This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Chess World Controversy
After rising player Hans Niemann defeated world champion Magnus Carlsen as black (when wins are unusual), Magnus insinuated that Hans cheated and quit the ongoing tournament. Internet detectives and Magnus fanboys leapt at the opportunity to discover the truth and/or administer mob justice. Chess commentators, lead by popular Twitch streamer and top player Hikaru, analyzed Han’s post-game interview looking for clues. Lots of unsubstantiated claims followed: that he showed signs of guilt, that he made up a past game position in his analysis to hide that he cheated (later proven wrong), that Hans was faking his accent, that Hans was unable to justify his chess positions, and so on. The stronger evidence is that Hans claimed to have looked at the chess variation that Magnus chose as white, which is improbable (like 0.01%). However, Hans has a strategy of getting in opponents’ heads, and claiming to be able to predict the opponents’ preparations is a great way to do that.
The controversy goes on, and is made up of many parts.
That Magnus insinuated and withdrew has led to many now saying “he is kind of a dick”, as chess teacher Ben Finegold put it. Magnus had a pure reputation before, but it was known he handled losses poorly. Magnus’ withdrawal, due to a technicality in the tournament rules, means that he keeps his high FIDE rating, while Hans’ win is somewhat discounted. Magnus’ silence since his tweet is blameworthy.
Hans cheated online at chess.com when he was 12, and again when he was 17. He is now 19. The cheating two years ago was not in a competitive setting and was allegedly to increase his online rating to entice stream viewers. There has been no claim that he has cheated except in these two instances, and he has never cheated in a competition.
Chess.com has allowed him to continue playing since his 2017 cheating incident. But after this week’s (unevidenced) cheating claim against Hans, chess.com banned him from future tournaments, costing him significsnt career opportunities and prize moneys. What’s curious about this is that chess.com is buying out Play Magnus, a separate company that Magnus has a relationship with. Did Magnus apply pressure on Chess.com to ban Hans? This would be more serious than other parts of the controversy, as it would mean that Magnus is one of the worst sore losers in chess history, not just hurting an opponent’s reputation but using backroom influence to take away his opportunities.
Some chess players, like Hikaru and Naroditsky, leapt at the opportunity to accuse Hans, while others with greater reputation (eg Kasparov) defended him. There is now a stable opinion online that Hans did not cheat and that Magnus is in the wrong, but this took three days post-allegation to develop. Interestingly, it seemed like the chess players who were competitors to Hans were the ones eager to take him down, while the older greats defended him and pleaded for measured opinions.
It should be noted they Hans’ had a meteoric rise in rating over the past year, one of the greatest in history. At 19, he has years left of improvement. So we’re dealing with potential world champion material, not just a random contender.
There is rigorous cheating detection at this tournament (Sinquefeld Cup, St Louis), TSA-like security. Since the accusation they implemented even more security measures. The theories on how he cheated are truly bizarre, from Hans having an antenna in his hair, to having swallowed a chip that vibrated in morse code, to having inserted a vibrating ”device” sublingually to alert him on tactics, to Godfather-esque hidden bathroom devices. I’m not joking.
If I can don my conspiracy hat for a moment, Hans is opened his remarks after his Magnus win by talking about how he doesn’t want to be canceled for misspeaking (about Magnus having “tics”, when the PC term would be mannerisms). A keen eye would sense that Hans is not so progressive. Chess is political, with former champion Kasparov constantly in the news with his anti-Russian, Russian players banned from playing in certain tournaments, former leading chess players criticized (but not more) for claiming women cannot be as good as male players due to biology, etc. I wonder whether there are interests behind the scenes that do not want to see a Fischer-esque personality rise in popularity.
Links:
Hans post-win analysis: https://youtube.com/watch?v=DCeJrItfQqw
Hikaru insinuation: https://youtube.com/watch?v=5qTs-eFgLqc
Hans post-insinuation defense (a strong defense, as blackened reputation, Hans-variation), which earned him much respect online: https://youtube.com/watch?v=CJZuT-_kij0
Hans beating Hikaru, just for fun: https://youtube.com/watch?v=EJTg-emEAjQ
Hans being beaten by Naroditsky, just for fun: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Ddc-C3SqidI
The funniest chess teacher, Ben Finegold: https://youtube.com/watch?v=DMxJbJGGKgQ
If you want to play chess, use Lichess.com. Chess.com appears as a link because that’s the name of the company.
Gonna start using this example when kids ask about cheating. Cheating at 12 and 17 on chess.com seems pretty harmless but is coming back to haunt Hans now. Man, that's tough, but there are some things that follow you forever even if you were a stupid kid when you did them. Doesn't even matter if he actually cheated this time, people already think he's a cheater.
He is a cheater. Did it when he was 12 and dumb, okay, first time offence. Did it again when he was 17, still dumb but he should have known better. And now, as you say, he's 19, pulled off a spectacular upset, and because he was stupid enough to do it again when he was 17, a whole lot of people think he cheated this time again.
And maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but the weighting due to the two previous instances of cheating are leaning towards "did it again". This is one reason why cheating, or lying is bad - even being a cynic about it, only bad if you're caught - because now you are a cheater or a liar, and now people will be inclined to believe accusations of "he cheated/lied yet again" because of prior experience.
A man is not guilty without proof. Doesn't matter if the whole world thinks he cheated if he is on camera showing that he is playing a fair game.
There are only two theories left, anal vibrating beads, or previously knowing the prep game. Anal beads is almost certainly not the case. Previously knowing the prep game has a small chance but it would only be the case if someone from Magnus inner circle gave up the goods beforehand. If no mole is found in Magnus circle then we can assume that no cheating took place.
That is true, and a principle I don't want to see tossed.
On the other hand - let us say there are two people participating in an event, Honest Hank who has never, ever, done anything wrong in his life ever, and Lying Larry who nobody would trust as far as they could throw him.
It is discovered that someone has cheated in this event. Now, who is it more likely that people will suspect - Hank or Larry? Sure, Larry could be innocent and it could be Hank who is the guilty party this time. But you can't say it's unreasonable that people would suspect Larry first off.
If you don't want the reputation of being a cheating cheater who cheats, don't cheat.
What you said makes sense in the scenario you created.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Incorrect. It is perfectly possible for both of the following statements to be true...
Player A cheated
Player B is unable to prove that Player A cheated.
...and this is why things like established patterns of behavior matter.
And innocent until proven guilty matters to make sure you do not get the wrong guy based on your opinions.
In their individual lives yes, to pass judgement onto others outside their direct experience no.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
At 17 and even younger Niemann was playing in high-level chess tournaments. Basically all GM and even IM players started playing high-level chess tournaments from a young age. Niemann and any high level chess player at that age should know better, even if it's just online matches in chess.com (if he's willing to cheat in low stakes, why not high stakes when winning actually matters?)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link