Kasparov demands an explanation from Carlsen – VG

The legend Garry Kasparov (59) believes that the chess world deserves an explanation from Magnus Carlsen (31) as to why he withdrew from the St. Louis tournament.

NRK expert Atle Grønn believes Magnus Carlsen (31) is 100 per cent sure of what he is doing. Colleague Torstein Bae asks if there is any evidence. The American Hans Niemann (19) himself denies that he has cheated.

– I will not dwell on the ugly insinuations of the case now, but must note what we know: World chess champion Magnus Carlsen withdrew from the world’s premier tournament in St. Louis, an act without precedent in the last 50 years, and his explanation is required .

Kasparov states that “the rumors and the negative publicity swirl in a vacuum”.

– The world championship title has its responsibility, and a public statement is the least.

VG has sought comment through Magnus Carlsen’s manager, who is now Henrik’s father. They have not responded to our inquiry.

It attracted great attention in the chess world when Magnus Carlsen withdrew from further play in the Sinquefield Cup in St. Louis on Monday.

Magnus Carlsen lost on Sunday to the American Hans Niemann in his third game in St. Louis.

The Norwegian linked a video with José Mourinho https://twitter.com/MagnusCarlsen/status/1566848734616555523 There Mourinho says:

“If I say anything, I’m in trouble.”

The tweet has been interpreted by many as Carlsen accusing Niemann of cheating.

In an interview with the organizer in St. Louis, Niemann admits that he cheated in online chess games both as a 12-year-old and as a 16-year-old, but never physically over the chessboard, like the game against Carlsen on Sunday.

– Magnus knew what he was doing and what he was insinuating. If you look at social media, it has led to thousands of tweets. Everyone attacks me, and some defend me – I appreciate them. But when I see how people attack me without any proof, I am the only one who knows what has happened, and I tell you that this is the truth, says Niemann – and thus means that he has not cheated.

– I’m not going to let Chess.com, Magnus Carlsen or Hikaru Nakamura ruin my reputation, he continues.

– Drastic step

– It is a very drastic step from Magnus to do something like that. So I probably think that Magnus feels confident in what he is doing, says NRK expert Atle Grønn to VG.

– He understands that this is very rough. It’s possible that Magnus won’t come up with any evidence, so we can’t move forward. I have to admit that I thought what emerged in the first few days, including in Nakamura’s review, strengthened the suspicion of cheating. Then I must also add that Niemann answered well for himself in a later interview, says Grønn.

– There is no one in the world who understands the situation better than Magnus, so if he is sure of his case, which he probably is, then it affects my assessment and that of others. Magnus shows that he does not accept cheating, but we would like to see the evidence.

Grønn’s NRK colleague Torstein Bae is not so sure:

– I think there is very little evidence that cheating has taken place here. Opinions in the world elite are also divided, with some suggesting that they think there is something wrong here, Hikaru Nakamura among them. But others, such as Levon Aronian and Rustam Kasimdzjanov and others, see no reason for that, and partly emphasize that people in the elite can be a little paranoid when some new young players come up.

– Thin evidence

– There are three things this is really based on, as I understand it. One is his game, there are reactions to his game. That there are no human traits. That you sit with a strong gut feeling that something is not right here. The second is interviews that people react to. Where they believe that it appears there that he does not understand what he has done himself, and that this supports it. And then the third thing is that he has made incredible progress in the last two years. From being at a fairly normal high level, to being world class and winning against Magnus Carlsen, says Torstein Bae.

Lawyer-educated Bae nevertheless believes that there is thin evidence.

– As far as I have seen, no one has put forward any theory about how this possible cheating should have happened. After all, you use metal detectors, and they made a move by increasing the online delay, so that you avoid communication with someone watching at home. Because you are not in sync, those who watch at home and those who actually play the game. It apparently had no effect either, because Niemann drew on Monday against Firouzja.

– Funny situation

Torstein Bae emphasizes that Carlsen has not stated directly what he thinks it is about.

– That’s what makes it a bit of a funny situation. Because everyone basically feels that they understand what it is about, at the same time it is not actually said that this is why Magnus has resigned. So it will be a bit funny.

– It would have been highly desirable to have a further explanation from Magnus about this. So the question is, is there anything else going on? Will there be more messages from Magnus? Will there be any development in the case at all? Is it conceivable that this ethics committee, which is part of the World Chess Federation, should do something?

– Strong stomach feeling

– You are not convinced that there has been any cheating?

– No, I can’t say that I am. He must have said things that can be interpreted one way or the other, and it is clear that if you have already concluded, then you can certainly interpret it in the direction that it shows that it is cheating. But there is nothing durable here to get some fields for cheating. Why didn’t Magnus feel that the ordinary procedure of reporting the suspicion to the tournament management was enough?

– Atle Grønn says that he cannot point to where cheating has happened, but he trusts Magnus’s gut feeling that something is not right?

– That is a very interesting question. Because I also know that the best players have an incredibly strong gut feeling, where they can sense right away if a move comes where they feel it is not right. That they feel that a human would not have made this move, that it must have been a computer that made the move. I totally understand that line of thinking. But then comes the question, if one has such a suspicion, which may turn out to be wrong and which is not documented. Are you completely free to make such a claim, with the consequences it actually has if you are wrong? asks Torstein Bae.