I understand all that. What I meant was that I think it’s bad form to accuse an opponent who beat you of cheating without evidence, and I would think that if you’re at the top of your game, it looks even worse, and thus Carlsen would have even more incentive to mind the optics of it. This is the first I’ve ever heard of him behaving like this as well, but it looks bad nonetheless. I would think a better way to have gone about it would be to investigate my suspicions outside of the public eye first and only go public if I came up with evidence to support the claim. Being wrong about an accusation of cheating almost looks worse than actually cheating. I’d want to avoid that at all costs, if I were him.
The thing is I don’t think there’s any way Magnus would accuse him or forfeit the game unless he was sure.
I’m pretty sure what happened here is Magnus opened an obscure opening and when the move set exactly copies the pattern a computer would play you just know.
That’s the level Magnus is at. His memorization is insane and I can almost guarantee he was 100% sure this kid was cheating.
Just because you don’t have proof or can’t see it doesn’t mean Magnus can’t.
I get it from a casual observer point youre like no way he could know. Trust me his memorization is that good.
Except, we now know he wasn’t. Carlsen was salty because his ego was bruised by losing to someone he perceived as being beneath him. He wasn’t seeing any 4d chess BS romantic mental projection of the game. He was just mad that he lost. Be aware, it wasn’t that Niemann was unfairly landsliding Carlsen. Quite the opposite, Carlsen had already won two games against Niemann. When he lost the third game he got mad that someone else studied the same obscure opening as him and resigned on the fourth game after a single move. Just an adult tantrum. This is chess, everyone loses at some point or another, no matter how good you are or how large the skill gap with your opponent. Statistically in a large enough amount of games, you will lose some.
That would be plausible if Neimann knew the line but if u watch his post match interview it is obvious he’s struggling with the logic that line follows.
So I’m expected to believe Neimann could play the line flawlessly enough to make Magnus quit in the moment but afterwards can’t justify his play and thought process?
Obvious tell he was cheating.
Yes Magnus knew right away.
I will defer my opinion to that of someone who knows more about chess than me. According to Grand-master Anatoly Karpov’s analysis of the game:
“Carlsen surprisingly played the opening so badly with white that he automatically got into a worse position. Then he showed a strange inability to cope with the difficult situation that arose on the board. Comments that White lost without chances are complete nonsense.
Yes, he played badly, his position was worse, but he didn’t have to lose: if he hadn’t sacrificed a pawn there would have been nothing terrible for him in that position. With more careful play he could have made a draw.”
Maybe Niemann cheated, maybe he didn’t. But the true is that the reason Carlsen quit was because he got flustered. He could’ve, and as a matter of fact had previously, kicked Niemann’s ass with skill. He could’ve made this a draw, keep playing the tournament and still dominate. But he played one bad game and had to throw a hissy fit of historical proportions.
You have no evidence and are obv biased against Carlson. Go watch the interview and then see if u still believe Hans. Carlson aside Hans does not have the skill to even remember his own thought process when working this obscure line? Proof right there.
I understand all that. What I meant was that I think it’s bad form to accuse an opponent who beat you of cheating without evidence, and I would think that if you’re at the top of your game, it looks even worse, and thus Carlsen would have even more incentive to mind the optics of it. This is the first I’ve ever heard of him behaving like this as well, but it looks bad nonetheless. I would think a better way to have gone about it would be to investigate my suspicions outside of the public eye first and only go public if I came up with evidence to support the claim. Being wrong about an accusation of cheating almost looks worse than actually cheating. I’d want to avoid that at all costs, if I were him.
The thing is I don’t think there’s any way Magnus would accuse him or forfeit the game unless he was sure.
I’m pretty sure what happened here is Magnus opened an obscure opening and when the move set exactly copies the pattern a computer would play you just know.
That’s the level Magnus is at. His memorization is insane and I can almost guarantee he was 100% sure this kid was cheating.
Just because you don’t have proof or can’t see it doesn’t mean Magnus can’t.
I get it from a casual observer point youre like no way he could know. Trust me his memorization is that good.
Except, we now know he wasn’t. Carlsen was salty because his ego was bruised by losing to someone he perceived as being beneath him. He wasn’t seeing any 4d chess BS romantic mental projection of the game. He was just mad that he lost. Be aware, it wasn’t that Niemann was unfairly landsliding Carlsen. Quite the opposite, Carlsen had already won two games against Niemann. When he lost the third game he got mad that someone else studied the same obscure opening as him and resigned on the fourth game after a single move. Just an adult tantrum. This is chess, everyone loses at some point or another, no matter how good you are or how large the skill gap with your opponent. Statistically in a large enough amount of games, you will lose some.
That would be plausible if Neimann knew the line but if u watch his post match interview it is obvious he’s struggling with the logic that line follows. So I’m expected to believe Neimann could play the line flawlessly enough to make Magnus quit in the moment but afterwards can’t justify his play and thought process?
Obvious tell he was cheating.
Yes Magnus knew right away.
I will defer my opinion to that of someone who knows more about chess than me. According to Grand-master Anatoly Karpov’s analysis of the game:
Maybe Niemann cheated, maybe he didn’t. But the true is that the reason Carlsen quit was because he got flustered. He could’ve, and as a matter of fact had previously, kicked Niemann’s ass with skill. He could’ve made this a draw, keep playing the tournament and still dominate. But he played one bad game and had to throw a hissy fit of historical proportions.
You have no evidence and are obv biased against Carlson. Go watch the interview and then see if u still believe Hans. Carlson aside Hans does not have the skill to even remember his own thought process when working this obscure line? Proof right there.
Which is far from easy in such cases.
I wouldn’t be surprised if his reaction was made in the affect of the moment. We’re all humans.