• Tedesche@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    I understand all that. What I meant was that I think it’s bad form to accuse an opponent who beat you of cheating without evidence, and I would think that if you’re at the top of your game, it looks even worse, and thus Carlsen would have even more incentive to mind the optics of it. This is the first I’ve ever heard of him behaving like this as well, but it looks bad nonetheless. I would think a better way to have gone about it would be to investigate my suspicions outside of the public eye first and only go public if I came up with evidence to support the claim. Being wrong about an accusation of cheating almost looks worse than actually cheating. I’d want to avoid that at all costs, if I were him.

    • severien@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I would think a better way to have gone about it would be to investigate my suspicions outside of the public eye first

      Which is far from easy in such cases.

      I wouldn’t be surprised if his reaction was made in the affect of the moment. We’re all humans.

    • Dkarma@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The thing is I don’t think there’s any way Magnus would accuse him or forfeit the game unless he was sure.
      I’m pretty sure what happened here is Magnus opened an obscure opening and when the move set exactly copies the pattern a computer would play you just know.

      That’s the level Magnus is at. His memorization is insane and I can almost guarantee he was 100% sure this kid was cheating.
      Just because you don’t have proof or can’t see it doesn’t mean Magnus can’t.

      I get it from a casual observer point youre like no way he could know. Trust me his memorization is that good.

      • dustyData@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Except, we now know he wasn’t. Carlsen was salty because his ego was bruised by losing to someone he perceived as being beneath him. He wasn’t seeing any 4d chess BS romantic mental projection of the game. He was just mad that he lost. Be aware, it wasn’t that Niemann was unfairly landsliding Carlsen. Quite the opposite, Carlsen had already won two games against Niemann. When he lost the third game he got mad that someone else studied the same obscure opening as him and resigned on the fourth game after a single move. Just an adult tantrum. This is chess, everyone loses at some point or another, no matter how good you are or how large the skill gap with your opponent. Statistically in a large enough amount of games, you will lose some.