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.
This feels a bit like "have you stopped getting drunk?" (who said I started?), but okay, I'll answer it anyway.
I'm not claiming that there is a big moral distinction between the two, and I don't think I've written anything to suggest otherwise. What is relevant is that (a) the last alleged claim was made two years ago, and (b) Chess.com has no jurisdiction over FIDE (or USCF) events. Also, (c) evidence is relevant. Chess.com purportedly has evidence that Niemann cheated in online games, and there is still no genuine evidence that he has cheated in a single OTB game, and therefore no grounds for FIDE to do anything.
Now, you might think ok, FIDE shouldn't do anything, but organizers shouldn't invite him to their tournaments given his track record as a cheat. Maybe, but one can also wonder why there shouldn't be forgiveness at a certain point. (Chess.com's administrators themselves seemed to have offered forgiveness almost immediately, and as I understand their claim they only retracted it in response to Niemann's claim that he only cheated on two previous occasions.) Sebastien Feller was found guilty of a far more serious infraction and only blocked from FIDE events for two years and nine months. Should Niemann have it worse than Feller?
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.
This feels a bit like "have you stopped getting drunk?" (who said I started?), but okay, I'll answer it anyway.
I'm not claiming that there is a big moral distinction between the two, and I don't think I've written anything to suggest otherwise. What is relevant is that (a) the last alleged claim was made two years ago, and (b) Chess.com has no jurisdiction over FIDE (or USCF) events. Also, (c) evidence is relevant. Chess.com purportedly has evidence that Niemann cheated in online games, and there is still no genuine evidence that he has cheated in a single OTB game, and therefore no grounds for FIDE to do anything.
Now, you might think ok, FIDE shouldn't do anything, but organizers shouldn't invite him to their tournaments given his track record as a cheat. Maybe, but one can also wonder why there shouldn't be forgiveness at a certain point. (Chess.com's administrators themselves seemed to have offered forgiveness almost immediately, and as I understand their claim they only retracted it in response to Niemann's claim that he only cheated on two previous occasions.) Sebastien Feller was found guilty of a far more serious infraction and only blocked from FIDE events for two years and nine months. Should Niemann have it worse than Feller?