This window seems closed though. Carlsen seems to have no evidence. Where else could the evidence come from? All we have is character attacks. Even if justified, they can't prove that he cheated.
All we know for sure is that Carlsen accused him of cheating with no evidence.
Sometimes the evidence of someone doing monstrously better than can be expected by their history is sufficient IMO. I mean, look at this article about swimmer Shirley Babashoff [1], dubbed "Surly Shirley" at the time by the media, for suggesting the East German women were on PEDs in the 70s. Nowadays we look back on those images of the East German women, looking more manly than any dude I've ever seen, and wonder how we considered with a straight face that they weren't on a boatload of drugs. Similarly, it completely baffles me how any sane person can think that Flo Jo wasn't on PEDs in the runup to the 1988 Olympics - her 100m dash record still stands today.
I'm not saying Carlsen went about it in the right way, because now Niemann is basically in an indefensible position, but I'm also not willing to quickly dismiss it because Carlsen has "no evidence".
1. https://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/news/exclusive-shirley...
https://tomnew.medium.com/usain-bolt-lance-armstrong-and-the...
It’s only called “testosterone replacement therapy” when it’s prescribed by a doctor btw. Taking exactly the same course of medication in any other circumstances is called “taking steroids”.
100% serious question.
If he saw something unusual, like "Hans was messing with his shoe" or "I heard several vibrations coming from Hans during the game" etc.. that would be at least something.
It would be something. Magnus has given nothing.
If he'd heard the guy's damn shoe buzzing he would have insisted on a search.
The challenge with this appoach of course is identifying a players strengths and adjusting for their preparation. Making 20 top engine moves in a row is not odd if both players studied that exact line before the match.
What's odd is making 20 top moves in a row on a bizzare line that nobody has ever played before that Magnus specifically prepared because he knew it was unusual (and engine disadvantaged) and unlikely to be in anyone's prep.
This accusation hits many of the heuristic high notes.
That doesn't mean he definitively cheated. But to me, with ~15 years of chess under my belt, it does make this accusation credible.
I could name specific players who I'm pretty sure were cheating in my own game. I've sometimes had a quiet word with a ref and asked them to watch a particular player closely. I've occasionally had a louder word with a ref and asked them to enforce the rules that are in place to make cheating harder. But you can't pull something like this based off of nothing but your own feelings.
Ball is in Han's court.
If they tell the truth, there is no libel, and they don’t need anybody’s permission to speak.
