Written By: Humza Mohsin
Edited By: Janakiram Rajaraman
St. Louis Chess Club
It has been called the greatest scandal in chess history. Hans Niemann, a 19-year-old chess prodigy from Connecticut, and Magnus Carlsen, a world chess champion nicknamed the “King of Chess,” are currently litigating defamation claims in federal court. The case’s principal issue relates to Carlsen’s statements and if they defamed Niemann’s reputation.
In September 2022, Niemann and Carlsen faced off at the Sinquefield Cup in St. Louis, Missouri. Niemann won the match, and afterward, Carlsen abruptly announced his withdrawal from the tournament. As the chess world reacted to its monarch’s bizarre behavior, Carlsen hinted at a brewing controversy over Twitter, sharing a viral Jose Mourinho quote: “If I speak, I am in big trouble.” Rumors later spread, suggesting that Carlsen’s departure was because Niemann had cheated.
Niemann commented on the rumors the next day, vehemently denying cheating. Then, unprompted, he confessed to cheating during online matches when he was 12 and 16 years old. His explanations were sometimes contradictory, and he minimized the significance of these blunders. He implored skeptics to consider his mature match integrity instead of these youthful mistakes.
Later in September, the two rematched. This time, Carlsen surrendered his pieces after one move—an act of protest that reinforced his accusations. On September 26th, he released a statement accusing Niemann of cheating. Carlsen “believe[d] that Niemann has cheated more - and more recently - than he has publicly admitted.” In addition to Niemann’s cheating history, Carlsen also presented Niemann’s lack of focus during the Sinquefield Cup as evidence.
In the wake of this drama, Chess.com banned Niemann from their website and dismissed him from competing in their global championship. He even lost his job as a chess tutor. Carlsen’s salvo of Twitter jabs and protests undoubtedly triggered Niemann’s disgraceful exile from the worldwide chess fraternity.
It is still unclear if Carlsen defamed Niemann. Did the First Amendment protect Carlsen’s speech, or did his remarks cross defamatory lines? These are questions for the court to answer.
The First Amendment enables democratic ideas and arguments to advance and evolve. But comments must align with particular compelling government interests. An early example that illustrates this is in 1919 when Charles Schenk was convicted of conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act after distributing leaflets encouraging citizens to dodge the World War I draft. Schenk appealed his conviction on the theory that the First Amendment protected his actions. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, reasoning that the “First Amendment does not protect speech that approaches creating a clear and present danger of a significant evil that Congress has the power to prevent.” Schenk’s “dissemination of the leaflets was sufficiently likely to disrupt the conscription process,” and the court determined that conscription was necessary for preserving safety. The determination was that the interference of conscription was a “present danger of a significant evil” in the context of the war. This case birthed the well-known “yelling ‘fire’ in a burning building” expression often used to justify this category of speech restriction. Conceptually, such speech is more than encouraged if someone finds themselves in a similarly compelling scenario. What matters is the context used; the context of speech determines its justification.
The doctrine in the Schenk decision, which has since been revised, illustrates that the government is empowered to construct criteria for acceptable speech. But unlike what the government thought of Schenk in that era, Niemann's claims don't immediately suggest a threat to public safety. Carlsen’s remarks may not rise to this level of criminality, but they still must pass muster under applicable defamation laws.
Niemann’s prominent claims allege defamation, specifically, libel and slander. Fact-finders in defamation cases consider written (libelous) or oral (slanderous) communications that predicate reputational damage. The plaintiff must prove that the defendant acted with the knowledge that defendant-made statements were false. Niemann alleges that Carlsen’s cheating accusations were made without credible evidence and ultimately harmed his reputation. Both parties stipulate that Carlsen is responsible for the injury, so the case seeks to determine if Carlsen did so wrongfully.
When someone is defamed, they often focus on restoring or reinstating their good name. But a defamation suit’s main objective is to inspect speech and determine if such speech was truthful. Words harming another’s reputation are protected so long as they are factual. Niemann seeks exoneration after Carlsen accused him of cheating.
Chess.com released a report detailing an internal investigation where they examined Niemann’s online match history and concluded that cheating had likely occurred in over 100 matches, beginning as early as 2020. Niemann’s chess coach is also reported to have been an alleged cheater. None of these discoveries paint Niemann in the best light, but neither do they prove that Niemann cheated in the Sinquefield Cup, and here, a court may agree. But Connecticut law, which the judge is opting to follow given the facts of the case, features Anti-SLAAP legislation, which protects parties from bringing “generally meritless suits brought by large private interests to deter common citizens from exercising their political or legal rights or to punish them for doing so.” This strong defense makes spectators believe a judge will likely throw the case out. Even if a judge sides with Niemann, he may still face backlash from the chess community. There will always be doubts about Niemann’s character, which is especially unfortunate if his victories were honest.
The divide remains wide in the public and legal spheres. Legally, Carlsen’s statements were speculative, not factual. Publicly, many are aware of Chess.com’s successful merger (and alleged monopoly) with PlayMagnus, Carlsen’s online chess company. Some see Carlsen’s behavior as an attempt to discredit a worthy opponent before he becomes too successful. Conversely, arguments that disprove Niemann’s claims are robust and various. One question remains primarily unanswered: how Niemann cheated in the first place. Security measures failed to pick up on any suspicious artifacts, and his earlier childhood cheating admissions related strictly to online affairs; the Sinquefield Cup was an in-person, over-the-board tournament. The popular online theory is that Niemann used a discrete vibrating communicator, hidden professionally, to receive moves. But this theory is flawed because Niemann would need to communicate back with another human or computer to cheat, and there is no evidence of an accomplice. What is certain is that with the development of novel technologies like metal detectors, online chess match engines, match analyzers, and social media, the history of chess has yet to have a scandal as engaging as this one.
[The views expressed in this article are those of the author and the author alone; they do not necessarily represent the views of all members of the RULR Editorial Board and Rutgers University]
Comments