Do Indian Grandmasters Arjun Erigaisi and D Gukesh still have a chance of winning Champions Chess Tour Airthings Masters? The Indian Express
View original post here:
Do Indian Grandmasters Arjun Erigaisi and D Gukesh still have a chance of winning Champions Chess Tour Airthings Masters? - The Indian Express
Chess.com has formally requested the Eastern Missouri District Court to dismiss GM Hans Niemann's defamation lawsuit. The motion to dismiss, filed on December 2, 2022, asserts that the lawsuit "could have been brought only as a public relations stunt."
Chess.com's answer to Niemann's complaints comes 43 days after the lawsuit was brought to court by Niemann's lawyers on October 20. In their motion, the Chess.com lawyers present a set of arguments as to why the court should not allow the suit to move forward.
In addition to Chess.com, Niemann's lawsuit names GM Magnus Carlsen, GM Hikaru Nakamura, the Play Magnus Group, and IM Danny Rensch as defendants and seeks at least $100 million in damages. Against all five entities, Niemann is claiming slander, libel, unlawful group boycott under the Sherman Act, tortious interference with contract and business expectancies, and civil conspiracy.
Chess.com's lawyers claim that all five elements of Niemann's complaint are "plainly without merit." They reference 71 earlier cases in a motion to dismiss that spans 27 pages. By default, a motion cannot exceed 15 pages, but a joint request by Chess.com and Carlsen to exceed this limit was granted by the court.
Chess.com first addresses Niemann's attempt to assert a federal antitrust claim under the Sherman Act. Niemann's suit suggests that he was unreasonably limited in his ways to make a living through chess tournaments, endorsements, and other business opportunities because Chess.com, PlayMagnus, Carlsen, Nakamura, and Rensch had "concerted actions to ban and blacklist Niemann" from the "global competitive chess industry."
In the motion, Chess.com's lawyers assert that Niemann fails to adequately demonstrate the existence of a conspiracy or group boycott, that there was an actual antitrust injury, and also that there was any alleged agreement that unreasonably restrained trade.
Niemann's asserted claims for libel, slander, tortious interference, and civil conspiracy are "meritless on their face," according to Chess.com lawyers, and "must be dismissed at the threshold because they are barred by Connecticuts anti-Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (anti-SLAPP) statute." This statute allows defendants to file a special motion to dismiss when a complaint is based on the opposing partys exercise of its right of free speech, right to petition the government, or right of association" under the U.S. or Connecticut constitutions.
Chess.com's motion notes that a similar defense has been brought up by Carlsen's lawyers, who have claimed that Connecticuts anti-SLAPP statute precludes all of Niemanns state law claims because Missouri federal courts apply the law of the jurisdiction in which the plaintiff resideshere, Connecticutwhen evaluating state-law claims that, like Niemanns, are rooted in alleged defamation.Citing the suit Fuqua Homes, Inc. v. Beattie (2004), Chess.com argues that Connecticut, therefore, has the "most significant relationship to the issues presented in the case."
Should the court disagree with Chess.com and Carlsen here and deem Connecticuts anti-SLAPP statute irrelevant, the Chess.com lawyers argue that Niemann's defamation claims also fail under the law of Missouri. In their opinion, the allegations require that the defendant must have published a defamatory statement that is "actionable," meaning, "objectively false." Additionally, when a defamatory statement is allegedly made about a public figure, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires the plaintiff to also demonstrate that the statement was published with actual malice. According to Chess.com, none of their statements were objectively false. They are opinions and do not demonstrate actual malice.
Niemanns tortious interference claim fails as well, according to Chess.com. He had argued that, because of actions by Chess.com, PlayMagnus, Carlsen, Nakamura, and Rensch, his scheduled match with the young German grandmaster Vincent Keymer was canceled and that negotiations with the Tata Steel Chess Tournament were abruptly ended. Chess.com states that Niemann "fails to allege any facts regarding Chess.coms actual knowledge of his negotiations with the Tata Steel Chess Tournament or a planned match with Keymer."
Finally, Niemanns standalone claim for civil conspiracy fails, according to Chess.com, because "it is derivative of his other claims" and this conspiracy claim "fails for the independent reason that Niemann does not allege any agreement among the Defendants."
What will happen next is not clear yet. Niemann's lawyers have a chance to respond to this motion, but if they do, Chess.com has an opportunity to submit a reply brief. The court will then likely take the matter up at a hearing before issuing a decision. At the time of writing, it is unclear if other defendants have also issued a motion to dismiss.
Previous coverage:
Read the rest here:
Chess.com Files Motion To Dismiss Niemann Case
Chess generally hits the headlines only for reasons external to the game itself: Bobby Fischers eccentricity; Viktor Korchnois allegations that the Soviet Union was using hypnotism to undermine him in his 1978 world title match with Anatoly Karpov; the Toiletgate furore that marred the 2006 world championship. Now, the reigning world champion Magnus Carlsens airing of suspicions over the play of the 19-year-old US grandmaster Hans Niemann has put chess into the spotlight again.
Carlsen has been world champion since 2013. Niemann is a tyro who has made astonishingly rapid progress recently. Carlsen has publicly questioned that trajectory, saying on Twitter last week that his over the board progress has been unusual. These days, most elite players become grandmasters in their early teens Carlsen was 13. Niemann, a charismatic character who says his life has been devoted to proving critics who said he wasnt good enough wrong, was a late-developing 17, and his rise to super-GM level has been meteoric.
The controversy erupted when Niemann beat Carlsen last month in the Sinquefield Cup. Niemann said he had somehow guessed what opening Carlsen would play. It was Carlsens first defeat in 53 classical (long-form) games, and he reacted by withdrawing from the tournament, making gnomic references to something being not quite right. If I speak I am in big trouble, he tweeted. Some of his supporters filled in the blanks, with claims that Niemann had computer help. Elon Musk unhelpfully suggested that he was using unusual methods; Niemann countered by offering to strip naked.
Carlsen and Niemann met again last month in an online game, and the world champion sensationally resigned after making just one move. Carlsen said he was unwilling to play against people that have cheated repeatedly in the past, and that he believed the younger man had cheated more than he has admitted. Niemann has acknowledged cheating online as a teenager, but insists he has never done so in an over-the-board game and angrily denies the new claims. Once a cheat, always a cheat, chorus his detractors, but Niemann should surely not be condemned for youthful misdemeanours in games where little was at stake. There is no evidence that he cheated when he beat Carlsen.
The world champion is right to say that cheating poses an existential challenge to chess there have been many examples at less exalted levels of the sport. But he is wrong to muddy the waters around Niemann without substantive evidence. Britains former world title contender Nigel Short says that the young American is at risk of suffering death by innuendo. Experts reckon Carlsen played unusually poorly in his defeat to Niemann. Maybe it was just a bad day at the office. Or perhaps it was the result of paranoia: once a player believes their opponent is cheating, that inevitably affects their own play. Carlsen needs to produce concrete evidence ideally as part of the inquiry announced on Thursday by the International Chess Federation or let Niemann get on with his career. Only by playing over a long period will the latters true playing strength emerge while any repeated cheating in the rarefied conditions of elite tournaments would soon be exposed.
Read more:
The Guardian view on chess cheating claims: innocent until proven guilty - The Guardian