A busy week is behind me, and now we can get caught up on blogging, starting with the big news of the day: Hans Niemann has filed suit for defamation against Magnus Carlsen & Play Magnus (Carlsen’s company), Danny Rensch and Chess.com, and Hikaru Nakamura. As indicated in the subtitle, he’s asking for a cool $100 million - or more precisely, “no less than One Hundred Million Dollars”. This amount seems, let’s say, rather imaginative to me - but then I’m not an attorney. I’m not sure that Carlsen and Garry Kasparov together have made $100 million from chess, and as talented as Niemann is (assuming that all his over the board games have been completely on the level) he has not yet proved that he is a once-in-a-generation talent of the sort that could plausibly earn 100 megabucks. But, again, I’m not a lawyer; those with the relevant expertise can and should explain why this is a plausible figure.
Anyway, you can read a quick summary here and a useful quickie analysis in this Twitter thread by attorney Akiva Cohen. He doesn’t think that there’s absolutely nothing to Niemann’s complaint, but believes that in addition to the significant hurdles it would have to clear in any case, there are numerous unforced errors of both a procedural and a strategic nature. Here’s how he closes the thread:
Anyway, here are my takeaways:
There is a potentially valid defamation claim (by which I mean “can survive a motion to dismiss”) against Chess.com - but that defendant probably isn’t subject to suit in Missouri (nothing it allegedly did happened in MO)
The claim against Carlsen is likely to get dismissed for a failure to plausibly allege actual malice; nothing in this complaint provides a basis to say Carlsen doesn’t actually believe Niemann cheated.
The stuff against Nakamura is both dead letter on actual malice (on the current record) and filed in a court that has no jurisdiction over Nakamura
I suspect that there was a viable way to have brought this defamation case, potentially only against Chess in CT while indicating that claims against Carlsen and Nakamura might get added depending on discovery - but that will not work as it’s been pled.
That said, this doesn’t appear to be a Mignogna-class lolsuit; there’s material here that is at least potentially defamatory or tortious if intentionally false, and definitely damaging.
My take from reading Cohen and consulting with other sources is that his lawsuit has little if any chance of success. Niemann has done as little as possible to endear himself to the chess world over the past few months, but I do feel bad for him if he has been innocent in over-the-board play. Three things can be simultaneously possible: he cheated (on multiple occasions) in online games, he can be extremely abrasive, and the accusations that he has cheated in in-person games are false. If the three parts of that triad are all true, then the damage to his career is tragic and unfair. There needs to be a way of arranging in-person events and evaluating them that, as much as possible, prevents future Hans Niemanns from suffering this fate - and for that matter, that allows Niemann himself every opportunity to become the best player his talent and hard work will allow.
The distinction between online and OTB cheating makes sense because cheating on the Internet so far had no consequences for OTB chess. Many GMs were caught cheating and it isn't even mentioned in public, now Niemann (or Niemann and Dlugy) are singled out - by Carlsen and those supporting him. Maybe rules could be changed now, but only for the future.
As to the court case: I don't have a legal background either, but the amount mentioned probably includes all of this:
- compensation for immaterial damage in addition to tangible losses
- if successful, part of it (how much?) will go to Niemann's lawyers rather than Niemann himself
- they don't expect it to be honored in full
- it really has to hurt the other side, this wouldn't be the case if they only included the apparent immediate losses (Niemann deprived of a Tata Steel invitation and a match against Keymer)
It all started in Missouri, hence this court. Would it have to be a Dutch court if it had happened in Wijk aan Zee? Which court if it had all happened on the Internet?
Can Carlsen really get away with " 'I THINK Niemann cheated' - fully aware of the impact of such a statement coming from him - is just an opinion"?
Maybe Niemann will lose the case based on technicalities, but this seems to be his only way to make a "statement" rather than "letting his clock run down" (passively resigning).
Why do you draw such a sharp distinction between online and over the board cheating? The online events are for money, rating, prestige, and exposure. If the chess.com accusations are true, Niemann cheated massively and systematically in multiple online events. The distinction seems to me more on a par with participating in online abuse versus being physically present. Perhaps the latter is worse, but it doesn't prevent the former from being egregious.