First
<Comment deleted by user>
Great tournament. Loved Carlsen’s stream :)
I don't understand why Carlsen is the winner. Shouldn't cheating be cause for disqualification? Does he get a pass because he is famous or is there some other reason to just overlook his getting help from a friend at a crucial moment? Even if the result of that single game didn't *directly* swing the tournament, it's impossible to quantify the psychological effect it may have had on both players, coming at that critical moment.
@JudahH said in #5:
> I don't understand why Carlsen is the winner. Shouldn't cheating be cause for disqualification? Does he get a pass because he is famous or is there some other reason to just overlook his getting help from a friend at a crucial moment? Even if the result of that single game didn't *directly* swing the tournament, it's impossible to quantify the psychological effect it may have had on both players, coming at that critical moment.
Magnus cannot control what Howell says. It is Howell who was at fault to suggest the move. You can say that Magnus shouldn’t have played it then, right? But what’s to say he wouldn’t have found it anyway? Magnus should not be blamed and hence penalising him is unjust IMO. Moreover, it was a light stream and Magnus is clearly an amazing ambassador of chess. He even kept blurting out the words "CHEATING! CHEATING!", making it very obvious to viewers that what happened should not be replicated. Furthermore, as you stated, that moment almost certainly did not directly swing the tournament. To add to the above, Carlsen donated the $500 he earned back to Lichess so one can argue the financial compensation was adequate. Penalising Magnus, or even Howell for that matter, IMO, would come across as petty and would definitely be a loss for Magnus, Lichess and Chess in general. Also, Lichess has proven time and time again that they do not hold double standards by penalising titled players who have cheated. Magnus was the best player in the tournament and he deserved to win. Period.
> I don't understand why Carlsen is the winner. Shouldn't cheating be cause for disqualification? Does he get a pass because he is famous or is there some other reason to just overlook his getting help from a friend at a crucial moment? Even if the result of that single game didn't *directly* swing the tournament, it's impossible to quantify the psychological effect it may have had on both players, coming at that critical moment.
Magnus cannot control what Howell says. It is Howell who was at fault to suggest the move. You can say that Magnus shouldn’t have played it then, right? But what’s to say he wouldn’t have found it anyway? Magnus should not be blamed and hence penalising him is unjust IMO. Moreover, it was a light stream and Magnus is clearly an amazing ambassador of chess. He even kept blurting out the words "CHEATING! CHEATING!", making it very obvious to viewers that what happened should not be replicated. Furthermore, as you stated, that moment almost certainly did not directly swing the tournament. To add to the above, Carlsen donated the $500 he earned back to Lichess so one can argue the financial compensation was adequate. Penalising Magnus, or even Howell for that matter, IMO, would come across as petty and would definitely be a loss for Magnus, Lichess and Chess in general. Also, Lichess has proven time and time again that they do not hold double standards by penalising titled players who have cheated. Magnus was the best player in the tournament and he deserved to win. Period.
@Simply_MJ if it shouldn't be replicated, it shouldn't be done in the first place. If he had offered a draw, say, I would agree with you that he was a great ambassador for chess, but calling attention to the cheating as he nonetheless takes advantage of it is not setting a great example, IMO. I'm not condemning Carlsen for it—Howell put him in a tough situation—but I'm saying that it's not fair for tournament players to benefit from cheating, even if they didn't initiate it. It's not fair to the other players. IMO, Carlsen should not have been personally punished, but his tournament win should have been voided. Yes, Howell was primarily to blame here: after he blurted out the move, there was no way for the result to be perfectly fair, but if any player should have lost by that, it should have been Carlsen, who brought Howell in the room with him, after all. How would you feel if *we* were playing a game that mattered to us and I won it because *my* friend who was watching the game with me pointed out a key move that I had missed. Would that feel fair to you?
I do see the argument for reversing or voiding just that one game and giving Carlsen the win if he earned it apart from the tainted game, but even that isn't clear, since a single game can affect the point values of several games (owing to the streak system). In this case, after looking closely at the tournament results*, I believe that reversing the results of that game would indeed change the winner of the tournament. Naroditsky would have gained 6 points (4 from that game, 2 from the subsequent game, which he won), while Carlsen would have lost 6 (2 each from that game, and the two subsequent). That's a swing of 12 points, which would have left them tied for the lead, but AFAIK (correct me if I'm wrong), the tie-breaker is the performance rating, which in this tournament was higher for Naroditsky.
TL;DR: If I'm not mistaken, this single game's going the other way would have changed the winner of the tournament.
*Tournament results here: lichess.org/tournament/dec21lta
Tournament situation when the game in question occurred here: www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/rjl2x0/magnus_carlsen_and_david_howell_do_an_oopsie/
I do see the argument for reversing or voiding just that one game and giving Carlsen the win if he earned it apart from the tainted game, but even that isn't clear, since a single game can affect the point values of several games (owing to the streak system). In this case, after looking closely at the tournament results*, I believe that reversing the results of that game would indeed change the winner of the tournament. Naroditsky would have gained 6 points (4 from that game, 2 from the subsequent game, which he won), while Carlsen would have lost 6 (2 each from that game, and the two subsequent). That's a swing of 12 points, which would have left them tied for the lead, but AFAIK (correct me if I'm wrong), the tie-breaker is the performance rating, which in this tournament was higher for Naroditsky.
TL;DR: If I'm not mistaken, this single game's going the other way would have changed the winner of the tournament.
*Tournament results here: lichess.org/tournament/dec21lta
Tournament situation when the game in question occurred here: www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/rjl2x0/magnus_carlsen_and_david_howell_do_an_oopsie/
@JudahH said in #5:
> I don't understand why Carlsen is the winner. Shouldn't cheating be cause for disqualification? Does he get a pass because he is famous or is there some other reason to just overlook his getting help from a friend at a crucial moment? Even if the result of that single game didn't *directly* swing the tournament, it's impossible to quantify the psychological effect it may have had on both players, coming at that critical moment.
Omg he cheated again? First violating touchmove rule then this? His initials will have to be changed from MC= Magnus Carlsen to MC=Magnus Cheatsen
I wonder how many other important victories including world championships he won by cheating.
I used to hold him in high regard but I just lost all respect for him.
> I don't understand why Carlsen is the winner. Shouldn't cheating be cause for disqualification? Does he get a pass because he is famous or is there some other reason to just overlook his getting help from a friend at a crucial moment? Even if the result of that single game didn't *directly* swing the tournament, it's impossible to quantify the psychological effect it may have had on both players, coming at that critical moment.
Omg he cheated again? First violating touchmove rule then this? His initials will have to be changed from MC= Magnus Carlsen to MC=Magnus Cheatsen
I wonder how many other important victories including world championships he won by cheating.
I used to hold him in high regard but I just lost all respect for him.
@JudahH said in #7:
> If it shouldn't be replicated, it shouldn't be done in the first place. If he had offered a draw, say, I would agree with you that he was a great ambassador for chess, but calling attention to the cheating as he nonetheless takes advantage of it is not setting a great example, IMO. I'm not condemning Carlsen for it—Howell put him in a tough situation—but I'm saying that it's not fair for tournament players to benefit from cheating, even if they didn't initiate it. It's not fair to the other players. IMO, Carlsen should not have been personally punished, but his tournament win should have been voided. Yes, Howell was primarily to blame here: after he blurted out the move, there was no way for the result to be perfectly fair, but if any player should have lost by that, it should have been Carlsen, who brought Howell in the room with him, after all. How would you feel if *we* were playing a game that mattered to us and I won it because *my* friend who was watching the game with me pointed out a key move that I had missed. Would that feel fair to you?
>
> I do see the argument for reversing or voiding just that one game and giving Carlsen the win if he earned it apart from the tainted game, but even that isn't clear, since a single game can affect the point values of several games (owing to the streak system). In this case, after looking closely at the tournament results*, I believe that reversing the results of that game would indeed change the winner of the tournament. Naroditsky would have gained 6 points (4 from that game, 2 from the subsequent game, which he won), while Carlsen would have lost 6 (2 each from that game, and the two subsequent). That's a swing of 12 points, which would have left them tied for the lead, but AFAIK (correct me if I'm wrong), the tie-breaker is the performance rating, which in this tournament was higher for Naroditsky.
>
> TL;DR: If I'm not mistaken, this single game's going the other way would have changed the winner of the tournament.
>
> *Tournament results here: lichess.org/tournament/dec21lta
> Tournament situation when the game in question occurred here: www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/rjl2x0/magnus_carlsen_and_david_howell_do_an_oopsie/
I've never seen such a shameless hand waving collection of excuse making for anyone with the possible exception of Trump. Every one of your rationalizations is pretty weak so I"ll just pick one. That it was the suggestion of someone else and not MC's action. Yes, but anyone could use this excuse and hire a ringer to sit beside you and suggest moves all day and you could say "his fault , his fault his fault, because he is the one who made the suggestions not me". If we allowed this crazy excuse there could be no enforcement of any cheating rules. Ridiculous. You are responsible for the behavior of the people you allow around you during a tournament. That's the only reasoning that we can use for this.
> If it shouldn't be replicated, it shouldn't be done in the first place. If he had offered a draw, say, I would agree with you that he was a great ambassador for chess, but calling attention to the cheating as he nonetheless takes advantage of it is not setting a great example, IMO. I'm not condemning Carlsen for it—Howell put him in a tough situation—but I'm saying that it's not fair for tournament players to benefit from cheating, even if they didn't initiate it. It's not fair to the other players. IMO, Carlsen should not have been personally punished, but his tournament win should have been voided. Yes, Howell was primarily to blame here: after he blurted out the move, there was no way for the result to be perfectly fair, but if any player should have lost by that, it should have been Carlsen, who brought Howell in the room with him, after all. How would you feel if *we* were playing a game that mattered to us and I won it because *my* friend who was watching the game with me pointed out a key move that I had missed. Would that feel fair to you?
>
> I do see the argument for reversing or voiding just that one game and giving Carlsen the win if he earned it apart from the tainted game, but even that isn't clear, since a single game can affect the point values of several games (owing to the streak system). In this case, after looking closely at the tournament results*, I believe that reversing the results of that game would indeed change the winner of the tournament. Naroditsky would have gained 6 points (4 from that game, 2 from the subsequent game, which he won), while Carlsen would have lost 6 (2 each from that game, and the two subsequent). That's a swing of 12 points, which would have left them tied for the lead, but AFAIK (correct me if I'm wrong), the tie-breaker is the performance rating, which in this tournament was higher for Naroditsky.
>
> TL;DR: If I'm not mistaken, this single game's going the other way would have changed the winner of the tournament.
>
> *Tournament results here: lichess.org/tournament/dec21lta
> Tournament situation when the game in question occurred here: www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/rjl2x0/magnus_carlsen_and_david_howell_do_an_oopsie/
I've never seen such a shameless hand waving collection of excuse making for anyone with the possible exception of Trump. Every one of your rationalizations is pretty weak so I"ll just pick one. That it was the suggestion of someone else and not MC's action. Yes, but anyone could use this excuse and hire a ringer to sit beside you and suggest moves all day and you could say "his fault , his fault his fault, because he is the one who made the suggestions not me". If we allowed this crazy excuse there could be no enforcement of any cheating rules. Ridiculous. You are responsible for the behavior of the people you allow around you during a tournament. That's the only reasoning that we can use for this.
I didn’t watch but maybe @Buttercup22 ought to be in the press corps. You could then ask him directly if he thinks it was cheating and should result in a ban. His reply would be interesting. Did anyone complain?
If there’s one player that certainly doesn’t need to cheat, it’s the guy that destroys 99.999999% of the chess players on this planet.
JMO.
If there’s one player that certainly doesn’t need to cheat, it’s the guy that destroys 99.999999% of the chess players on this planet.
JMO.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.