Hacker News Reader

Comment by Andrew_nenakhov | Hacker News Reader

If someone makes a mistake at 16, is it a valid reason to ban a person for life?

Ok. If someone kills a person at 16. Should the killer be in prison for life?

Enough with the fiction that cheating is a mistake, or that a 16 year old smart enough to be a chess grandmaster is simultaneously so underdeveloped that they have not learned the consequences of cheating.

Your comparison with murder is ridiculous. First of all, teenage murderers are regularly sentenced to life in prison. A murderer is deprived of fundamental human liberties--Niemann is deprived of being able to compete at the highest competitive level in a tabletop board game, without suspicion.

He cheated online on a second rate chess site. Nobody has any explanations how he could do it over the board.

(Considering that people become more or less aware about their responsibilities and consequences of their actions at about 15 yo, he is now 4 times the responsible age he was at 16.)

> Nobody has any explanations how he could do it over the board.

If you believe this, its because you aren't looking. There's tons of explanations online of how it could be possible. Go look at /r/chess.

Tournament organizers and FIDE were pretty adamant that no cheating took place and that anti cheating measures were adequate.

To concede that cheating took place would mean that they had failed in their responsibility to stop it happening, and that somehow their method of detection only worked after the cheating was happening, rather than during or before.

For those two reasons, I think that any such "pretty adamant" statement can be discounted.

They said no evidence was found, not that no cheating took place. (After all, it would most likely be very hard to detect.) And the anti cheating measures were upped after Carlsen quit; therefore they were not adequate in the first place.

If you decide to twist their statement this way, two can play the game. How about this: "No evidence was found that Magnus Carlsen was cheating. It does not mean no cheating took place in his championship matches."

Does that seem fair or reasonable to you? Sure no man can be as good as Magnus, he is clearly cheating in some clear undetected way, right?

"random redditors say it!"

"nobody"

> First of all, teenage murderers are regularly sentenced to life in prison

Maybe in USA. In Europe some countries even have special sentences for young adults (older than 18 less than 21). Here's for Germany:

"The maximum penalty for any crime committed by a person under 18 (or a young adult under 21 who is treated as a juvenile) is 10 years"

Fagin here, wondering what crime a child could commit that would get millions of dollars in resultant profit ...

He wasn't GM at 16. He was awarded the GM title last year. Why make up stuff?

> If someone kills a person at 16. Should the killer be in prison for life?

If you murder somebody at 16, you shouldn't be a free man at 19. Three years is not enough time for somebody to mature and mellow.

People really start to mature and become aware of their responsibilities and consequences for their actions at 15. So 16 years old person has only about 1 year of adult life experience vs 4 years at 19.

I think your estimation is about 10 years too young.

Still, cheating at chess is not murdering someone!

And being banned from competitive chess is not an execution or lengthy imprisonment.

I believe that your position is utterly immoral and cruel. Everyone deserves a path to redemption, and a kid cheating at chess in his childhood does not deserve an eternal punishment for the rest of his life because of it.

Imagine if he is a generational talent and one of the best in the world, are you really ready to deprive him any future just because he did stupid things as a kid?

Some things matter so little that the penalties can be extremely high; for example, nobody needs to play chess so the penalty for cheating at chess can be a lifetime ban from sanctioned tournaments.

Is it entirely fair to the actually repentant? No. But does it keep out the false-repentant? Yes.

There were multiple examples of people from other online sports where former cheaters became world top players and important members of the community.

It is immoral to close every redemption path to a former sinner.

Repeat offender, he's admitted to cheating at age 12 and once again at age 16. Let's not cast this into something melodramatic like a "path to redemption", it is just chess after all, and the right decision is probably for him to be perma-banned, otherwise you're just going to end up with more and more of these types of situations.

Homie, come on.

I stole stuff at 12 and at 16. I shouldn't walk into a walmart now at 30 and be searched when I leave.

Just relax.

You're saying that (shouldn't walk into a Walmart and be searched) as it's a given. Doesn't sound that obvious to me. May be false, may be true, but regardless, it's definitely up for discussion.

What? You're barely making sense.

Read his comment again, he expressed himself clearly.

He's saying it should be OK to be searched when leaving a store??? What universe do they live in? It barely makes sense to me and I said so. It obviously is not clear. No one is searched when they leave stores. That's insane.

If you robbed from a store at 12 and again at 16, I wouldn't blame that store for banning you for life. If they want to give you some lenience and allow you in only if you agree to a patdown and search of your bags, then they're being more forgiving than I would be.

> No one is searched when they leave stores.

In fact there are stores which will ask to search your bags and check your receipts as you walk out the door, and may ban you if you refuse. You probably realize this and are feigning ignorance.

Anyway, what's really insane is the way you're bouncing around this thread giving so many people such low quality replies, like the one directly above where you try to gaslight karamanolev by falsely claiming their comment was unintelligible. It really seems like you have some undisclosed stake in this matter, because you're not being fair or civil to many of those you respond to.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32989622

>> You should perhaps actually engage with criticism and disagreement if you want to post here.

> Make me.

It is probably a mistake for me to respond to you at all.

> In fact there are stores which will ask to search your bags and check your receipts as you walk out the door, and may ban you if you refuse. You probably realize this and are feigning ignorance.

In the US, they can ask - but no one can force you to do anything.

I’m a level 2900 clepto grand master and I disagree

playing competitive Chess is a privilege, not a right like freedom. I'm totally fine with 0-tolerance, because the only penalty is you can't play in competitions. If you want to play chess with your mates, no one is going to stop you.

It's the dude's livelihood, though. There are laws about taking someone's tools if they owe a debt for similar reasons. I think it is a very similar thing.

I think there's little dispute that he's a very good chess player. He could perhaps earn a modest living as a chess tutor. That should be good enough, he's not entitled to riches.

After being publicly labeled as a cheater by the chess community, and having his name drug through the mud? Sure.

Then everyone will think his students are cheating when they perform well!

Obviously he wouldn't be able to charge top dollar.

His coach who confessed to cheating numerous times still charges out $250 p/h for lessons and has students so...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Lba8_wknSY

That's not a very strong argument. Lawyers have been disbarred before, doctors have had their license revoked.

If he's that smart, he should be more than capable of developing a number of other livelihoods - not the least of which could be coaching.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com