Community Update On Recent Events

We imagine that most of you, like us, have had more friends than ever who are outside the chess community come and ask you about chess, cheating, Hans, Magnus, and everything else that is going on. Every news outlet on the planet seems to have written a “take” on chess in the last few weeks. It’s been a bewildering time for chess fans and our community. So, as an update to our recent report and the events going on in the chess community, we (Danny and Erik) wanted to take the time and answer some of the questions we see being asked. We appreciate your voice and your questions, and while we know that the opinions in the chess community are divided on many of these topics, we are doing our best to protect and grow the game.

Why are you addressing all of this now, and so publicly? Why didn’t you address these topics before? 

On September 5, 2022, Magnus publicly withdrew from the Sinquefield Cup following his game with Hans. For better or worse, this action sparked a public controversy in the chess world and beyond. As we explain in greater detail in our report, we were faced with a binary decision with little time to make that decision: could we ensure the integrity of the CGC for all participants in the event under the circumstances and with the information we had at the time? We believed the answer was no and so we subsequently uninvited Hans. While we reached out to Hans privately and intended to keep the matter confidential, as has historically been our practice for fair play matters, Hans decided to make it a matter of public interest during his post-game interview after round 4 of the Sinquefield Cup and we felt we needed to respond publicly to correct the record. 

Would you have uninvited Hans if any other player had withdrawn?

We believe that had any other top ten (or even top 50) player in the world made such a bold statement by withdrawing from an elite tournament in the manner Magnus did, and if we had been faced with the same questions of both 1) what we anticipated the coming fallout to be and 2) whether we could indeed promise ourselves, top players, and our fans that the CGC was ready to deal with this level of public speculation regarding cheating, we would have had the same doubts and made the same decision. The bottom line is that we did not feel capable of ensuring our biggest event ever would be played cleanly given the (now new) level of suspicions regarding what Grandmasters at the top levels felt each other were capable of.

Do you regret uninviting Hans from the CGC? Would you have done that without Magnus calling him out? 

Hindsight is 20/20, so it is impossible to say with certainty how things would have happened if Magnus had not withdrawn from the Sinquefield Cup, or if we had not uninvited Hans from the CGC. Magnus did not directly call Hans out at the time, but Magnus’ public withdrawal created certain inferences and further speculation regarding Hans, which obviously contributed to our actions. With that said, just as we stated above that we would have likely taken the same action we did had it been any other top player withdrawing the way Magnus did, it is also likely that we would not have uninvited Hans from the CGC had the current world chess champion, or any other world elite chess player, not withdrawn from the Sinquefield Cup in that way.

Why did you release the Hans Niemann report when you did, right before his next major chess tournament?

The chess calendar of OTB and online events is a back-to-back smorgasbord of chess. And while this is awesome for fans, it is hard for players and organizers. Just as our removal of Hans from the CGC was awkwardly timed—but necessary due to the tough conversation that was being forced onto the chess world and the need to ensure the integrity of the CGC for all participants—we didn’t feel that our report could wait many weeks more for a potentially more convenient opening. 

Have you considered whether Chess.com’s leniency in the past has contributed to some of the current attitudes towards cheating in online chess? 

We understand that there are different views on how we, and the chess world generally, should handle players who have cheated. Some in the community wish to see those who have admitted cheating and/or whom we have determined are likely to have cheated in games be punished more severely or handled differently than we have historically. We have always tried to see the best in everyone and believe that everyone can have a redemption story, which is why we have privately given those who have cheated at least one chance to own up to their actions and start afresh. At the same time, we hear the criticisms regarding our historical approach and recognize that a different approach may be better moving forward, including potentially handling instances of cheating in the future more publicly rather than discreetly. We are always seeking to improve the game and our role in it, and we are currently evaluating our practices and intend to propose changes to our approach. Stay tuned…  

Did Chess.com leak the list of names tweeted by the fake “GMHansNiemann” account on Twitter on October 6th, 2022?

No, this was not a leak from Chess.com, nor is that list accurate. There are many players on the list who have not been closed for Fair Play violations, and there are other players who have been closed who are not on the list. We have spoken to everyone on our team and feel confident that none of them have done this, nor would they, and we believe that the person who posted this was doing this through their own inaccurate process of looking at account activity. 

Are you going to share any more names of those who have cheated in the past? 

We do not currently plan to share the names or confirm any rumors of any more individuals who have cheated or we believe have cheated in the past unless it becomes a material public issue. As discussed in our report, our historical practice—though not required—has been to handle such matters discreetly and to give those who have cheated on our site and admitted to cheating at least one chance to redeem themselves. While we understand that the recent public controversies could suggest to people that someone who cheats will always cheat again, we do not share this opinion, and feel we have a strong track record with many titled players who cheated once, confessed, and returned to have never cheated again on our site. While we don’t believe a first time offense is ever OK, we also maintain that people make mistakes, and that there are more examples of people self-correcting than repeatedly cheating.

Then why did you create a public report on Hans? 

We only created a public report on Hans because Hans made this a public issue with his comments and we felt forced to correct the public record. Up until the point Hans made his comments, Chess.com handled this matter discreetly and planned to continue handling it directly with Hans only. We felt compelled to complete as full and detailed an investigation as we could on a condensed timeline and to give the community and the public at large a detailed report on our findings regarding the controversy, including the game with Magnus, Hans’ past on Chess.com, and Hans’ OTB rise, and insight into Chess.com’s best-in-class cheat detection system. 

Why did you not close Hans’ account earlier when you knew he cheated? Why did you let this get to the 100 or so games mentioned in your report? 

Chess.com is founded by people who love chess, and by people who love people. We (Danny and Erik) feel a deep sense of compassion for all humans. We have 4 kids each, and we have seen the process of having children grow up and learn and improve through their mistakes. This makes us want the best for everyone, and makes us believe that everyone can have a redemption story. For Hans, at first we felt like we didn’t have enough data to conclusively determine that he was likely cheating, especially given his age and that we often lean ever more conservative in our findings when it comes to young players. After some time, in 2020, we believed we had gathered enough to make the determination we did that Hans had and was still violating fair play rules regularly. It’s possible that we could have made a determination before then, but we had high hopes for Hans’ future (as we do with all junior players!) and were really hoping that we and the data we had up to that point were wrong.

Why do you use the word “likely cheated” in your report? Are you not confident in your findings? 

Yeah lawyers, why did we have to use the word “likely”?! Joking aside, we have aimed to be very precise in what we say, and while we can certainly say things like “likely” and “most likely” based on statistical probabilities and other circumstantial evidence that give us confidence that something is likely or very likely true, we cannot ever say something is “certain” or 100% true absent direct evidence like a confession. In the world of statistics, even something that is considered 99.99% sure is called “likely”.

Does Chess.com think Hans cheated in his game with Magnus? And does Chess.com believe he has cheated in any OTB games? 

In our report we share our in-depth analysis of the statistical and circumstantial evidence surrounding the Magnus vs Hans game, and regarding Hans’ OTB play more generally. The takeaway from our investigation is that while it is noteworthy that Hans is the fastest improving player in modern chess history, and many of the events surrounding Hans’ game with Magnus are unusual, the statistical evidence regarding Hans’ OTB games does NOT necessarily suggest cheating, and we did not find any direct evidence that Hans has cheated in any known OTB games. We also found no evidence to support any of the wild conspiracy theories such as “beads” that have circulated online, and we really discourage the continued airing of any such conspiracies. As far as we are concerned, and with the disclaimer that detecting and preventing OTB cheating is not Chess.com’s expertise, Hans is innocent until proven guilty both in his game with Magnus, and in his OTB play more generally. 

Why did you include the videos of Magnus losing to different players?

Our goal with the report was to share as much as we could about our exploration of what happened, including not just statistics but also reactions. Human emotion, especially in tense or exciting moments, can tell a lot about a person, and it was something we looked at. Ultimately, it didn’t reveal anything specific or particularly noteworthy, but was included to show different elements of our investigation.

Why didn’t you just uninvite Hans and not close his entire account? 

We recognize that we could have chosen to keep Hans’ Chess.com account open while at the same time uninviting him from the CGC. But, given the concerns we had related to integrity at the time, we thought it would be inconsistent (and confusing!) to allow Hans to play in other prize money events (we hold so many each week!) but not the CGC. That said, and as we have communicated, Hans’ account closure is not necessarily permanent and we invite Hans to have a private discussion with us to discuss the status of his account. 

What do you think of Hans now? 

Hans Niemann is a talented rising player and likely a future chess star. We can understand, though, why some in the chess community might be suspicious given Hans’ past in online chess, his meteoric rise, and some of his incredibly strong OTB performances. However, we are unaware of any direct evidence of OTB cheating. FIDE governs the OTB space, and we trust that they will handle this situation in the best possible way. We want the best for Hans as a person and as a player, and hope he has the support around him that he needs moving forward. 

Is there a path back to Chess.com for Hans? 

We have already reached out to Hans to offer a potential path back. This would include a full, honest discussion of the past, and a commitment to mutually trustworthy terms in the future. We are ready to have that conversation any time. 

Can you tell us any more about the 2700+ rated player who Chess.com caught cheating who is mentioned in the report?  

We used this player as an example to show the process and confidence we have in our cheat-detection protocols. We do not plan to publicly identify or release any further information regarding this player. 

Why did you publish emails about Maxim Dlugy? 

When Magnus mentioned Maxim Dlugy in one of his post-game interviews, within hours the entire world was talking and speculating about Maxim. Streamers, bloggers, and podcasters were asking questions, and multiple news agencies were emailing us directly asking for clarification. There were calls from all around the world—both within the chess community and outside it—for Chess.com to “be transparent” about what was already an “open secret” online: that Maxim had allegedly been removed from Chess.com for cheating. Given that the issue had already been made public and in order to be fully transparent with the community, we released several emails with Maxim about his status on Chess.com, while redacting his personal information. This release of emails was fully consistent with our legal rights and our terms of service.

What do you think of Maxim Dlugy? 

Maxim is a well-credentialed chess coach in New York who, as made clear in recent reporting by Vice, admitted to cheating in some online games on Chess.com a few years ago. Maxim committed not to cheat again. Maxim is an incredibly strong player and tremendous trainer who has contributed a lot to the chess community, and we do not believe his actions in online games in the past should detract from who he is as coach or his many contributions to the chess community through the years. 

Do you have any comments on Joachim Birger Nilsen and his admission to having cheated in the PRO Chess League in the past? 

This is actually a fascinating case that has recently been made public. We went back and looked at our notes about his play, and you can learn more about that here: https://www.chess.com/news/view/norwegian-chess-federation-president-nilsen-cheating

Why can’t you be more aggressive in closing accounts? 

Closing a titled player’s account for cheating is a big deal. We have always tried to find the right balance between protecting the game and being fair to the player. Historically we have closed accounts only when we have overwhelming evidence of cheating. We know that this allows some players to cheat for longer than if we closed their accounts earlier with less certainty. But at the same time, we have never wanted to be wrong. When it comes to titled players, we don’t want to be wrong 1/100 times, or even 1/1,000 times. We have thousands of titled players on our site, and that would mean potentially and unfairly closing the accounts of many innocent players. We NEVER want to be wrong, and so we have tried to be as cautious as possible. We are now open to re-examining our policies and exploring new and different ideas for how to strike the proper balance. 

Why do you think Magnus withdrew from the Sinquefield Cup and later resigned on move 1 in his game? 

Magnus did not consult with us before withdrawing from the Sinquefield Cup or resigning vs Hans, and we did not tell him to do so. We don’t speak for Magnus and cannot answer questions about his actions or thinking. Like others in the chess community, we hope that Magnus will soon say more to share his side of the story.

Do you think Magnus did the right thing in withdrawing and then later resigning in his game against Hans? 

It isn’t our place to judge if Magnus’ actions were right or wrong. Those were his decisions alone. That said, what Magnus has done has brought to the forefront an important conversation about cheating in chess, and we do believe that his motives were for the good of the game. We and the rest of the community are engaged in the conversation and we believe that chess as a whole, both online and OTB, can only be better off discussing and attempting to find the best solutions for these issues.

Does this controversy impact your potential deal with Play Magnus Group?  

Not at all. Play Magnus and Chess.com are still entirely separate companies. The recent events surrounding cheating in chess have nothing to do with our potential acquisition of Play Magnus, and the timelines are coincidental. We had no influence on Magnus’ withdrawal from the Sinquefield Cup and neither Magnus nor Play Magnus Group had any input into or advance knowledge of our decisions regarding Hans’ removal from our site and our rescinding his invitation to the CGC.

Is cheating online vs OTB different? 

Opinions about how serious cheating online is vs OTB are varied. We also acknowledge that some have viewed cheating online as less “serious” because online chess started in a casual way among anonymous players where no money was involved and where there was hardly any cheating detection. However, much has changed over the years to drastically increase the “stakes” of online chess, and Chess.com has fought every step of the way during that time period to protect that investment. We have always believed that cheating against another person in a game, regardless of whether it is online or OTB, robs that person of a fair experience. And where prize money events are involved, whether it’s an online or an OTB tournament, cheating may harm players even more. We believe that there should be zero tolerance for cheating in chess in any venue or format. 

How much cheating is there really on Chess.com? 

We have more than 20 million monthly active members. You can see how many accounts we close for cheating here: https://www.chess.com/article/view/online-chess-cheating. We believe that our prize events are largely shielded from cheating, that very little cheating does take place, and that, when it does, we generally catch it. We unfortunately do still close several titled player accounts each month due to cheating in Titled Tuesday events (mostly the accounts of FMs and below), but we try our best to catch any unfair play before the cheating can undermine the event. We also want to affirm that we believe that the Speed Chess Championships, Rapid Chess Championship, and Global Chess Championship are free from cheating (with the exception of qualifiers where we did encounter some cheating). We have also signaled to the community that we are not afraid to protect chess no matter what. Notably, after the 2020 PRO Chess League finals, despite how it could have been perceived by the community, we permanently banned a notable top grandmaster and overturned the result of the event, regardless of any pipi in any pampers. 

Are you going to share names of people who are caught cheating in the future? 

We recognize that we may need to re-evaluate our approach on how best to handle situations where we have evidence that a player, and in particular a titled player, has been cheating. We hope to meet with representatives of the broader chess community, and leaders of other gaming/sporting bodies to discuss best practices. We believe that greater transparency and accountability can help discourage online cheating. We hope to share more specific plans in the near future after a full assessment.

Is cheating going to ruin chess? 

Cheating—both over-the-board and online—is a major concern and something that all organizers need to take seriously. Industry-wide best practices and policies need to be established, and as a major online platform, we look forward to working to find the best path forward that is respectful to players and the game. For online events, Chess.com uses myriad methods for both preventing and catching cheating, and we will continue pushing for improvements in both areas. For OTB, we believe that cheating can be prevented through increased security measures by organizers, a deeper investment in OTB/Classical statistical models, and cross-organizational transparency and cooperation.

In the end, will all of this be good or bad for chess? 

That remains to be seen, and depends on how the chess world reacts, but we think the current controversy and the discussion surrounding it provides an opportunity for positive change in the attitudes and behaviors of all chess players. We think the future is bright, and we look forward to doing everything we can for this great game we all love. 

We will share more concrete next steps with the community as we move forward to help protect and promote the game we love. Thank you for being a part of this amazing, dynamic, and exciting community!

- Danny and Erik