Whatever comes out of these accusations, the chess world will sure enjoy its new infusion of drama.
[1] https://twitter.com/MagnusCarlsen/status/1566848734616555523
Hans didn't play engine perfect lines when beating Magnus in the Sinquefield Cup, though he obviously played extremely accurately.
It's pretty grim for him if he really didn't cheat. He won't be invited to a tournament involving Magnus again.
If he is that 'bad' to draw a +3 position, how did he achieve this position in the first place?
Also, consider this: Nakamura knows that the position is good, but does he know it before he sees the evaluation, or after? Because it is a fact that when top player knows it is +3, he can explain why it is so good. But just looking at the board, without knowing the evaluation, he might have a very different conclusion.
For the sake of the sport, I hope Neimann didn't cheat, but I doubt we'll ever know for sure.
One minor point folks aren't mentioning that I think works in Neimann's favor - Carlsen is known for enjoying the Catalan, and the opening in the game was essentially a Nimzo/Catalan hybrid. This fact makes Neimann's supposed pre-game prep a bit more palatable. Everything else (postgame interview, past history, Twitter antics) seems to work against Neimann though.
My question is - if Neimann did cheat, how? Doesn't seem like something that can be done easily in an OTB tournament.
Or you could swallow a buzzer? The input could come from someone who watches the board from afar?
I don't know enough about those devices and metal detectors to be able to tell whether that's effective mitigation. Could one make a device small enough to be hard to detect?
Although this is pure speculation, it seems to be a more plausible and satisfactory explanation if Niemann did in fact cheat. It would also explain why Carlsen would withdraw from the tournament rather than continuing.
Prior to Move 6 this is a well known line with 700 hundred high level games, and Magnus (apparently) never played the line with 6.a3 before, so I find Hans's claim extremely dubious.
Still not an evidence that he cheated, but I agree that sum of signals e.g. prior cheating ban on chess.com, incoherent after game analysis without engine help and in general never being worse against 4 Super GMS and having a winning position against all of them does not paint a good picture. Something smells, but we will probably never know.
Edit: corrected move#
(My bias: I think Hans' analysis is pretty dubious, but if it were anyone other than Magnus I would give these accusations little credence. I think we who are not in the know should be giving Hans more benefit of the doubt than people generally seem to be giving)
And even if he had ironclad proof, he might still not go public.
Hikaru was less reserved on the other hand. He called Hans's post-game interview analysis sub-2700 level after Hans Neiman badly mis-evaluated several positions.
I'm not at all into chess (only through the odd HN post where I get out-nerded left, right and center), but I can imagine it ends up being a very analytical thing, where the experts or analysts can spot whether someone is playing like a human or a computer. And I also think they can't add "noise" (e.g. human mistakes) to it either, that'll either throw the computer off, OR it'll look "uncharacteristic".
First off, computers are (especially in complex positions) ridiculously stronger than humans, like your average family car can't keep up with a Ferrari. In less complex games (like an endgame with fewer pieces) top-10 players can definitely play 20 perfect moves in a row, in an attacking game that's harder. A player like Niemann is not really expected to reach that level in a game like this.
A second point is how much time you spend on each move. If you play a move with big consequences (say sacrificing material, or violating a principle) you would generally think longer. A computer doesn't see it that way and might spot "instantly" that this move wins material 7 moves down the road, where even a World Champion will check his analysis before playing that.
So playing too perfect and playing too fast in critical positions are both red flags. In Online chess, they often use this to grade your moves, and flag you if you go over certain thresholds, especially if you have a lower "rating".
Hans Niemann did both of this (too fast and too good) and then after the game was not really able to explain his thought process afterwards. None of this is hard evidence, but they are red flags, and if you add that Niemann has been caught before in online chess... that's so many red flags it would make the CCP proud.
Hope that helps a bit! So no, there is no very analytical thing, which does mean we need to be a bit careful and leave the option open that Niemann maybe just really liked this move on general grounds, got lucky it worked, and has learned of his previous mistakes. It could definitely happen.
Esports has a nice overview of the most prominent reactions:
https://esports.gg/news/gaming/hikaru-nakamaru-on-carlsens-w...
Do computers play like top humans? Or different stylistically?
ie - if you were a top player and looking at the moves of an opponent, could you discern if the style was more similar to a top rated human or a top rated computer?
They can also show up when for instance there are multiple checkmates in a position. The computer will choose the one requiring the least number of moves even if it requires deep calculation and perfect play. Humans will just trade off material and go for an easy win.
Now that chess engines have started to use neural networks in move selection the amount of "computer moves" has decreased noticeably.
> if you were a top player and looking at the moves of an opponent, could you discern if the style was more similar to a top rated human or a top rated computer?
With a large enough sample size I believe that top players would be able to tell the difference. But that sample size is much larger than a single game or likely even the ~10 games being played in a tournament.
Edit:
Oh I should also mention that in the context of cheating with computers there are more signals to look at than the moves themselves. Time management is normally a huge giveaway for cheating. In online chess this normally manifests itself as players using the exact same amount of time for each move in spite of the positions being very different in terms of complexity.
In the match being talked about above Hans, the challenger, used a suspicious amount of time during the opening sequence. He played the opening moves in around 10 minutes which is weird because if he had memorized the lines he would have played them much faster. If he didn't memorize the lines then it would have taken him much more than 10 minutes to calculate it all.
To elaborate on this, humans use pattern recognition to identify themes within a position. This is a shortcut that prevents needing to mentally brute-force your way down an enormous tree of possible positions. Elite chess-playing humans are very good at this, but are still very good at spotting potentially non-thematic (perhaps "surprising") moves that offer some quantifiable advantage.
Computers operate very differently from humans. They rigorously evaluate positions to absurd depths. They can examine lines further than 30 moves deep without too much time. Often the moves they come up align with the thematic ideas that humans have (after all, there's a reason why humans have identified these patterns). But at the end of the day, the computer isn't playing thematically. It only cares that the position at the end of best-play by both sides has the score most in its favor.
This leads to computers playing moves that humans would only come up with exceedingly rarely. And if a human came up with that move, there would generally be some clearly-identifiable reward that humans can pick up on several moves later. When a human player plays computer moves, those noticeable rewards are often missing. The cheating human makes a puzzling move, play continues, and many moves later their opponent is worse off. But even after serious analysis it's not entirely clear how that original move brought about this advantageous position.
Of course maybe the human in question really wasn't cheating and stumbled into a brilliancy. Perhaps it's even one they didn't even truly understand the ramifications of when they played it! But when a human makes several of those types of moves in a single game, or even across a single tournament, it brings about extreme suspicion.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Sports_Classification_...
The situation would be more like, there is a forced checkmate in 12 but it involves navigating a sharp position that is complex and any miscalculation could equalize the position.
On the other hand, you can simply exchange queens and rooks and have a clear winning endgame, but it will only result in a checkmate in 20 moves.
Almost any human would opt for the latter to avoid the risk. From the computer's perspective, there is no risk.
So no, I stand by my point that a specific choice of one of multiple possible checkmates is quite a poor indicator of using a computer to calculate moves.
> other than in end-game
This is frequently where such scenarios occur. Many end games are difficult for humans to play with absolute precision, even seemingly simple ones like knight and bishop vs. king. But when there are fewer pieces on the board is exactly when computers are able to perform incredibly deep calculations.
A good example is the notorious 30 move forced mate that Caruana "missed" in game 6 of his world championship match with Magnus, which occurred with only 3 pieces and 3 pawns left on the board.
However, I do look up a post-game analysis, and if there are some mid-game deep checkmates, they show up in it, and it is extremely rare. The example you cite about Caruana/Carlsen game actually quite falls into the category of what I referred to as 'endgame mates' - and looking at it with a potentially cheating player in mind, such cases are rather irrelevant: a cheater will win a game or arrive to an overwhelmingly better position in the endgame so such extreme measures with 30+ precise move checkmates will not be necessary.
That Kf8 really is the move of somebody living in another universe.
Which would still require a considerable skill. If you can't figure out why a single move is brilliant, you won't be able to find the entire line.
If stockfish tells you the entire line, and the opponent plays something that wasn't included in stockfish's line (because it's worse), you're also going to be at a loss.
After the fact, it'd probably be more obvious. Human players will typically avoid unnatural moves that require long sequences of perfect play before they pay off.
But top players are also the best qualified at cheating in a way that wouldn't raise suspicion. Many games are lost or drawn because of small mistakes or inaccuracies during the endgame. And playing a perfect endgame is not implausible at this level.
In a nutshell, computers do some things that are very unlikely for humans to do. A lot of the play is similar, but some things are outliers and high level chess players will notice the unusual style and high accuracy moves of a person assisted by a computer.
Generally, the biggest heuristic for identifying cheating is identifying somebodies moves share statistical similarity to the top moves of common engines (Especially stockfish). This doesn't really work after a single game, but anybody playing the top move of stockfish 90% of the time over 100 games is a cheater. Nobody that isn't cheating can do that. Cheaters are savvy though, they will notice in a position there are maybe 5 decent moves they can choose from, so for just that position they will choose stockfish's 5th choice. Or maybe they'll only check the engine at the most critical moments of the game and turn the engine off and play normally afterwards. Notice that the person being debated in this article is somebody with a history of cheating, the evidence they cheated in this specific game is likely not as good as the evidence they are just generally a cheater.
On top of this more empirical analysis, there's more subjective analysis. Humans tend to try to simplify games when they're ahead to reduce computational complexity, but computers don't do this as it's not a good strategy for a computer. Humans will tend to follow a narrative and follow a general idea throughout a game with ideas they calculated earlier in the game or in their preparation, whereas computers don't care about narratives and will completely switch plans on a dime. In the endgame the computer starts having a LOT of winning moves that it hasn't calculated to the end and can start making very offbeat choices, whereas humans tend to use a set of rote memorised strategies that are known wins. Again though, a skilled cheater realises all this and will choose weaker more human-like moves that are probably the engines 2nd or 3rd choice.
There's also metadata. Cheaters usually take a few seconds to think about a move that a human would make instantly (this came up in the article where it took the cheater 20 seconds to make their first move), they probably exhibit different browser/app interaction habits. Humans have all sorts of particularities about UI interaction and time management. A lot of people play blitz and bullet chess because cheaters struggle to cheat convincingly under time pressure.
At this level, players know all opening lines to some depth. The first move? I don't see how 20 seconds indicate anything other than a passage of time.
Maybe I overemphasized the first move because it was emphasized in the article, in general cheaters use their clock in weird ways throughout the game since for them pretty much any move is similarly complex. In this case the shoe operating cheating device raised the minimum time to make a move, which is a characteristic common to many forms of cheating.
The clearest example in modern play is a4 and h4 as white (eg early h4 vs the King's Indian Defense) or a5/h5 as black. These are now frequently played in various positions because since they were discovered a few years back by alphazero, they have been extensively examined and found to be good, but prior to that, no strong human would play them.
It would be very hard to detect a sophisticated cheater solely by examining their moves in a vacuum. They could pick moves that appear to be "human" e.g. moves that appear to be chosen based on the common heuristics that strong human players tend to rely upon, rather than moves based on very deep brute force calculations, where we could never match the strongest chess engines.
The giveaway is usually in the time required for each move. Humans will tend to spend varying amounts of time on each move, with significantly more time spent at critical moments in a game. A computer will pretty much spend the same amount of time for each move. But even here, a sophisticated cheater could disguise this side effect by only using computer assistance at critical moments.
[1] https://wismuth.com/elo/calculator.html#rating1=3546&rating2...
" I didn’t guess it, but by some miracle I checked this today, and it’s such a ridiculous miracle that I don’t even remember why I checked it. I just remembered 12…h6 and everything after this, and I’ve no idea why I would check such a ridiculous thing, but I checked it, and I even knew that 13…Be6! is just very good. It’s so ridiculous that I checked it. " https://chess24.com/en/read/news/sinquefield-cup-3-niemann-b...
There's no smoking gun to show laypeople like you and I but people familiar with the scene and its norms do find this to be a salient point of data against Hans.
However, people at the GM level also tend to have an ability to look at a position and remember what they were thinking at that point of time. They internalize lines in a way that is a branch of moves. So, in this case Be6! is such a sharp position that you would expect them to talk a bit through it because it takes a lot of prep.
Further, when they turned off Stockfish analysis, his analysis goes down sharply.
Further, he was banned from chess.com twice because he was cheating with an engine.
Further, when he was talking about a set of analysis, he made something up on the spot involving a match between Carlsen and GM Wesley So, and Wesley So said that what he had said was impossible for multiple reasons on another chess streamer's twitch.
It's a lot of little things that don't add up. It's like if you were in an interview and asking a developer to explain some code on their Github about ML, and they sounded like they didn't understand the basic principles of the model they coded. It doesn't mean they didn't write the code, but it casts suspicion.
Edit: For clarification, after losing to an obvious engine user, they used an engine themselves to strike back.
And no source will. I'm not sure why chess.com didn't make it public (by a notice on his profile that his account was suspended for Fair Play violations).
But yes, the only 2 entities that can definitively state that are:
1. chess.com
2. Hans himself
Not sure why chess.com won't, but Hans won't for obvious reasons.
Btw. the 24% chance of "winning" against a 200 Elo higher rated opponent refers to "winning a point" - it includes draws as well.
Restated, are sports specific ELO scores real? Alternatively phrased, does an X ELO score in one competitive endeavor represent the same relative strength as the same ELO in another subject?
I'm not sure about your Elo question but I think a 200 points difference should meant the same thing regardless of sport.
Yes and No.
Yes but in the long term. ELO is a self-fulfilling prophecy so if your ELO states you should win say 30% of the games vs a different ELO but you win 50% your ELO rises until you have an ELO that states you should win 50% of the games vs that ELO (at which point you lose the same amount of points in a loss as your wins so it stops rising. Previously you gained more points for a win than a loss so you gradually increased in rating).
No because not every sport starts ELO at the same baseline and not every sport league (i.e. Chess website) starts the base ELO at the same (i.e. Lichess starts everybody with 1500, Chess.com starts everybody with 1000). It's also a relative metrics amoungst active players (who indirectly/directly play each other) so if a GM 500 years ago reached an ELO of 2100 that doesn't mean they're the same strength of a current player with an ELO of 2100.
It's not just where they start - they actually use different rating systems, and neither of them is the actual Elo rating system. Chess.com uses Glicko and Lichess uses Glicko-2. This is also a big part of what makes comparing players from different player pools a bit meaningless.
What I think OP is asking is "If you used the same rating system in two different sports, would a 200 point difference mean the same thing?", for which I think the answer is "yes".
Well, I agree with your points but I'm not sure that is what OP is trying to do.
There is also the reverse side of the coin that top players peak at a rating and then decline as they age. Not saying Magnus is, but it is not a possibility that can be ruled out.
The reason a lot of older players are overrated is because they stop playing as often and their rating doesn’t catch up to their decline. Magnus plays a ton so that isn’t a concern.
For elite younger players, no matter how much they play, they are getting better so quickly that the rating can’t catch up.
Younger players also get better much much faster than older players decline. It might take a decade for a GM past their prime to drop 100 ELO, whereas a young player can easily add 100 ELO in a year on their way to super GM status.
Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCeJrItfQqw
I don't get it. HN seems to be always on the skeptical side when accusing anyone, here we're seeing people pile up on Hans without any evidence whatsoever.
The fact of the matter is, no one knows why Magnus quit.
It was, but for reasons having nothing to do with his analysis of the game. Stronger players like Hikaru have dismantled Hans' last two interviews pretty convincingly[1]. Those interviews and his history of being banned from chess.com seem to be driving the current speculation more than Hans' actual play.
The interview after Magnus was great because Hans was saying things like "He's just so demoralized because he's losing to an idiot like me. It must be embarrassing for the world champion to lose to me." People were excited to have a "Conor McGregor of chess", so to speak. That's it.
1. See short clips at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETzdxK7QUmg and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qTs-eFgLqc for example.
All I suggest is to stop this speculation, let's wait for evidence and if it is true, then fuck Hans. But at this point, I am just seeing a giant mob coming after him including on HN which is kind of appalling.
We need to be better including Hikaru Nakamura, he seems to be also doing it for the views. Hikaru's accusation or speculations have also been mocked on Twitter.
This just got posted by Gotham, absolutely level headed and facts based: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDUmS_MJceU
Who by? Other 2750+ players? If not, then who cares? Hikaru's analysis of the chess is correct. You can analyze the positions with an engine to confirm. I checked, since they had the engine off after the Alireza game.
For example Hans (with white) said: "I did not believe in this position for black. I just don't see any universe where this is holdable. ... Instinctively I'm like OK, what is this? There's just no way. There's zero chance." But Hikaru saw immediately that this was wrong and black was actually winning. Even Alejandro wasn't having it. Sure enough, Stockfish has black at better than +3.
This kind of thing happens over and over in the last two interviews. Hans' take on a position is wrong, or he rattles off a line that just loses. It's not proof of cheating, it's just, to go back to squidbeak's post, proof that he isn't "able to speak accurately and in depth in his post game interviews".
You need real evidence of cheating. What concerns me is that we won't know the truth as GothamChess said. I am onboard with condemning Hans in the strongest terms if he was caught cheating in OTB game, this just seems like the Boston Bombers vigilante mob doing pscyhoanalysis on reddit and twitter. Terrible.
Hans' interviews have been off. This isn't speculation. The positions are right there in the interviews, analyze them and see. Hans says zig and the analysis shows zag.
That's it. That's the whole conversation. Someone said the interviews were bad, you disagreed citing Levy and King, I explained what they (and I!) liked about the interviews and pointed out that the actual chess analysis was, in fact, bad.
Anyway, one small but important logical issue. When you say "the guy is just a few points below 2700", that's begging the question. Other people are arguing, in effect, that "Niemann's play can't be that good, his analysis is too bad", and your counter is "Niemann's analysis can't be that bad, his play is too good".
1. Example I gave elsewhere, now timestamped: https://youtu.be/ETzdxK7QUmg?t=145. Black is better than +3 here and Hans is saying it's completely lost.
Hikaru could have followed the game with an automatic engine evaluation, that would make it 'slightly' easier for him to '~immediately' evaluate the position with better precision.
You are comparing a tired guy answering the questions on the spot to a person who could have had all the computer help in the world (and they do when they are following live matches).
Like compare hans to alireza in their interviews. Hans clearly just has a worse understanding of the position he chose to go into.
I mean to me it feels less like cheating and more like just absolutely wild prep, hans played like a 3200 up to the midgame and then couldn't convert a winning position, but it's suspicious to have such completely insane prep, especially without clear compensation
The interviewer (Alejandro Ramirez, also a GM) asks Hans what happens if black takes the knight on c4, which didn't happen in the game but is the engine's best move. Hans says Bh6, starts down one line with g6, Bg5 (good moves) but backtracks the latter and blunders with f4, and says "At this point my pieces are literally perfect, his pieces are terrible" (Hans is -2). The position in the video is two moves later. By then white is completely lost, but Hans says black has no chance.
As for his 'blundering' in a live Q&A talk, that's not indicative at all, I have posted my reasoning in a sibling comment.
Specifically on this, I agree with you. Who knows if he's just nervous at giving interviews.
There are two answers to this question. One is obvious and is the subject of the article we're all responding to: Cheating. Some people think he's cheating.
The other is that nobody actually thinks Hans is terrible. Even if he cheated he's still at least a 2500-level player and perfectly capable of taking the odd game off of super GMs. Being very good and cheating aren't mutually exclusive possibilities.
> that's not indicative at all
The word you want is conclusive. The interviews are certainly indicative, but they're very far from conclusive.
No. The word I want is indicative, as in "Serving to indicate; Pointing out; bringing to notice; giving intimation or knowledge of something not visible or obvious".
Giving "imprecise" analysis at the Q&A session does not mean anything at all, and of course it can't be used as an evidence of any kind that a cheating took place.
I'm aware of an Indian player, Arjun Erigaisi [1], who made headlines for quickly climbing from 2600 to 2700+ over the last year (18-19 years of age), but he was a grandmaster before he turned 15, whereas Hans achieved everything (including the grandmaster title), in the past 2 years.
Hans, playing back, crushed Magnus in their first game. Then afterwards when an interviewer tried to interview him about the game he just said "The chess speaks for itself" and walked away.
A lot of commentators interpreted that as a bit of trash talk about Magnus, who convincingly won the remaining 3 games.
I don't see a cheater, I see someone who's been grinding for a while and finally popped off. Dunno if he can keep it up though, might be one of those miracle performances that he never recovers from (ex. Linsanity). He comes across as arrogant and a little affected (the hand flourishes, stylistic pauses), but I like him a lot better than Hikaru. Hoping he continues to see success and smooths out his interview performance over time.
If anything, I'm suspicious it's was a throw from Magnus, or at least subconsciously choosing when to relinquish the throne. This is the guy you want to see in the spotlight. He's interesting, confident, and puts his heart into the game.
If Hans were to score 1 point off Magnus in a 4 game match it would be far more likely to be be by drawing twice than by winning once.
HOW TO CATCH A CHESS CHEATER Ken Regan Finds Moves Out of Mind Chess Life, June 2014 https://cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/personal/JuneCLarticleKWR.pdf
1) Feet could be stimulated using electrical voltage (low level shocks).
2) Cheaters could put one foot on their knee and the system would only activate vibration when it was near a 90-degree rotation.
3) Cheaters could incorporate a vibration-damping polymer like sorbothane, probably a particularly low durometer to absorb vibrations between shoe insert and floor plate.
I believe the answer is going to have to be establishing a "secure" zone that can't be crossed by anyone without a full x-ray scan of all personal effects and mmWave scanners. If clothing blocks the mmWave scan, people would have to don lighter / more form-fitting clothing while going through the mmWave scanner, send their preferred clothes through the x-ray machine, and then swap into their desired clothes in a secure changing room/bathroom.
The main downside to this is increased cost; I'm not even sure how much this would cost to operate. And for which events would FIDE make this extra cost a requirement? Every FIDE rated event seems completely unreasonable - many of these are small local events with very little budget and lots of 1200 rated players. Perhaps any rated event which includes any of the top-10 players? Is there enough money at that level of chess to fund a requirement like this?
Still some potential for hiding cheating devices in relatively private areas like bathrooms, changing rooms, utility closets, or even "planting" large objects like potted plants/etc with hidden compartments. Most likely I'd imagine the player wouldn't grab these, they'd have someone they trust hide them in the weeks before the event and have a person retrieve these and then drop them in a secure bathroom stall/etc. These would be, for example, identical shoes to the ones they came in with.
Perhaps worth having players go through the scanners again right before they sit down at the table, including in the middle of the match if they take a bathroom break/etc. Maybe that would work, but I'm still concerned about the price -- that would need a separate analysis. How much money is available for each of these matches?
The stakes right now are pretty personal but if nations governments get involved in the cheating for reasons of national pride like they do for the Olympics[0] then I'm not sure anyone would be able to stop the cheating.
Another strategy might be to change the format of the top level of chess to "allow" cheating by giving everyone access to whatever engine they want, powered by identical hardware and watt-limited. So the competition would be "man+machine" vs "man+machine". There's been some chat about this but I'm not sure that matches wouldn't be so insanely even that you'd need 300+ games to build a reasonable confidence interval so that you can even determine which player "won". Currently the TCEC (highest level engine vs. engine championship) uses 22 games per matchup to determine a clear result. Even that would be excessive.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icarus_(2017_film)
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Chess_Engine_Championship#....
There's also no reason to expect the shoe form factor to be used repeatedly. One cheater was accused of morse code blinks, although he also had a camera on him [0]. When people talk about vibrating shoes there's always someone joking about a wireless buttplug instead, which would probably not show up in the mmWave scan (I don't know exactly what they look like but I doubt they have huge antennas sticking out). A Faraday cage would go a lot further for the price than airport style scanners IMO (and make every match a cage match, which makes chess sound way cooler), but it's probably still overkill.
[0] https://www.news.com.au/sport/sports-life/chess-players-extr...
PowerPlayChess covered the game, it was a magnificent performance but also not perfect: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n27zd_dVtFw
Those saying it he got banned on chess.com, it was total bullshit, here it is of how it happened live on Han's stream when he was an IM: https://livestreamfails.com/post/84343
More info here, if he was really cheating he would have been banned for life. It was a suspension for 60 mins: https://twitter.com/boomer_chess/status/1566872068922265606
Alireza was also banned on Chess.com for cheating but there was none. I don't think HN crowd realizes how easy it is to falsely get banned on Chess.com, don't assassinate someone's character based on that: https://www.chessdom.com/alireza-firouzja-was-banned-for-che...
if you do then pull something cool off legitimately, no one believes you.
Firouzja was 11 years old at the time of his ban and he was an unknown commodity at the time. He was quickly unbanned b/c it was revealed that he was just a kid developing very fast.
Hans' situation and Firouzja's situation are not the same.
At this point, I am just extremely skeptical of the narratives in chess. It is much like politics. No substance, all speculation. If I have to speculate, it would be that Hans is a weirdo and has no social skills, people are piling up on his atypical asshole-like personality.
If there is proof to any of this, we should condemn it. Cheating sucks. It is even more serious if Hans actually cheated in an OTB game, that would be a major violation of sportsmanship. It would be a career ending move.
"It is reasonably well established that Hans cheated online at some point."
[1] https://forum.killerchesstraining.com/t/paranoia-and-insanit...