|
Fangz posted:Thread from legal guy https://twitter.com/AkivaMCohen/status/1583225640873959424 Idk everyone seems like a douchebag in this saga. e: snipe penalty  Adafruit posted:Cheekmate - a Wireless Haptic Communication System https://learn.adafruit.com/cheekmate-wireless-haptic-communication?view=all busalover fucked around with this message at 15:33 on Oct 21, 2022 |
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 15:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 20:51 |
|
|
"for posterity whether this sort of backdoor intrusion is even plausible" ... (har har)
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 16:03
|
|
|
They didn't butt test it. What a bummer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 17:16
|
|
|
Reading that thread makes it look like the lawsuit will end in the most boring way possible. With the suit against chess.com dismissed bc it is in the wrong state, and the other ones dismissed bc Hansen didn't claim malice. Also there were several tech/hacker sites building chess assisting buttplugs for some reason. As I understand it, the allegation was that Hansen had an assistant inputting moves, operating the engine and then communicating with him. The hardware should be indistinguishable from a normal remote controlled buttplug that you can buy everywhere and worn in the same way you would wear it for non-cheating reasons.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 18:23
|
|
|
Its funnier if the buttplug has stockfish installed
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 18:30
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/GothamChess/status/1583452751673327618?s=20&t=ODPBDCz73W0ebxlum0wxGw Haha (To be fair, that's just the online part, and I think that's annual revenue, but whatever) T.C. fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Oct 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 18:51
|
|
|
Its loving crazy. None of it makes sense unless you read the bit where it says 100 million dollars in the doctor evil voice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 19:02
|
|
|
VictualSquid posted:Reading that thread makes it look like the lawsuit will end in the most boring way possible. With the suit against chess.com dismissed bc it is in the wrong state, and the other ones dismissed bc Hansen didn't claim malice. Hans. Hans vs. Carlsen. Not sure who the Hansen would be here
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 19:10
|
|
|
one of the funniest bits in the lawsuit is definitely when hans niemann described chess.com as a "multi-billion-dollar business"
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 19:41
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:one of the funniest bits in the lawsuit is definitely when hans niemann described chess.com as a "multi-billion-dollar business" Hey now. If you think about it, there are 10^120 chess games possible, and if they mint an NFT of each of those, and sell it for one cent, bam, that's $10^118 in straight cash. It's an untapped market!
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 20:06
|
|
|
this is the best thread title on the forum and it’s not even close
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 20:07
|
|
|
What are the chances this makes it to discovery? Because that's some real content I want to see.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 20:30
|
|
|
Seems unlikely but I desperately hope it does
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 20:31
|
|
|
Hans snapping at his lawyers not to make him look mad in the lawsuit
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 20:32
|
|
|
Hans should have also sued Eric Hansen and added a lengthy section to the lawsuit where he explains how he definitely does not have a stockfish buttplug
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 20:44
|
|
|
Was the suit actually drafted by a law office or did Hans write the thing himself?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 20:54
|
|
|
rollick posted:Hans snapping at his lawyers not to make him look mad in the lawsuit I'm not mad. Do not put it in the summary that I am mad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 21:14
|
|
|
Mechafunkzilla posted:Was the suit actually drafted by a law office or did Hans write the thing himself? the plaintiff, who is really cool and handsome and who lots of people have said is the next Bobby Fischer, has excellent hair and Magnus Carlsen, the "King of Chess," maliciously tried to destroy
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 21:53
|
|
|
VictualSquid posted:Reading that thread makes it look like the lawsuit will end in the most boring way possible. With the suit against chess.com dismissed bc it is in the wrong state, and the other ones dismissed bc Hansen didn't claim malice. And this is the -very- sad truth. The final lines say that the suit came to fruition at last because it was "defamatory and malicious statements and press releases that have cost him all invitations, cannot compete in, and will be banned from all FIDE-Sanctioned Chess Tournaments." Which is a very compelling argument, because Chess.com and Play Magnus could not conclusively say he was cheating, but was making these allegations after they had to dig very, very deep to find when he used a chess engine as a fourteen year old to raise his ELO. (page 5, 14, section C) The real problem here is that even with that, and whatever comes from discovery, it's most likely filed in the wrong state. And that means something worse than just pride for chess and whatnot: the guy literally is going to be hosed over by the justice system for not having a clear and competent case with a team of skilled lawyers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 22:11
|
|
|
Hans also cheated for money when he was 16. There's no evidence he cheated against Magnus, but that does colour the statements calling him a cheater. American libel law is weak, the only way Hans wins is if he discovers an email where Magnus tells somebody "let's all lie and claim he cheated because I'm angry he outplayed me."
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 22:15
|
|
|
I hope Hans sues them from the UK
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 22:25
|
|
|
VROOM VROOM posted:I hope Hans sues them from the UK I don't think an American can sue a Norwegian from the UK for what happened at a US chess tournament.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 22:29
|
|
|
Faust IX posted:And this is the -very- sad truth. The final lines say that the suit came to fruition at last because it was "defamatory and malicious statements and press releases that have cost him all invitations, cannot compete in, and will be banned from all FIDE-Sanctioned Chess Tournaments." What are you talking about? Even if true that he filed in the wrong state you just move it to the right state? There are procedures to change the venue to the correct one, and no complaint would get dismissed with prejudice on that basis alone. When this complaint is dismissed, and it will be, it will be on the merits because he has failed to state a claim.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 22:55
|
|
|
It's a very weird set of events to even try to set up a defamation lawsuit like this. But this does mean that Chess.Com and Play Magnus have to legit take it seriously instead of hemming and hawwing like they did for several weeks. I know quite a few of you here don't really care for the guy, but if he's stubborn enough to actually sue for defamation, give evidence based on statements and actions by the defendants that could be argued as legitimately malicious and with intent to destroy reputation...well. I don't like just giving a google answer, so lets break this down. Cornell Law School: Legal Information Instute posted:To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: As far as I'm aware, every action up to this point qualifies this as defamation at face value, in favor of Hans. The specifics that will be argued about are going to be steps 1 and 3, but the press release of Chess.com is the slander part of the equation, the libel is a combination of Hikaru's video statements, and 4 is quite literally the fact that googling the words "Hans Niemann" from before the lawsuit was filed (and to some extent still), you can prove the ridiculous insanity that is the "he cheated with an anal plug" in the top search results. I don't really believe that this would be an international trial, because the tournament this all was based around and is consistently referred to is/was held in the United States. I cannot say that this will even get into a trial past discovery, because right now, I do not believe Chess.com and the other defendants have even lawyered up. Hell, I'm probably wrong on far more than one point here. But in some weird way, I really want to see if that defamation suit sticks. Edit: [quote=]A lawyer representing Carlsen said the claims are "without merit". "Hans Niemann has an admitted history of cheating and his lawsuit is nothing more than an attempt to deflect blame onto others," he said. Lawyers for Chess.com also dismissed the allegations, and said the company looked "forward to setting the record straight on behalf of its team and all honest chess players".[/quote] My apologies to Raikaru, it was Hikaru. Typo of great magnitude. But that does answer whether or not Chess.com want's to challenge this. I'm genuinely excited. Faust IX fucked around with this message at 23:07 on Oct 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 23:01
|
|
|
Faust IX posted:And this is the -very- sad truth. The final lines say that the suit came to fruition at last because it was "defamatory and malicious statements and press releases that have cost him all invitations, cannot compete in, and will be banned from all FIDE-Sanctioned Chess Tournaments." That lawyer tweet thread basically said that in the US at least you can't sue someone for defamation if they said an opinion they believed to be true based on the facts available to them. For it to be defamation they have to know it was untrue and say it anyway to harm you. So for instance Chess.com releasing that big report with all their evidence of cheating, to a US court, is very strong evidence that they were not defaming him, they were stating an opinion based on their understanding of the facts and that isn't defamation and it definitely isn't a conspiracy to destroy his career and prevent him from becoming world champion like the lawsuit claims. https://twitter.com/AkivaMCohen/status/1583268996874645504 https://twitter.com/AkivaMCohen/status/1583270549626576896 https://twitter.com/AkivaMCohen/status/1583287472338845696 https://twitter.com/AkivaMCohen/status/1583292364440813570 So I guess if Carlsen and Chess.com think Niemann cheated based on the facts in front of them, they are allowed to express that opinion and that doesn't make it defamation unless they actually know that he didn't cheat and are lying maliciously. Filed in the right state or not and injurious to his career or not, this one random lawyer at least is saying he just plain doesn't have the right to forbid people from saying they think he's a cheater based on his past cheating. vyelkin fucked around with this message at 23:05 on Oct 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 23:02
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:So I guess if Carlsen and Chess.com think Niemann cheated based on the facts in front of them, they are allowed to express that opinion and that doesn't make it defamation unless they actually know that he didn't cheat and are lying maliciously. Filed in the right state or not and injurious to his career or not, this one random lawyer at least is saying he just plain doesn't have the right to forbid people from saying they think he's a cheater based on his past cheating. That lawyer is correct. And to confirm, you only have to look at the complaint itself. The causes of action at the end outline Hans' claims, what he has to prove for them, and how he has done so. Everything before that is the factual allegations in support. So if you look at the first cause of action, slander, paragraph 175: Defendants made the defamatory statements with full knowledge that such statements were false, or with reckless disregard as to whether such statements were false, as set forth more fully above. Basically he has to allege that the defendants made statements they knew were false, or with reckless disregard of the truth of the statement. It's a tough standard, and I would have a field day on a motion to dismiss on this one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 23:09
|
|
|
mikeraskol posted:That lawyer is correct. And to confirm, you only have to look at the complaint itself. The causes of action at the end outline Hans' claims, what he has to prove for them, and how he has done so. Everything before that is the factual allegations in support. I concede. It's a shame. I really wish this was written...better. Like, by someone who knew how to not screw up in simple easy to dismiss ways like that. Your case is only as good as your lawyer, and it seems Niemann won't even make it upon further reading and re-reading the parts there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 23:14
|
|
|
I don't think it has to do with the lawyer. It's just not a tenable case because slander/libel are extremely difficult to prove in the United States. You have to prove that the defendant intentionally lied in a way that harmed you. While Niemann may be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn't cheat in that game, it's just fundamentally not plausible to prove that Magnus knew he didn't cheat and chose to lie about it anyways, unless he was dumb enough to leave a paper trail explicitly saying that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 23:17
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:I don't think it has to do with the lawyer. It's just not a tenable case because slander/libel are extremely difficult to prove in the United States. You have to prove that the defendant intentionally lied in a way that harmed you. While Niemann may be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn't cheat in that game, it's just fundamentally not plausible to prove that Magnus knew he didn't cheat and chose to lie about it anyways, unless he was dumb enough to leave a paper trail explicitly saying that. Bingo. Particularly given his past cheating. Though I will say, this is a poorly drafted complaint in general.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 23:19
|
|
|
Chess.com definitely acted like douchebags, but it’s not illegal to act like a douchebag. If it was, Hans would have been in real trouble before this whole kerfuffle!
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 23:20
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:I don't think an American can sue a Norwegian from the UK for what happened at a US chess tournament. Coulda perhaps have sued Carlsen only in Norway which might have been a better case, not that I know anything about Norwegian defamation law.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 23:24
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Coulda perhaps have sued Carlsen only in Norway which might have been a better case, not that I know anything about Norwegian defamation law. The deep pocket here is chess.com I’d be more worried about keeping them in the lawsuit, which would be impossible if you filed in Norway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 23:26
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:I don't think it has to do with the lawyer. It's just not a tenable case because slander/libel are extremely difficult to prove in the United States. You have to prove that the defendant intentionally lied in a way that harmed you. While Niemann may be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn't cheat in that game, it's just fundamentally not plausible to prove that Magnus knew he didn't cheat and chose to lie about it anyways, unless he was dumb enough to leave a paper trail explicitly saying that. Yeah. It's an unfortunate fact of the way the world is currently set up that people with power have a lot of perfectly legal ways to ruin the lives and careers of people without power. Niemann isn't wrong that Carlsen and Chess.com's accusations of cheating have probably harmed his career and cost him money, and he may never be able to repair that damage, but that doesn't make what they did illegal, the same way that, I dunno, writing a restaurant review in which you say you think the food was off isn't illegal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 23:26
|
|
|
I'm really bad evaluating positions. I found a site with a few puzzles where you say have to say who's better, and that was really cool, but the puzzles were super hard. Some of them were +.5 when I put the computer on them. Does anyone know of evaluation training for basically kids? I'm at the level of a good 6-7 year old.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2022 00:08
|
|
|
mikeraskol posted:The deep pocket here is chess.com I’d be more worried about keeping them in the lawsuit, which would be impossible if you filed in Norway. Carlsen presumably has some cash monies too, not least from selling play magnus to chess.com, and better to have a 75% chance of something than a 0% chance of something twice as big.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2022 00:09
|
|
|
Like here is a position that I tried to justify to myself as being +2/3 for white as a puzzle solution.  -3
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2022 00:14
|
|
|
Black has more material and a better structure. What did you think white was going to accomplish there? e: I don't mean that as a rhetorical question. Black has more material and a better structure so if white's better then white is accomplishing something right then and there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2022 00:24
|
|
|
In fairness to myself I was evaluating that position from here:  Here I was thinking in my brain Qxb5 forces the queen trade because unless you move the queen the knight forks it on c6. Okay, so Qx, and then Qx, and then Nx, and now we're left in this position. The king's pawn cover is partially removed, the bishop is coming to a7, the A pawn is going to push, the rook is going to magically appear somewhere around a7 (?) and everything's fine. Obviously in retrospect I sorta play around with it for 5-10 minutes and okay, I don't really have a prayer because the A and C pawns are so weak that both rooks have to babysit them, the D file is owned by black, and any threat to the black king is an illusion. I would say I understand this specific position much better, but its also clear to me that I lack an actual foundation of being able to evaluate a position, and I sort of automatically distrust my own conclusions which leads to a lot of second guessing and recalculation during an actual game.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2022 00:44
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Carlsen presumably has some cash monies too, not least from selling play magnus to chess.com, and better to have a 75% chance of something than a 0% chance of something twice as big. Nah. You’re trying to get a settlement. If there’s no litigation risk against the bigger pocket your expected value goes way down. No serious lawyer at least would ever file this in a place where they couldn’t keep chess.com in the lawsuit. Though I will admit I approach this from a US practitioner perspective. mikeraskol fucked around with this message at 00:49 on Oct 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2022 00:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 20:51 |
|
|
Salt Fish posted:I would say I understand this specific position much better, but its also clear to me that I lack an actual foundation of being able to evaluate a position, and I sort of automatically distrust my own conclusions which leads to a lot of second guessing and recalculation during an actual game. You said this is a puzzle, so the approach would be different, but for a game here's a basic three question approach that will serve you well: (1) What are the worst pieces on the board? (2) What are the weaknesses in the position? (3) What is my opponent's plan? e: For a puzzle, especially the lichess/chesscom ones, you generally know that the eval is that it's losing for your opponent, so you start with "what are the parts of their position by which they can lose the game?" In the puzzle you posted, black's queen is the most obvious target, so start there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2022 01:59
|
|