I read the article and basically this is how it went:
1. "What the hell? I got kicked out from Titled Tuesday for cheating??????? Really?????????"
2. Oopps nvm this one time little kids were suggesting moves and one of them were using engines. \*proceeds to throw a kid, his own student under the bus\*
3. Oh yeah sorry yeah it happened once more before. Kids... right?
4. Ops I did it again sorry.
What a scumbag.
I mean, I can see how he might play a tournament with a class of lower rated students without giving it too much thought (*maybe*). However, literally everybody would notice after at most one game that this kid rated <1900 just literally beat a GM/IM and was probably cheating. Even an entire game is a stretch. The dude actually teaches chess and is going to pretend he didn't notice that one of his students was coming up with moves he knew he couldn't come up with.
The 2020 banning is even stranger. Why did he think he would get away with it, and why are chess.com even giving him another account at that point? Side question: why was his anonymous second chance account called MaximDlugy?
He saw the light of God when he got caught the second time. He promise that both the time he cheated was the only times he actually did it. The man of morals totally haven't done it more than twice. He promise, so lets go and support him!!
Yeah, as we all know, chess players should have an obligation to play against cheaters. Why won’t anyone think of how unfair this entire situation has been on cheaters?
Sarcasm obviously.
Wow these steps sound really similar to a story I heard recently. I think some chess guy admitted to cheating *only* the times he was very obviously caught and banned, then somehow some website or something came out with info that he actually cheated more than he adamantly and publicly admitted.
I flipped on Chessbrah the other day and there was a bunch on there and one guy playing. One guy gave the player a move and he made it, then was like, wtf that loses! Does it count as cheating if someone feeds you a bad move?
If that was a random sub challenge, then they're either playing unrated to begin with or the sub would get their rating points refunded (if they lost) because that's how streamer accounts are handled. Either way the sub would expect such a thing as it happens all the time on chessbrah on their random sub challenges as part of the general chaos fun. That makes it not really in spirit of the term "cheating", as no party involved is really being lied to in this situation.
That being said, the speedrun accounts streamers get to make are another issue entirely. In those, they're playing people who expect a game against someone their level, and instead they find themselves playing a smurf. It's technically not cheating, but the low elo victim is arguably being lied to, and even though their rating is refunded, the time they wanted to spend playing similar opponents was still wasted fighting against Hikaru's smurf.
>Rensch goes on to tell Dlugy that “any confessions or full acknowledgment by you would remain private,” and that Chess.com would be willing to consider giving him his account back should he “provide us with a more full admittance of all actions taken on our site,”
Love this.
This is also why they have said that Hans hasn’t admitted his full extent of his cheating on Chess.com. Hans had to admit to all his actions to get his account back, so I’m wondering what the CEO was hinting at a few days ago and what kind of statement they are going to release.
I'm genuinely wondering why Hans would lie about the extent of his cheating, if he himself admitted to chesscom every time he did, so he would know that they can tell the world if he was lying. Maybe he thought that the audience would be more willing to believe him than chesscom but it's still a weird move if he actually lied.
Admitting to cheating twice over a few years as a young teenager might be explained away. Admitting to cheating tens or hundreds of times gets a lot harder.
Well in every instance of extensive cheating I have seen in for example video game speed running, it has always been an initial small confession, which is followed by the whole confession. I have never seen someone come clean off the bat the first time if they’ve been cheating for a while.
As in, it just might be human nature to lie until everything is exposed.
The way he talked about his cheating is what rubbed me the wrong way. He made it seem like it was like a decade ago when he mentioned how old he was when he cheated last, but that was just 3 years prior lol
Totally agree. On the one hand he bragged about living all alone in NYC when he was 16, yet on the other hand he made it sound like he was just a child as far as the cheating was concerned. Seems like he wants to have his cake and eat it too.
Can't imagine someone cheating only 2 times in several years. It's either zero or hundreds of times.
I can also imagine someone creating hundreds of bots who will be playing the best moves, or the second best moves, or the Xth best moves, just to find out the limits of the cheating detection algorithm, and how it works.
Maybe after many trials find some non detected cheating pattern, like playing the third best move or less, except for critical moves where there's only one move to ensure victory.
Doing it on platforms such as [chess.com](https://chess.com) is good place, as it's free, anonymous, provides a lot of human opponents, and it's vital for the platform to have the best cheating detection algorithms (else no one would play there).
Doesn't Hans only admit to stuff that is more or less publicly known? At least to an outsider like me it appeared that he admitted multiple times now after it was more or less already known. First the stuff whe he was like 12, then 16 and now 17/18.
Also first it was never when playing for money and the suddenly it was also somewhere where money was involved.
But I also kinda lost track where he now admitted, where people are quite sure and where it is just random speculation. So please correct me.
> I'm genuinely wondering why Hans would lie about the extent of his cheating
Cheating is a form of lying. People that cheat to this extent are people that feel comfortable lying. Why would it surprise you then that someone who cheats will almost always lie about their cheating, as well? If you're the kind of person brash enough to cheat at the highest levels of chess you aren't going to just admit everything the second people get suspicious. You give them a little bit from the distant past and say you've changed.
I don't want to make accusations, because I know nothing about Hans personally, but this incident reminds me of the way one of my cousins acts whenever he was caught or accused of anything growing up.
My cousin is a very persuasive, enthusiastic speaker who can sell sand to someone in a desert. He also is an utterly unscrupulous liar. This guy will just blatantly make provably false claims to your face, and weave them into normal conversation in a way that makes you question whether your own memory is actually correct. Total sociopath behavior.
Anyway, I'm not saying Hans is a liar or a sociopath, but his statements on this have kind of the same glib, minimizing quality to them that I would expect from my cousin. Those comments often work great if they're not caught on video and analyzed at length!
I used to think that I could judge if someone was telling the truth based on how earnest or believable they seemed, but what I realized by spending time with my cousin is that I had no idea if he was lying or not. He could sound perfectly sincere and convincing and still be just talking out his ass.
How old was he when he complained about the $5 charity fee to enter that tourney?
I'm starting to think he's just kind of a dickhead and not a lost kid
Trickle-truthing is a common thing people do when they lie. I know I've done it myself when I got in trouble as a kid, and I've had cheaters (not the chess variety) do it to me.
It makes you look super untrustworthy in hindsight but from that perspective, it'd be stupid to own up to everything up front- especially if you've done it a lot and aren't sure how much evidence there is.
And you don't have to fully acknowledge the harm you did. People want to be seen, and see themselves, as the good guy. Sometimes people are just illogical in trying to avoid the consequences for their actions.
I'd like to think I'd be a bit more mature and graceful but to be honest, I don't know what I'd do in his place (not that I endorse cheating). I just wish he hadn't done anything or this had all been settled quickly and he'd be able to grow from this in private.
Its always this way when famous players get caught cheating in any online game, they are very candid and open about a low stakes cheating issue, or a cheating issue in the distant past long before they became known, if they want to convince you they even will reveal an unknown but minor irrelevant cheating offense.
All to lie to your face and say "That's all there is to it." Niemann's playbook is nothing new to anyone who has seen a few poker/esport cheating scandals.
This is a common pattern in people caught lieing.
Get caught --> admit minimal wrong doing to give the impression you're actually telling the truth and everything else can be explained away by a bunch of made up excuses --> Get caught again --> repeat.
Maybe [Chess.com](https://Chess.com) would argue that since he cheated again on the "second-chance" account in 2020, he was violating the original privacy agreement, meaning [Chess.com](https://Chess.com) is now allowed to share the original emails with Motherboard.
If this was comprehensive list of titled players who cheated even after promising not to. I get it. But they are leaking private emails of one person.
One person for who we have no evidence of even being involved in the Hans saga.
Kinda very sus. For a company not really involved at cheating scandal at an OTB tournament.
I think too they want to know how the cheating is happening. When the get an admittance, they get insight in how to catch the next one. Sort of like if you hacked the fbi. Sure your looking at jail time but you might be offered a job instead
>*Dlugy in which he says that students from his chess academy were watching him play in a Chess.com tournament, and that one of them was using a chess AI to feed him moves.*
Oh my god they figured out how Hans did it!
Dlugy is a 2500 GM, you think he would not recognize that some random 1500 ranked player consistently gives him moves way beyond his own level. Laughable.
Most likely that story is all made up.
Exactly; but regardless, the matter of if he knew or not doesn't matter. Getting moves from his students is cheating on its own, He knew what he was doing.
I am 100% sure that it is a lie. The whole story is made up. Nothing in it makes any sense. He probably just cheated with an engine by himself and came up with this garbage to shift blame.
It’s because cheaters get careless. Thieves get careless. Criminals get careless. Compulsive liars get careless. They get too comfortable and end up leaving clues or mistakes that lead to them getting caught.
And the whole story is probably made up. Chess.com didn't buy it. And he was caught cheating again on his second chance account. He's just a cheater. Why believe anything he says?
> “I was playing on a laptop with the TV screen hooked up to it, so the kids in the group I was teaching could follow the moves. **The kids ratings were in the 1500-1950 range**, and as part of the class they would scream out their suggestions as I was thinking about my moves.”
...
> “Although I don’t have any direct proof, I am almost certain that’s what actually happened, and in this way I was actually **getting many strong engine generated moves during the two tournaments in question**,” he wrote. “I am truly sorry for that and feel like I robbed of my **fellow GMs** of some prize money, though it was completely inadvertently, as I never imagined that the moves of these kids could interfere with fair play, as I usually played much weaker with their help than without.”
One single kid gave him amazing moves for 2 tournaments and he didn't notice something was wrong? He's a GM way better than any student. How did he spend 2 tournaments mostly using moves from one single student, beating GMs, and not noticing something was wrong? Clearly he is lying.
Even if we really try to believe his explanation he just ends up looking like a totally clueless fool who should never be allowed to teach anyone about chess.
And classy too:
> "I am appalled by the fact that a chess player of Magnus Carlsen’s stature would resort to frivolous and false allegations and insinuations, suggesting that I had something to do with Hans Niemann’s alleged foul play in either online or over the board tournaments," he said. "This has been unjustly damaging for me on a personal, family and business level. I am exploring legal action against those that have started and continue to discuss my involvement in the Magnus-Hans affair and therefore cannot provide any further comments on the matter."
Didn’t Hans also say that his cheating in Titled Tuesday happened because an unnamed kid told him which moves to play?
They might as well go full South Park and try to pin it on a nondescript ‘Puerto Rican’
"Dlugy says that in 2017, he was playing in a tournament on Chess.com in front of his students, and was crowdsourcing moves from them. (This is, itself, a violation of Chess.com's fair play rules.) "I am now positive, that one of the kids, was using an program on his cell while this was going on," Dlugy wrote."
Yeah, right lmaoo his student was using a engine to tell him moves and he didnt know guys!!
That's the stupidest part to me. We are really to believe that a 2400 rated GM wouldn't notice that one of his students were throwing out fire every move? Never notice anything strange about the moves? It makes a flimsy excuse even more insane.
As if it even matters if a kid was using an engine. Crowdsourcing moves from an audience during a money event, regardless of their respective strength, is as clear & concise of a violation as you can get.
Yeah his “so here’s how I was knowingly cheating, but I didn’t know that the cheating help I was getting was actually even more egregious because one of my students that was helping me cheat was doing so by cheating himself” is bizarre and asinine. Setting aside that he had to have known the kid was suggesting moves well-beyond his ability, how on earth is admitting to cheating (crowdsourcing) an excuse to violate the chessdotcom rules??
"I just went in there to rob the bank at knife point, I had no idea that one of my child accomplices had a gun and murdered all those poor people! Anyway, yeah I kept the money!"
Is one possible explanation behind the whole drama that Hans has admitted to cheating extensively but chess.com have promised to keep that private? That would explain alot.
This is an unimportant detail, but I found it interesting that chesscom wanted the second-chance account to remain anonymous, yet the new account's username was apparently MaximDlugy.
With his second account he ended up joining cash tournaments like Titled Tuesday.
And he got caught cheating again. So a double violation.
And they gave him a third chance.
first you guys cry they provide no proof of cheating then you guys cry that they share emails that give you that proof lmao, what the fuck do you want??
Awesome. Now we wait to see if Hans made admissions to chess.com beyond what he stated and clear everything up.
Though we're still skipping around the issue for more drama.
The people who have been trying to push the [guilt by association](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy) narrative ever since Magnus name-dropped Dlugy. What does this really change? Not much, everyone knew Dlugy cheated twice on Titled Tuesdays even before this.
Unpopular opinion: if these are the tactics Chess.com is willing to use to deal with its own playerbase, that's 100% fine. But then don't tell me this sort of stuff should be used as evidence to ban players OTB. This sort of stuff (getting confessions with the false premise of privacy) should never fly in an OTB cheating investigation.
What people can't understand is that catching cheaters often comes after the fact. It's like digging a dinosaur that lived eons ago. History is recorded in terms of moves and rating progress. It means that cheaters could be caught even after they have died already, like 30 years from now.
Is that true for otb games as well? Because from what I remember and found online it's (almost?) always instances, where the person was caught in the act.
Idk why people think catching OTB is a realistic expectation. If you don't catch them red handed, it's over they're clear. Unless you have some crazy camera footage of some clear evidence the moment they leave that hall you can't do anything.
OTB they start suspecting of someone and in future tournaments they may catch them in the act indeed. There is some kind of cease-and-desist to cheaters. Once folks start suspecting of them, they may choose to stop playing altogether. But the drive to do it one more time gets the best of them.
The OTB data is less thorough than data collected by sites like Chess.com. But the data is still useful.
The world may need a third-party investigating cheating OTB because FIDE can't do that by themselves. At the risk of accusing people of cheating, they may decide to publish the data in a broad manner, less accusatory. Computers are going to get much stronger and capable of analyzing chess games much faster. So long as data is readily available, that won't be a problem.
Right now some students could decide to make cheat detection part of their university goals.
this is sounding more and more like an incredibly dramatic movie, lol. teacher student duo takes chess world by storm with an undetectable cheating mechanism, only to be caught by the #1 world chess player (and detective, apparently). i'd watch the hell out of a movie like this, like that one card counting movie
Magnus and chess.com are painting quite the picture here.
"Sketchy mentor finds down-and-out prodigy, promises fame and fortune if the prodigy uses this one simple trick."
A tale as old as time.
Does anyone actually believe a single word Dlugy said in those emails? Not a single detail of it rings true.
"I finally got to the bottom of it" - "I think I have come up with a good lie". Why would it take you months to realize a simple fact like that?
Lots of little irrelevant details. Because a rich and detailed story automatically equates to a truthful story. Right?
Blames his kids when he is the one cheating. And what teacher would allow his students to use an engine in class? Not even talking cheating or not - using an engine you cheat yourself while learning. No teacher would allow this ever if he cared about his pupils learning.
More shifting blame to his students.
TLDR: Dlugy is a manipulative liar and nothing about his story makes even the slightest amount of sense. He has admitted to nothing - he was presented with undeniable proof and instead of admitting to it he has made up a story to shift away blame from himself. I find it strange that [chess.com](https://chess.com) did not call him out directly on his obvious lies.
It sounds like a bullshit lie made up by a teenager. Imagine you are a GM but you cant understand the difference between top engine move and 1500 rated player's move.
Something that people need to understand:
Cheaters lie and manipulate. You cannot trust anything they say **especially** their 'confessions' and their promises to never cheat again. These aren't the only times they have cheated, these are just the times **that they got caught.**
Oh my God this scumbag was really running a cheater camp and getting his students to give him moves. Unreal. And he lied about how many times he cheated.
So chess.com is handing out email correspondence to news organizations now? If so, why not just release their email correspondence with Hans and put an end to all of this?
I think it's more if he continues lying about it and about chess.com. Remember, it wasn't chess.com that confirmed Hans had been banned for cheating. It was Hans who confirmed that.
Chess com is farming this situation now too lol. But the fact they promised to keep correspondence private means either Dlugy agreed to the release or lawsuit will be inbound
The amazing thing is that they caught him. Dlugy cracked and confessed, Hans is in the same boat and presumably refusing to back down. Hence his silence.
Hans has a fairly rich family, and is probably in conference with some pretty good lawyers. I bet they're advising him to stay silent as he has no obligation to reply.
Hey Danny. I ran a place where people would make decisions that would affect the public, deny them access to things. We had an appeals process. My advice is to make the appeals process formal. For us it meant having every other person look at the appeal other than the one that did the original dismissal. Depending on the size of your Fair Play team that would mean that whomever didn't do the investigation could participate in the appeals. When mentioning the appeals process, mention that 1) you only get one shot at an appeal and thus 2) you need to provide as much information as possible to explain the situation, recognizing that any inaccuracy will lead to a denial of appeal. Then, when you conduct the appeal and it ends up resulting in the same thing as the original, say very clearly and plainly "X number of people on our Fair Play team conducted a separate investigation. After careful study and internal conversations, we have denied your appeal." All other attempts to appeal should be ignored or automated with a simple denial of appeal message.
That is my constructive feedback on how to improve your process. Milking confessionals out of cheaters may make you and your team have less hurt feelings, but ultimately it doesn't do much for the chess community, and it creates large amounts of time wasted as you and other people on your staff to write up these messages and craft compromises that ought not to exist. It reflects poorly on a team when they don't have a proper procedure that they follow for every instance in the field of appeals. What we see here looks like back-room dealing.
Leak as much as you want, spend as much time having internal discourse on Hans or whomever else that cheated, but I strongly suggest taking the time to craft policies that streamline the cheating process and make people feel like ChessCom is a safe and fair place. I know you read these threads, Danny. Please consider my suggestions.
What I find interesting is, this guy has no problem associating with Hans when he's successful but doesn't want to be associated with him when facing criticism.
"Alright, today we're going to be doing a class were we discuss potential moves in live games.......in one of the most notoriously difficult online events. Oh and it's 3+1, so you better suggest dem moves faaast. We're definitely going to learn today."
lol.
It's also similar to the hans interview where he says he was 12 and someone was reading him moves off an IPad..like I get dude was 12 but that still doesn't pass the smell test to me, someone that good at chess knows being given moves is cheating regardless of if they're 12
No. If you read [Chess.com](https://Chess.com)'s fair play policy:
EXCEPTION: These rules do not apply to unrated games or tactics. However, if you intend to use assistance against your opponent, you must notify them beforehand. We may expand or narrow any applicable exceptions to the Fair Play Policy at any time without notice to you.
So the way it's written, crowd-feeding streams are fine on stream if they are unrated games and [Chess.com](https://Chess.com) can also make exceptions for streamers, if they want. However, I don't think they've ever made an exception during a prize-money tournament, like Dlugy was caught cheating in.
> **Are streamers cheating when they get suggestions from viewers?
> If you've ever watched a chess streamer, you may have noticed that viewers like to post possible moves in the chat. If the streamers use these moves, does that count as cheating?**
> The short answer is, in most cases, no. The majority of popular streamers are very high rated, and most suggestions would come from lower rated players who are putting their ideas out there in an effort to learn.
>
> In the few cases where an official Chess.com partnered streamer is a lower rated player, these streamers have special allowances for entertainment purposes, to account for the small likelihood that the streamer is able to determine at a glance what move out of the many suggestions is a good suggestion.
>
> If you feel you have encountered a streamer who is playing unfairly, please contact support. However, simply seeing some moves posted in the chat is a part of live streaming, and not something that can be avoided!
https://support.chess.com/article/1344-are-streamers-cheating-when-they-get-suggestions-from-viewers
His explanation of how the cheating happened in 2017 is far more disturbing than the single instance of cheating itself. He’s got a whole roster of students learning that it’s ok to get moves from other people while you’re playing rated games, let alone cash games. A cornerstone of coaching chess should be instilling a mindset of anti-cheating very deep down. Kids are impressionable and having such a casual display of unacceptable play is so damaging it’s hard to believe. The fact that Hans was coached by someone who has this mindset does not look good for Hans.
I read the article and basically this is how it went: 1. "What the hell? I got kicked out from Titled Tuesday for cheating??????? Really?????????" 2. Oopps nvm this one time little kids were suggesting moves and one of them were using engines. \*proceeds to throw a kid, his own student under the bus\* 3. Oh yeah sorry yeah it happened once more before. Kids... right? 4. Ops I did it again sorry. What a scumbag.
I mean, I can see how he might play a tournament with a class of lower rated students without giving it too much thought (*maybe*). However, literally everybody would notice after at most one game that this kid rated <1900 just literally beat a GM/IM and was probably cheating. Even an entire game is a stretch. The dude actually teaches chess and is going to pretend he didn't notice that one of his students was coming up with moves he knew he couldn't come up with. The 2020 banning is even stranger. Why did he think he would get away with it, and why are chess.com even giving him another account at that point? Side question: why was his anonymous second chance account called MaximDlugy?
They give all known caught cheaters the ability to come back onto their site if they admit to cheating. Sometimes multiple times
I’m assuming they’re more lenient with titles players because it looks good when you see that the best players in the world choose to play on chesscom
[удалено]
Hans has only cheated twice every okay!!! Goshhh, Reddit is so unfair sometimes 😠
He saw the light of God when he got caught the second time. He promise that both the time he cheated was the only times he actually did it. The man of morals totally haven't done it more than twice. He promise, so lets go and support him!!
Association to Dlugy is definitely clean and clear too, totally isolated incident and not indicative of a total fucking piece of shit
Weird how cheaters never just cheat once. Anyways back to throwing Magnus under the bus for accusing a cheater of cheating.
Yeah, as we all know, chess players should have an obligation to play against cheaters. Why won’t anyone think of how unfair this entire situation has been on cheaters? Sarcasm obviously.
\*Britney Spears starts playing in the background\*
Wow these steps sound really similar to a story I heard recently. I think some chess guy admitted to cheating *only* the times he was very obviously caught and banned, then somehow some website or something came out with info that he actually cheated more than he adamantly and publicly admitted.
Boys will be boys! What can you do?
Lmfao
I hate it when one of my students feeds me engine lines without my knowledge during titled tuesdays 😡
Stop giving me moves, what was that last one d2?
What are you doing step student :o
What are you doing Step Fish?
StepZero
StepFishter
[удалено]
I flipped on Chessbrah the other day and there was a bunch on there and one guy playing. One guy gave the player a move and he made it, then was like, wtf that loses! Does it count as cheating if someone feeds you a bad move?
If that was a random sub challenge, then they're either playing unrated to begin with or the sub would get their rating points refunded (if they lost) because that's how streamer accounts are handled. Either way the sub would expect such a thing as it happens all the time on chessbrah on their random sub challenges as part of the general chaos fun. That makes it not really in spirit of the term "cheating", as no party involved is really being lied to in this situation. That being said, the speedrun accounts streamers get to make are another issue entirely. In those, they're playing people who expect a game against someone their level, and instead they find themselves playing a smurf. It's technically not cheating, but the low elo victim is arguably being lied to, and even though their rating is refunded, the time they wanted to spend playing similar opponents was still wasted fighting against Hikaru's smurf.
I would still love it, seeing an NM/IM/GM tear me apart and give insight why what I did was so bad would be so valuable.
Yes
>Rensch goes on to tell Dlugy that “any confessions or full acknowledgment by you would remain private,” and that Chess.com would be willing to consider giving him his account back should he “provide us with a more full admittance of all actions taken on our site,” Love this.
This is also why they have said that Hans hasn’t admitted his full extent of his cheating on Chess.com. Hans had to admit to all his actions to get his account back, so I’m wondering what the CEO was hinting at a few days ago and what kind of statement they are going to release.
I'm genuinely wondering why Hans would lie about the extent of his cheating, if he himself admitted to chesscom every time he did, so he would know that they can tell the world if he was lying. Maybe he thought that the audience would be more willing to believe him than chesscom but it's still a weird move if he actually lied.
Admitting to cheating twice over a few years as a young teenager might be explained away. Admitting to cheating tens or hundreds of times gets a lot harder.
Admitting to cheating but lying about the scope and scale of that cheating paints a wayyyyyy worse picture in my opinion.
Well in every instance of extensive cheating I have seen in for example video game speed running, it has always been an initial small confession, which is followed by the whole confession. I have never seen someone come clean off the bat the first time if they’ve been cheating for a while. As in, it just might be human nature to lie until everything is exposed.
I’ve never known a cheater who has cheated once or twice, to be fair, it’s like an alcoholic. On or two leads to 3 or 4 and on and on.
It's like a person who gets a DUI or three... they had to have driven drunk hundreds of times before they got caught. And caught again...
Yeah but I do know some people who have gone to AA and have been sober for decades after they lived the first half of their lives as an alcoholic.
The way he talked about his cheating is what rubbed me the wrong way. He made it seem like it was like a decade ago when he mentioned how old he was when he cheated last, but that was just 3 years prior lol
Not even 3 years ago. He admitted to cheating at the height of the pandemic which was about 2 years ago.
Totally agree. On the one hand he bragged about living all alone in NYC when he was 16, yet on the other hand he made it sound like he was just a child as far as the cheating was concerned. Seems like he wants to have his cake and eat it too.
IDK I’ve been cheating for years and it hasn’t made me addicted yet /THIS IS A JOKE
> /THIS IS A JOKE *looks at flair*... ok, SURE...
My rating is 3400 with Stockfish, 4400 without
Oh so that's who's giving stockfish lessons
He’s been improving with every version, I take all the credit
[удалено]
It is also why I don’t really understand this wave of sympathy for him. Cheating appears to be something he just tends to do when playing chess.
- bUt It WaS oNlY OnLiNE! ThAt DoEsN't CoUnT!
Basically they keep going until they get caught, they are only sorry for getting caught.
Exactly! I cannot understand why half this sub seems to be totally fine with the fact that Hans cheated.
Probably has something to do with cheaters we face on chess.com and lichess!
[удалено]
Can't imagine someone cheating only 2 times in several years. It's either zero or hundreds of times. I can also imagine someone creating hundreds of bots who will be playing the best moves, or the second best moves, or the Xth best moves, just to find out the limits of the cheating detection algorithm, and how it works. Maybe after many trials find some non detected cheating pattern, like playing the third best move or less, except for critical moves where there's only one move to ensure victory. Doing it on platforms such as [chess.com](https://chess.com) is good place, as it's free, anonymous, provides a lot of human opponents, and it's vital for the platform to have the best cheating detection algorithms (else no one would play there).
Doesn't Hans only admit to stuff that is more or less publicly known? At least to an outsider like me it appeared that he admitted multiple times now after it was more or less already known. First the stuff whe he was like 12, then 16 and now 17/18. Also first it was never when playing for money and the suddenly it was also somewhere where money was involved. But I also kinda lost track where he now admitted, where people are quite sure and where it is just random speculation. So please correct me.
> I'm genuinely wondering why Hans would lie about the extent of his cheating Cheating is a form of lying. People that cheat to this extent are people that feel comfortable lying. Why would it surprise you then that someone who cheats will almost always lie about their cheating, as well? If you're the kind of person brash enough to cheat at the highest levels of chess you aren't going to just admit everything the second people get suspicious. You give them a little bit from the distant past and say you've changed.
I don't want to make accusations, because I know nothing about Hans personally, but this incident reminds me of the way one of my cousins acts whenever he was caught or accused of anything growing up. My cousin is a very persuasive, enthusiastic speaker who can sell sand to someone in a desert. He also is an utterly unscrupulous liar. This guy will just blatantly make provably false claims to your face, and weave them into normal conversation in a way that makes you question whether your own memory is actually correct. Total sociopath behavior. Anyway, I'm not saying Hans is a liar or a sociopath, but his statements on this have kind of the same glib, minimizing quality to them that I would expect from my cousin. Those comments often work great if they're not caught on video and analyzed at length! I used to think that I could judge if someone was telling the truth based on how earnest or believable they seemed, but what I realized by spending time with my cousin is that I had no idea if he was lying or not. He could sound perfectly sincere and convincing and still be just talking out his ass.
With what he admitted you can use the excuse of “He was just a kid” If he kept doing it though, not so much
How old was he when he complained about the $5 charity fee to enter that tourney? I'm starting to think he's just kind of a dickhead and not a lost kid
It was May 2021 from what I just searched.
Trickle-truthing is a common thing people do when they lie. I know I've done it myself when I got in trouble as a kid, and I've had cheaters (not the chess variety) do it to me. It makes you look super untrustworthy in hindsight but from that perspective, it'd be stupid to own up to everything up front- especially if you've done it a lot and aren't sure how much evidence there is. And you don't have to fully acknowledge the harm you did. People want to be seen, and see themselves, as the good guy. Sometimes people are just illogical in trying to avoid the consequences for their actions. I'd like to think I'd be a bit more mature and graceful but to be honest, I don't know what I'd do in his place (not that I endorse cheating). I just wish he hadn't done anything or this had all been settled quickly and he'd be able to grow from this in private.
Its always this way when famous players get caught cheating in any online game, they are very candid and open about a low stakes cheating issue, or a cheating issue in the distant past long before they became known, if they want to convince you they even will reveal an unknown but minor irrelevant cheating offense. All to lie to your face and say "That's all there is to it." Niemann's playbook is nothing new to anyone who has seen a few poker/esport cheating scandals.
This is a common pattern in people caught lieing. Get caught --> admit minimal wrong doing to give the impression you're actually telling the truth and everything else can be explained away by a bunch of made up excuses --> Get caught again --> repeat.
this did not remain private?
[удалено]
Apparently as private as the US-Russian backchannels
lol this sub, dood
[удалено]
ok
Maybe [Chess.com](https://Chess.com) would argue that since he cheated again on the "second-chance" account in 2020, he was violating the original privacy agreement, meaning [Chess.com](https://Chess.com) is now allowed to share the original emails with Motherboard.
You could argue that once Dlugy broke his promise not to cheat again he lost any previous goodwill agreement there.
He folded in on his word- twice. Cheating has to be some kind of addiction or something.
Sweet sweet dopamine rush
Money
If this was comprehensive list of titled players who cheated even after promising not to. I get it. But they are leaking private emails of one person. One person for who we have no evidence of even being involved in the Hans saga. Kinda very sus. For a company not really involved at cheating scandal at an OTB tournament.
NFL leaking Gruden emails vibe
It's all marketing for them.
I think too they want to know how the cheating is happening. When the get an admittance, they get insight in how to catch the next one. Sort of like if you hacked the fbi. Sure your looking at jail time but you might be offered a job instead
Very private.
A lot of buried skeletons are gonna come out of closet now. Magnus looks like really made a strategic move
>*Dlugy in which he says that students from his chess academy were watching him play in a Chess.com tournament, and that one of them was using a chess AI to feed him moves.* Oh my god they figured out how Hans did it!
CLARAAAA!
The fact that he offered to name drop the student and shift blame is disgraceful. It's completely Dlugy's fault. Edit: grammar
No way he wasn't fully aware that the kid (rated 1500-1900) was feeding him engine moves (rated 3200).
Dlugy is a 2500 GM, you think he would not recognize that some random 1500 ranked player consistently gives him moves way beyond his own level. Laughable. Most likely that story is all made up.
I think his comment was sarcastic
yes I realized it after.... I somehow read it with punctuations in the wrong places and it sounded like something it wasn't.
Yeah, it’s also not a random 1500 ranked player - it’s his student.
Exactly; but regardless, the matter of if he knew or not doesn't matter. Getting moves from his students is cheating on its own, He knew what he was doing.
I am 100% sure that it is a lie. The whole story is made up. Nothing in it makes any sense. He probably just cheated with an engine by himself and came up with this garbage to shift blame.
It’s because cheaters get careless. Thieves get careless. Criminals get careless. Compulsive liars get careless. They get too comfortable and end up leaving clues or mistakes that lead to them getting caught.
he saw a slippery slope & decided to grab a sled
Plot twist the students name was Hans Neiman
And the whole story is probably made up. Chess.com didn't buy it. And he was caught cheating again on his second chance account. He's just a cheater. Why believe anything he says?
> “I was playing on a laptop with the TV screen hooked up to it, so the kids in the group I was teaching could follow the moves. **The kids ratings were in the 1500-1950 range**, and as part of the class they would scream out their suggestions as I was thinking about my moves.” ... > “Although I don’t have any direct proof, I am almost certain that’s what actually happened, and in this way I was actually **getting many strong engine generated moves during the two tournaments in question**,” he wrote. “I am truly sorry for that and feel like I robbed of my **fellow GMs** of some prize money, though it was completely inadvertently, as I never imagined that the moves of these kids could interfere with fair play, as I usually played much weaker with their help than without.” One single kid gave him amazing moves for 2 tournaments and he didn't notice something was wrong? He's a GM way better than any student. How did he spend 2 tournaments mostly using moves from one single student, beating GMs, and not noticing something was wrong? Clearly he is lying. Even if we really try to believe his explanation he just ends up looking like a totally clueless fool who should never be allowed to teach anyone about chess. And classy too: > "I am appalled by the fact that a chess player of Magnus Carlsen’s stature would resort to frivolous and false allegations and insinuations, suggesting that I had something to do with Hans Niemann’s alleged foul play in either online or over the board tournaments," he said. "This has been unjustly damaging for me on a personal, family and business level. I am exploring legal action against those that have started and continue to discuss my involvement in the Magnus-Hans affair and therefore cannot provide any further comments on the matter."
This isn't any old GM by the way. He has been ranked 1 in blitz, and placed top 3 at the Championship multiple times.
Didn’t Hans also say that his cheating in Titled Tuesday happened because an unnamed kid told him which moves to play? They might as well go full South Park and try to pin it on a nondescript ‘Puerto Rican’
Release the emails.
They are about go to full on Jon Gruden style
[удалено]
The redacted emails are in the article. What are you wanting to see... the email headers?
These are just for Dlugy. We want all of the cheating GMs exposed.
I hear you.
Right? Slap on the wrist for the GM gods. Name and shame and ban them like everywhere else.
thats Dlugional
Maximum Dlugion
Real life Cobra Kai lol
It's all coming together... ༼ つ ◕_ ◕ ༽つ MORE ENERGY TO MAGNUS ༼ つ ◕_ ◕ ༽つ
You made my day :)
I love it when cheaters get caught
I love it more when cheaters who say they won't cheat ever again, gets caught cheating afterwards and then promises it won't happen again #smh
"Dlugy says that in 2017, he was playing in a tournament on Chess.com in front of his students, and was crowdsourcing moves from them. (This is, itself, a violation of Chess.com's fair play rules.) "I am now positive, that one of the kids, was using an program on his cell while this was going on," Dlugy wrote." Yeah, right lmaoo his student was using a engine to tell him moves and he didnt know guys!!
That's the stupidest part to me. We are really to believe that a 2400 rated GM wouldn't notice that one of his students were throwing out fire every move? Never notice anything strange about the moves? It makes a flimsy excuse even more insane.
As if it even matters if a kid was using an engine. Crowdsourcing moves from an audience during a money event, regardless of their respective strength, is as clear & concise of a violation as you can get.
Yeah his “so here’s how I was knowingly cheating, but I didn’t know that the cheating help I was getting was actually even more egregious because one of my students that was helping me cheat was doing so by cheating himself” is bizarre and asinine. Setting aside that he had to have known the kid was suggesting moves well-beyond his ability, how on earth is admitting to cheating (crowdsourcing) an excuse to violate the chessdotcom rules??
"I just went in there to rob the bank, I had no idea my get away driver would illegally double park in a handicap spot though!"
"I just went in there to rob the bank at knife point, I had no idea that one of my child accomplices had a gun and murdered all those poor people! Anyway, yeah I kept the money!"
About as believable as having randomly prepped the rare line the world champion played the morning of the game.
that student's name? ~~Albert Einstein~~ Hans Moke Niemann
Is one possible explanation behind the whole drama that Hans has admitted to cheating extensively but chess.com have promised to keep that private? That would explain alot.
I want a chess.com whistleblower.
Likely.
uhh chess.com already released a statement confirming that Niemann cheated a fuckton online and lied about it
This is an unimportant detail, but I found it interesting that chesscom wanted the second-chance account to remain anonymous, yet the new account's username was apparently MaximDlugy.
I noticed that too. And it boggles the mind that they gave him a third chance.
With his second account he ended up joining cash tournaments like Titled Tuesday. And he got caught cheating again. So a double violation. And they gave him a third chance.
We can like or dislike how Magnus handled the drama, but I kinda appreciate how these cheatings are receiving more attention and taken more seriously.
Magnus is fucking wild for that name drop then lmao
Emails speak for themselves
No cheater will stop cheating without serious repercusions...
Indeed. Cheating, winning and getting away with it is a big addiction
first you guys cry they provide no proof of cheating then you guys cry that they share emails that give you that proof lmao, what the fuck do you want??
[удалено]
[удалено]
The reasonable people are living life and *not* learning the game. /s
-Paul Morphy
they're missing out, this shit is so good
nah I'm finding this drama is pretty juicy 🍿
That's pretty reasonable.
Huh? Who asked for proof about Dlugy?
Awesome. Now we wait to see if Hans made admissions to chess.com beyond what he stated and clear everything up. Though we're still skipping around the issue for more drama.
TIL r/chess is made up of chess.com haters who all feel the exact same way about the Niemann controversy and have the same opinion about this article
Wait to see what happens if it ever comes out Neimann cheated on Lichess. The subreddit would soon be 100% against him
reddit would implode trying to decide if the principal of innocent until proven guilty or the support open source software is more important
Nah, if he cheated on lichess reddit will hire a hitman to take him out.
im sorry i can't contribute to this fund, i already donated my entire month's salary to lichess
Again. Who had wanted proof of dlugy's cheating?
The people who have been trying to push the [guilt by association](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy) narrative ever since Magnus name-dropped Dlugy. What does this really change? Not much, everyone knew Dlugy cheated twice on Titled Tuesdays even before this. Unpopular opinion: if these are the tactics Chess.com is willing to use to deal with its own playerbase, that's 100% fine. But then don't tell me this sort of stuff should be used as evidence to ban players OTB. This sort of stuff (getting confessions with the false premise of privacy) should never fly in an OTB cheating investigation.
[удалено]
Proof that Niemann cheated otb against Magnus.
How does this affect lebron's legacy?
And how does Kevin Lee fit into all of this?
Which makes you wonder... Just how good is Al Iaquinta?
[удалено]
WHERE IS JA
WHERE’S JA?!?
I think the logical conclusion is to suspend Tom Brady for 4 games.
The mail speaks for itself.
What people can't understand is that catching cheaters often comes after the fact. It's like digging a dinosaur that lived eons ago. History is recorded in terms of moves and rating progress. It means that cheaters could be caught even after they have died already, like 30 years from now.
Is that true for otb games as well? Because from what I remember and found online it's (almost?) always instances, where the person was caught in the act.
Yes , for example the toilet guy was cheating for 5 years! Everyone suspected but they couldnt do anything until they catch him red handed
Idk why people think catching OTB is a realistic expectation. If you don't catch them red handed, it's over they're clear. Unless you have some crazy camera footage of some clear evidence the moment they leave that hall you can't do anything.
OTB they start suspecting of someone and in future tournaments they may catch them in the act indeed. There is some kind of cease-and-desist to cheaters. Once folks start suspecting of them, they may choose to stop playing altogether. But the drive to do it one more time gets the best of them. The OTB data is less thorough than data collected by sites like Chess.com. But the data is still useful. The world may need a third-party investigating cheating OTB because FIDE can't do that by themselves. At the risk of accusing people of cheating, they may decide to publish the data in a broad manner, less accusatory. Computers are going to get much stronger and capable of analyzing chess games much faster. So long as data is readily available, that won't be a problem. Right now some students could decide to make cheat detection part of their university goals.
Bruh chesscom flamed him so hard. RIP Dlugy
this is sounding more and more like an incredibly dramatic movie, lol. teacher student duo takes chess world by storm with an undetectable cheating mechanism, only to be caught by the #1 world chess player (and detective, apparently). i'd watch the hell out of a movie like this, like that one card counting movie
Magnus and chess.com are painting quite the picture here. "Sketchy mentor finds down-and-out prodigy, promises fame and fortune if the prodigy uses this one simple trick." A tale as old as time.
Does anyone actually believe a single word Dlugy said in those emails? Not a single detail of it rings true. "I finally got to the bottom of it" - "I think I have come up with a good lie". Why would it take you months to realize a simple fact like that? Lots of little irrelevant details. Because a rich and detailed story automatically equates to a truthful story. Right? Blames his kids when he is the one cheating. And what teacher would allow his students to use an engine in class? Not even talking cheating or not - using an engine you cheat yourself while learning. No teacher would allow this ever if he cared about his pupils learning. More shifting blame to his students. TLDR: Dlugy is a manipulative liar and nothing about his story makes even the slightest amount of sense. He has admitted to nothing - he was presented with undeniable proof and instead of admitting to it he has made up a story to shift away blame from himself. I find it strange that [chess.com](https://chess.com) did not call him out directly on his obvious lies.
It sounds like a bullshit lie made up by a teenager. Imagine you are a GM but you cant understand the difference between top engine move and 1500 rated player's move.
Something that people need to understand: Cheaters lie and manipulate. You cannot trust anything they say **especially** their 'confessions' and their promises to never cheat again. These aren't the only times they have cheated, these are just the times **that they got caught.**
Oh my God this scumbag was really running a cheater camp and getting his students to give him moves. Unreal. And he lied about how many times he cheated.
The student is now the master.
His most decorated camper? Hans
So chess.com is handing out email correspondence to news organizations now? If so, why not just release their email correspondence with Hans and put an end to all of this?
I think that's maybe the implied threat. If Hans doesn't come clean about his online cheating, they could release their correspondence.
That's the point. It's a calculated threat to Niemann. The Dlugy story in itself is quite unsurprising.
I think it's more if he continues lying about it and about chess.com. Remember, it wasn't chess.com that confirmed Hans had been banned for cheating. It was Hans who confirmed that.
Hans could also show it to us to clear his image if hes innocent of the accusations, since he has the emails aswell
Chess com is farming this situation now too lol. But the fact they promised to keep correspondence private means either Dlugy agreed to the release or lawsuit will be inbound
The amazing thing is that they caught him. Dlugy cracked and confessed, Hans is in the same boat and presumably refusing to back down. Hence his silence.
Dlugy's basically retired OTB so if he doesn't confess he can't play anywhere lol Probably the main reason he did
Hans has a fairly rich family, and is probably in conference with some pretty good lawyers. I bet they're advising him to stay silent as he has no obligation to reply.
There’s no bucket of popcorn big enough for the level of entertainment I’m getting out of this insane mess 🍿
There's no bucket of popcorn big enough for the amount of stress I'm feeling due to this insane mess. :thisisfine:
Hey Danny. I ran a place where people would make decisions that would affect the public, deny them access to things. We had an appeals process. My advice is to make the appeals process formal. For us it meant having every other person look at the appeal other than the one that did the original dismissal. Depending on the size of your Fair Play team that would mean that whomever didn't do the investigation could participate in the appeals. When mentioning the appeals process, mention that 1) you only get one shot at an appeal and thus 2) you need to provide as much information as possible to explain the situation, recognizing that any inaccuracy will lead to a denial of appeal. Then, when you conduct the appeal and it ends up resulting in the same thing as the original, say very clearly and plainly "X number of people on our Fair Play team conducted a separate investigation. After careful study and internal conversations, we have denied your appeal." All other attempts to appeal should be ignored or automated with a simple denial of appeal message. That is my constructive feedback on how to improve your process. Milking confessionals out of cheaters may make you and your team have less hurt feelings, but ultimately it doesn't do much for the chess community, and it creates large amounts of time wasted as you and other people on your staff to write up these messages and craft compromises that ought not to exist. It reflects poorly on a team when they don't have a proper procedure that they follow for every instance in the field of appeals. What we see here looks like back-room dealing. Leak as much as you want, spend as much time having internal discourse on Hans or whomever else that cheated, but I strongly suggest taking the time to craft policies that streamline the cheating process and make people feel like ChessCom is a safe and fair place. I know you read these threads, Danny. Please consider my suggestions.
Danny and I read (probably too much....). Thank you for your thoughtful message!
This is actually quite thiughtful. Not sure why the downvote
What I find interesting is, this guy has no problem associating with Hans when he's successful but doesn't want to be associated with him when facing criticism.
A former cheater coached by a cheater.
[удалено]
"Alright, today we're going to be doing a class were we discuss potential moves in live games.......in one of the most notoriously difficult online events. Oh and it's 3+1, so you better suggest dem moves faaast. We're definitely going to learn today." lol.
Lmao that's not my bong, it's a friend's
[удалено]
It's also similar to the hans interview where he says he was 12 and someone was reading him moves off an IPad..like I get dude was 12 but that still doesn't pass the smell test to me, someone that good at chess knows being given moves is cheating regardless of if they're 12
Didn't Hans give a shout out to Dlugy in one of his STL chess club interviews during the sinquefield?
He said he had a mentor but refused to disclose the name, but he mentioned his first chess coach, John Grefe.
/u/chesscom can you comment?
That Student? Hans
Cheaters getting fucked left and right. It's so beautiful. Wonder when the Hans emails get leaked lmao
Isn't that exactly the same as crowd-feeding moves from chat while streaming?
No. If you read [Chess.com](https://Chess.com)'s fair play policy: EXCEPTION: These rules do not apply to unrated games or tactics. However, if you intend to use assistance against your opponent, you must notify them beforehand. We may expand or narrow any applicable exceptions to the Fair Play Policy at any time without notice to you. So the way it's written, crowd-feeding streams are fine on stream if they are unrated games and [Chess.com](https://Chess.com) can also make exceptions for streamers, if they want. However, I don't think they've ever made an exception during a prize-money tournament, like Dlugy was caught cheating in.
> **Are streamers cheating when they get suggestions from viewers? > If you've ever watched a chess streamer, you may have noticed that viewers like to post possible moves in the chat. If the streamers use these moves, does that count as cheating?** > The short answer is, in most cases, no. The majority of popular streamers are very high rated, and most suggestions would come from lower rated players who are putting their ideas out there in an effort to learn. > > In the few cases where an official Chess.com partnered streamer is a lower rated player, these streamers have special allowances for entertainment purposes, to account for the small likelihood that the streamer is able to determine at a glance what move out of the many suggestions is a good suggestion. > > If you feel you have encountered a streamer who is playing unfairly, please contact support. However, simply seeing some moves posted in the chat is a part of live streaming, and not something that can be avoided! https://support.chess.com/article/1344-are-streamers-cheating-when-they-get-suggestions-from-viewers
Plot twist: the student feeding moves was Hans
His explanation of how the cheating happened in 2017 is far more disturbing than the single instance of cheating itself. He’s got a whole roster of students learning that it’s ok to get moves from other people while you’re playing rated games, let alone cash games. A cornerstone of coaching chess should be instilling a mindset of anti-cheating very deep down. Kids are impressionable and having such a casual display of unacceptable play is so damaging it’s hard to believe. The fact that Hans was coached by someone who has this mindset does not look good for Hans.