He hasn't even made a statement. The entire chess world has accused Niemann of cheating at this point, and Carlsen hasn't said a word.
It's f'ing embarrassing.
Further, Carlsen isn't just the #1 GM, and the most popular chess player in the world, his company also owns and partially owns 2 of the biggest chess platforms in the world.
At this point for him to not even have made a statement is inexplicable.
I am a complete outsider when it comes to chess. I know the basics and can play, but I've spent very little time on it and have no idea about the dynamics of the "chess world".
All that is to say, is that as an outsider looking in at this controversy, I think it's utterly insane for anyone to be taking sides on this issue while Carlsen has said nothing, nor tried at all to shed light on anything. The additional context in this comment chain (and thread) definitely hurt his trustworthiness as well.
Edit: Always happy to learn and adjust my perspectives. I don't mind the downvotes, but in the interest of personal growth I don't mind chatting about why I might be wrong. I also straight up admitted I'm likely to be ignorant on the subject, so hey - point me in the right direction!
Carlsen didn’t actually say nothing. That’s the heart of the issue.
He posted a semi-cryptic tweet then resigned after one move during their next game.
He is manifestly trying to imply something which greatly impacts another player while avoiding actually saying it which most people tend to find frankly disrespectful and a bit childish.
One possible explanation is that cheating is a serious charge, and he's a chess player and probably wants to avoid getting involved in rules enforcement.
I'm not seeing what's embarrassing about any of this (or how it's related to him having stake in a chess website), or why you think it's so important that he makes a statement but I don't think I'll change your mind about it.
Didn’t he make a statement on Twitter? I’m not saying Twitter is formal or anything but are we gatekeeping what is a statement? Or did I just hear wrong?
There's analysis showing very few blunders and mistakes, not just for his rating, but in general and there are games of his with very strong correlation between his moves and the then best versions of Stockfish.
This guy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AG9XeSPflrU&t=2s) isn't an IM, only an FM, but I don't think the skill matters, it's a matter of statistical analysis, which I don't think has been performed fully systematically, but from what I've seen I am fully convinced that Niemann cheated and I am convinced that the matter will become very clear once a careful analysis is finally performed.
I agree it's a matter of statistical analysis, as well as being an IM Dr. Ragan is a professor at University of Buffalo, has published numerous papers on his methodology, and a former member of the Anti-Cheating Committee of the World Chess Federation. You say you want an analysis but you also say you are already convinced he's guilty and are just looking for something to confirm that.
Carlsen intentionally throwing games against Niemann hinders his ability to advance his chess career and be recognized, and it makes him unsavoury to sponsors and organizations who favour Carlsen
In chess, people don't care as much about who won or lost, as they do about... I'm not sure exactly. It might be the specific tactic they used, or prescient intuition somebody showed, or the possibility of a move they saw but nobody else did, etc. But the point is they care about the playing of the game. It's a much different affair with most physical sports. There are so many possibilities, so many "moving parts", so much room for randomness to set in, that you can't really care nearly as much about exactly "how" anybody played a physical game. The winning and the loosing is really all you're left with.
In chess, games are recorded move by move. You can literally buy a book and read exactly how dozens (hundreds?) of major chess games played out. And you'll be reading exactly how they played out. Every single relevant detail of the entire match is there, in a textual format, that you or anyone else can learn from. In physical sports you rarely get more than who won X major tournament each year, or what a team's win / loss ratio was. That's it. There are so vastly many more variables going in on a physical sports game that it is inconceivable to record exactly how they played out.
Anyway, I think this and similar reasons, are why somebody "giving" away a win is hardly relevant. Who it was that won is hardly worth knowing. How they won, what strategy they employed, or what mental weakness the loser exhibited, are what everyone is really hankering for. By throwing the game he robbed everyone of what they are really after: knowledge. And not knowledge like "who won" but knowledge of "how do you win at chess against the best player in the world". Because in chess, and other games of pure mental gymnastics, anybody can employ that same knowledge in their next game.
