Well, they could not back up their cries of "cheating", there's the problem.
However, in this case where Niemann had been caught cheating 100 times before (online and chess.com),
then these new cries of the same-old did no harm to his reputation. I'm just grappling for excuses, actually.
I really think Neimann's case should have gone forward.
@earl-of-trumps saidThanks for posting and I agree.
Well, they could not back up their cries of "cheating", there's the problem.
However, in this case where Niemann had been caught cheating 100 times before (online and chess.com),
then these new cries of the same-old did no harm to his reputation. I'm just grappling for excuses, actually.
I really think Neimann's case should have gone forward.
Nemann had no case. Magnus and Chess.com released a lengthy statement outlining their evidence for Neiman cheating.
That's on top of Nakamura's pretty damning analysis of Neiman's awkward interview where could not adequately explain his move choices in a post-game interview of his game against Magnus.
Suing for defamation only has merit if it can be shown the accused knew their statements were false. That's clearly not the case here.
@vivify said - Suing for defamation only has merit if it can be shown the accused knew their statements were false.
-------------------------------------------------------
That is something I did not know. thanks
@gambrel saidThat tournament was intense.
I understand Niemann got mauled by Zaven Andriasian right after
Niemann was the lowest rated player at 2700/ amazing
@vivify saidMaybe then, the real question is... how did he do it, and why did he get "mauled" by someone in the game right after the Carlson win?
Nemann had no case. Magnus and Chess.com released a lengthy statement outlining their evidence for Neiman cheating.
That's on top of Nakamura's pretty damning analysis of Neiman's awkward interview where could not adequately explain his move choices in a post-game interview of his game against Magnus.
Suing for defamation only has merit if it can be shown the accused knew their statements were false. That's clearly not the case here.
It all seems very strange to me.
@earl-of-trumps saidThe reason you did not know it is because it is not true.
@vivify said - Suing for defamation only has merit if it can be shown the accused knew their statements were false.
-------------------------------------------------------
That is something I did not know. thanks
Defamation is making a false statement about someone that is likely to cause them harm.
@the-gravedigger saidmerci, again 🙂
The reason you did not know it is because it is not true.
Defamation is making a false statement about someone that is likely to cause them harm.