As director of a tournament, i had the case of someone trying to play 2 moves in a row (in the opening). We had to count the stones already played to fix the situation.
2 Likes
3 Likes
Until further notice, Iâm team Cheater on this one. 
1 Like
Supposedly this is the filing E.D. Mo. 22-cv-01110 dckt 000001_000 filed 2022-10-20.pdf - Google Drive
- Notably, this was not the first time that Niemann beat Carlsen at chess, just the first time he did so at a FIDE-sanctioned event. Niemannâs upset victory effectively dashed Carlsenâs two remaining statistical ambitions, namely: achieving a 2900 FIDE performance rating for the first time in history; and breaking his own world-record unbeaten streak in FIDE-sanctioned events. These accomplishments, if achieved, would have solidified Carlsen as arguably the greatest chess player of all time and made his burgeoning chess empire even more valuable. Making matters worse for Carlsen, Niemann embarrassed Carlsen by playfully taunting him during his post-match interview.
- Notorious for his inability to cope with defeat, Carlsen snapped. Enraged that the young Niemann, fully 12 years his junior, dared to disrespect the âKing of Chess,â and fearful that the young prodigy would further blemish his multi-million dollar brand by beating him again, Carlsen viciously and maliciously retaliated against Niemann by falsely accusing Niemann, without any evidence, of somehow cheating during their in-person game and demanding that the organizers of the Sinquefield Cup immediately disqualify Niemann from the tournament.
- When tournament officials refused to comply with Carlsenâs corrupt and cowardly demand to baselessly eliminate Niemann from competition, Carlsen lashed out again, this time by boycotting the remainder of the Sinquefield Cup in protestâan unprecedented act for a top chess professional, let alone the reigning World Champion. Carlsen then confirmed his defamatory accusations against Niemann with a provocative post on Twitter, which had the intended effect of disseminating Carlsenâs false accusations that Niemann had cheated against him across the globe.
- Unnerved by Niemannâs unexpected confidence and early strategic advantage, Carlsen made numerous mistakes upon which Niemann capitalized to secure a tremendous victory over Carlsen, which, by all accounts, should have propelled Niemannâs career to the next level and allowed him to continue realizing his enormous potential as the next great American chess player.
- Unbeknownst to Niemann at the time, Defendants would do whatever it took ensure that this would never happen.
- Niemann not only beat Carlsen; Niemann embarrassed Carlsen by defeating him with the black pieces and playfully taunting him during and after their match. He also shattered Carlsenâs historic 53-game unbeaten streak and made it practically impossible for Carlsen to ever achieve a 2900 FIDE performance rating. What is more, Niemann handed Carlsen this stunning upset while Carlsen was in the midst of negotiating and finalizing the Merger to solidify Carlsenâs chess empire around his Play Magnus brand.
The wording of these. Just kill me.
Personally, from what Iâve seen, I consider US courts to be a joke and Iâm on the team against the current US legal system, if thereâs such a team.
4 Likes
I think phrasing it that way does not make that side happy.
5 Likes
This actually looks like a rather easy slander case.
Facts:
- Carlsen and a few others very publicly said Nieman had cheated in the game against Carlsen.
- It turns out they have absolutely no proof.
4 Likes
But do they need to have proof or the suing party needs to show itâs false and the other party knew itâs false? Like, if youâre saying something you believe is true?
3 Likes
Team Anal beads?
2 Likes
Would it have made more sense to wait for FIDE? If FIDE punished Magnus in any way, then you would have a stronger case, no?
To me it makes sense that he sues, as you canât ruin someoneâs career over a hunch. Shouldnât Magnus have talked to FIDE privately, and let them handle it, and if FIDE finds something he can talk about it publically?
Is it a bad precedent to let Magnus get away with this, letting anyone say anything and get away with it?
3 Likes
Based on the little I know, it greatly varies from country to country. It also varies from state to state, itâs a strategic choice to choose which state you sue into.
2 Likes
Nah, that doesnât work that way in this case. Not only this is a very blatant defamation, but the way they acted and worded things was improper (Nakamura in particular seems to have caused most of the damage, by reading the case. Just wow O_o )
In general: Making public allegations of âthings you believe to be trueâ is quite ok, as long as those things are not defamatory, in which case, if sued, you will have to either prove them or pay the price.
Example, compare the two statements:
âI believe that Niemann is an overrated player and does not deserve to be invited to so many eventsâ (this is a totally fine statement expressing personal opinion, belief and subjective evaluation)
âI believe that Niemann most probably cheated and does not deserve to be invited to so many eventsâ (this is a direct allegation that is not based on subjective matters like preference, but objective truth whether someone cheated or not. It is no longer a matter of âopinionâ or âbeliefâ ).
The person making an accussation cannot say âhey, thatâs what I thought at the time huehuehueâ and get out of the repercussions of those actions, unless they can indeed prove that they had evidence for their accusation at the time, which was later debunked. As we all know - and it is written in the case - no such evidence was ever really presented at any time, so they are in deep trouble. In any case there is a burden of proof that cannot be avoided.
Thank you for the full case. It is an interesting read and I gave it a fast look.
Point 109 and 160 are going to be very important.
109 is huge because in damages lawsuits you have to explain how widespread was the damage and having seen that video from Colbert - which played nationwide when the show aired and worldwide when they uploaded it on Youtube and it has almost one million views and, sadly, treats the allegations as facts.
Colbert might have the benefit and shield of comedy, but the defendants do not.
Such widespread and irrevocable damage will actually be very critical to help justify the 100.000.000 dollars that Niemann is asking. This is why they are so keen to emphasise the fame and success of Carlsen, to make the point that it is the prior fame and success of the defendant that made all those people believe him and cause widespread damage.
160 is a huge point in a (jury) trial. It DEMOLISHES the one and only ethical and logical standpoint of the behaviour of the defendants (that they do not like to play with cheaters). You cannot seriously stand and say âI do not like cheaters and never accept playing with themâ when you know that the opponent has the receipts that clearly state otherwise.
Thatâs one side of the coin. The other side is that the defendants would then argue that whatever punishment befited that behaviour had already been issued by the international sports organisations and thus it would make no sense to overly punish the defendants in civil courts as well.
It also puts the ball on FIDEâs court. What they do now affects a trial that is worth a lot of money, so they are in a tough position now.
Here are their choices:
a) They issue no punishment, but if the courts do punish Carlsen while FIDE was staying out of it, its reputation and independence is shattered.
b) They issue a light punishment, but that falls into the hands of the âCivil Conspiracyâ clause in the case. The lawyers would argue that if Niemann has been punished so harshly just for accussations and Carlsen gets just a tap in the wrist for actually doing things against the rules, then this could mean an extra indication that they are acting against Niemann and that there are double standards.
c) They issue a harsh punishment, creating a scandal in the chess world and damaging their game (I do not think that such a high profile player had ever had such an official blemish in their reputation) and then Niemannâs lawyers would take that and say âSee, we were right to pursue this issue immediately!â ⊠Staking your claim first is important, after all.
3 Likes
Thanks, that was a good read and interesting to think about.
1 Like
Is Niemann a âpublic figureâ (I think that is the term) in the eyes of U.S. law? If so, then he has a much higher standard to meet in order to succeed in his suit. This is why politicians and other prominent people rarely sue for defamation. In such a case, plaintiff must prove that the act was malicious, that is, that Carlsen knew it wasnât true and said so with a motive to harm. If Niemann is not a public figure, then it does seem like an easy case for him.
Edit: I mixed up Carlsen and Niemann, so had to reverse the names above.
2 Likes
I like the names 
âcrush youâ
1 Like
That is a very interesting detail indeed 
Again I think that Cornell has a good answer to this:
So, Niemann is definitely not a public figure by that definition, since he is âjust another great chess playerâ of a rank and accomplishment that is not unique. He is not known to be in the eye of public scrutiny prior to this incident and even in this case he didnât ask to become one, but was thrusted upon such an unfortunate position of notoriety by the defendants.
Which means that if the defendants try to utter the argument that âNiemann is a public figureâ to up the ante of the burden of proof, then the counter of âwell, you lot made him a public figure without his consent, which is exactly why we sued youâ would really put that to rest.
It is like arguing in a car accident damages case where a car hit a pedestrian and broke one of their legs that âhey, it is their fault that they were walking with a broken leg without crutches, that is why they failed to avoid the carâ and try to blame them for ânegligenceâ, when in fact the person in question was not injured prior to the incident and you caused the broken leg afterwards. 
I think that this whole thing will end up on a LegalEagle video eventually. This is going to be very interesting.
2 Likes
I suspect that the âpublic figureâ defense will be attempted, because there is little else available. However, I think the most important line in that Cornell definition was âWhether a party is a public figure is a question of law for the court.â I didnât know that detail, and it makes it much harder for the defendant to succeed, because the defense canât schmooze the jury with a lot of confusing arguments on that point.
2 Likes
Itâs interesting how itâs a show. Compared to go. Where we just two years later learn that Yoda Norimotoâs case was dismissed and nobody even remembers or knows what happened.
Given how much people like to talk, long twitter threads have become a norm. Try thread unroll
And I get upset when my opponents touch the stones during my turnâŠ
1 Like