As a lay person, I learned things. I had to take notes to track this whole video (with rewinds) and I found it very interesting. I now better understand "Diversity" when cases are filed, where the plaintiff is in one state and the defendant is in another state. I think I gained a 1/2 point of general legal knowledge. Only a thousand points to go!
🔥🔥🔥🔥 To be fair I'm pretty confident that Magnus Carlson is the premier diva in chess. He's earned the right, but that doesn't mean he isn't behaving poorly. If he thinks Neiman is actually cheating there's better ways to prove it than boycotting any tournament that allows someone who had defeated him to participate. Hereinafter known as The Drama Queens Gambit 😂🎉🧨🔥
Time to invoke the King's Privilege of three moves to one? Knight jumps the queen! Bishop jumps the queen! Pawns jump the queen! (You know what's next...)
Chess cheating goes back centuries. In the late 1700s, some guy invented a chess playing machine called the Mechanical Turk, with gears and clockwork, but the device was fake. There was a hidden compartment under the board for a chess master to operate the machine by hand, so you were actually playing a strong human player.
Napoleon famously played the Turk. He tried to mess with it by making illegal moves. At first the Turk just moved the pieces back, but eventually it swept all the pieces off the board. Napoleon was apparently quite impressed!
Ya, "innocent until proven guilty" and "beyond a reasonable doubt,"is for criminal court. If Magnus doesn't trust him, there is no way to force him to play.
@@rogerszmodis Possibly. But, by the same token if there really has been cheating going on, playing him just validates him as a real player, and if he manages to win, then it gets even more complicated as cheating in chess at this level is a lot more subtle than one might expect. It doesn't take a lot to tip a game in your favor if you get it at the right time.
@@SmallSpoonBrigade put them in a faraday cage and have the games refereed by a neutral party with no other observers. Record it and show it after. Also pass them though a metal detector. Explain how one might cheat in this example.
@@rogerszmodis The idea is that teams usually discuss which strategies they will use against certain opponents. If Magnus' team let out information that got to Neiman, then he can know which moves Magnus will take prior to facing him (which is very likely why Neiman won). Chess players usually have a playbook of very specific strategies and often times players come up with new strategies during tournaments. Magnus not wanting to play Neiman really has nothing to do with fear of losing, but more to do with wasting time and not wanting to waste specific knowledge/strategies on a disrespectful, cheating player. It's a game of information and there's no real benefit to giving a known cheater free information.
@@rogerszmodis Plausible means? There are innumerable methods to cheat, and there is always a new way that hasn't been considered. But that is not my point. Magnus does not need to prove that his opponent cheated, if he does not wish to play against a certain individual who is going to force him? As far as his personal feelings go, I am not a mind reader, so the only method I have to judge is their actions. Magnus does not have a history of making accusations, but his opponent does have a history of cheating. Even if we presume that there was no cheating the suspicion would still be expected. Magnus more than likely researched his opponent before hand and was a aware of his spotty history( I presume this because he is a professional). If I had started losing in similar fashion I would have been immediately suspicious.
Just wondering what’s the difference between pre-reading and reading? Do you read something before reading it, perhaps with your eyes closed to avoid spoilers? Is it anything like the famous pre-drilled holes I’ve heard about on shop videos? Please forgive me if you have already pre-answered this on a previous episode, in which case this would be a post apology.
Let me tell you a chess story... In early 1997 I was building and commissioning two Westinghouse gas turbine power generators. The control system, the Ovation, had a chess game built in. I was told that it was there to teach the operators how to use the system. I started playing it during slack time and always lost. Always. Until the day we were doing a full load test. I got lucky and won. Both units immediately tripped offline. The system failed to log anything that would have caused the trip. During the post-mortem I was asked where I was and what I was doing. I said that I was in the motor control center, watching the screens. I figured that telling them that the units tripped because Hal was angry about losing a chess game was a little too far out of left field. But I never played chess on the system again. Later versions of the Ovation had the chess game deleted, so maybe I wasn't the only one who experienced this.
@amcluesent - Matters so little? Professional chess players make their living by playing in chess tournaments. It means the food on their tables and the roofs over their heads. I'd say that makes it very important.
Another chess match wouldn't prove whether or not he cheated in the first. Think of the Miracle on Ice Hockey team--if they played Russia 10 times, Russia probably wins 9, but in that game they pulled off the win.
Claiming someone cheated is a bit odd since Carlsen once playing live got a tip from someone near him and acknowledged it was the right move for him. Indeed it should be proven in Court not just accepted as fact since no one is unbeatable unless their ego is involved and if others assisted it will come out for either side..👾
Accusations of cheating are easy but proving it is difficult unless you can demonstrate he had access to a software engine feeding him counter moves during the tournament (hidden earpiece for example, with someone feeding him the counter moves in the ear - this would mean he had an accomplice).
There is a very simple solution, simply have them play a game against each other in person instead of playing each other online. Worlds greatest chess player vs some 19 year old kid nobody has ever heard of before Now if the kid really is some sort of chess genius even if he lost the game it would be obvious to those familiar with chess if his skill level was on a grand master level and a reasonable assumption could be made that he was not cheating. However if he was cheating then he would not have the skill of a grand master and he would be making mistakes and blunders that would make it obvious that he was cheating when he was playing online since he shouldn't be making such mistakes. I'm no detective but it would seem to me that if someone called me out for cheating in chess when I played them online I would challenge that accusation by demanding they play me in person or retract their accusation, since it seems this kid didn't do any such thing I am inclined to think he's guilty. It is in fact normal human behavior to aggressively challenge a statement that has been made against them that they know to be false and it appears this kid hasn't done that and instead is opting for the approach of ''prove I cheated''
@@Grimjow88 hans niemann has already been caught and admitted to cheating several times online before, he also studied chess under a known cheater... but this case is about a game played in person. whether he cheated or not, niemann is a very talented chess player. players on this level would not really need to cheat on more than one or two key moves in a game to gain a substantial advantage. they can play entire games while blindfolded and still keep track of every piece on the board, after the game when interviewed, they can recite every move they made and explain their strategy behind them... this is normal. however in this game niemann failed miserably when interviewed after the game and had no explanation for his moves, this is not normal. and when analyzing several games that he has played over a longer period of time it strongly suggests that he is not a honest player and has cheated in more cases than he has admitted to, accuracy is just to high, and it is not consistent. anti cheat measures in over the board chess before the accusations were practically non existent, measures were taken after the accusations and niemann all of the sudden did not play as well anymore... that he is a cheater is a fact, that he cheated in this particular over the board game is impossible to prove but i do believe he did.
Since these chess businesses are in every state (via Internet) he should just file in one or more of the states that have laws against blacklisting individuals. These laws prevent businesses from getting together to ban someone from earning a living, which is what the complaint really is.
that doesn't survive the smell test. niemann was banned for cause, and the cause is a fact. his entire case, every word of it, was frivolous from the get-go
@@tonycamp4514 that's a completely separate issue. yes, the accusation would fail on that basis, but it didn't even pass the administrative requirement
Neiman's own notoriety has made him unemployable - it's like a poker cheat suing Las Vegas for not letting him at the tables anymore. "I need to make a living!"
This sounds very much like the case of the gentleman that was winning gameshows so they made a plan to create a fake loss to get him off the show since he simply kept winning. This was considered a fraud conspiracy since it stopped being about skill vs planned win/loss as similar to fixing a race or other gambling.
Probably an extremely good video that Lehto really work hard on. I watched the whole video. And i had to continually fight going to sleep and keeping my eyes open 😴 😮
@@sierraguru6942 "And he's actually admitted to cheating in the past so saying he cheats isn't defamatory." Saying he continues to cheat might be -- especially if it costs him money.
What is the method he could have used to cheat? They can't create a venue that would prevent cheating and have him play to prove his ability? Why would his opponent not want a rematch under controlled circumstances? Surely if Neiman cheated, he would lose in a controlled match.
I'll try and keep it clean. If I remember correctly in the previous video, Steve mention a possible way he cheated was with a device inserted in a bodily opening, not the ears.
@@mballer Let's just say a certain RU-vidr made a 'making "that" chess device' video. Though, their video was a bit too graphic, so you have someone making the "infamous" device.
This might be a dumb question... With a competent attorney, how do you get a dismissal for failure to state a claim. Wouldn't your attorney normally tell you that the claim won't survive such a challenge?
Gentlemen, handbags at dawn? Also Niemann has been caught at least once to play a move that wasn't recommended by the engine, but was better as it turned out after a couple of moves. So there's that.
@@loginregional Hahaha, the more I look into it the more I realise I probably can't speak any of my 4 languages! 😆🤣 Swedish, English, Finnish and German... altough my prowess in Finnish and German are admittedly poor for sure.
The plaintiff could file lawsuits against the companies alleging blacklisting in state court of the states that prohibit blacklisting. If the companies end up facing multiple state lawsuits for blacklisting they may have no choice but to settle all of the lawsuits and cease blacklisting people without clear and convincing evidence of cheating and not mere accusations.
Court missed the forest for the trees on this one. The reason we have laws protecting competition is because competition helps to avoid cases where participants (e.g., customers) are abused. Those abuses should have legal recourse, and to toss them out here ignores the purpose of antitrust laws.
It's just a game, and they are making a literal federal case out of it. Of course, I don't know what the lawsuit is even about since he doesn't tell us in this video.
The funny thing isit is effecting the guy getting in to tournaments on unproven allegations. The kid may have just done what an AI does and that is know his opponents moves. That is why people study NFL, NBA, boxing and almost every other sport. This is like casinos banning people who can count cards or run statistics in their heads. They want the advantages not the players. Of course if you are connected to a camera and a computer that is different, they also need to catch you at it to prosecute you. Mostly that is why they just ban you from playing if you win regularly.
To everyone saying "why cant they just make them play in sterile conditions and see who's better" This is a complete misunderstanding if the situation: Carlsen is not saying Niemann cheated because he lost. Magnus loses games, he isnt invincible, and usually it isnt a problem. In this case however, Magnus believes that in the specific tournament game that was played, Niemann cheated. Magnus played an obscure opening line that had if i remember correctly, had only ever been played a tiny number of times in the entire history of chess games, yet Niemann responded perfectly and without much thinking time (at least from Magnus's judgement, i'm not good enough to judge that insane level of play that these guys are on). The most likely scenario is that Magnus believes that Niemann obtained his opening preperation via a leak from someone on his team, so he already knew what magnus was going to play and had responses prepared. Therefore, forcing the guys to play a game in controlled conditions proves nothing, as the cheating accusation is related to a specific game, not that Niemann isnt good enough to beat magnus in general.
_"The most likely scenario is that Magnus believes that Niemann obtained his opening preperation [sic] via a leak from someone on his team, ..."_ That's a clever ploy. Decide on an obscure opening, then tell one of your assistants to leak it to the opponent, so that if you lose you can claim he cheated.
@jphickory522 The top players all tend to have other strong players who are not competing in the same tournament assist with their preparation. This is standard practice for major tournaments, and if you don't do it, then you are just putting yourself at a handicap. Every golfer has a caddy, and every great grandmaster has at least one second if not several. Except Bobby Fischer, but that was largely because Fischer wasn't a people person to put it mildly.
@michaelsommers2356 Well if it were indeed a trap like that then yeah, but given that this hasn't come to light it clearly wasn't planned. All in all both sides of this debacle seem to have come out of it looking bad. Magnus made an accusation without solid proof, and Niemann overreacted with a comical lawsuit. If Niemann had just ignored the allegations and carried on as normal he would have emerged from the whole thing with some class and left Carlsen with egg on his face.
If I am ever accused of something I did that eventually led to preventing me from participating in an event and or it cost me financially, and it was not true, I would sue the ass off them. To be able to accuse me of anything they should need to be able to back their accusations or pay substantial damages
@@nevermorefrompast-qx5wb Yes, just like life....which is not a board game. Have you ever noticed that most professional chess players are broken shells of human beings? It is like video games, but for the Amish.
@@victorfinberg8595I am not sure the exact legal definition, but to me it looks like it shouldn't be hard to prove damages from being accused of cheating by such a high-profile. The only question is if the accusation was done maliciously, which will only come out at trial.
@@nnelg8139 "I am not sure the exact legal definition" exactly. start by reading the exact legal definition. then you should start to see why there was no slander.
Whoa at 12:46 i heard "...second amendment complaint..." instead of "...second amended complaint..." at first and i almost fell out of my chair picturing what that might have meant XD. These chess players can really be cutthroat!
25:26-isnt it better to fight you case in state court first and win, if be through appeals. Then you file your federal paperwork with the courts decision on your complaints. Its longer, but isnt that they way its done
Whoever told you that either lied or you misunderstood something Ø / Ö is entirely a vowel. While there is no, even slight, r sound at the end most words where a similar vowel sound is encountered in English does involve an R for example the beginning vowel sound of "earn" or the same vowel sound in "learn". However there's no R sound what so ever involved in the Swedish words "ögla", "ödla" or "ölflaska".
There is so much wrong in that statement. First, the swedish alphabet... does not have Ø! Only the Danish, Norwegian and Icelandic do. It is also not pronounced like "eur" but like the "eau" part of the french "sacre blEAU".
It's a big chess club, and apparently this kid ain't in it. He needs to refile his case in state court on the things that have actually been done here, and I hope he cleans their chess clocks. They accused him of cheating in a live, in-person event and they can't say how. And they have financial interest to ruin this young man's career.
I'd be much harsher than FIDE has been. If you are shown to have directly and knowingly cheated in any chess match after being granted any FIDE title I'd vacate all of your wins and issue a permanent ban.
The plaintiff could file the state claims in state court. The chess companies could be hit with the state law claims as well if they were not careful to avoid defamation for example. The defendants that are in another state could face difficulties facing a claim within the plaintiff's state. how likely will the defendants be to try to get the state case moved to the federal court and possibly in front of this same federal judge?
This better be good Steve. I left a documentary about Mormon underwear for this. Seriously, i was so engrossed. If you don't know about Mormon underwear... Better than anything regarding the law! Youd be surprised!
