Magnus Carlsen appears to be getting assistance from his friend during the Lichess Titled Arena December 2021
Intentionally losing is definitely violation of ethics code. In particular as chess is also offered by some bookies. I presume there was money wagered on this game. This sort event audience (whether betting or watching) have right to expect that games are played seriously. In football intentionally losing could result team banned from playing rest of the season and possible criminal investigation to find out if the dropping of the game was communicated to some betting party.
A) I think the rabble rousers screaming for instant suspension or anything likewise draconic are just equally outrageous ...
B) on the other hand there may be no written rule against gamethrowing, but still a clear ethos???
B) on the other hand there may be no written rule against gamethrowing, but still a clear ethos???
@PxJ said in #39:
> In addition, one could easily argue that he broke the rule 12.1
You could argue that the earth is flat. That doesn't mean it makes sense to do so.
Please keep in mind that Carlsen didn't actually accuse anyone of cheating. Of course we all think he suspects Niemann of cheating, but you can't blame Carlsen for accusations he didn't make.
> In addition, one could easily argue that he broke the rule 12.1
You could argue that the earth is flat. That doesn't mean it makes sense to do so.
Please keep in mind that Carlsen didn't actually accuse anyone of cheating. Of course we all think he suspects Niemann of cheating, but you can't blame Carlsen for accusations he didn't make.
@ohcomeon_1 said in #40:
> Actually resigning on the second move can be interpreted as throwing a game to unfairly put other players at advantage or disadvantage and manipulate the outcome of the competition. It can also be interpreted as sandbagging. Both are a form of cheating. We know that Magnus did not mean any of that, but the arbiters do not need to be mind readers and guess the player's motivation if he does not explain himself.
>
> But of course, they are not going to sanction Magnus, because some are just more equal than others.
I'd say that accusations of results manipulation and/or sandbagging would require more than just an observation of a result.
And if you suspect that Carlsen is resigning because he doesn't trust his opponent... well.. neither makes any sense. In that case Carlsen has no motive to manipulate the result and/or sandbag. He just doesn't want to play Niemann.
The question arises from this: do the regulations force him to make a genuine effort? And what would count as a genuine effort? I'm not sure the regulations do, and defining what would count as a genuine effort is... quite hard. Probably just as hard as proving Niemann didn't cheat.
> Actually resigning on the second move can be interpreted as throwing a game to unfairly put other players at advantage or disadvantage and manipulate the outcome of the competition. It can also be interpreted as sandbagging. Both are a form of cheating. We know that Magnus did not mean any of that, but the arbiters do not need to be mind readers and guess the player's motivation if he does not explain himself.
>
> But of course, they are not going to sanction Magnus, because some are just more equal than others.
I'd say that accusations of results manipulation and/or sandbagging would require more than just an observation of a result.
And if you suspect that Carlsen is resigning because he doesn't trust his opponent... well.. neither makes any sense. In that case Carlsen has no motive to manipulate the result and/or sandbag. He just doesn't want to play Niemann.
The question arises from this: do the regulations force him to make a genuine effort? And what would count as a genuine effort? I'm not sure the regulations do, and defining what would count as a genuine effort is... quite hard. Probably just as hard as proving Niemann didn't cheat.
@Molurus said in #45:
> I'd say that accusations of results manipulation and/or sandbagging would require more than just an observation of a result.
>
> And if you suspect that Carlsen is resigning because he doesn't trust his opponent... well.. neither makes any sense. In that case Carlsen has no motive to manipulate the result and/or sandbag. He just doesn't want to play Niemann.
It is not a job of the arbiters to guess player's motivations. In the absence of Magnus explaining his actions, all they have is basic facts: Magnus gave Hans a free point, which has an unfair impact on other players.
> I'd say that accusations of results manipulation and/or sandbagging would require more than just an observation of a result.
>
> And if you suspect that Carlsen is resigning because he doesn't trust his opponent... well.. neither makes any sense. In that case Carlsen has no motive to manipulate the result and/or sandbag. He just doesn't want to play Niemann.
It is not a job of the arbiters to guess player's motivations. In the absence of Magnus explaining his actions, all they have is basic facts: Magnus gave Hans a free point, which has an unfair impact on other players.
@Molurus said in #44:
> You could argue that the earth is flat. That doesn't mean it makes sense to do so.
>
> Please keep in mind that Carlsen didn't actually accuse anyone of cheating. Of course we all think he suspects Niemann of cheating, but you can't blame Carlsen for accusations he didn't make.
He doesn't need to accuse Hans of cheating to break rule 12.1. Tweeting a meme that says "if I talk I am in big trouble and I don't want to be in big trouble" definitely "brings the game of chess into disrepute".
> You could argue that the earth is flat. That doesn't mean it makes sense to do so.
>
> Please keep in mind that Carlsen didn't actually accuse anyone of cheating. Of course we all think he suspects Niemann of cheating, but you can't blame Carlsen for accusations he didn't make.
He doesn't need to accuse Hans of cheating to break rule 12.1. Tweeting a meme that says "if I talk I am in big trouble and I don't want to be in big trouble" definitely "brings the game of chess into disrepute".
@ohcomeon_1 said in #46:
> It is not a job of the arbiters to guess player's motivations. In the absence of Magnus explaining his actions, all they have is basic facts: Magnus gave Hans a free point, which has an unfair impact on other players.
I'd say that the idea that this is unfair completely relies on Carlsen's motivation for resigning. Not formally knowing anything about his motivations you cannot conclude it is unfair. I'm sure you'd love to, but you can't.
That would be irony though: the entire world, without proof, claiming Niemann has an unfair advantage, except for Carlsen.
> It is not a job of the arbiters to guess player's motivations. In the absence of Magnus explaining his actions, all they have is basic facts: Magnus gave Hans a free point, which has an unfair impact on other players.
I'd say that the idea that this is unfair completely relies on Carlsen's motivation for resigning. Not formally knowing anything about his motivations you cannot conclude it is unfair. I'm sure you'd love to, but you can't.
That would be irony though: the entire world, without proof, claiming Niemann has an unfair advantage, except for Carlsen.
@PxJ said in #47:
> He doesn't need to accuse Hans of cheating to break rule 12.1. Tweeting a meme that says "if I talk I am in big trouble and I don't want to be in big trouble" definitely "brings the game of chess into disrepute".
No, it does not.
In fact: the entire chess world is responsible for bringing the game of chess into disrepute, except for Carlsen. Carlsen is the one person who didn't.
> He doesn't need to accuse Hans of cheating to break rule 12.1. Tweeting a meme that says "if I talk I am in big trouble and I don't want to be in big trouble" definitely "brings the game of chess into disrepute".
No, it does not.
In fact: the entire chess world is responsible for bringing the game of chess into disrepute, except for Carlsen. Carlsen is the one person who didn't.
@Molurus said in #48:
> I'd say that the idea that this is unfair completely relies on Carlsen's motivation for resigning.
No, it does not. If I fall behind in the standings because another player has been given a free point, I do not care about the motivation of his opponent who resigned after one move, it is unfair to me.
> I'd say that the idea that this is unfair completely relies on Carlsen's motivation for resigning.
No, it does not. If I fall behind in the standings because another player has been given a free point, I do not care about the motivation of his opponent who resigned after one move, it is unfair to me.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.