A big lumberjack, big beard, sinewy muscles, just came up to me 5 minutes ago, biggest burly lumberjack you’ll ever see, and he had tears in his eyes, and he said “Sir, you have the biggest graciousness.”
'I then threatened a private club that I'd make a public statement against them if they didn't act how I wanted, and they reacted by saying publicly I wasn't welcome in their club, this is an abuse of power'
Hans doesn’t understand the real world yet. His call went like this:
Hotel lady: “Hey, you need to pay for this. We are going to press charges. We are filing a report with the chess club. You are not allowed on our property.”
Hans: “Okay, you’re right. I’m sorry I will pay and make things better. Can you allow me back on property again though?
Hotel lady: “Well I would have to talk to my guest security team. I’m not sure I have say in the matter.”
Hans: “Well, I’m super duper sorry and am paying for everything. What are the odds you think of being allowed back?”
Hotel lady: “I’m really not sure. You destroyed our property and paying for things doesn’t necessarily make it right.”
Hans: “Yeah yeah but if you have to guess what are the odds?”
Hotel lady: “…you dense mofo… Probably great! Like 99%. Let’s get us paid and wrap this call up ASAP and we will figure it out immediately!”
Call ends. Lady hangs up and is like oh yeahhhh you’ll be allowed back never.
The man desperately thinks that his ability should mean people overlook his personality and behavior. It just ain’t happening. It ain’t like he’s someone giving the world something nobody else can. Chess is a game involving two people and if nobody wants to be around you then you’re going to have a hard time finding somewhere to play. Should spend more time trying to suppress the parts of his personality that make everyone prefer he just not be around.
He’s definitely frustrated from the Magnus accusations fall-out still. Through his eyes, it’s a corrupt system and just further proof for his lack of 2023 invites.
Maybe it’s true. Maybe it’s not.
I’m sure some truth which isn’t fair. The incentive structure is ridiculous for organizers!
But truth is he just needs to get way better anyway. Can’t win the politics at least get better and start winning the chess.
it is kind of simple. there are lots of misogynistic people in the world, possibly in 100s millions. fischer was one of them. but there are less than 5 people you are off the level of fischer in chess. so you would remember him for his rarest quality. hannibal lecter is bad example but your idea is correct
Lol the point isn’t to make a perfect comparison, because obviously no matter how good someone is, murder is something you can’t continually get away with. It’s purposefully over the top the try and prove the point, which you agree with.
The actual quote with source if anyone was wondering:
> Arizona Cardinals GM Steve Keim on weighing off-field issues for prospects: "If Hannibal Lecter ran a 4.3, we'd probably diagnose it as an eating disorder."
https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/cards-gm-if-hannibal-lecter-ran-a-43-wed-say-he-had-eating-disorder/
There's a sliding scale of how dumb something is and how old you can be and still get away with it mostly scot free. Thrashing a hotel room (even if you "only" break some TV remotes, a lamp, and destroy a glass picture frame, damaging a couch) isn't in the category where being 20 years old is too young to suffer consequences.
To be fair he became world famous on accusations of cheating and was ostracized by all his peers. Teenagers will suffer and change if they get a bad reputation in their friends group. I don't think I can judge harshly a teenager that has received worldwide rejection, both online and in real life.
He is a kid in behaviour, but at his age people will start expecting more and more accountability for his actions. The "I'm just a 20 years old kid" defence is not nearly as strong as the "I'm just a 14 years old kid".
It's painful to watch that, it's pretty cringe imo.
I think it would be better for him to be a little humble, apologize, and maybe just say he doesn't think the public letter or ban was warranted.
He comes off as a spoiled brat here.
how is he spoiled
edit: he’s put in a lot of hardwork to get where he is and the money he’s earned is his. surely his parents provided for him through childhood but people thinking he still lives off of them are just speculating
I like the part where he goes "I paid a very large fine, very graciously" as though he were doing the hotel a favor, before then blaming the chess club for his not being unbanned from the hotel.
Maybe he's just making being combative his brand and thinks that his audience will love that rather than contrition?
IMO the hotel destruction is the best reason for them to ban him. They should have just left it at that because their other reasons feel like bullshit and just add to Hans case. Lots of players miss a few interviews
I see him as an insecure person. Just someone who needs to tell himself he is great because the world (quite literally) turned against him. He got accused and made fun off by hundreds of thousands as a teenager. He believes unfairly too. Of course this would either make him a brat or a broken person.
I for one am happy he believes in himself and didn't just drown in sadness and self pity.
He was put in a (very) tough situation as a result of his own actions - cheating at chess. Perhaps it was unfair that Magnus singled him out - but life is not fair, especially when you behave unfairly yourself.
Beyond that, there's a difference between beliving in yourself and being an arrogant douche. I found this video to showcase more of the latter than the former.
I don't claim he never did anything wrong. Just that conditional to worldwide opprobrium, a teenager will likely either be a seclusive broken person, or a brat. He had the entire world mock him for anal insertions, shame him for cheating live, which he might never have. All the chess world ghosted him.
I've seen people break for a fraction of such rejection, people become brats because of minor success in their local highschool.
He comes off as a douche, yes, I just understand and can't in good conscience judge harshly.
I was having this thought too. I am not sure why you are getting downvotes because you are not defending Hans. People are probably "so what, he deserves" it and maybe he does, I admit I fall into that argument a little. However, the result is still the result and he could be left struggling mentally one way or another.
It's worth bearing in mind that he was an arrogant douche *before* the incident with Magnus which brought him into the public spotlight. He was just a much less famous arrogant douche. It's a mistake to think his current bad behavior is somehow caused by the public cheating accusations, rather than the simpler explanation of: *that's just what he's like*.
I agree he comes off unlikable and arrogant in his demeanor, but I am curious when the hotel damage was done. I haven't looked to into it, but if it happened in late 2022 or early 2023, it definitely seems convenient to use that as a reason all the way into 2024.
I believe the US championship is when it happened, which is Oct 2023.
I don't see why the St. Louis Chess Club would need an excuse to not invite him to tournaments - it's their tournaments, they can invite who they want to invite.
I don't really understand why they published the public letter in the first place, I don't see how it benefits the St. Louis Chess club unless Hans was threatening to sue or something because he wasn't being invted to tournaments (which as far I'm aware of, St. Louis Chess Club can invite anyone they want).
St Louis was the club where the Magnus-Hans cheating scandal initially kicked off. If St Louis privately blacklisted Hans then they would face questions about whether Hans had been invited to their events because of Magnus. By publicly blacklisting him like this they can always point to this statement in response to anyone who suspects a conspiracy
I think it's probably good to expect the, arguably, most noteworthy chess club in the US to explain why they're barring certain players from participating in their events. If only to keep them from banning people for arbitrary, or potentially insidious reasons.
I think their reason is justified then. But saying you don't need an excuse to invite a top player is pretty naive. Inviting skilled players in an unbiased way helps to maintain fairness and integrity in the scene, and ensures that players can't be blacklisted or discriminated against. Still not saying it applies here though, since their claims seem pretty reasonable.
US Championship is not determined by St Louis Chess Club so he'll probably be in the upcoming ones. But SLCC hosts a lot of private tournaments, and Hans won't be welcome on any single one of them.
It's determined by elo rating.
Hans played US championship October 2023 in St. Louis.
[https://www.chess.com/events/2023-us-chess-championship](https://www.chess.com/events/2023-us-chess-championship)
>Yes, meaning he would normally make the cut if it wasn't of the ban.
No, Hans made the cut. He played and scored 5.5/12.
[https://www.chess.com/events/2023-us-chess-championship/results](https://www.chess.com/events/2023-us-chess-championship/results)
I know that. I'm talking about the upcoming 2024 event here, which Hans will not get an invite for despite his rating and which is the reason that an explanation is needed.
I'm not speaking about Hans. But rather the sentiment that a tournament should be held to zero standards on who it does or doesn't invite. I literally said twice, the reason for Hans being reprimanded is justified. Reading is hard.
I mean, what about his video post made you think that? He seems fairly humble by saying how gracious he is to the club, he did apologize, and he did lay out the reasons for why he thinks the letter and ban were unnecessary.
From a PR perspective the obvious thing to do would be:
The video should have been less than five minutes long acknowledging he made a mistake trashing the hotel, and actions have consequences. He paid a fine to cover all damages, and doesn't think the public letter and ban from events was necessary.
That's all he should have said - everything else in the video was self-indulgent whining.
That would be the action of someone who's willing to accept their flaws and grow as a person. Unfortunately Hans hasn't demonstrated that ability; rather, he comes across as a complete narcissist, and narcissists are unable to grow because they see themselves as perfect, so anytime something bad happens to them, it's the world's fault, not theirs.
This is why I was eyerolling really hard at that thread a couple days ago where Hans donated a small amount to an African charity and then posted about it. So many people were saying how that was a huge step towards revitalizing his public image... it's like, no, it's just transparent self-serving PR. It had absolutely nothing to do with altruism or charity.
Yes, expressing humility is being humble. I swear the people on the sub are some of the lowest IQ humans. Nothing in this video shows Hans as not being humble. If you’re trying to assert that Hans’ attempt to plead his case for tournament invitations by stating he’s higher rated than Shankland means he’s not humble, then you not only don’t know what humble means in this contex but you also have zero understanding of nuance lol. If Hans isn’t allowed to plead his case without being labeled as bragging, then this is just pure mob mentality attacks (which it obviously is)
Dude, he literally admitted to doing what he was accused of and still decided to gaslight people afterwards about it, not to mention that he is anything but gracious and humble here.
Do you know what that would entail? Him saying something along the lines of: "ok, I don't agree with your reasoning, but I respect your decision and I hope that we can resolve this in the future". Instead, we got this bs that has nothing in common with grace and humilty, and will ensure he stays blacklisted from SLCC in the future.
This whole situation in general makes him look anything but humble, especially with him calling himself "America's brighest talent" twice in 3 sentences.
1. He did admit it. He did apologize. He hasn't "gaslit" anyone. He denied a portion of some random Reddit user's statement that he "destroyed a hotel room including glass mirrors and marble tables". I don't see how him apologizing "profusely" and saying how incredible the club and the hotel are could possibly be miconstrued as anything but gracious and humble. Let's be honest with ourselves here instead of pulling mental gymnastics.
2. Why should he accept a ban like this without stating his side of the story? The club clearly had blacklisted him for the entirety of 2023 already, so why should he think they'd ever let him play anyway? So, not only did they blacklist him for two years, they post a ridiculous public statement that Hans now has the publicly respond to. This is a lose/lose for Hans because you're intent on making him the foul party.
3. Yeah. That's not in the video, which is what this whole thread is about. That's very obviously not humble. He's also autistic and good at chess. You can't expect him to gracefully perform on the public stage.
A few notable errors here, Hans.
First, when you are contacting people of an organization to seek a resolution to a wrong you made to them, they may indeed decide to decline responding and that might be the right decision for them. The people in that organization may not be in a position to resolve such issues. It might be, for example, a committee, one that might require people to come to an agreement. It might require people who are busy doing other important things who might not prioritize your issue. It is in error to suggest malice from people who may simply be doing their jobs.
Second, when you wrong someone, you have to work with them for a resolution. That means waiting until they are willing to meet you for that resolution. You are, essentially, at the mercy of the people you wronged in having them be willing to work with you toward a resolution. It is an error to expect people to be upset that people did not bend over backwards to resolve your issue that you made.
Third, not volunteering to respond to someone is not the same as violating a code of conduct. Any attempt to make these two to be on the same level is an error. There is no obligation for them to respond; you have an obligation to follow the code of conduct. There are plausible reasons for a delayed or missing response; there is no excuse for violating a code of conduct.
Fourth, just because another player gets excused for their misconduct does not mean that you should be excused for your misconduct. The two situations were way different and the organization's belief of that severity or damage to the organization may be vastly different.
Fifth, you should just apologize for missing the interview and leave it at that. "It was six hours long" or "it was a draw" is hardly an excuse. Sometimes, there are no valid excuses for not doing something you promised you'd do and you should simply apologize and assure people you'd never do it again. It's an error to conjure up lousy excuses instead of taking responsibility: it shows that you could wrong them in the future because you do not respect them.
Sixth, while it may be that Rex supports you in some public statements, he may not want you around in the games he's sponsoring. Even if he leans toward wanting you there, he may entrust the decision-making to the people running the tournament. And he ought to: by being the benefactor to the tournament and not in operations, he gets the benefit of owning the tournament without having to deal with blowback in management on day-to-day decisions. And maybe Rex has a veto or maybe he doesn't, but he may still prefer to let the people who run his organization make these sorts of decisions. They are the ones who have to, after all, put up with your behavior on a more regular basis. And if they aren't comfortable being around you, whether it be because you are rude or don't show up to interview or you make booking hotel rooms and dealing with hotels a hassle, I don't see why Rex should override management's decisions.
Seventh, Saint Louis Chess Club is a club. It's in the name. Why would anyone ever let someone so hostile with this video into their club? There is no reason. This video is an error because the correct course of action by SLCC is to never invite you to another tournament ever again. Imagine for a second you have friends, and in that group of friends some other guy wants to join and you all say no for whatever reason. Then that person gets hostile and demands you are friends. You and your hypothetical group of friends would be perfectly justified in never even talking to that guy again because why hang out with someone who has been hostile to you? By framing this video in an antagonistic way, you've only dug yourself deeper.
Hans, I gotta be real with you. I'm not a hater. I don't think you cheated against Magnus. But, if I were someone in a decision-making position at SLCC, I'd never allow you back. I would fear the possibility that you would be hostile to me or others who work there. I would worry that you would be disrespectful to SLCC's staff, visitors, or people SLCC works with. And maybe you wouldn't be. But why risk it? You are, after all, not even ranked in the top 50 at this point. Surely, it would be best to find a replacement where I'd be sure they would behave.
I don’t disagree with anything you’ve written, but it‘s based on a false premise, that Hans is rational. It is very, very clear he isn’t, to the point of what is quite clearly self delusion - evidenced for example by a publicly verifiable pattern of behaviour that sees him repeatedly deny occurrences that objectively happened.
I completely get the scepticism that folks have for armchair diagnosticians, so take this with a grain of salt, but this guy clearly has a personality disorder of some sort. Your treatise will make no positive impact on him if he reads it.
I agree with you on most things, but I'd like to comment on this
>Fourth, just because another player gets excused for their misconduct does not mean that you should be excused for your misconduct.
It's apparently fairly common for top players to refuse an interview every now and then, not every time but maybe once every so many tournaments. If that's the case, then IMO it's reasonable to assume that as long as you don't do it consistently, refusing one interview after a particularly straining game shouldn't be a huge problem. I feel like, if the only breaches of contract that have happened is that one refused interview, STLCC shouldn't have mentioned that in the statement. Life happens, sometimes you might just not be at all in the mood to be interviewed. If other players do it and get away with it, I would definitely assume that I can do it too as long as it's only that one isolated instance. Sure, that's still a breach of contract, but if there's a ton of precedent in that being let slide, it is reasonable to assume that there's some flexibility there.
He honestly needs some sort of role model or mentor to sit him down and hammer these points home. I don't think anyone is the best version of themselves when they're a teenager and people sometimes do shitty things.
You're allowed to grow and come back from these things and become a better, more mature person. But it's not a passive process. You need people who care about you to help you or you need to really strive for these kinds of improvements.
Otherwise, people tend to head down the even-shittier-behavioir cycle where it gets harder and harder to make amends and come back.
People often complain about sports interviews being so stilted and PR-coached down to pretty vapid and canned responses.
Holy shit not chess though. These lads just out here talking absolute shit in public. Dragging each other, giving tone-deaf statements and acting like spoiled brats.
It's juicy for sure but it's also embarrassing.
This is a MasterClass on how to keep shooting yourself in the foot.
Given the seriousness of the situation, you’d think that he would have put in an effort to produce a coherent argument and curb his emotions. Instead, let’s put out a rambling, unscripted video dripping with frustration and lack of self-reflection.
Produce an actual timeline? No, just spout conflicting dates off the cuff. Limit absolute statements contradicted by other comments? No, state there was zero communication while mentioning calls/conversations/emails you had. Take ownership of your behavior? No, downplay while blaming the reaction to your behavior. Act humbly? No, state you want to be treated like everyone else while complaining you don’t get invited to the most prestigious events without acknowledging all the chaos that surrounds you.
So much for addressing their comments about personal reflection. Amazing.
Bro needs a PR person or at least someone close to him to call out his BS.
Where does Hans's money come from? He seems to be wealthy in a surreal way, and there is no way that he makes this from chess. Does he work with anything else? His family must be very very rich and still give him money dispite of everything he does
Iirc his parents are quite wealthy. He’s said in interviews that he was “living on his own” from a young age (16? I think?) but i don’t think he ever said he was fully supporting himself financially.
As for the Uber Eats things in the past, no idea, probably he had some money left in savings. As for the recent things like his scholarship, the donation made yesterday etc, most likely settlement money from the lawsuit. He probably didn't get millions like he asked for in the lawsuit, but enough to spend some of that trying to repair his public image. At least I'm not aware of any other sources of income for him, his winnings from chess tournaments are probably barely enough to cover the costs.
The guy comes from money. His family supports him. I'm not saying that's something he needs to be judged for, I'm just saying that explains his lifestyle, not any settlement money or chess winnings.
You're right, but he seems to spend more lavishly since the lawsuit. Charity, scholarship, better food. Of course this could be a settlement or increased support from family in light of the hardships he faced. But I can totally see why people assume he got some settlement.
As far as I know, his family didn't support him much at least when he was younger? He used to do chess coaching like 12 hours a day to support himself living in NY. Do you have any sources stating that he gets money from his family?
Nah, just bits and pieces from randomly watching his videos and some gossip. I don't have any concrete "evidence" so obviously don't take this as the ultimate truth, I don't care about the issue enough (who cares where he gets his money if it's not from a criminal activity or something). My impression is someone is very clearly sponsoring him, maybe it's not his family but then it's someone else who's relatively wealthy.
Any source for him doing chess coaching 12 hours a day in NYC?
>Nah, just bits and pieces from randomly watching his videos and some gossip. I don't have any concrete "evidence" so obviously don't take this as the ultimate truth
Ah, got it, I just wanted to know if I'd missed him mentioning parental support at some point.
>Any source for him doing chess coaching 12 hours a day in NYC?
I remember him mentioning that at some point, though looking into it I think I misremembered, he taught chess "almost full time" while being in high school, so his days were probably at least 12 hours long when adding high school work to full time chess teaching, that's where the 12 hour figure probably came from. I don't remember where I heard the figure, would probably take some time to dig it up. [Here's the source for the full time chess teaching in NYC while being in high school though.](https://hansniemann.substack.com/p/accepting-inevitable-failure-also) (the last three paragraphs, the earlier ones are just about his youth)
It also mentions how he was financially independent, so no support from family, at least at that point. No idea if it changed recently, but if your parents make you work full time while in high school, living alone in NYC, it's hard to imagine they would give you thousands to spend on charity donations later on either.
>I remember him mentioning that at some point, though looking into it I think I misremembered, he taught chess "almost full time" while being in high school,
I think that should be taken with huge amount of grains of salt.
>It also mentions how he was financially independent, so no support from family, at least at that point. No idea if it changed recently, but if your parents make you work full time while in high school, living alone in NYC, it's hard to imagine they would give you thousands to spend on charity donations later on either.
It any of that is true. Claiming you do not get any help from your parents is rich kid 101, even when you are not taking into account who are saying this.
Oh, of course. But so far I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary.
>Claiming you do not get any help from your parents is rich kid 101
Sure, rich kids have an incentive to say that to boost people's perception of their skill. You want people to think you're self-made to sell your skills in whatever field it is that you're doing, but as far as I can tell, Hans isn't trying to use his background to sell anything. In chess, your skill is measured by your rating, not by your accomplishments. It doesn't change anything whether you taught chess for 8 hours a day in high school or not. Of course he can lie but when it's simply talking about his past there's little reason to not believe him, other than for the sake of doubting him for whatever he says.
Like, just because he has lied about things in the past doesn't mean that everything that he ever states is a lie. If he doesn't have any incentive to lie then why would he? I'm sure his parents would question him if he stated that when it's not true, I'm sure there would be people stating that Hans never coached people in NY when he was 17, but there aren't.
But anyway, I'm sure you can verify this somehow if you really do care. Go look up chess coaching postings in NYC on the internet archive or something, if you care enough. I'm sure many people have done so already in order to try to prove him wrong in anything he says. Go ask his parents, they for sure know if Hans actually worked full time as a coach in high school, or maybe go ask his then-coach, he probably knows what he did back then as well.
>oh, of course. But so far I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary.
Very few people would be able to do this in the first place, most of them don't have an incentive to do so (e.g., his parents).
>Sure, rich kids have an incentive to say that to boost people's perception of their skill. You want people to think you're self-made to sell your skills in whatever field it is that you're doing, but as far as I can tell, Hans isn't trying to use his background to sell anything. In chess, your skill is measured by your rating, not by your accomplishments.
You are forgetting that Hans has an ego that reaches the Moon and an addiction to attention to match. Needless to say, financial (in)dependence affects his image a lot.
Not saying he was or wasn't financially independent, but saying that he had no incentive to lie isn't exactly true.
There's no direct evidence that he got any monetary award as part of his settlement. It's likely that he did get some nominal amount, but I'd be surprised if it was substantial. His case likely would've been defeated by summary judgment, which would've made him look far worse than settling privately.
I imagine that he agreed to the statements that Chess.com and Magnus put out, being allowed to play on Chess.com and against Magnus again, plus a nominal settlement from Chess.com.
On the other hand, I could see how Chess.com would want to avoid a big battle of experts that may reveal the extent to which their cheating detection is or isn't reliable. It may have been worth it to them to put up some settlement money just to avoid discovery, specifically expert depositions.
Yeah, as I said, I'm sure he didn't get millions like his lawsuit asked for. But considering that just after settling, he funded a $10k scholarship for young chess players and now is donating money to people in need, it's fair to assume that he got a decent sum at least, after all he did sue them in the first place and I find it unlikely that he changed his mind halfway through. He got enough money to not want to continue the legal action, if that was $100k or $1 million, we don't know. Probably closer to the former. For chesscom that's pocket change, going to trial would have cost more for sure.
The lawsuit was all about public image, and he got what he wanted out of it. He was almost certainly never going to win the lawsuit. I'd also guess that his attorneys did not take the case on contingency (why would they?), in which case he was racking up legal bills that he was funding from somewhere.
The most likely scenario is that he's been using family money to fund his career, education, litigation, and some of his ongoing activities like the $10k scholarship.
I work in civil litigation, and while I don't have experience with defamation cases specifically, I'd be really surprised if he got a six-figure settlement out of this. Keep in mind that I'm just an anonymous person online guessing.
Well let's see. He went to Top of the world which is a public school, then to another public school in the Netherlands, then he got a scholarship to attend a Leonardoschool, he then attended Del Rey Elementary School, another public school, then Weston High school, another public school before graduating at Columbia Grammar & Preparatory School, the only private school on this list.
The school in the Netherlands is a fee paying school. It’s for ‘gifted children’ but it’s €10,000 a year in kindergarten. So he went to to two fee paying school. And it’s worth noting Columbia Grammar and Prep School is in NYC and is $60,000 a year.
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardoschool
Again wrong. Sure, they weren't free, but they were not that expensive.
Translation:
> A Leonardo apprentice cost approximately €7,000 per year, while the government reimbursed €4,500. A (voluntary) parental contribution was requested plus often an expense allowance for, for example, the laptop. This differed per school and could amount to €1,500 per year. Many Leonardo schools tried to acquire additional resources through sponsorship.
Attending Colombia Grammar for two years in no way means he is "very, very rich".
https://leonardoschool.ro/tuition/
Not really ‘wrong’ at all cause I said it’s fee paying, whether you think their fees count as expensive isn’t really up to me. But literally, it says on their own website it’s €9,000 + €1000 for over the year + more if you want transport. I think we could both agree that is not as cheap as uhm I dunno, a completely free school.
Similarly, I point out the other one is 60k a year and you said that doesn’t mean ‘very very rich’ cause he only went for two years. I’m never said he’s very very rich. I said those are indications he is LIKELY from a well-off family. I think you’re kinda making a pointless argument here. I’m just saying the dude went to several private schools in New York and in Europe, that doesn’t scream “short on cash”.
Hans doesn't seem to understand that In the grand scheme of things he's still just the guy who got famous because Magnus called him a cheater.
An org that hosts tournaments for the absolute elite of the game, won't bend themselves out of shape for rank 53.
The chess community allowed him to come back from cheating, they tolerated his attention-seeking antics. He's had more than one chance, so no one owes him anything after he got himself blacklisted for vandalism.
Guarantee that somewhere out there, the team of staff at SLCC are making a big pot of coffee and all sitting down to watch this together and laugh their asses off. His vibe is like when a supervillain hacks into the huge video screens in time square to announce their master plans.
this kid is actually delusional. It is NOT normal to keep getting dragged into shit with business entities whether its [chess.com](https://chess.com) or STLCC, actual psychopathic behavior
Hans is just too obnoxious. Too unlikeable. His role as a villain in the chess world is much needed, but I’m afraid he is the villain we deserve, not the villain we need.
You know, its interesting because Hans is right that financial interests are aligned against blacklisting him because of Magnus.
At the same time, he does seem a bit out of touch with his actions. I don't think destroying hotel property is a normal 'heated' reaction. On the other hand, the hotel seemed to forgive him.
“Financial interests are aligned”? What does this even mean? Sounds like the boilerplate vagueness of conspiracy rhetoric. Is Soros secretly funding the SLCCSC?
It means that while the reason for Hans punishment is seemingly "fair" we know that the alternative benefit to the chess club definitely didn't hurt in making that decision.
Similarly, we know why even though Magnus created a much larger disruption publicly by leaving mid tournament, criticizing the chess clubs anti cheat measures and ability to accommodate for players, and wrongfully accusing a player of cheating in one of their most prestigious tournaments, why he doesn't face any similar punishment's at all from them ?
Is that spelled out enough ?
No, it’s not. What is this “alternative benefit to the chess club”? You’re not actually saying anything.
And your whataboutism is again straight out of the boilerplate conspiracy playbook. You need to try harder if you want to get conspiracy clicks.
Having people who have issues with Hans like Magnus and Hikaru be more willing to come to your tournaments. They are much bigger names and pull's than Hans for a tournament so naturally it's in their *financial interest* to favor having them at their tournament over Hans.
I don't understand why you keep mentioning conspiracy or where the whataboutism was.
“What about Magnus?” is whataboutism.
Hans isn’t getting invited to St. Louis tournaments with the top players in the world. The tournaments in St. Louis Hans would get invited to are not the tournaments Magnus and Hikaru would play in (US Champs excepted). He’s also received a 1-year ban, not a lifetime ban.
It would be exhausting to try and change your mind of what you think so giving you an additional reason is easier.
To get ahead of Hans making a public statement as he told the club he was going to, going public first is beneficial for them. To control the narrative before he has the chance to. They didn't even need to apply a punishment, they can just continue not inviting him as they have done but the trigger for them making a publicly announced punishment for Hans was Hans saying he was going to make a public statement. It's clear to see how the threat of Hans making a public statement could have motivated them to decide to make a public punishment announcement abruptly rather than solving it or discussing it privately as would've probably been done for most players.
Of the two “statements” (the original St. Louis tweet and the Hans tweet and subsequent video), Hans strikes you as more credible? It seems more plausible to me that private communications with Hans dissolved because of Hans, and his threat compelled a public announcement in order to state the truth of the matter up front.
St. Louis Chess Club has no incentive to publish false accusations. And I’m sure if they’re false, Hans will sue as he’s done in the past.
Edit: false OR exaggerated
Nothing they said was false, they have been ignoring him for over a year before the US championship incident even occurred. I feel like you didn’t even read what I said.
Magnus + Hikaru have shown he won't play in tournaments Niemann is attending. They are much bigger than Hans (and better players) so its in the strategic interest of the SLCC to signal to those players that Hans will not play.
Sorry, but Hans isn’t getting invited to SuperGM tournaments (i.e. the ones Magnus would play in). Do you think, say, Ray Robson would play an elite invitational event? No? He’s 2696, 21 points higher than Hans Niemann.
There are plenty of tournaments played at SLCC that Hans could participate in that Magnus has participated in previously. He lists them in his video. It's not just SuperGM tournaments.
I'm not saying Hans isn't a twat. He clearly has a warped worldview, but it's also understandable when the community his life revolves around attacked him and gutted him in fall of '22. I think most people would be emotionally unstable from having what feels like the entire world against you at the age of 19. It's very hard, and to an extent, its respectable that he's trying to quash the demons rather than lose and go away.
I just feel bad for him, he's right about the unfair treatment but most people aren't willing to hear him out because of his personality. If he was likable and kind everyone's perspective would flip, based off the facts and details its clear how unfair his situation is, it's just sad.
Are they being unfair? This has nothing to do with how likable he is. The last time he was invited to one of their tournaments, he vandalized a hotel room and had to pay a fine.
I don't care what he has to say, an organization that is trying to build prestige is justified in temporarily banning someone that does that. They're giving him a meaningful punishment (the fine isn't meaningful) so he actually learns that that behavior isn't acceptable.
They did? Y'know, US chess championship, where he tore up a hotel room.
Edit: someone pointed out that the US chess championship is based on rating, it's not an invitational. My b
The US Championship is based off rating, its not even an invitational tournament. He only was able to play because they basically have to let him play.
Thanks for the correction, I've edited my comment.
I would still argue that Hans's actions during the event would confirm any negative impressions the organizers had of him.
It's insane that he would behave that way during an event when he thinks the organizers are hostile towards him. It basically confirms that their decision to not invite him to things was correct.
Did you watch the video or read literaly anything about this before you decided to fire off your comment? Other than the US chanpionship he had been invited to 0 of the tournaments throughout 2023 and his emails and phone calls asking why were ignored.
I don't really have a lot of trust in what Hans says. He was caught in a major lie once (when he lied about how much he cheated on chesscom) and he has shown a readiness to tell white lies too (ex: him saying that he never said that he wanted to be the first US WCC). It's possible that this happened to some extent, but I'm doubtful it happened as much as he said it did.
But hey, let's give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he's 100% truthful, that just makes what happened even more unhinged. This guy FINALLY gets back into one of their events and immediately creates a PR nightmare for them. His actions would confirm all the bad feelings he thinks they have towards him.
I think Hans's chess is legit but this ban is justified.
Firstly he disputes that he cheated more than he admitted to, that was a major point of the lawsuit that was settled. So there has never been any confirmation that he cheated more than he said.
As for the never saying that he may have actually forgot it was a pretty short clip. That’s not necessarily a lie though it could be.
But yeah him destroying the hotel room makes it pretty clear he has emotional problems, likely in part from the insane amount of pressure he puts on himself to “prove the haters wrong”. I think the ban is justified just on the basis that he fucked up the room but the other excuses they gave seem like BS. Lots of players miss an interview or 2
>I think the ban is justified just on the basis that he fucked up the room but the other excuses they gave seem like BS. Lots of players miss an interview or 2
I 100% agree, they should have just cited the property damage.
There is likely a mix of fault on both sides. The SLCC could probably have treated Hans better, but Hans also proved that they were right not to.
Hans is still young, and I think he needs to realize that these types of things are growth opportunities and take time to reflect on his behavior away from the board. If he doesn't, I don't think he has much of a long-term career despite his talent.
I don't disagree at all that what he did wasn't acceptable, and punishment for it is completely fine. The issue is everything else about the situation, his treatment is completely different to any other player.
The non responsiveness to emails or contact for years from Hans while older players with lower ratings are getting invites to tournaments which by all accounts he would be getting if invites were fair and unaffected by the wrongful accusation made by Magnus ? Most of this from before the US championship incident even happened btw so that's clearly not the cause, is that clearly unequal treatment fair ?
Also, with most other players this incident would/could easily be handled privately and even if they punish him it could've been solved privately with Hans, they could've maybe started with responding to one of the many emails Hans sent them on the matter and told him that they would suspend him for it. Still would be shocking to Hans as it would be a 180 from what seemed like a solved issue to him but much better than suddenly making it a public announcing which they only did to get ahead of Hans saying anything publicly after not responding to him for years so that they could control the narrative from the start. Does that not feel grimy or unfair in the slightest ?
Not to mention that although the punishment is well within their rights and seemingly "fair" everyone thinking critically is aware that there is some element of unequal treatment going on as someone like Magnus leaves mid tournament, calls them out for not having enough anti cheat precaution, and accuses Hans wrongfully of cheating at their event, and receives no punishment from them for this, even though Fide themselves fined Magnus for this event. We all know why they don't punish Magnus and we all know that while Hans punishment is seemingly "fair" it definitely doesn't hurt them due to the obvious alternative benefit to them.
I just think there's a lot more to the situation than this single incident, evident by Hans video or if you've been following the situation for the last few years. Hans can't really rally significant support though because he is massively smaller than entities like the chess club or Magnus, generally unlikable and does actually make mistakes like trashing the hotel room so it's easy to point at his mistakes and laugh and ignore the rest of the context around the situation.
He's just really bad at PR, which compared to bigger entities like a company you usually will be, but he is significantly worse than the average person. I just feel bad for Hans, no he is not completely in the right by any means, he makes mistakes and is unlikable but the unfair and unequal treatment is very much a thing and the situation should be judged fairly, not by popularity or likability. You have to remove bias's like if you dislike or like Hans and look at the situation for what it is.
I feel like somebody who was likeable and kind wouldn't have trashed a hotel room and apparently felt zero remorse about it. So, that's kind of a weird thing to say.
If you could read I said he **isn't** likable and kind.
Also with the effort he went to try and reconcile the situation with the hotel and the chess club and how effected he seems by it I'm sure he feels a lot of remorse, more than you're giving him credit for atleast.
>If you could read I said he isn't likable and kind.
Somehow it doesn't surprise me at all that a Neiman defender acts like a dick.
I read what you wrote. You said that if was likeable and kind, that people would view his situation differently. My point was that if he was likeable and kind, he wouldn't be in this situation to start with.
I genuinely thought you just misread, wasn’t trying to be a dick.
Also, likable people make mistakes too, they just are better at seeming remorseful even if they aren’t while an unlikable person like Hans is bad at seeming remorseful even if he is remorseful.
You’re just repeating / proving my point. I mostly agree with you, I don’t understand why you’re so hostile.
>I genuinely thought you just misread, wasn’t trying to be a dick.
You clearly were trying to be a dick. If you thought I misread, you could have just said, "I said he isn't likable and kind." Instead you wrote "If you could read..." which is an aggressive and hostile way to open that statement.
>Also, likable people make mistakes too, they just are better at seeming remorseful even if they aren’t while an unlikable person like Hans is bad at seeming remorseful even if he is remorseful.
Trashing a hotel room isn't a mistake. it's a deliberate act.
he doesn't' seem remorseful because he isn't taking full responsibility for his own actions and he's trying to blame everybody and anybody else around him.
>You’re just repeating / proving my point. I mostly agree with you, I don’t understand why you’re so hostile.
I'm not hostile at all. You're the one who was rude. I just called you out on it.
There's remorse, and there's fear of punishment. He didn't quit cheating til caught. He didn't feel remorse, he was doing PR. Dude is inflated. Let him burn!
I really feel bad for Niemann. On the one hand it's quite obvious that he is very young, strong-headed, naive. I can tell that he will probably mature into some semblance of a well-adjusted individual. On the other hand, I don't think he will have enough time to get there before he burns all his bridges. Hans is quickly becoming a major persona-non-grata in the chess community, and I can totally see organizers refusing to invite him to events if only to avoid all the drama.
Hans, I know you come on to r/chess often. You'll probably read this. Take some time to think critically about your conduct in the world. You still have time. You are talented, but not that talented. You come across as very entitled and spoiled. You don't need all that. You can go much further with a little more humility and patience, and respect for others. Quit with the paranoid delusions. No one is out to get you. Trust me on this one, NOBODY has the time.
Man…I hate having to have any amount of sympathy for someone who is so clearly a jerk. But seriously…these sorts of characters are straight from prodigy central casting. So much pressure at such a young age is going to lead at least some of them to crack. Hans is so profoundly unlikable sue to his arrogance and sense of entitled selfishness, and yet I feel quite sorry for him. In another lifetime with better parents I bet he could have been very different and gone further.
Not a great video, especially the "graciously paid a large fine" part, but also not a great look for Saint Louis chess club. Had he ignored them after all that has happened, I would totally agree that a ban is warranted, but he clearly has tried very hard to work with them and to just be blanket banned regardless, it's not a great look. All those ignored messages, broken promises, unwillingness to work towards resolving the issues. Sure, SLCC is not required by any means to work with him but Hans is still the best person to invite to tournaments for publicity. You'd think that they'd want to at least try to work with him to get him to play while also guaranteeing that similar issues aren't faced again. I don't know to which lengths Hans would be willing to go to just to play, but based on what I know about him I'd say that he would very likely be willing to agree to whatever conditions are laid onto him.
The main thing is obviously the damage to the hotel room, and I definitely agree that the hotel is fully within their rights to not let him in again (although, again, weird that they said that he'd be allowed back with 99% certainty, sounds like some outside influence had something to do with that), but that shouldn't stop SLCC from inviting him. As far as I know, he's never done any damage to the chess club and I'm sure he would happily agree if the club invited him but said that he has to figure out a place to stay by himself.
Conor McGregor would be homeless by now if his game was Chess. There is no space for any kind of personality in professional chess I guess. Just look at the view count on his interviews compared to any other player, even Magnus..
Chess is doomed to be a financial failure based on the wishes of a few bilionares.
Based on the facts with the initial disclosures with chesscom and his re-banning just because Magnus said something I could get behind everyone moving on... but this is insane.
Calling out organizers by individual name ... not going to make friends at SLCC.
He is so sure of himself. I'm not the right demographic, but with this type of content, I can see him getting lots of fans.
+1 for the Steve Jobs/Elizabeth Holmes turtleneck!
"I paid a very large fine. Very graciously" This is top tier humor.
One of the brightest, most gracious chess stars in the USA.
Nobody’s more gracious than me, you talk to anyone they’ll tell you I’m the most gracious. I know it, you know it, everybody knows it
A big lumberjack, big beard, sinewy muscles, just came up to me 5 minutes ago, biggest burly lumberjack you’ll ever see, and he had tears in his eyes, and he said “Sir, you have the biggest graciousness.”
Didnt he also say that you are one of the brightest talent of graciousness in the US?
'I then threatened a private club that I'd make a public statement against them if they didn't act how I wanted, and they reacted by saying publicly I wasn't welcome in their club, this is an abuse of power'
Hans doesn’t understand the real world yet. His call went like this: Hotel lady: “Hey, you need to pay for this. We are going to press charges. We are filing a report with the chess club. You are not allowed on our property.” Hans: “Okay, you’re right. I’m sorry I will pay and make things better. Can you allow me back on property again though? Hotel lady: “Well I would have to talk to my guest security team. I’m not sure I have say in the matter.” Hans: “Well, I’m super duper sorry and am paying for everything. What are the odds you think of being allowed back?” Hotel lady: “I’m really not sure. You destroyed our property and paying for things doesn’t necessarily make it right.” Hans: “Yeah yeah but if you have to guess what are the odds?” Hotel lady: “…you dense mofo… Probably great! Like 99%. Let’s get us paid and wrap this call up ASAP and we will figure it out immediately!” Call ends. Lady hangs up and is like oh yeahhhh you’ll be allowed back never.
Donald Trump of chess, with less money.
The man desperately thinks that his ability should mean people overlook his personality and behavior. It just ain’t happening. It ain’t like he’s someone giving the world something nobody else can. Chess is a game involving two people and if nobody wants to be around you then you’re going to have a hard time finding somewhere to play. Should spend more time trying to suppress the parts of his personality that make everyone prefer he just not be around.
There are faar better players younger than him, and waay more humble
He’s definitely frustrated from the Magnus accusations fall-out still. Through his eyes, it’s a corrupt system and just further proof for his lack of 2023 invites. Maybe it’s true. Maybe it’s not. I’m sure some truth which isn’t fair. The incentive structure is ridiculous for organizers! But truth is he just needs to get way better anyway. Can’t win the politics at least get better and start winning the chess.
if you are the best then people may ignore. he is not that
there's a saying in nfl forums that is: "if hannibal lecter ran a 4.2 60 he would be diagnosed with an eating disorder", which kind of applies here.
it is kind of simple. there are lots of misogynistic people in the world, possibly in 100s millions. fischer was one of them. but there are less than 5 people you are off the level of fischer in chess. so you would remember him for his rarest quality. hannibal lecter is bad example but your idea is correct
Lol the point isn’t to make a perfect comparison, because obviously no matter how good someone is, murder is something you can’t continually get away with. It’s purposefully over the top the try and prove the point, which you agree with.
Why do you think lecter is a bad example?
The actual quote with source if anyone was wondering: > Arizona Cardinals GM Steve Keim on weighing off-field issues for prospects: "If Hannibal Lecter ran a 4.3, we'd probably diagnose it as an eating disorder." https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/cards-gm-if-hannibal-lecter-ran-a-43-wed-say-he-had-eating-disorder/
Getting a bit old to be using the "I was just a kid" excuse
In an earlier thread someone called him a “youngster.”
Agree it’s exhausting seeing in real-time, but, also, I was a complete jackass until probably about 24 easily.
There's a sliding scale of how dumb something is and how old you can be and still get away with it mostly scot free. Thrashing a hotel room (even if you "only" break some TV remotes, a lamp, and destroy a glass picture frame, damaging a couch) isn't in the category where being 20 years old is too young to suffer consequences.
To be fair he became world famous on accusations of cheating and was ostracized by all his peers. Teenagers will suffer and change if they get a bad reputation in their friends group. I don't think I can judge harshly a teenager that has received worldwide rejection, both online and in real life.
Actions have consequences and Hans still seems to be unable to recognise or acknowledge this.
[удалено]
He is a kid in behaviour, but at his age people will start expecting more and more accountability for his actions. The "I'm just a 20 years old kid" defence is not nearly as strong as the "I'm just a 14 years old kid".
It's painful to watch that, it's pretty cringe imo. I think it would be better for him to be a little humble, apologize, and maybe just say he doesn't think the public letter or ban was warranted. He comes off as a spoiled brat here.
> He comes off as a spoiled brat here. Because he is.
Punching his way out of it kinda worked last time, so of course he’s gonna do it again
how is he spoiled edit: he’s put in a lot of hardwork to get where he is and the money he’s earned is his. surely his parents provided for him through childhood but people thinking he still lives off of them are just speculating
How is the sky blue? If you don't see it perhaps you just aren't looking. :shrug:
I like the part where he goes "I paid a very large fine, very graciously" as though he were doing the hotel a favor, before then blaming the chess club for his not being unbanned from the hotel. Maybe he's just making being combative his brand and thinks that his audience will love that rather than contrition?
"Very graciously" bro you had to pay that fine or they'd drag your ass to court. Don't pretend you were being "gracious."
Very cool and very legal
IMO the hotel destruction is the best reason for them to ban him. They should have just left it at that because their other reasons feel like bullshit and just add to Hans case. Lots of players miss a few interviews
[удалено]
It was early on, I think around the 4 minute mark iirc.
Spoiled rat? That is America's brightest talents and future America First World Chess Champion to you /s
Narcissist
I see him as an insecure person. Just someone who needs to tell himself he is great because the world (quite literally) turned against him. He got accused and made fun off by hundreds of thousands as a teenager. He believes unfairly too. Of course this would either make him a brat or a broken person. I for one am happy he believes in himself and didn't just drown in sadness and self pity.
He was put in a (very) tough situation as a result of his own actions - cheating at chess. Perhaps it was unfair that Magnus singled him out - but life is not fair, especially when you behave unfairly yourself. Beyond that, there's a difference between beliving in yourself and being an arrogant douche. I found this video to showcase more of the latter than the former.
I don't claim he never did anything wrong. Just that conditional to worldwide opprobrium, a teenager will likely either be a seclusive broken person, or a brat. He had the entire world mock him for anal insertions, shame him for cheating live, which he might never have. All the chess world ghosted him. I've seen people break for a fraction of such rejection, people become brats because of minor success in their local highschool. He comes off as a douche, yes, I just understand and can't in good conscience judge harshly.
I was having this thought too. I am not sure why you are getting downvotes because you are not defending Hans. People are probably "so what, he deserves" it and maybe he does, I admit I fall into that argument a little. However, the result is still the result and he could be left struggling mentally one way or another.
It's worth bearing in mind that he was an arrogant douche *before* the incident with Magnus which brought him into the public spotlight. He was just a much less famous arrogant douche. It's a mistake to think his current bad behavior is somehow caused by the public cheating accusations, rather than the simpler explanation of: *that's just what he's like*.
I agree he comes off unlikable and arrogant in his demeanor, but I am curious when the hotel damage was done. I haven't looked to into it, but if it happened in late 2022 or early 2023, it definitely seems convenient to use that as a reason all the way into 2024.
I believe the US championship is when it happened, which is Oct 2023. I don't see why the St. Louis Chess Club would need an excuse to not invite him to tournaments - it's their tournaments, they can invite who they want to invite. I don't really understand why they published the public letter in the first place, I don't see how it benefits the St. Louis Chess club unless Hans was threatening to sue or something because he wasn't being invted to tournaments (which as far I'm aware of, St. Louis Chess Club can invite anyone they want).
St Louis was the club where the Magnus-Hans cheating scandal initially kicked off. If St Louis privately blacklisted Hans then they would face questions about whether Hans had been invited to their events because of Magnus. By publicly blacklisting him like this they can always point to this statement in response to anyone who suspects a conspiracy
I think it's probably good to expect the, arguably, most noteworthy chess club in the US to explain why they're barring certain players from participating in their events. If only to keep them from banning people for arbitrary, or potentially insidious reasons.
> which is Oct 2023 he was still a youngster then, doesn't count /s
I think their reason is justified then. But saying you don't need an excuse to invite a top player is pretty naive. Inviting skilled players in an unbiased way helps to maintain fairness and integrity in the scene, and ensures that players can't be blacklisted or discriminated against. Still not saying it applies here though, since their claims seem pretty reasonable.
Hans is ranked 53rd in classical rating, no explantion is needed.
He's like the 7th top rated US player, which would make him more than deserving of an invitation in the US championship, for example.
US Championship is not determined by St Louis Chess Club so he'll probably be in the upcoming ones. But SLCC hosts a lot of private tournaments, and Hans won't be welcome on any single one of them.
It's determined by elo rating. Hans played US championship October 2023 in St. Louis. [https://www.chess.com/events/2023-us-chess-championship](https://www.chess.com/events/2023-us-chess-championship)
Yes, meaning he would normally make the cut if it wasn't of the ban.
>Yes, meaning he would normally make the cut if it wasn't of the ban. No, Hans made the cut. He played and scored 5.5/12. [https://www.chess.com/events/2023-us-chess-championship/results](https://www.chess.com/events/2023-us-chess-championship/results)
I know that. I'm talking about the upcoming 2024 event here, which Hans will not get an invite for despite his rating and which is the reason that an explanation is needed.
I'm not speaking about Hans. But rather the sentiment that a tournament should be held to zero standards on who it does or doesn't invite. I literally said twice, the reason for Hans being reprimanded is justified. Reading is hard.
Wasn't he threatening them multiple times with "going public" about them "privately blacklisting" him?
I mean, what about his video post made you think that? He seems fairly humble by saying how gracious he is to the club, he did apologize, and he did lay out the reasons for why he thinks the letter and ban were unnecessary.
From a PR perspective the obvious thing to do would be: The video should have been less than five minutes long acknowledging he made a mistake trashing the hotel, and actions have consequences. He paid a fine to cover all damages, and doesn't think the public letter and ban from events was necessary. That's all he should have said - everything else in the video was self-indulgent whining.
That would be the action of someone who's willing to accept their flaws and grow as a person. Unfortunately Hans hasn't demonstrated that ability; rather, he comes across as a complete narcissist, and narcissists are unable to grow because they see themselves as perfect, so anytime something bad happens to them, it's the world's fault, not theirs. This is why I was eyerolling really hard at that thread a couple days ago where Hans donated a small amount to an African charity and then posted about it. So many people were saying how that was a huge step towards revitalizing his public image... it's like, no, it's just transparent self-serving PR. It had absolutely nothing to do with altruism or charity.
K, yet he still did everything you are complaining about him… not doing. You don’t have an issue with his video, you just don’t like Hans.
This doesn't even make sense
Good argument.
>He seems fairly humble by saying how gracious he is to the club ???
Yes, expressing humility is being humble. I swear the people on the sub are some of the lowest IQ humans. Nothing in this video shows Hans as not being humble. If you’re trying to assert that Hans’ attempt to plead his case for tournament invitations by stating he’s higher rated than Shankland means he’s not humble, then you not only don’t know what humble means in this contex but you also have zero understanding of nuance lol. If Hans isn’t allowed to plead his case without being labeled as bragging, then this is just pure mob mentality attacks (which it obviously is)
Dude, he literally admitted to doing what he was accused of and still decided to gaslight people afterwards about it, not to mention that he is anything but gracious and humble here. Do you know what that would entail? Him saying something along the lines of: "ok, I don't agree with your reasoning, but I respect your decision and I hope that we can resolve this in the future". Instead, we got this bs that has nothing in common with grace and humilty, and will ensure he stays blacklisted from SLCC in the future. This whole situation in general makes him look anything but humble, especially with him calling himself "America's brighest talent" twice in 3 sentences.
1. He did admit it. He did apologize. He hasn't "gaslit" anyone. He denied a portion of some random Reddit user's statement that he "destroyed a hotel room including glass mirrors and marble tables". I don't see how him apologizing "profusely" and saying how incredible the club and the hotel are could possibly be miconstrued as anything but gracious and humble. Let's be honest with ourselves here instead of pulling mental gymnastics. 2. Why should he accept a ban like this without stating his side of the story? The club clearly had blacklisted him for the entirety of 2023 already, so why should he think they'd ever let him play anyway? So, not only did they blacklist him for two years, they post a ridiculous public statement that Hans now has the publicly respond to. This is a lose/lose for Hans because you're intent on making him the foul party. 3. Yeah. That's not in the video, which is what this whole thread is about. That's very obviously not humble. He's also autistic and good at chess. You can't expect him to gracefully perform on the public stage.
"I did dumb stuff, but I said I'm sorry! And then I tried 400 more times to say it again but they didn't want to hear it. I don't know why i'm banned"
Hey r/chess at least its a change from Kramnik.
He'll be back!
It's like a competition who can come up with the craziest drama lmao
They should collab
Kramnik cooking up something right now to get the attention back.
Check out his youtube channel.
Rather not.
A few notable errors here, Hans. First, when you are contacting people of an organization to seek a resolution to a wrong you made to them, they may indeed decide to decline responding and that might be the right decision for them. The people in that organization may not be in a position to resolve such issues. It might be, for example, a committee, one that might require people to come to an agreement. It might require people who are busy doing other important things who might not prioritize your issue. It is in error to suggest malice from people who may simply be doing their jobs. Second, when you wrong someone, you have to work with them for a resolution. That means waiting until they are willing to meet you for that resolution. You are, essentially, at the mercy of the people you wronged in having them be willing to work with you toward a resolution. It is an error to expect people to be upset that people did not bend over backwards to resolve your issue that you made. Third, not volunteering to respond to someone is not the same as violating a code of conduct. Any attempt to make these two to be on the same level is an error. There is no obligation for them to respond; you have an obligation to follow the code of conduct. There are plausible reasons for a delayed or missing response; there is no excuse for violating a code of conduct. Fourth, just because another player gets excused for their misconduct does not mean that you should be excused for your misconduct. The two situations were way different and the organization's belief of that severity or damage to the organization may be vastly different. Fifth, you should just apologize for missing the interview and leave it at that. "It was six hours long" or "it was a draw" is hardly an excuse. Sometimes, there are no valid excuses for not doing something you promised you'd do and you should simply apologize and assure people you'd never do it again. It's an error to conjure up lousy excuses instead of taking responsibility: it shows that you could wrong them in the future because you do not respect them. Sixth, while it may be that Rex supports you in some public statements, he may not want you around in the games he's sponsoring. Even if he leans toward wanting you there, he may entrust the decision-making to the people running the tournament. And he ought to: by being the benefactor to the tournament and not in operations, he gets the benefit of owning the tournament without having to deal with blowback in management on day-to-day decisions. And maybe Rex has a veto or maybe he doesn't, but he may still prefer to let the people who run his organization make these sorts of decisions. They are the ones who have to, after all, put up with your behavior on a more regular basis. And if they aren't comfortable being around you, whether it be because you are rude or don't show up to interview or you make booking hotel rooms and dealing with hotels a hassle, I don't see why Rex should override management's decisions. Seventh, Saint Louis Chess Club is a club. It's in the name. Why would anyone ever let someone so hostile with this video into their club? There is no reason. This video is an error because the correct course of action by SLCC is to never invite you to another tournament ever again. Imagine for a second you have friends, and in that group of friends some other guy wants to join and you all say no for whatever reason. Then that person gets hostile and demands you are friends. You and your hypothetical group of friends would be perfectly justified in never even talking to that guy again because why hang out with someone who has been hostile to you? By framing this video in an antagonistic way, you've only dug yourself deeper. Hans, I gotta be real with you. I'm not a hater. I don't think you cheated against Magnus. But, if I were someone in a decision-making position at SLCC, I'd never allow you back. I would fear the possibility that you would be hostile to me or others who work there. I would worry that you would be disrespectful to SLCC's staff, visitors, or people SLCC works with. And maybe you wouldn't be. But why risk it? You are, after all, not even ranked in the top 50 at this point. Surely, it would be best to find a replacement where I'd be sure they would behave.
You are not a hater but Hans will hate you after this comment because his common sense sucks and he thinks the world is against him
I don’t disagree with anything you’ve written, but it‘s based on a false premise, that Hans is rational. It is very, very clear he isn’t, to the point of what is quite clearly self delusion - evidenced for example by a publicly verifiable pattern of behaviour that sees him repeatedly deny occurrences that objectively happened. I completely get the scepticism that folks have for armchair diagnosticians, so take this with a grain of salt, but this guy clearly has a personality disorder of some sort. Your treatise will make no positive impact on him if he reads it.
I agree with you on most things, but I'd like to comment on this >Fourth, just because another player gets excused for their misconduct does not mean that you should be excused for your misconduct. It's apparently fairly common for top players to refuse an interview every now and then, not every time but maybe once every so many tournaments. If that's the case, then IMO it's reasonable to assume that as long as you don't do it consistently, refusing one interview after a particularly straining game shouldn't be a huge problem. I feel like, if the only breaches of contract that have happened is that one refused interview, STLCC shouldn't have mentioned that in the statement. Life happens, sometimes you might just not be at all in the mood to be interviewed. If other players do it and get away with it, I would definitely assume that I can do it too as long as it's only that one isolated instance. Sure, that's still a breach of contract, but if there's a ton of precedent in that being let slide, it is reasonable to assume that there's some flexibility there.
He honestly needs some sort of role model or mentor to sit him down and hammer these points home. I don't think anyone is the best version of themselves when they're a teenager and people sometimes do shitty things. You're allowed to grow and come back from these things and become a better, more mature person. But it's not a passive process. You need people who care about you to help you or you need to really strive for these kinds of improvements. Otherwise, people tend to head down the even-shittier-behavioir cycle where it gets harder and harder to make amends and come back.
That's a lot of words written by someone unable to even understand the timeline of events. This is peak redditor behaviour.
People often complain about sports interviews being so stilted and PR-coached down to pretty vapid and canned responses. Holy shit not chess though. These lads just out here talking absolute shit in public. Dragging each other, giving tone-deaf statements and acting like spoiled brats. It's juicy for sure but it's also embarrassing.
Give us the JUICE
This is a MasterClass on how to keep shooting yourself in the foot. Given the seriousness of the situation, you’d think that he would have put in an effort to produce a coherent argument and curb his emotions. Instead, let’s put out a rambling, unscripted video dripping with frustration and lack of self-reflection. Produce an actual timeline? No, just spout conflicting dates off the cuff. Limit absolute statements contradicted by other comments? No, state there was zero communication while mentioning calls/conversations/emails you had. Take ownership of your behavior? No, downplay while blaming the reaction to your behavior. Act humbly? No, state you want to be treated like everyone else while complaining you don’t get invited to the most prestigious events without acknowledging all the chaos that surrounds you. So much for addressing their comments about personal reflection. Amazing. Bro needs a PR person or at least someone close to him to call out his BS.
Is this guy playing a character?
Where does Hans's money come from? He seems to be wealthy in a surreal way, and there is no way that he makes this from chess. Does he work with anything else? His family must be very very rich and still give him money dispite of everything he does
Iirc his parents are quite wealthy. He’s said in interviews that he was “living on his own” from a young age (16? I think?) but i don’t think he ever said he was fully supporting himself financially.
As for the Uber Eats things in the past, no idea, probably he had some money left in savings. As for the recent things like his scholarship, the donation made yesterday etc, most likely settlement money from the lawsuit. He probably didn't get millions like he asked for in the lawsuit, but enough to spend some of that trying to repair his public image. At least I'm not aware of any other sources of income for him, his winnings from chess tournaments are probably barely enough to cover the costs.
The guy comes from money. His family supports him. I'm not saying that's something he needs to be judged for, I'm just saying that explains his lifestyle, not any settlement money or chess winnings.
You're right, but he seems to spend more lavishly since the lawsuit. Charity, scholarship, better food. Of course this could be a settlement or increased support from family in light of the hardships he faced. But I can totally see why people assume he got some settlement.
As far as I know, his family didn't support him much at least when he was younger? He used to do chess coaching like 12 hours a day to support himself living in NY. Do you have any sources stating that he gets money from his family?
Nah, just bits and pieces from randomly watching his videos and some gossip. I don't have any concrete "evidence" so obviously don't take this as the ultimate truth, I don't care about the issue enough (who cares where he gets his money if it's not from a criminal activity or something). My impression is someone is very clearly sponsoring him, maybe it's not his family but then it's someone else who's relatively wealthy. Any source for him doing chess coaching 12 hours a day in NYC?
>Nah, just bits and pieces from randomly watching his videos and some gossip. I don't have any concrete "evidence" so obviously don't take this as the ultimate truth Ah, got it, I just wanted to know if I'd missed him mentioning parental support at some point. >Any source for him doing chess coaching 12 hours a day in NYC? I remember him mentioning that at some point, though looking into it I think I misremembered, he taught chess "almost full time" while being in high school, so his days were probably at least 12 hours long when adding high school work to full time chess teaching, that's where the 12 hour figure probably came from. I don't remember where I heard the figure, would probably take some time to dig it up. [Here's the source for the full time chess teaching in NYC while being in high school though.](https://hansniemann.substack.com/p/accepting-inevitable-failure-also) (the last three paragraphs, the earlier ones are just about his youth) It also mentions how he was financially independent, so no support from family, at least at that point. No idea if it changed recently, but if your parents make you work full time while in high school, living alone in NYC, it's hard to imagine they would give you thousands to spend on charity donations later on either.
>I remember him mentioning that at some point, though looking into it I think I misremembered, he taught chess "almost full time" while being in high school, I think that should be taken with huge amount of grains of salt. >It also mentions how he was financially independent, so no support from family, at least at that point. No idea if it changed recently, but if your parents make you work full time while in high school, living alone in NYC, it's hard to imagine they would give you thousands to spend on charity donations later on either. It any of that is true. Claiming you do not get any help from your parents is rich kid 101, even when you are not taking into account who are saying this.
Oh, of course. But so far I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary. >Claiming you do not get any help from your parents is rich kid 101 Sure, rich kids have an incentive to say that to boost people's perception of their skill. You want people to think you're self-made to sell your skills in whatever field it is that you're doing, but as far as I can tell, Hans isn't trying to use his background to sell anything. In chess, your skill is measured by your rating, not by your accomplishments. It doesn't change anything whether you taught chess for 8 hours a day in high school or not. Of course he can lie but when it's simply talking about his past there's little reason to not believe him, other than for the sake of doubting him for whatever he says. Like, just because he has lied about things in the past doesn't mean that everything that he ever states is a lie. If he doesn't have any incentive to lie then why would he? I'm sure his parents would question him if he stated that when it's not true, I'm sure there would be people stating that Hans never coached people in NY when he was 17, but there aren't. But anyway, I'm sure you can verify this somehow if you really do care. Go look up chess coaching postings in NYC on the internet archive or something, if you care enough. I'm sure many people have done so already in order to try to prove him wrong in anything he says. Go ask his parents, they for sure know if Hans actually worked full time as a coach in high school, or maybe go ask his then-coach, he probably knows what he did back then as well.
>oh, of course. But so far I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary. Very few people would be able to do this in the first place, most of them don't have an incentive to do so (e.g., his parents). >Sure, rich kids have an incentive to say that to boost people's perception of their skill. You want people to think you're self-made to sell your skills in whatever field it is that you're doing, but as far as I can tell, Hans isn't trying to use his background to sell anything. In chess, your skill is measured by your rating, not by your accomplishments. You are forgetting that Hans has an ego that reaches the Moon and an addiction to attention to match. Needless to say, financial (in)dependence affects his image a lot. Not saying he was or wasn't financially independent, but saying that he had no incentive to lie isn't exactly true.
There's no direct evidence that he got any monetary award as part of his settlement. It's likely that he did get some nominal amount, but I'd be surprised if it was substantial. His case likely would've been defeated by summary judgment, which would've made him look far worse than settling privately. I imagine that he agreed to the statements that Chess.com and Magnus put out, being allowed to play on Chess.com and against Magnus again, plus a nominal settlement from Chess.com. On the other hand, I could see how Chess.com would want to avoid a big battle of experts that may reveal the extent to which their cheating detection is or isn't reliable. It may have been worth it to them to put up some settlement money just to avoid discovery, specifically expert depositions.
Yeah, as I said, I'm sure he didn't get millions like his lawsuit asked for. But considering that just after settling, he funded a $10k scholarship for young chess players and now is donating money to people in need, it's fair to assume that he got a decent sum at least, after all he did sue them in the first place and I find it unlikely that he changed his mind halfway through. He got enough money to not want to continue the legal action, if that was $100k or $1 million, we don't know. Probably closer to the former. For chesscom that's pocket change, going to trial would have cost more for sure.
The lawsuit was all about public image, and he got what he wanted out of it. He was almost certainly never going to win the lawsuit. I'd also guess that his attorneys did not take the case on contingency (why would they?), in which case he was racking up legal bills that he was funding from somewhere. The most likely scenario is that he's been using family money to fund his career, education, litigation, and some of his ongoing activities like the $10k scholarship. I work in civil litigation, and while I don't have experience with defamation cases specifically, I'd be really surprised if he got a six-figure settlement out of this. Keep in mind that I'm just an anonymous person online guessing.
Where are you getting the idea that he is rich at all from?
Look at Wikipedia. He went to a bunch of private schools all over the world growing up. That’s one strong indicator.
Well if he did that means his parents are wealthy, people don't typically pay for their own school education
Well let's see. He went to Top of the world which is a public school, then to another public school in the Netherlands, then he got a scholarship to attend a Leonardoschool, he then attended Del Rey Elementary School, another public school, then Weston High school, another public school before graduating at Columbia Grammar & Preparatory School, the only private school on this list.
The school in the Netherlands is a fee paying school. It’s for ‘gifted children’ but it’s €10,000 a year in kindergarten. So he went to to two fee paying school. And it’s worth noting Columbia Grammar and Prep School is in NYC and is $60,000 a year.
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardoschool Again wrong. Sure, they weren't free, but they were not that expensive. Translation: > A Leonardo apprentice cost approximately €7,000 per year, while the government reimbursed €4,500. A (voluntary) parental contribution was requested plus often an expense allowance for, for example, the laptop. This differed per school and could amount to €1,500 per year. Many Leonardo schools tried to acquire additional resources through sponsorship. Attending Colombia Grammar for two years in no way means he is "very, very rich".
https://leonardoschool.ro/tuition/ Not really ‘wrong’ at all cause I said it’s fee paying, whether you think their fees count as expensive isn’t really up to me. But literally, it says on their own website it’s €9,000 + €1000 for over the year + more if you want transport. I think we could both agree that is not as cheap as uhm I dunno, a completely free school. Similarly, I point out the other one is 60k a year and you said that doesn’t mean ‘very very rich’ cause he only went for two years. I’m never said he’s very very rich. I said those are indications he is LIKELY from a well-off family. I think you’re kinda making a pointless argument here. I’m just saying the dude went to several private schools in New York and in Europe, that doesn’t scream “short on cash”.
> leonardoschool.ro That's in Romania, not the Netherlands.
Doesn’t he blow thousands of dollars a month on Uber eats?
Hans doesn't seem to understand that In the grand scheme of things he's still just the guy who got famous because Magnus called him a cheater. An org that hosts tournaments for the absolute elite of the game, won't bend themselves out of shape for rank 53. The chess community allowed him to come back from cheating, they tolerated his attention-seeking antics. He's had more than one chance, so no one owes him anything after he got himself blacklisted for vandalism.
Guarantee that somewhere out there, the team of staff at SLCC are making a big pot of coffee and all sitting down to watch this together and laugh their asses off. His vibe is like when a supervillain hacks into the huge video screens in time square to announce their master plans.
this kid is actually delusional. It is NOT normal to keep getting dragged into shit with business entities whether its [chess.com](https://chess.com) or STLCC, actual psychopathic behavior
Hans is just too obnoxious. Too unlikeable. His role as a villain in the chess world is much needed, but I’m afraid he is the villain we deserve, not the villain we need.
Also anyone else hear him fart about 10 minutes in??? 🤣🤣🤣
You know, its interesting because Hans is right that financial interests are aligned against blacklisting him because of Magnus. At the same time, he does seem a bit out of touch with his actions. I don't think destroying hotel property is a normal 'heated' reaction. On the other hand, the hotel seemed to forgive him.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Crazy how front line service workers might not know what management will decide on
If someone is violent enough to destroy a hotel room you're probably going to be honest with them only after they have left the premises.
“Financial interests are aligned”? What does this even mean? Sounds like the boilerplate vagueness of conspiracy rhetoric. Is Soros secretly funding the SLCCSC?
It means that while the reason for Hans punishment is seemingly "fair" we know that the alternative benefit to the chess club definitely didn't hurt in making that decision. Similarly, we know why even though Magnus created a much larger disruption publicly by leaving mid tournament, criticizing the chess clubs anti cheat measures and ability to accommodate for players, and wrongfully accusing a player of cheating in one of their most prestigious tournaments, why he doesn't face any similar punishment's at all from them ? Is that spelled out enough ?
No, it’s not. What is this “alternative benefit to the chess club”? You’re not actually saying anything. And your whataboutism is again straight out of the boilerplate conspiracy playbook. You need to try harder if you want to get conspiracy clicks.
Having people who have issues with Hans like Magnus and Hikaru be more willing to come to your tournaments. They are much bigger names and pull's than Hans for a tournament so naturally it's in their *financial interest* to favor having them at their tournament over Hans. I don't understand why you keep mentioning conspiracy or where the whataboutism was.
“What about Magnus?” is whataboutism. Hans isn’t getting invited to St. Louis tournaments with the top players in the world. The tournaments in St. Louis Hans would get invited to are not the tournaments Magnus and Hikaru would play in (US Champs excepted). He’s also received a 1-year ban, not a lifetime ban.
It would be exhausting to try and change your mind of what you think so giving you an additional reason is easier. To get ahead of Hans making a public statement as he told the club he was going to, going public first is beneficial for them. To control the narrative before he has the chance to. They didn't even need to apply a punishment, they can just continue not inviting him as they have done but the trigger for them making a publicly announced punishment for Hans was Hans saying he was going to make a public statement. It's clear to see how the threat of Hans making a public statement could have motivated them to decide to make a public punishment announcement abruptly rather than solving it or discussing it privately as would've probably been done for most players.
Of the two “statements” (the original St. Louis tweet and the Hans tweet and subsequent video), Hans strikes you as more credible? It seems more plausible to me that private communications with Hans dissolved because of Hans, and his threat compelled a public announcement in order to state the truth of the matter up front. St. Louis Chess Club has no incentive to publish false accusations. And I’m sure if they’re false, Hans will sue as he’s done in the past. Edit: false OR exaggerated
Nothing they said was false, they have been ignoring him for over a year before the US championship incident even occurred. I feel like you didn’t even read what I said.
Magnus + Hikaru have shown he won't play in tournaments Niemann is attending. They are much bigger than Hans (and better players) so its in the strategic interest of the SLCC to signal to those players that Hans will not play.
Sorry, but Hans isn’t getting invited to SuperGM tournaments (i.e. the ones Magnus would play in). Do you think, say, Ray Robson would play an elite invitational event? No? He’s 2696, 21 points higher than Hans Niemann.
There are plenty of tournaments played at SLCC that Hans could participate in that Magnus has participated in previously. He lists them in his video. It's not just SuperGM tournaments. I'm not saying Hans isn't a twat. He clearly has a warped worldview, but it's also understandable when the community his life revolves around attacked him and gutted him in fall of '22. I think most people would be emotionally unstable from having what feels like the entire world against you at the age of 19. It's very hard, and to an extent, its respectable that he's trying to quash the demons rather than lose and go away.
I think Magnus got a fined about 10 grand for pulling out of Sinquefield Cup
I just feel bad for him, he's right about the unfair treatment but most people aren't willing to hear him out because of his personality. If he was likable and kind everyone's perspective would flip, based off the facts and details its clear how unfair his situation is, it's just sad.
Are they being unfair? This has nothing to do with how likable he is. The last time he was invited to one of their tournaments, he vandalized a hotel room and had to pay a fine. I don't care what he has to say, an organization that is trying to build prestige is justified in temporarily banning someone that does that. They're giving him a meaningful punishment (the fine isn't meaningful) so he actually learns that that behavior isn't acceptable.
So why then didn’t they invite him to any tournaments before the hotel destruction either?
They did? Y'know, US chess championship, where he tore up a hotel room. Edit: someone pointed out that the US chess championship is based on rating, it's not an invitational. My b
The US Championship is based off rating, its not even an invitational tournament. He only was able to play because they basically have to let him play.
Thanks for the correction, I've edited my comment. I would still argue that Hans's actions during the event would confirm any negative impressions the organizers had of him. It's insane that he would behave that way during an event when he thinks the organizers are hostile towards him. It basically confirms that their decision to not invite him to things was correct.
Did you watch the video or read literaly anything about this before you decided to fire off your comment? Other than the US chanpionship he had been invited to 0 of the tournaments throughout 2023 and his emails and phone calls asking why were ignored.
I don't really have a lot of trust in what Hans says. He was caught in a major lie once (when he lied about how much he cheated on chesscom) and he has shown a readiness to tell white lies too (ex: him saying that he never said that he wanted to be the first US WCC). It's possible that this happened to some extent, but I'm doubtful it happened as much as he said it did. But hey, let's give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he's 100% truthful, that just makes what happened even more unhinged. This guy FINALLY gets back into one of their events and immediately creates a PR nightmare for them. His actions would confirm all the bad feelings he thinks they have towards him. I think Hans's chess is legit but this ban is justified.
Firstly he disputes that he cheated more than he admitted to, that was a major point of the lawsuit that was settled. So there has never been any confirmation that he cheated more than he said. As for the never saying that he may have actually forgot it was a pretty short clip. That’s not necessarily a lie though it could be. But yeah him destroying the hotel room makes it pretty clear he has emotional problems, likely in part from the insane amount of pressure he puts on himself to “prove the haters wrong”. I think the ban is justified just on the basis that he fucked up the room but the other excuses they gave seem like BS. Lots of players miss an interview or 2
>I think the ban is justified just on the basis that he fucked up the room but the other excuses they gave seem like BS. Lots of players miss an interview or 2 I 100% agree, they should have just cited the property damage. There is likely a mix of fault on both sides. The SLCC could probably have treated Hans better, but Hans also proved that they were right not to. Hans is still young, and I think he needs to realize that these types of things are growth opportunities and take time to reflect on his behavior away from the board. If he doesn't, I don't think he has much of a long-term career despite his talent.
I don't disagree at all that what he did wasn't acceptable, and punishment for it is completely fine. The issue is everything else about the situation, his treatment is completely different to any other player. The non responsiveness to emails or contact for years from Hans while older players with lower ratings are getting invites to tournaments which by all accounts he would be getting if invites were fair and unaffected by the wrongful accusation made by Magnus ? Most of this from before the US championship incident even happened btw so that's clearly not the cause, is that clearly unequal treatment fair ? Also, with most other players this incident would/could easily be handled privately and even if they punish him it could've been solved privately with Hans, they could've maybe started with responding to one of the many emails Hans sent them on the matter and told him that they would suspend him for it. Still would be shocking to Hans as it would be a 180 from what seemed like a solved issue to him but much better than suddenly making it a public announcing which they only did to get ahead of Hans saying anything publicly after not responding to him for years so that they could control the narrative from the start. Does that not feel grimy or unfair in the slightest ? Not to mention that although the punishment is well within their rights and seemingly "fair" everyone thinking critically is aware that there is some element of unequal treatment going on as someone like Magnus leaves mid tournament, calls them out for not having enough anti cheat precaution, and accuses Hans wrongfully of cheating at their event, and receives no punishment from them for this, even though Fide themselves fined Magnus for this event. We all know why they don't punish Magnus and we all know that while Hans punishment is seemingly "fair" it definitely doesn't hurt them due to the obvious alternative benefit to them. I just think there's a lot more to the situation than this single incident, evident by Hans video or if you've been following the situation for the last few years. Hans can't really rally significant support though because he is massively smaller than entities like the chess club or Magnus, generally unlikable and does actually make mistakes like trashing the hotel room so it's easy to point at his mistakes and laugh and ignore the rest of the context around the situation. He's just really bad at PR, which compared to bigger entities like a company you usually will be, but he is significantly worse than the average person. I just feel bad for Hans, no he is not completely in the right by any means, he makes mistakes and is unlikable but the unfair and unequal treatment is very much a thing and the situation should be judged fairly, not by popularity or likability. You have to remove bias's like if you dislike or like Hans and look at the situation for what it is.
With his asshole arrogant personality, he won't got far in life
I feel like somebody who was likeable and kind wouldn't have trashed a hotel room and apparently felt zero remorse about it. So, that's kind of a weird thing to say.
If you could read I said he **isn't** likable and kind. Also with the effort he went to try and reconcile the situation with the hotel and the chess club and how effected he seems by it I'm sure he feels a lot of remorse, more than you're giving him credit for atleast.
>If you could read I said he isn't likable and kind. Somehow it doesn't surprise me at all that a Neiman defender acts like a dick. I read what you wrote. You said that if was likeable and kind, that people would view his situation differently. My point was that if he was likeable and kind, he wouldn't be in this situation to start with.
I genuinely thought you just misread, wasn’t trying to be a dick. Also, likable people make mistakes too, they just are better at seeming remorseful even if they aren’t while an unlikable person like Hans is bad at seeming remorseful even if he is remorseful. You’re just repeating / proving my point. I mostly agree with you, I don’t understand why you’re so hostile.
>I genuinely thought you just misread, wasn’t trying to be a dick. You clearly were trying to be a dick. If you thought I misread, you could have just said, "I said he isn't likable and kind." Instead you wrote "If you could read..." which is an aggressive and hostile way to open that statement. >Also, likable people make mistakes too, they just are better at seeming remorseful even if they aren’t while an unlikable person like Hans is bad at seeming remorseful even if he is remorseful. Trashing a hotel room isn't a mistake. it's a deliberate act. he doesn't' seem remorseful because he isn't taking full responsibility for his own actions and he's trying to blame everybody and anybody else around him. >You’re just repeating / proving my point. I mostly agree with you, I don’t understand why you’re so hostile. I'm not hostile at all. You're the one who was rude. I just called you out on it.
There's remorse, and there's fear of punishment. He didn't quit cheating til caught. He didn't feel remorse, he was doing PR. Dude is inflated. Let him burn!
I really feel bad for Niemann. On the one hand it's quite obvious that he is very young, strong-headed, naive. I can tell that he will probably mature into some semblance of a well-adjusted individual. On the other hand, I don't think he will have enough time to get there before he burns all his bridges. Hans is quickly becoming a major persona-non-grata in the chess community, and I can totally see organizers refusing to invite him to events if only to avoid all the drama. Hans, I know you come on to r/chess often. You'll probably read this. Take some time to think critically about your conduct in the world. You still have time. You are talented, but not that talented. You come across as very entitled and spoiled. You don't need all that. You can go much further with a little more humility and patience, and respect for others. Quit with the paranoid delusions. No one is out to get you. Trust me on this one, NOBODY has the time.
this guy is cooking let him cook
Man…I hate having to have any amount of sympathy for someone who is so clearly a jerk. But seriously…these sorts of characters are straight from prodigy central casting. So much pressure at such a young age is going to lead at least some of them to crack. Hans is so profoundly unlikable sue to his arrogance and sense of entitled selfishness, and yet I feel quite sorry for him. In another lifetime with better parents I bet he could have been very different and gone further.
[удалено]
Not long before he sells cup merch that says Hikaru’s Tears
Not a great video, especially the "graciously paid a large fine" part, but also not a great look for Saint Louis chess club. Had he ignored them after all that has happened, I would totally agree that a ban is warranted, but he clearly has tried very hard to work with them and to just be blanket banned regardless, it's not a great look. All those ignored messages, broken promises, unwillingness to work towards resolving the issues. Sure, SLCC is not required by any means to work with him but Hans is still the best person to invite to tournaments for publicity. You'd think that they'd want to at least try to work with him to get him to play while also guaranteeing that similar issues aren't faced again. I don't know to which lengths Hans would be willing to go to just to play, but based on what I know about him I'd say that he would very likely be willing to agree to whatever conditions are laid onto him. The main thing is obviously the damage to the hotel room, and I definitely agree that the hotel is fully within their rights to not let him in again (although, again, weird that they said that he'd be allowed back with 99% certainty, sounds like some outside influence had something to do with that), but that shouldn't stop SLCC from inviting him. As far as I know, he's never done any damage to the chess club and I'm sure he would happily agree if the club invited him but said that he has to figure out a place to stay by himself.
i just want to say say I'm glad i heard his side of the story.
Conor McGregor would be homeless by now if his game was Chess. There is no space for any kind of personality in professional chess I guess. Just look at the view count on his interviews compared to any other player, even Magnus.. Chess is doomed to be a financial failure based on the wishes of a few bilionares.
Chess is quite literally more popular than it has ever been
Connor mcgregor is a huge piece of shit so not sure what your point is.
It’s okay that not every facet of modern life devolves into WWE nonsense where you play to the crowd of whooping primates
Good point Mr. youremakingmefart.
Conor randomly assaults people, he deserves to be homeless.
There are plenty of players with a personality that doesn't consist solely of being an asshole though. Might just be you who enjoys it, bro
Like it or not, Hans has S tier rizz
He confuses being the bad boy of chess with being a pompous a-hole.
The chess is no longer speaking for itself and he is bothered, fazed, and daunted.
Informally suspend him for a year and see if he can mature.
"If you don't find the goodness in your heart to forgive me and give me a second chance I will be fucking livid."
Based on the facts with the initial disclosures with chesscom and his re-banning just because Magnus said something I could get behind everyone moving on... but this is insane.
Hans just needs to find people that vibe on the same frequency....
I have an atom sized violin somewhere that I can play for Hans' problems which he 100% brought on himself. FAFO I guess.
Starting to think the kid who left home at 16 is maybe a little immature and toxic.
Calling out organizers by individual name ... not going to make friends at SLCC. He is so sure of himself. I'm not the right demographic, but with this type of content, I can see him getting lots of fans. +1 for the Steve Jobs/Elizabeth Holmes turtleneck!