On one hand Magnus Carlsen former world champion and number one in the rankings, on the other Hans Moke Niemann an American player on the rise, and probably also the most talked about in chess circles. The two were the protagonists of the most important controversy of the last two years that, around the word ‘cheating’, has heated up tempers, divided the crowds, sparked discussions among fans and analysts, and occupied the pages of newspapers. Carlsen and Niemann challenged each other again yesterday in Paris, during the semifinals of the Speed Chess Championship, a very rich tournament organized by Chess.com a stone’s throw from the Louvre, in a series of games that had the flavor of a showdown. As if they were two boxers in a ring and all around the people were waiting to see them fight. The two, in reality, ignored each other quite a bit: few glances, zero words, each confined to their own space, with headphones in their ears and the screen in front of their eyes. In the end there was no surprise: Carlsen clearly won but, before going into more detail, it is necessary to rewind the tape and explain why their match was so eagerly awaited.
The context
- Sinquefield Cup 2022. Niemann defeats Carlsen, with the black pieces, in a clear and surprising way. The 33-year-old raises doubts about the correct conduct of the match, leaves the tournament, and makes it clear that he suspects a case of cheating. The American, personally affected, admits in a long interview that he ‘cheated’ twice in his youth, but only online. And he attacks the skeptics: “If next time they want me to strip completely naked, I will do it”. Chess.com ‘suspends’ Niemann from its platform shortly after the end of the tournament in question.
- Carlsen does not back down one step, confirms his hypothesis about a possible sporting ‘fraud’ in St. Louis and underlines how, according to him, Niemann would have cheated more often, and more recently, than he confessed publicly. FIDE opens an investigation into the case to verify what really happened and to try to ascertain how much truth is contained in Carlsen’s words and allusions. In the meantime, two factions are created in public opinion: those who maintain that the Norwegian has abused his position by stifling Niemann’s career and those who, instead, deplore the latter for his lack of transparency.
- Chess.com pubblica a 72-page reportwith the result of the analysis carried out on Niemann’s matches. An unclear situation emerges, full of ‘oddities’. The theory that the American may not have played cleanly in more than 100 matches, including events with a cash prize, is strengthened.
- In October 2022,Niemann tries a causeagainst Carlsen, his company Play Magnus Group, Chess.com and its CCO Daniel Rensch, and Hikaru Nakamura, another top player who had raised concerns about his conduct. The charges range from slander to libel, from unfair competition conduct under the Sherman Act (antitrust violation) to unlawful interference with commercial contracts.
- The lawsuit was dismissed on June 27, 2023, by a U.S. federal court.
- On August 28, 2023, Chess.com released a note explaining thatthe legal disputes are over: an agreement has been reached between all parties (without publishing details). Niemann is reinstated on the platform and Carlsen confirms that he no longer wants to shy away from a potential challenge against his rival. Niemann explains that he looks forward to “competing against Magnus on the chessboard rather than in court”.
- On December 12, 2023,FIDE ends its investigationCarlsen is fined €10,000 for withdrawing from the 2022 Sinquefield Cup (the Norwegian is punished for only one of four ‘counts’) and Niemann is acquitted on cheating charges.
In short, from 2022 to today, there has been (almost) nothing else talked about in the universe of chess. And it is easy to imagine how, in recent weeks, the ‘hype’ has grown a lot to see the two athletes challenge each other again. Despite the climate having calmed down and despite the event not allowing another match in classic time. In Paris, in fact, a “normal” chess match did not take place. The proposed format is all based on ‘rapid’ chess, the most popular since the existence of apps. Three game times with different cadences: 90 minutes of 5+1 games (5 minutes + 1 second increase per move); 60 minutes 3+1 (3 minutes + 1 second per move) and 30 minutes 1+1 (1 minute + 1 second per move). In short, there is no fixed number of games but it is the time that defines when the match is concluded. The one who scores the most points wins: 1 for the victory; 0.5 for a draw; 0 for a loss. Carlsen and Niemann, moreover, despite being in the same room, a few meters from each other, did not face each other using a classic chessboard but played, with their profiles, on the Chess.com platform.
What happened in Paris
In the ‘first half’ there was no match. Carlsen dominated, taking the lead to 7-2, with Niemann immediately appearing to have clear difficulty in countering his opponent. The Norwegian often opted for the English opening, or often followed minor lines, with the aim of taking the American out of theory and imposing himself on what has always been his specialty: endgames. It was quite predictable, in fact, that Niemann was very solid in his preparation but could have more problems away from his comfort zone and with only a few minutes to think. The general feeling is that there is still at least one category of difference between the two. Carlsen, once he had accumulated the advantage necessary to win, lowered the gears and put the autopilot on. Many analysts have underlined how very frustrating it must have been for Niemann to witness all this, almost helpless. Several times he complained about the mouse, the headphones, the environment. But it seemed more like an improvised strategy to break the opponent’s rhythm (at one point he was 10 points down) and find any justification for the gap. Those who watched the show had no trouble noticing the grimaces of the two, Carlsen more theatrical, especially in front of the mistakes made, and Niemann always very dark in the face, frowning and disappointed. After all, the final score speaks for itself: 17.5 to 12.5 for the former world champion. A clear success.
At the end of the more than 4 hours of play, Carlsen spoke to Chess.com explaining how both had ‘made a lot of blunders, a lot of mistakes’ and how his performance had not convinced him: “If I were to play like this in the final, I will definitely lose. I have to raise my level to win a match that I expect to be more entertaining”. The Norwegian, visibly relieved, admitted that he had had a “very, very strange day” and that he had been “a little nervous” and “definitely more tense than usual”. He then praised the progress made by Niemann: “He is much stronger than two years ago, he has made a lot of improvements”. The Californian player himself seems to have accepted the defeat and grasped the more constructive aspects of the lesson he had received: “There are no excuses for the defeat. I will come back stronger”, he tweeted shortly after. His goal remains the same: to become the strongest in the world.
After all, it was a great summer for Hans Niemann. The American expressed a mature and convincing game that allowed him to arrive in Paris beyond all expectations. Beating Vachier-Lagrave and Wesley So, for example, means having deserved this showcase and having all the possible weapons to best challenge a sacred monster like Carlsen. But not only that. Niemann defeated other top-level players, such as Anish Giri, Nikita Vitiugov and Etienne Bacrot, in a format called “Hans Niemann against the world”. Today he is in 16th place in the FIDE ranking, with an ELO rating of 2733. Just behind (with just three points less) the current world champion, the Chinese Ding Liren.
The opponent in the final of the 33-year-old from Tonsberg will be the Frenchman ‘by adoption’ (he was born and raised in Iran), Alireza Firoujza, capable of overcoming another online chess specialist, Hikaru Nakamura, in the first semifinal of Speed Chess. It will be a spectacular match with a result (almost) not at all obvious.