Was it an anal probe? Because thatโs the only one kind I would trust in this situation
this post was submitted on 23 Dec 2023
67 points (93.5% liked)
Chess
1957 readers
2 users here now
Play chess on-line
FIDE Rankings
| # | Player | Country | Elo |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Magnus Carlsen | ๐ณ๐ด | 2839 |
| 2 | Fabiano Caruana | ๐บ๐ธ | 2786 |
| 3 | Hikaru Nakamura | ๐บ๐ธ | 2780 |
| 4 | Ding Liren ๐ | ๐จ๐ณ | 2780 |
| 5 | Alireza Firouzja | ๐ซ๐ท | 2777 |
| 6 | Ian Nepomniachtchi | ๐ท๐บ | 2771 |
| 7 | Anish Giri | ๐ณ๐ฑ | 2760 |
| 8 | Gukesh D | ๐ฎ๐ณ | 2758 |
| 9 | Viswanathan Anand | ๐ฎ๐ณ | 2754 |
| 10 | Wesley So | ๐บ๐ธ | 2753 |
Tournaments
September 4 - September 22
Check also
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Haha, beat me to it.
They caught the rat under his hat, and sure enough it squealed.
Statistics only really work, if you have a reasonable amount of data at hand. Obviously it was easy for the Chess.com games to find the problematic games. But Niemann only played in 13 over-the-board tournaments.
Carlsen and another (anonymous) GM said some games were suspicious. For me, this is still more accurate than the statistics they used.
Headline writers are the worst, they so often misrepresent the article. I don't mean you OP, but in this case a headline writer at CNN (the actual author of the article most likely did not write the headline). From the article:
"...the ultimate conclusion that GM Niemann had not made himself guilty of over-the-board cheating" and "there was no โstatistical evidence to support GM Niemann cheating in over the-board gamesโ".
The headline implies they found he didn't cheat, whereas it should probably say they didn't find (enough) evidence he cheated. It's a subtle difference, but with big implications.
Niemann is a scumbag. Sure he's innocent until proven guilty, but he's already been proven to be a cheater and a liar.
They may have been online, but he still used the vibrating buttplug.