I don't believe the settlement is a draw at all but rather an admission on the side of Carlsen that, not only can cheating on Niemann's part not be proven, but in fact it almost certainly did not occur. The injustice of the situation is that it seems very likely that Niemann's chess career has been permanently derailed by Carlsen's baseless insinuations in a fit of pique. Thus a mere monetary settlement is insufficient, and I am glad Carlsen came clean and admitted there is no evidence Niemann cheated in their game, which is what the settlement tacitly signifies.
Well, "draw" was McClain's word, and it's unclear whether that's perfectly apt. The point is that both sides got something, and neither side got everything it wanted. I don't agree that Niemann's career has probably been "permanently derailed". Even this last year he got to play a ton, though not in rapid super-events online, and I suspect that once he plays in a super-tournament with Carlsen and nothing happens, he'll be as regular a participant in such events as his rating justifies. So he did lose out, and hopefully it will only prove to be a hiccup in his development rather than a severe impediment. We'll see.
I'm not sure how to interpret your last sentence. *If* you're saying that Carlsen's "[coming] clean" was only tacit, that's not so. He doesn't say that there was "no evidence" - maybe the "no" part is what you take to be tacit? - but according to the *Times* piece says that there was “no determinative evidence that Niemann cheated in his game against me at the Sinquefield Cup.” (So that's kind of a "draw" as well.)
It's not only Niemann's reputation that took a hit in this; there were a good number of players and observers who found Carlsen's behavior in the matter overly emotional at best, and reprehensible at worst. He could absorb it more easily because of the power differential, so I hope the settlement had some bite to it - primarily for the sake of retributive justice (making up for lost income, opportunities, and possible damage to Niemann's future as a chess player) but secondarily as an impediment to any repeat performances, especially in "punching down" situations.
I see your point that neither side got everything it wanted, but I think that at its heart this settlement is an admission that Carlsen was in the wrong. I hope you're correct and Niemann's career recovers. In my last sentence I mean that Carlsen's statement is an admission of what the monetary settlement tacitly signifies, namely that Niemann almost certainly did not cheat.
Most lawsuits are settled out of court, so it's hard to draw any conclusions. Carlsen's statement is nonconcessive, and certainly doesn't indicate any change in opinion. It just acknowledges the existence of a report, and uses the phrase "no determinative evidence". Niemann has to some modest extent been rehabilitated (it's hard to see the settlement as changing minds one way or the other) and has found his way back to playing on chess.com, while his legal opponents have got the hazard of a lawsuit off their backs. In the meantime, with Niemann only nominally still a junior and having a live rating of 2667, then even ignoring Carlsen's soft power, the chances that they will be paired in some event any time soon seem rather low, and in over the board play, close to nonexistent.
I don't believe the settlement is a draw at all but rather an admission on the side of Carlsen that, not only can cheating on Niemann's part not be proven, but in fact it almost certainly did not occur. The injustice of the situation is that it seems very likely that Niemann's chess career has been permanently derailed by Carlsen's baseless insinuations in a fit of pique. Thus a mere monetary settlement is insufficient, and I am glad Carlsen came clean and admitted there is no evidence Niemann cheated in their game, which is what the settlement tacitly signifies.
Well, "draw" was McClain's word, and it's unclear whether that's perfectly apt. The point is that both sides got something, and neither side got everything it wanted. I don't agree that Niemann's career has probably been "permanently derailed". Even this last year he got to play a ton, though not in rapid super-events online, and I suspect that once he plays in a super-tournament with Carlsen and nothing happens, he'll be as regular a participant in such events as his rating justifies. So he did lose out, and hopefully it will only prove to be a hiccup in his development rather than a severe impediment. We'll see.
I'm not sure how to interpret your last sentence. *If* you're saying that Carlsen's "[coming] clean" was only tacit, that's not so. He doesn't say that there was "no evidence" - maybe the "no" part is what you take to be tacit? - but according to the *Times* piece says that there was “no determinative evidence that Niemann cheated in his game against me at the Sinquefield Cup.” (So that's kind of a "draw" as well.)
It's not only Niemann's reputation that took a hit in this; there were a good number of players and observers who found Carlsen's behavior in the matter overly emotional at best, and reprehensible at worst. He could absorb it more easily because of the power differential, so I hope the settlement had some bite to it - primarily for the sake of retributive justice (making up for lost income, opportunities, and possible damage to Niemann's future as a chess player) but secondarily as an impediment to any repeat performances, especially in "punching down" situations.
I see your point that neither side got everything it wanted, but I think that at its heart this settlement is an admission that Carlsen was in the wrong. I hope you're correct and Niemann's career recovers. In my last sentence I mean that Carlsen's statement is an admission of what the monetary settlement tacitly signifies, namely that Niemann almost certainly did not cheat.
Most lawsuits are settled out of court, so it's hard to draw any conclusions. Carlsen's statement is nonconcessive, and certainly doesn't indicate any change in opinion. It just acknowledges the existence of a report, and uses the phrase "no determinative evidence". Niemann has to some modest extent been rehabilitated (it's hard to see the settlement as changing minds one way or the other) and has found his way back to playing on chess.com, while his legal opponents have got the hazard of a lawsuit off their backs. In the meantime, with Niemann only nominally still a junior and having a live rating of 2667, then even ignoring Carlsen's soft power, the chances that they will be paired in some event any time soon seem rather low, and in over the board play, close to nonexistent.