Please or Register to create posts and topics.

Magnus Carlsen's accusations: should you admit past guilt?

PreviousPage 2 of 2

To me Niemann made one particular mistake that was probably the excuse for Carlsen to start this showdown: he was interviewed after winning and declared that “Magnus must be embarrassed to lose to him”.

While I agree that Carlsen behaved out of bounds, as PU teaches losing to a much less powerful and younger guy is an especially hurtful proposition to the high power guy.

It seems similar to the Serena Williams / Naomi Osaka showdown. And to some situations I myself experienced as the younger lawyer against older opponents.

As Lucio first pointed out above, the outcome could have been different had Niemann smoothed out the “win” by allowing Carlsen to save face:

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on September 7, 2022, 11:08 pm

Magnus is a legend, I grew up looking up to him.
And to meet him at only 19 years old it was a dream come true.
(then go on to describe the moves with which he won)

I think this was actually what Niemann really intended to say when he admitted that by pure luck he had studied Carlsen’s opening move that morning. He was basically admitting he himself was surprised of his win.

However, by the way he said it (basically bragging), he probably enraged Carlsen even more instead of smoothing out the situation.

Comparing it to the Williams / Osaka match, I think Osaka handled it much better. When Williams wrote to Osaka a (very self-centered) letter after the facts to state that she was not personally against Osaka, and she was just defending herself, Osaka responded by praising Williams and stating she had been right in defending herself.

Of course the reality was much different, but it didn’t matter: what mattered was that Osaka’s power protecting gained her a much better result than Niemann’s bragging.

Lucio Buffalmano, John Freeman and Kavalier have reacted to this post.
Lucio BuffalmanoJohn FreemanKavalier

I often like Dr. Grande's analyses and he went over this episode:

No great insights this time, but an overall good overview of the events -except calling Mourino a football player instead of a football coach :)-.

I think the main insight here is what Kavalier's great analysis already pointed out in the previous page: Magnus didn't have any evidence, he was empty-handed, and it showed big time.
Hinting so heavily at fraud without evidence made many think he may be a sore loser.

A better approach would have been to refuse to play again against Niemann and simply say "I have my reasons but I cannot speak at this time, may be in the future".

Then let people draw their conclusions and say that Niemann might have cheated.

Carlsen would have acted -and looked- like an eagle (and other people would have done the dirty job for him).

John Freeman, Kavalier and Bel have reacted to this post.
John FreemanKavalierBel
Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?
PreviousPage 2 of 2