No one wants to retrieve the hidden war watch. This dude is not even close to GM. All the proof is in his analysis in the post mortem interviews. Chess skill is analysis. The only question is if he has accomplices.
Anyone disagreeing that he isn't cheating aren't watching his post game analysis. When you are a grandmaster and you sacrifice a piece, you always calculate until you see a real concrete attack or compensation, or to the end. He called his Qb3 move a "bluff" what he is saying here, is that he was "lucky" with this move. you don't beat magnus with black with luck. and the fact that he couldn't explain any further moves looks more like a kid getting caught copying his math answers. Saying "i don't need to give variations just look at the position" when the engine disagrees to such an extreme degree is such an egregious thing.
@davo50 said in #20:
> Magnus and Hikaru should shut up and they should take any suspicions to the organizers in private, not make public insinuations.
I might be wrong but at least with Magnus that's exactly what he is doing. He hasn't said a thing.
> Magnus and Hikaru should shut up and they should take any suspicions to the organizers in private, not make public insinuations.
I might be wrong but at least with Magnus that's exactly what he is doing. He hasn't said a thing.
@Autofill said in #13:
> You really expect a gm to make no mistakes and give the Stockfish recommended line every time
Did I say that? Every sensible person expects a GM to analyse like a GM. Analysis is not something different from the game. The stronger the player, the deeper the analysis. Tell me another super GM who suggests noob blunders like that, without noticing.
> You really expect a gm to make no mistakes and give the Stockfish recommended line every time
Did I say that? Every sensible person expects a GM to analyse like a GM. Analysis is not something different from the game. The stronger the player, the deeper the analysis. Tell me another super GM who suggests noob blunders like that, without noticing.
@bolt420 said in #22:
> Anyone disagreeing that he isn't cheating aren't watching his post game analysis. When you are a grandmaster and you sacrifice a piece, you always calculate until you see a real concrete attack or compensation, or to the end. He called his Qb3 move a "bluff" what he is saying here, is that he was "lucky" with this move. you don't beat magnus with black with luck. and the fact that he couldn't explain any further moves looks more like a kid getting caught copying his math answers. Saying "i don't need to give variations just look at the position" when the engine disagrees to such an extreme degree is such an egregious thing.
Finally a reasonable comment
> Anyone disagreeing that he isn't cheating aren't watching his post game analysis. When you are a grandmaster and you sacrifice a piece, you always calculate until you see a real concrete attack or compensation, or to the end. He called his Qb3 move a "bluff" what he is saying here, is that he was "lucky" with this move. you don't beat magnus with black with luck. and the fact that he couldn't explain any further moves looks more like a kid getting caught copying his math answers. Saying "i don't need to give variations just look at the position" when the engine disagrees to such an extreme degree is such an egregious thing.
Finally a reasonable comment
Niemann probably is playing well
@Katzenschinken said in #23:
> I might be wrong but at least with Magnus that's exactly what he is doing. He hasn't said a thing.
Really? At the very least, Magnus was implying through his tweet that something wasn't quite right about the game between the two. That's how he started the whole thing. It could now be argued that he was actually saying something without actually expressing it literally through spoken language. He
started the rumor mill with his tweet that cheating might be involved. And he knew that. He owes at least an explanation.
> I might be wrong but at least with Magnus that's exactly what he is doing. He hasn't said a thing.
Really? At the very least, Magnus was implying through his tweet that something wasn't quite right about the game between the two. That's how he started the whole thing. It could now be argued that he was actually saying something without actually expressing it literally through spoken language. He
started the rumor mill with his tweet that cheating might be involved. And he knew that. He owes at least an explanation.
@Boh765 said in #25:
> Finally a reasonable comment
Not so much. I've discussd with a GM after game i saw as an arbiter and asked "did you calculate that you can capture the opponents bishop if takes the undefended pawn" and the answer was "no, it seemed obvious that there is something"
sometimes you can see. Also in complicated attack no one can count till end just has to see far enough to see that attack doesno die. also what a move in another game has anything do with this sissu. In magnus game B queen never never moved from d8 so it did not do b3 bluffs
> Finally a reasonable comment
Not so much. I've discussd with a GM after game i saw as an arbiter and asked "did you calculate that you can capture the opponents bishop if takes the undefended pawn" and the answer was "no, it seemed obvious that there is something"
sometimes you can see. Also in complicated attack no one can count till end just has to see far enough to see that attack doesno die. also what a move in another game has anything do with this sissu. In magnus game B queen never never moved from d8 so it did not do b3 bluffs
I dislike very much the way Carlsen handled this and lost a lot of respect for him. He withdrew and then tweeted just before the game linking an insinuating video. Basically accusing Nieman without evidence and letting the jury of social media brew a storm. He knew exactly what the effect would be. His companies have a virtual monopoly on the commercial chess offerings on the internet now and I feel he (ab)used his clout in an egregious manner.
I am very much in the camp of Levon Aronian who said it better than i could have:
youtu.be/LUoc1PgJgRA?t=241
I am very much in the camp of Levon Aronian who said it better than i could have:
youtu.be/LUoc1PgJgRA?t=241
@Boh765 said in #24:
> Did I say that? Every sensible person expects a GM to analyse like a GM. Analysis is not something different from the game.
Jacob Aagaard, one of the top trainers and chess authors in the world, already refuted this argument. He's spent a lot of time training with Hans, and he says the analysis looked totally normal for Hans.
Why do you need the pejorative, where you accuse anybody who disagrees with you of not being sensible? It is irrational, just like the accusations.
> Did I say that? Every sensible person expects a GM to analyse like a GM. Analysis is not something different from the game.
Jacob Aagaard, one of the top trainers and chess authors in the world, already refuted this argument. He's spent a lot of time training with Hans, and he says the analysis looked totally normal for Hans.
Why do you need the pejorative, where you accuse anybody who disagrees with you of not being sensible? It is irrational, just like the accusations.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.