Niemann’s land

Why is the American Grandmaster, Hans Moke Niemann, now aged 22, perpetually attended by that curious and inextinguishable halo of controversy which seems to gather about certain modern men, as electricity gathers about a storm-cloud? One must return to the original casus belli. Imagine, if you will, two young men upon a sunlit beach in Miami: the American chess grandmaster Hans Niemann, and the then world champion Magnus Carlsen from Norway. They sit together over a chessboard beneath the democratic brightness of the sea air, bent earnestly above the pieces and plainly delighted by the swift succession of their games. It is chess as recreation; chess as civilised sport.

Within a matter of days, however, these same antagonists meet again in altogether altered circumstances: the third round of the Sinquefield Cup in St Louis. Here there is no holiday spirit. This is no longer chess for fun, but chess for blood.

In an event which startled even those long acquainted with the caprices of grandmaster play, the teenager defeats the world champion, who thereupon performs an act without precedent and withdraws from the tournament itself. A week later they meet once more across the board, and Carlsen’s singularly abrupt resignation after a single move constitutes a gesture more eloquent than speech. He refuses to play. This second unprecedented act gives rise to allegations of cheating and unleashes a scandal that has torn through the chess world with extraordinary violence, grandmasters and former champions arranging themselves in fortified camps upon either side.

Not since the days of Bobby Fischer and Boris Spassky had the game of chess erupted into the mainstream imagination with such persistence and theatrical force.

An eagerly anticipated report was then issued by the online chess colossus Chess.com, intended, so it seemed, to stand as a final judicial pronouncement on whether Niemann had cheated in his famous victory over Magnus Carlsen. Predictably enough, the report leaned heavily toward Carlsen’s position, provoking sensational headlines proclaiming that Niemann had cheated hundreds of times in online contests, while also insinuating that the young American may have secured his over-the-board victory in St Louis by questionable means.

Chess.com protested — perhaps with somewhat excessive vigour — that it had not acted at Carlsen’s instruction, nor engaged in extensive prior consultation with him upon the matter. Yet the damage had already descended. Niemann’s reputation stood in danger of enduring disfigurement. Carlsen’s financial relationship with Chess.com, amid rumours of a multi-million-dollar merger, naturally had nothing whatever to do with the conclusions reached. Nevertheless, many observers have remarked that the conduct of Chess.com appeared considerably closer to opacity than transparency. There are occasions when those who inhabit glass houses might wisely refrain from casting accusations.

Returning to the report itself, calmer minds, among them the English Grandmaster Nigel Davies, responded with marked scepticism. Davies observed bluntly in a tweet: “72 effing pages but without any clue as to what constitutes academic rigour…”

In this he was supported by Carl Portman, adviser to the English Chess Federation, who tweeted: “It just gets worse. I have not read the full report but words like ‘likely’ are meaningless. In court, ‘likely, probably, might have and possibly’ are NOT enough to make a conviction…” Mr Portman, as ECF manager of Chess in Prisons, may be presumed to possess some familiarity with legal standards.

Chess.com contends, upon statistical grounds, that Niemann cheated online on far more occasions than he himself has admitted. Niemann has indeed confessed to two instances in his teenage years in which he illicitly consulted chess engines during online play. Almost passed over was the fact that at no time, had any evidence been offered that might confirm the thesis that Niemann had cheated over-the-board. The acknowledged statistical expert on cheating, IM Ken Regen, publicly confirmed this.

But did Niemann cheat in order to defeat Carlsen over the board?

I think not. If the moves of young players increasingly resemble those of computers, this surely signifies only that players who train obsessively with computers will, in due course, come to think and play in a computational fashion. I myself predicted as much in my lecture at the Royal Institution nearly thirty years ago, before Garry Kasparov succumbed to IBM’s Deep Blue in their celebrated 1997 encounter.

The report further condemns Niemann on the grounds of his statistically improbable ascent in rating. One wonders what Chess.com would have made of the meteoric rise of the youthful Capablanca, Fischer, Kasparov, or indeed Carlsen himself, had the machinery of mass online competition existed during their formative years.

More importantly still, the authors of the report continued to intimate that Niemann’s over-the-board victory against Carlsen possessed suspicious characteristics. On page 3 they write: “Despite the public speculation on these questions, in our view, there is no direct evidence that proves Hans cheated at the September 4, 2022 game with Magnus, or proves that he has cheated in other OTB games in the past.”

Yet having stated this unequivocally, the report immediately proceeds to weaken its own declaration: “We believe certain aspects of the September 4 game were suspicious, and Hans’s explanation of his win post-event added to our suspicion.”

My own advice to Niemann has consistently been that he should consult M’Learned Friends. He has now elected to do precisely that. The complete text of his lawsuit has been published on social media, and the damages sought encompass a broad constellation of Carlsen’s supporters and retainers, especially Chess.com itself, with sums extending into the hundreds of millions of American dollars.

Commenting upon the Chess.com report in the context of these financial entanglements, Adam Black, former Reuters chess correspondent, remarked: “It is notable that no mention of the commercial relationship between Carlsen and Chess.com, nor sponsorship links with many of their online commentators is disclosed in their lengthy and technical pseudo-paper.”

Without disclosing any of these financial relationships, Chess.com has exerted itself strenuously to distance its actions from those of Carlsen. Yet I believe there remains a fatal logical defect in the company’s position. If its anti-cheating mechanisms are indeed as infallible as claimed, by what miracle did Niemann allegedly succeed in cheating hundreds of times before detection? Chess.com seeks simultaneously to boast of perfect vigilance and to excuse prolonged blindness.

Despite the intimidating bulk of the Chess.com attempt to demolish Niemann’s credibility, together with its cloud of insinuation surrounding the St Louis encounter, it has nevertheless proved impossible thus far to construct a persuasive case that Niemann’s victory over Carlsen was anything other than authentic and deserved. This view has been endorsed by Malcolm Pein, chess correspondent of the Daily Telegraph, in an extended interview for BBC television.

With the publication of Niemann’s extensive lawsuit against Carlsen and his allies, the affair has now burst fully into public view. Either the courts themselves, or some private settlement beyond them, must eventually determine who is the knight in shining armour and who the court jester — le fou, in French, being the rather less flattering term for the chess piece English players call the bishop.

The lawyers representing Chess.com were first among the defendants to answer publicly: “Hans confessed publicly to cheating online in the wake of the Sinquefield Cup, and the resulting fallout is of his own making.”

Craig Reiser of Axinn’s Litigation Group, acting for Magnus Carlsen, stated: “Hans Niemann has an admitted history of cheating and his lawsuit is nothing more than an attempt to deflect blame onto others. His legal claims are without merit.”

It is conspicuously evident that both defendants seek to conflate two entirely separate matters so as to obscure responsibility. The first concerns the historical record of Niemann — together with at least four further members of the FIDÉ top hundred, discreetly unnamed — having cheated during online play upon Chess.com.

Niemann admitted this immediately and without equivocation, which stands in notable contrast to Carlsen’s silence concerning the YouTube video showing him cheating twice online against Daniel Naroditsky on Lichess.com.

However, these matters do not in truth constitute the essential substance of the accusation upon which Niemann’s defamation action has been jointly advanced against Magnus Carlsen, the owners of Chess.com, its Chief Chess Officer, Danny Rensch, and the Chess.com-sponsored streamer GM Hikaru Nakamura.

The true centre of gravity lies rather in the second and far graver allegation promulgated by Carlsen, Chess.com, and their adherents: namely, that Niemann cheated in over-the-board contests, including, though by no means confined to, his celebrated third-round victory over Carlsen. Yet, up to the present hour, no evidence whatsoever has been publicly produced capable of substantiating these allegations, which continue to derive their force almost entirely from inference, innuendo, and insinuation.

There may now ensue one of those prolonged silences so characteristic of modern legal and commercial conflict, while the opposing parties determine whether accommodation or open confrontation shall prevail. Any eventual settlement reached beyond the courtroom is likely to involve very considerable sums, for after Niemann’s unexpected absence from the Tata Steel tournament at Wijk aan Zee, it is plain that his professional prospects have suffered severe and perhaps lasting injury through the reckless mutterings of defeated men.

There are few experiences more intolerable to a serious competitor than to find oneself accused of dishonesty after having attained success by entirely legitimate means. Niemann has now vindicated his self-belief by winning one of the strongest tournaments on the world circuit.

He was the surprise winner of the recent speed chess tournaments in Poland. Against an extremely strong field, including the current world champion Gukesh Dommaraju and former world championship finalist Fabiano Caruana, Niemann topped the table by a half point.

The scoring system was varied between the two tournaments, with the rapidplay scoring as follows: win=2; draw=1; loss=1; and for the blitz, the more customary: win=1; draw=½; loss=1.

Grand Chess Tour: Super Rapid Poland cross table

source: chess.com

Grand Chess Tour: Super Blitz Poland cross table

source: chess.com

The winner is derived by the simple addition of the two sets of scores, as follows:

Grand Chess Tour Poland: Final Table

source: chess.com

In the following game, the tournament winner is black against the current world champion. It is a nervous contest with both players seemingly risk-averse. But when a single indiscretion is ventured by Gukesh, Niemann seizes upon it quickly, only to relinquish his advantage a few moves later. After a hiatus, another blunder is one too many for the world champion, and Niemann finishes the contest after only another few moves.

Dommaraju Gukesh vs. Hans Niemann

Super Rapid Poland (rapid), Warsaw, 2026, round two

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. g3 d5 4. Bg2 Bb4+ 5. Bd2 Be7 6. Nf3 O-O 7. O-O c6 8. Qc2 Nbd7 9. Bf4 a5 10. h4 b6 11. Nbd2 Ba6 12. Rfe1 c5 13. e4 cxd4 14. exd5 d3 15. Qd1

Obviously not 15. Qxd3 in view of 15… Nxd5!, but a slight improvement was available after the following variation: 15. Qb1 Nc5 16. Ne5 Bd6 17. dxe6 Nxe6 18. Bg5 Rc8 19. Nxf7 Rxf7 20. Rxe6, when White has the initiative and some pressure against the f6-knight.

15… exd5 16. Nd4 Bb7 17. Nf5 Re8 18. cxd5 Bf8 19. d6

White could improve on this natural move with 19. Rxe8 Qxe8 20. Ne3 b5 21. Qf1 Nb6 22. Re1 Qd7 23. Qxd3 Nfxd5 24. Nxd5 Bxd5 25. Nf3 when he has the more compact position.

19… Bxg2 20. Kxg2 Rxe1 21. Qxe1 Nd5 22. Bg5 Qe8 23. Qd1 Qe6 24. Qf3 Re8 25. Qxd3 f6 26. Be3 g6 27. Ne7+ Bxe7 28. dxe7 Nxe3+ 29. Qxe3 Qxe3 30. fxe3 Rxe7 31. Kf2 Ne5 32. Ke2 Rc7 33. Rf1 Kg7 34. b3 Rc2 35. a4 Kf7 36. Rf4 Ra2 37. Rd4 Ke7 38. Rd5 Nd7 39. Kd3 Ra1 40. Rd4 Rg1 41. g4?

To remain level, white must find 41. Ke2 (41. Ne4 is also playable) 41… Rxg3 42. Kf2 Rh3 43. Re4+ Kd8 44. Kg2 f5 45. Kxh3 fxe4 46. Nxe4, and the tension continues.

41… Ne5+ 42. Kc3 Nxg4?

Black wishes to keep rooks on, but should prefer 42… Rxg4 43. Rxg4 Nxg4 44. Nc4 g5 45. h5 Kd8 46. Kd4 Kc7 47. Kd5 Nf2 48. Nd6, which preserves a significant advantage. After the move played, white is granted a reprieve, and can once again claim full equality.

43. Nc4 h5 44. Nxb6 g5 45. Rd7+ Ke6 46. Rh7 gxh4 47. Rxh5 Rh1 48. Nd5 Kd6 49. Nf4 Nxe3 50. Kd4 Ng4 51. Ke4??

Niemann ensures that there will be no way back from this terminal mistake. In preparing either Rxh5 and keeping an eye on an advance with f6-f5, white underestimates the speed with which black’s h-pawn can advance. Far more prudent are both, a) 51. Rd5+ Ke7 52. Rh5 Ne5 53. Kc5 Kf7 54. Rh7+ Kg8 55. Rh5 Kf7; and, b) 51. Kc4 Ne5+ 52. Kb5 Rb1 53. Kxa5 Rxb3 54. Rxh4 Nc6+ 55. Ka6 Nb4+ 56. Kb5 Nd5+ 57. Ka6 Rb6+ 58. Ka7 Rb4, with full equality.

51… h3 52. Kf5 h2 53. Rh3 Rg1 White resigns 0-1

White cannot prevent the h-pawn from promoting.

Ray’s 206th book, “ Chess in the Year of the King ”, written in collaboration with Adam Black, and his 207th, “ Napoleon and Goethe: The Touchstone of Genius ” (which discusses their relationship with chess) can be ordered from both Amazon and Blackwell’s. His 208th, the world record for chess books, written jointly with the late chess playing artist, Barry Martin,  Chess through the Looking Glass ,  is now also available from Amazon. 

A Message from TheArticle

We are the only publication that’s committed to covering every angle. We have an important contribution to make, one that’s needed now more than ever, and we need your help to continue publishing throughout these hard economic times. So please, make a donation.