAA did not start using a shot clock until the 1985-86 season, when the college game finally limited each possession to 45 seconds (that number was cut to 35 in 1993-94, and then reduced to the current number of 30 in 2015-16). Houston shot 17-57 from the field (.298), including a brutal 1-20 (.005--that is not a typo!) from three point range. Villanova shot even worse from the field (15-52, .288) but compensated by shooting 5-21 (.238) from three point range--which is bad, but not as bad as Houston--and making all 15 of their free throw attempts. Despite the low number of possessions and high number of missed field goals, the teams combined to commit a total of 20 turnovers.

It is true that defense and rebounding have always been essential elements for winning a basketball championship, but when the field goal percentages in a game would not even be good batting averages it is evident that we are not watching great defense as much as we are watching players and teams that are unable to execute basic, fundamental offensive strategies, and are unable to make shots under pressure. NBA defenses are more sophisticated than college defenses, and NBA players are much more athletic, so if Houston and Villanova players cannot make shots under NCAA Tournament conditions then that does not bode well for how those players may perform at the next level.

The second Elite Eight game featured Duke defeating Arkansas, 78-69. Duke played at a high level, with team shooting splits of .547/.400/.889, but this just highlighted how outmatched Arkansas (.419/.300/1.000) was. Duke led by as many as 18 points, and the margin was not closer than 10 points during the final 11 minutes until Arkansas made a layup with :46 remaining, after which neither team scored the rest of the way. Duke is one of college basketball's elite programs of the past four decades, and Arkansas was not competitive for most of the game.

Kansas stomped Miami 76-50 in the third Elite Eight game. Miami kept the score close in the first half before being outscored 47-15 in the second half; it is difficult to imagine that anyone other than a diehard Kansas fan considered the game entertaining, or even watchable: how can a supposedly "elite" college basketball team score just 15 points in 20 minutes? It is not inconceivable that an NBA team, if motivated to do so, could hold a major college basketball team scoreless for 10, 15, or even 20 minutes, because far too many college teams and players simply lack the necessary fundamental skills to make shots against any kind of defensive resistance.

The Elite Eight concluded with North Carolina jumping out to a 9-0 lead versus Saint Peter's, and never looking back en route to a dominating 69-49 win. Saint Peter's shot 7-31 (.226) from the field in the first half, and trailed 47-20 with 15:33 remaining in the second half before "heating up" to only lose by 20 on 18-60 (.300) field goal shooting--and it's not like North Carolina shot the lights out, either, as the Tar Heels finished with shooting splits of .410/.273/.619. How can anyone consider any of these games, or the NCAA Tournament as a whole, to represent great--or even fundamentally sound--basketball?

This analysis is not meant to take anything away from what Saint Peter's accomplished by advancing to the Elite Eight as a small school; the point is about the overall quality of play at the highest levels of college basketball.

The Final Four opened with Kansas beating Villanova, 81-65. Kansas opened the game with a 10-0 run, and pushed the lead to 38-19 before settling for a 40-29 halftime advantage. Kansas shot 15-31 (.484) from the field in the first half, while Villanova shot just 10-29 (.345) from the field. Kansas outscored Villanova 10-5 to take a 50-34 lead early in the second half, but Villanova rallied to cut the margin to 64-58 before Kansas outscored Villanova 11-1 to remove any doubt. Villanova shot 12-28 (.429) from the field in the second half to finish 22-57 (.386) for the game.

The much anticipated second Final Four game featured Duke versus North Carolina. North Carolina ended Coach Mike Krzyzewski's regular season career by beating his Blue Devils 94-81 at Cameron Indoor Stadium, avenging Duke's 87-67 win at North Carolina on February 5--and North Carolina ended Kryzewski's NCAA Tournament career by beating his Blue Devils 81-77. The first half was very competitive, with neither team leading by more than six points, but the offensive execution was sloppy at both ends of the court: North Carolina shot just 12-34 (.353) from the field, while Duke shot 16-37 (.432) from the field as the Blue Devils led 37-34 at halftime. Both teams were awful from three point range in the first half, with North Carolina shooting 3-13 (.231) and Duke shooting 2-12 (.167). The Tar Heels shot 5-6 from three point range at the start of the second half en route to taking a 60-55 lead. Duke kept attacking inside, and used a 10-4 run to go up, 65-64. With North Carolina clinging to a 75-74 lead, Duke's Mark Williams missed two free throws, and then Caleb Love hit a dagger three pointer to make the score 78-74; that sequence exemplified the game's two big themes: the Tar Heels shot 7-13 (.538) from three point range in the second half to finish 10-26 (.385) overall, while Duke struggled to make free throws (12-20, .600). North Carolina shot 27-64 (.423) from the field overall, while Duke shot 30-72 (.417), including 5-22 (.227) from three point range.

Kryzewski's resume--including five NCAA championships and a record 13 Final Four appearances--indicates that he is one of the greatest college coaches of all-time, but it is worth noting that his Duke team this season lost seven times to an unranked team while being ranked in the AP Top 10, the most such losses in one season since the AP poll expanded to 25 teams in 1989-90. Throughout his career, his teams have often lost to underdog teams in the NCAA Tournament--including a loss as the second seed to 15th seed Lehigh in 2012, one of just 10 times a second seed has lost to the 15th seed, and a loss as the third seed to 14th seed Mercer in 2014. Kryzewski did a great job of building Duke into a recruiting powerhouse, but it could be argued that--considering the amount of talent his teams had relative to other teams during the past several decades--he could/should have won even more than he did.

The NCAA Championship Game featuring Kansas and North Carolina epitomized the characteristics and trends described above: we saw an abundance of energy and passion, but that should not in any way be confused with high level execution or a consistent display of basic fundamental skills. Kansas won 72-69, making history with the biggest comeback (16 points) in NCAA Championship Game history. Kansas began the game with a 7-0 run, but trailed 40-25 at halftime, tied for the fourth largest halftime deficit in NCAA Championship Game history. Kansas shot 10-33 (.303) from the field in the first half, including 2-7 (.286) from three point range and 6-21 (.286) in the paint. North Carolina built a 15 point halftime lead despite shooting just 12-33 (.364) from the field in the first half, including 3-11 (.273) from three point range. Kansas opened the second half with a 20-6 run to erase most of North Carolina's advantage, and then Kansas tied the score at 50 on a three point play by Ochai Agbaji with 10:53 remaining in the contest. Agbaji, who scored 12 points on 4-9 field goal shooting in the Championship Game after scoring 21 points on 6-8 field goal shooting in the Final Four rout of Miami, was voted the Final Four Most Outstanding Player. Kansas soon took a 56-50 lead, and was on top most of the rest of the way, though North Carolina briefly went up 69-68 with 1:41 remaining. Even after shooting 19-33 (.576) from the field in the second half, Kansas shot just 29-66 (.439) from the field overall, including 6-17 (.353) from three point range. North Carolina shot just 11-40 (.275) from the field in the second half, including 2-12 (.167) from three point range, finishing 23-73 (.315) overall, including 5-23 (.217) from three point range.

There are many reasons that the quality of play at the highest levels of college basketball is not as good as the quality of play in the NBA. The first, most obvious, and indisputable reason is that in no field of endeavor would it be reasonable to expect apprentices to outperform seasoned professionals: an apprentice craftsman is not superior to an experienced craftsman, and apprentice basketball teams/players are not superior to experienced professional basketball teams/players. The second reason is that there is very little continuity in major college basketball because the best players leave school after just one season; this is not to suggest that players should not be allowed to leave or that they should choose not leave: the point is that the best college-age basketball players in the world are, for the most part, playing in the NBA, not in college. The talent drain of young players going to the NBA means that every year the best college teams are rebuilding, which in turn means that rivalries--at least in terms of individual player matchups--cannot be sustained, and it also means that the best teams do not have a chance to build chemistry or work much on skill set development. Each college season consists of a breathless race to determine which group of talented freshmen can gel as quickly as possible to peak during the one and done NCAA Tournament before the best players jump straight to the NBA. This is the basketball version of fast food, not gourmet cooking, and that is why we see unwatchable games with wretched field goal percentages.

There is no question that the worst NBA team could beat the best NCAA team by at least 20-30 points. Not only are the NBA players more athletic, more talented, and more fundamentally sound, but they are coached better. 

The NCAA Tournament is very popular and generates much passion, but popularity and passion should not be confused with mastery of basketball fundamentals. 

Further Reading:

Baylor Dominates Gonzaga to Win the 2021 NCAA Title (April 2021)

Separating the Grownups From the Kids in Basketball (November 2018) 

Heels Stomp Spartans (2009 NCAA Championship)

C(h)alm in the Clutch: Kansas Defeats Memphis in OT, 75-68 (2008 NCAA Championship) 

Early Entry Players Have Diluted Both College and Pro Basketball (March 2008)

Cleveland Browns Players and Coaches Often Reach the Super Bowl--But Only After Leaving Cleveland

The Cleveland Browns have never played in the Super Bowl, though the franchise has won four AAFC titles (1946-49) and four NFL titles (1950, 1954-55, 1964). However, many Cleveland Browns have played in the Super Bowl--as members of other teams. Even a partial list of former Browns who have played in the Super Bowl is a depressing reminder for Browns fans of just how inept the team's owners and general managers have been for the past several decades:

Len Dawson: Played for the Browns from 1960-61; won Super Bowl IV MVP after leading the Kansas City Chiefs to a 23-7 win over the Minnesota Vikings.

Paul Warfield: Played for the Browns from 1964-69, and helped the Browns win the 1964 NFL championship as a Pro Bowl receiver during his rookie season; won two Super Bowls with the Miami Dolphins.

Greg Pruitt: Four-time Pro Bowl running back with the Browns in the 1970s before earning one Pro Bowl selection and a Super Bowl XVIII ring with the L.A. Raiders.

Lyle Alzado: Played for the Browns from 1979-81, earning one Pro Bowl selection; joined Pruitt on the Raiders' Super Bowl XVIII championship team.

Earnest Byner: Played for the Browns from 1984-89; made two Pro Bowls and won one Super Bowl after the Browns traded him to the Washington Redskins in 1990.

Bernie Kosar: Played for the Browns from 1985-93, leading the team to three AFC Championship Games; after the Browns released him, the Cowboys signed him and he completed 5 of 9 passes for 83 yards and a touchdown while replacing the injured Troy Aikman in the NFC Championship Game. The Cowboys won that game en route to winning Super Bowl XXVIII. Kosar took a kneeldown on the final snap of the Super Bowl.

Shaun O'Hara: Played for the Browns from 2000-03; won Super Bowl XLII with the Giants, and also earned three Pro Bowl selections as a Giant.

Mike Adams: Played for the Browns from 2007-11; played in Super Bowl XLVIII for the Denver Broncos, who lost 43-8 to Seattle. He also played in two Pro Bowls after leaving Cleveland.

Alex Mack: Played for the Browns from 2009-15, earning three Pro Bowl selections; Mack signed with the Falcons in 2016, and he continued to be a Pro Bowl player while also playing for the Falcons in their Super Bowl LI loss.

T.J. Ward: Played for the Browns from 2010-13; after leaving Cleveland, he played in Denver's Super Bowl 50 win. 

Jabaal Sheard: Played for the Browns from 2011-14; won Super Bowl LI with the New England Patriots.

Mitchell Schwartz: Played for the Browns from 2012-15; won Super Bowl LIV with the Kansas City Chiefs.

Josh Gordon: Played for the Browns from 2012-18; won Super Bowl LIII with the Patriots.

Dion Lewis: Played for the Browns in 2013; after spending one season with Indianapolis, he joined the New England Patriots and played in two Super Bowls, including the Patriots' Super Bowl LI championship.

Danny Shelton: Played for the Browns from 2015-17; won Super Bowl LIII with the Patriots.

Jason McCourty: Played for the Browns in 2017; won Super Bowl LIII with the Patriots.

At least three former Browns are members of this season's two Super Bowl teams. Larry Ogunjobi will not play in Super Bowl LVI due to injury, but he played a big part in the Cincinnati Bengals' success this season. Guard Austin Corbett, who the Browns traded to the L.A. Rams for a fifth round draft pick, started all 16 regular season games for the Rams this season. Odell Beckham Jr. is of course the most famous and most outspoken former Brown who will be playing in Super Bowl LVI, and he played a key role for the Rams after the Browns traded him. He has the necessary talent and big play ability to win the Super Bowl MVP.

Again, the above is just a partial list, largely off the top of my head. I remember that Tony Grossi wrote at least one article with a larger list of former Browns who reached the Super Bowl after leaving Cleveland, but I could not find that article online.

In addition to players making Super Bowl appearances after leaving Cleveland, many coaches and assistant coaches have gone to the Super Bowl after finishing their time with the Browns. Here is a partial list:

Forrest Gregg: The Browns' head coach from 1975-77 before coaching the Bengals to Super Bowl XVI.

Bill Cowher: Played for the Browns from 1980-82, was an assistant coach with the Browns from 1985-88, and then became the Steelers head coach from 1992-2006. He led the Steelers to two Super Bowl appearances, including a win in Super Bowl XL.

Bill Belichick: The Browns' head coach from 1991-95 before coaching the New England Patriots to a record six Super Bowl titles.

Kyle Shanahan: The Browns' offensive coordinator in 2014 before coaching the San Francisco 49ers to Super Bowl LIV.

Bruce Arians: The Browns' offensive coordinator in 2001-03 before winning two Super Bowls as an assistant coach with the Pittsburgh Steelers and winning one Super Bowl as the head coach of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.

Not only have many former Browns advanced to the Super Bowl as individuals, but the former Browns team has won not one but two Super Bowls: Baltimore partnered with Browns owner Art Modell to steal the Browns from Cleveland, and the renamed Baltimore Ravens went on to win two Super Bowls, the ultimate slap in the face/punch to the gut for loyal Browns fans who have received many slaps to the face and punches to the gut since the Browns won the 1964 NFL Championship.