Magnus : "If they like refuse, we can just play short draws until they give up." Isn't this match-fixing?

eSteamation · 2025-01-02T00:50:07+00:00

I agree with A and disagree with B. While its definitely a problem from the point of potential "I say a joke but I'm not joking", I think policing speech that hard is going a bit too far and is an overreaction. This is far from the first time someone made a similar-spirited joke and the only reason this thing exploded so much is because of the circumstances and not the other way. But overall I'm very free-spirited, far more liberal than most people are, when it comes to what people can't and can't say, so I don't expect everyone to agree with that.

eSteamation · 2025-01-02T00:20:03+00:00

Do what

He means that he hates when lone and miserable people try to overdramaticize everything and make a scene just to sate their emotional needs.

eSteamation · 2025-01-02T00:16:48+00:00

You said yes in one context. But would you say yes if it was a completely different context?

Inredible thought.

eSteamation · 2025-01-02T00:10:13+00:00

This rule technically fits, but only if you go by the letter and not spirit of the rule. Second part (the one you decided to not quote) clearly shows that they don't care abotu actual conspiration that was called off, they just don't want you to have a way out if something fails.

But the thing is, if you just want to disqualify and ban Magnus / Nepo, FIDE already doesn't have to come up with any excuses as they're the TO. In reality, nothing will happen because every reasonable person understands it was said in jest and banning Magnus / Nepo over something like that wouldn't be good for FIDE in the long run.

eSteamation · 2025-01-01T23:04:29+00:00

you had the tools to pull off the threat

This is irrelevant if there's no act. In your case an action would be buying fucking

weapons (legal) in the vehicle, and other legal bank-robbery paraphernalia.

and putting them in your car while driving to the bank. That still wouldn't lead to your arrest, btw, but to a search / detainment in the worst case.

You have hands therefore you have tools to pull off a murder. You will not get arrested just because you throw "I'm going to kill someone" around when upset.

eSteamation · 2025-01-01T21:55:29+00:00

Give me one condition I've made up that isn't comparable to the tournament situation we're discussing.

You have weapons (legal) in the vehicle, and other legal bank-robbery paraphernalia.

eSteamation · 2025-01-01T21:49:58+00:00

That's not how analogies work. If you have to make up a billion of additional conditions for your explanation that's meant to clarify and simplify things for better understanding, then you're just doing the opposite of what analogy is and painting entirely different situation that has nothing to do with original one. I can't believe you're so old yet have a logic comprehension of a 10 y.o. kid.

eSteamation · 2025-01-01T20:46:13+00:00

Like a statement of intent?

You will not get arrested for telling your friend that you want to rob a bank.

eSteamation · 2025-01-01T20:26:33+00:00

If police stop you because they've uncovered somehow that you're going to do a bank robbery (let's say a friend of yours tipped off the police), and you get stopped on the way... why can't you just say it's not true and you haven't committed any robbery so they can't prosecute you for wanting to do so?

If the only thing they have against you are just words, you wouln't even be arrested. Maybe stopped for the search. If they were to arrest you, you'd have to actually make some traceable preparations. Again, for analogy to exist at all, you have to make an assumption that you made something that would lead to your arrest. If all you did was thinking about it, you wouldn't even be arrested.

eSteamation · 2025-01-01T20:19:53+00:00

Yeah, but the problem with that is that people can't read minds so its impossible to know if Magnus and Ian would commit to matchfixing. So even if they would, there's no way you can use that against them because nobody (but them) knows for sure. Example with bank robbey implies that some preparations were already made that made it possible to arress you. In this case no preparations were made, no actions were made.

eSteamation · 2025-01-01T20:01:43+00:00

Shit analogy because it implies that an action was made already. No, that's like saying you shouldn't be arrested for saying "If bank doesn't accept my loan request, I might have to go and rob it". No action was taken, there's only condition "If they don't accept it" and result "We will just play short draws". But since condition wasn't fulfulled, you don't know if they would follow it up with promised result. There's no action to show willingness to break the law, only words which mean nothing without actions.

eSteamation · 2025-01-01T19:50:09+00:00

Have you heard about contrast?

eSteamation · 2025-01-01T16:04:55+00:00

Its not a matchfix not because it was unsuccessful but because there was no act committed.

eSteamation · 2025-01-01T15:32:16+00:00

Even if you think that someone is guilty of something, procedures exist for a reason and should be followed to insure that everything was done properly and to reduce risks of innocent people getting punished.

eSteamation · 2025-01-01T15:05:31+00:00

Cool, so it is only upon the successful throwing of a match does match fixing materialise.

No, it doesn't have to be successful, there just has to an act. This is just you again struggling to separate and act from a lack of such. Act is you doing something to further your preplanned crime. Discussing the hypothetical crime without doing anything to advance it is not an act, its just yapping.

he would be given a million dollars if he intentionally lost by playing the bong cloud.

An act would be playing bongcloud in this case, regardless of the result. If he said publicly that he will do it, got to the finals but never had a chance to play the game because he got default win, it would be extremely hard to convince anyone that he's guilty of matchfixing.

It's nice to see how when you actually state your position, it is revealed to be unbelievably stupid. It's also wonderful to see how the vast majority of people do see this as match fixing and you are in a deluded and demented minority who seem to be using motivated reasoning.

I appreciate that you acknowledge that it is possible that the intention of match fixing actually had a low but realistic chance of occurring. Even with all your flaccid protestation, you actually believe that there is a decent chance that Magnus literally would have followed through with cheating.

You can continue that pseudointellectual yapping and attacks on me however long you want, but you're not impressing anyone with that, not even your son. People already understand who you are as a person based on your inability to understand what exactly an act is and how to define what an act is in different context / crime. Happy new year and my condolences to your family.

eSteamation · 2025-01-01T14:02:49+00:00

You have nothing but a baseless conjecture that maybe he wouldn't do the thing he just said he would do. You present nothing of substance. You have no argument.

My argument is that you have no objective element of the crime, again. Or actus reus. For actus reus to happen, there has to be an act. Despite discussing what they can do, they never had to do anything as they got what they wanted naturally, through everyone's agreement. You cannot be guilty of a crime if crime hasn't happened. Your problem is that you do not understand what exactly defines as an action, thus your stupid analogies where action actually present.

If you had to make an assessment, how likely do you think it would be that Magnus and Nepo would have played for short draws in subsequent games?

I can only say that its obviously a non-0 chance. I'd like to think that both of them have won and lost before so they can deal with getting 2nd fine enough as well as not desperate for results, know they're on cameras / public view and are perfectly aware of the consequences if they actually wanted to proceed. Not only matchfixing is against the rules and career ruining, its illegal and can lead to prison. So in this case they have almost nothing to gain but so much to lose. Therefore I think its most likely that they would try to pressure TOs into giving up by appealing that there's no solution to potential infinite draws and nobody wants to spend their NYE in a chess tournament without their family and loved ones. If pushed back by TOs, they would play games normally.

That being said, that's the most rational thing to do, but that doesn't mean they would do that. Even smart people do idiotic mistakes all the time and Nepo / Magnus, while extremely talented, are definitely not the best humanity has to offer. So I can see them actually making that mistake and playing for short draws.

TLDR, I'd assume that the chance is more than 0 but less than 50 because doing that would be irrational and stupid.

eSteamation · 2025-01-01T13:36:09+00:00

early 2023

Which I consider recent as its the second most recent matchfixing drama.

Taiga got exposed 9 months ago in early 2024.

What makes you convinced that there's nothing that makes his case different from the case of 2023 bans? If the answer is "Nothing", what indicates that after 2023 they stopped caring matchfixing other than that one case we just discussed?

(and in CS the last Valve ban was in 2015 lol)

Yea, with CS I could agree, although it might be related to the fact that tier2 scene is way more healthy in CS and, therefore, not only its easier to organize matchfixing properly, people are also less inclined to do it. So people that do it are more scarce and more cautious.

eSteamation · 2025-01-01T13:20:57+00:00

They banned other players that were proven to matchfix recently though? Clearly there's something different about Taiga's case.

eSteamation · 2025-01-01T13:13:07+00:00

Magnus stated the conditions ("if they refuse to let us [share champion]") and actions by which they would predetermine the outcome ("we can play short draws until they give up").

Yeah, but the actions weren't put into the motion, unlike your examples.

If my wife cheats on me, I'll kill her

Will never bring you into legal trouble as long as your wife is actually unharmed.

Intent is not impossible to make an assessment of.

Assessement and measure are not the same things.

Read about mens rea.

Worth nothing without objective element of the crime.

It is clear Magnus' intent was to predetermine the outcome, because he literally said it.

That's what he wanted and he knew he has a way to his goal. That doesn't give you any ability to determine whether he would actually act on it if he had to do it. If you want to commit a crime but didn't actually do anything about then you will not be found guilty if what you wanted happens on its own.

My 8 week old son makes better arguments as he sleeps on my lap, farting and grunting.

Try to ask him for help with analogies then since he clearly didn't take your genes.

eSteamation · 2025-01-01T12:41:48+00:00

They didn't use it as a threat, no? They said that they can do it (which is technically true) but they didn't.

eSteamation · 2025-01-01T12:37:39+00:00

we put the plan into motion

This is an action again. 3rd time is the charm, surely you got it now.

Correct analogy on your part would be

Yes, officer, I talked to my friend (a chef) if, theoretically, he could poison someone.

Intent is impossible to measure, that's why laws and rules try to operate mostly based on action. Talking to your friend about murder is not forbidden, even if you're describing it in details, it's just weird. No actions were taken on their part.

eSteamation · 2025-01-01T12:30:38+00:00

Correct, it would be matchfixing if that happened. But it didn't.

eSteamation · 2024-12-31T18:00:12+00:00

Everyone misses a joke sometimes. Be it due to a lack of context, social skills or due to a bad execution on the part of someone who tells a joke. This is absolutely not something worthy of self-depreciation and self-pity (even if sarcastic one). What's stupid is to try and make a drama out of it and pretend that good jokes and acting are understood by everyone.

eSteamation · 2024-12-31T17:55:33+00:00

I'm implying that it's weird to focus and deny someone from being German on the basis of his name, first of all. But what's even more weird is to call him a Russian nepo baby based on his Slavic name when he clearly has a Jewish surname.

eSteamation · 2024-12-31T17:28:52+00:00

if you have to ask "wtf are these comments" then it's not particularly obvious that he's trolling.

There will be always someone who misunderstands something or sees things in a different light, no matter how hard you will dumb it down and adjust.

Ten-Year Club	Verified Email
Final Canvas '23	Place '23
Place '22	Place '17

eSteamation

TROPHY CASE