On September 5, 2022, Magnus Carlsen – the number 1 chess player in the International Chess Federation’s (FIDE) world rankings since 2011 – abruptly withdrew from the Sinquefield Cup after his upset loss to 19-year-old Hans Niemann – the lowest-ranked player at the event. Carlsen announced his withdrawal on Twitter with a clip of soccer coach Jose Mourinho saying “If I speak, I’m in big trouble.” This immediately led to speculation that Carlsen believed Niemann had cheated in his win. A few days later, Carlsen confirmed that he suspected Niemann of cheating, but refused to elaborate.
That, however, did not stop members of the chess community from jumping to their own conclusions. First, there was the matter of play. Carlsen played an opening move that he had only used three times before, but Niemann responded flawlessly. Second, there was the matter of history. At the time of Carlsen’s allegations, Niemann had admitted to cheating twice before, once when he was 12 and once when he was 16. Both instances had occurred in online matches, and he had received suspensions both times. Third, there was the matter of tactics. In his post-match interview, Niemann could not explain his strategy or approach in defeating the reigning champion.
While many fans and players took to Carlsen’s side, many refused to condemn Niemann. Despite the various reasons supporting the cheating allegations, there was no actual evidence of Niemann’s cheating in his game against Carlsen. Without solid evidence of live, in-person cheating, it’s hard to take Carlsen’s allegations as truth. So far, no one has been able to suggest a reasonable and feasible method of cheating Niemann could have used in the match. Cheating in online games is much easier than cheating in a live engagement.
But is physical evidence necessary for Niemann to be penalized? Since Carlsen raised the cheating allegations against Niemann, Chess.com has released a report detailing past suspicious activity and suggesting Neimann “likely” cheated more than 100 times in online chess games, including in tournaments with prize money. Those “findings” led Chess.com to close Niemann’s account and revoke his invitation to upcoming tournaments.
Ultimately, the issue goes far beyond this specific individual and these particular games. Cheating, especially cheating aided by machines, poses an existential threat to the sport. The use of computer-generated strategies threatens to make chess entirely uniform – a math problem with a single solution. It renders individuals’ physical or intellectual abilities irrelevant in a way that even doping in traditional sports doesn’t.
With the stakes high and uncertainties everywhere, what is FIDE or Chess.com to do?
–DISCUSSION QUESTIONS–
Is it okay to punish Niemann without irrefutable proof in order to protect the integrity of the game? Doesn’t Niemann deserve the presumption of innocence – to be considered not guilty until proven otherwise?
Was it wrong for Carlsen to accuse Niemann of cheating without providing proof? Given his position as an ambassador for the game, might Carlsen have additional responsibilities to keep his head down and not stir up drama?