FWIW (i.e. probably not very much at all) here's yet another take on the Hans Niemann controversy, and on cheating in general:

In the mid-nineties, in northeast England, I played a league game in which my opponent cheated quite blatantly (not with an engine, merely by retracting a blunder, after having recorded the move and pressed the clock).

Notwithstanding his notoriety (and, more especially, his culpability) after a protracted process not only was he exonerated, but *my club* was sanctioned.

Here's the thing about that: losing to a cheat spooks you.

The following season, I had to play him again. Which was unfortunate, because in effect I had already lost that game before I sat down to play it.

This, I submit, is what happened to Magnus, on account of his being compelled to play a known--indeed self-confessed--cheat, by the name of Hans Niemann.

This explains why Magnus Tweeted the clip of Jose Mourinho.

Magnus can't tell the truth that he lost because he was spooked. If he did, he'd be in all kinds of trouble. He can do without that.

But that's why he lost. And it's why he withdrew from The Sinquefield Cup.

It's also why those prominent individuals who are berating Magnus for withdrawing should shut the fuck up about it.

For fuck's sake, don't side with a self-confessed cheat. Serious question: have you got shit for brains?

The way to avoid prominent withdrawals from elite tournaments is to avoid inviting self-confessed cheats to play in said tournaments.

Duh!

The fact that they're 100% certain to get away with cheating simply encourages would-be cheats to become repeat offenders.

Many of you will have watched Francis Ford Coppola's movie: Apocalypse Now.

Whether or not you have, you might be aware that the story in the movie has not one basis, but rather two. The more well-known of these is Joseph Conrad's short novel: "Heart of Darkness" (which, indeed, was the working title of the movie).

Its other basis was the true history of a real-life US Army Colonel named Tony Poe.

Not a little of what is described in the movie as the ostensible military career of Marlon Brando's character, Colonel Walter E. Kurtz, is lifted directly from the *actual* career of Colonel Poe.

About 40% of the way through the movie, the narration of Martin Sheen's character, Captain Benjamin L. Willard (who is, ostensibly, writing a journal) describes an operation lately conducted on the orders of Colonel Kurtz, having been conceived by him:

"Late summer/autumn 1968:

Kurtz's patrols in the highlands coming under frequent ambush. The camp started falling apart.

November:

Kurtz orders assassination of three Vietnamese men, and one woman. Two of the men were Colonels in the South Vietnamese Army.

Enemy activity in his old sector dropped off to nothing. Guess he must have hit the right four people."

Now, as I described from my personal experience, above, it appears that the chess community, as a whole, exhibits a reluctance to deal effectively with cheating, and the cheating cheats who cheat (my profuse apologies to Al Franken).

Perhaps one of the most important reasons why the situation is... unsatisfactory... might be that would-be cheats know that they are pretty much certain to get away with it, and that even if they're caught, they'll incur no penalty.

So my position is this (FWIW):

Whether or not Hans Niemann cheated in The Sinquefield Cup is irrelevant.

What *is* relevant is his having admitted to cheating--more than once!--in the past.

Anyone who, for any reason, at any age, under any circumstances, is disposed to cheat...is not a chess player.

That individual is a Caissa rapist. Nothing more... nothing less.

As such, that individual is not welcome in the community of chess players (Gens Una Sumus).

Ideally, there should be a clause in every EULA, and in every professional tournament and match contract compelling would-be competitors to agree to the following:

If caught cheating then after a first infraction, whether online or over-the-board, the penalty shall be a lifetime ban from all competition, whether over-the-board, via correspondence, or online.

(Yes, I know that in correspondence competition artificial assistance is extensively employed.)

A further clause could be added, forcing would-be competitors to agree to forfeit 100% of after-tax income, whether from chess, from other vocations, from businesses, from investments, from gifts, from welfare payments, from insurance dividends, or
whatever other means of subsistence.

The same should apply to anyone who refuses to disclose the identity of known cheats. Apart from other considerations, withholding such information could produce a negative effect with regard to the value of your acquisitions....

If we adopt these straightforward measures, then (unlike Colonel Poe's actual result of actual operations) the incidence of cheating may not drop off to nothing, but it should undergo a dramatic reduction.

If we do anything less, the incidence of cheating may simply continue to increase.

Just my two cents.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)