This seems like a huge win for Niemann. I remember Legal Eagle’s video on it and he made it seem like Niemann didn’t have much of a case for defamation. Him getting a settlement of having his critics withdraw their accusations of cheating, getting his account reinstated on chess.com and being able to play in future over-the-board tournaments is just about the best settlement he could have hoped for.
He didnt have much for the case of defamation, which is why he lost that case against Magnus. It is however fair that Magnus has no proof for him cheating in OTB matches, and keeping that up without proper evidence could end up in a successfull defamation lawsuit.
This doesnt necessarily change anything for OTB tournaments, which are regulated by FIDE, who had the report on their investigation postponed until October (I believe).
I agree it is wild his chess.com account was reinstated after their report in which they claimed to have proof for iirc hundreds of times cheating in online matches!
It’s a bit more nuanced than that. Chess engines exist, and computers have the ability to always make the most correct move given the current board state 100% of the time, even when viable alternatives exist. That’s how they tend to catch cheaters. If you’re out of book moves and making engine optimal moves every turn, there’s a strong suspicion that you are using a computer to cheat. Even Grandmasters play sub-optimal moves, so when novices come out swinging with near-100% accuracy on their scorecard, it raises a lot of alarm bells.
Legal Eagle videos are a rush job that he cranks out last minute to stay relevant to the news cycle and algorithm and doesn’t necessarily curate information carefully. Same exact problem as Linus.
There are no articles or detractors that I can point to, it’s what I noticed. A specific example I remember was the GME thing, I was deep in the weeds at the time and when I watched Legal Eagle video on it I noticed there were a couple of inaccuracies in that video that essentially meant he missed the point of the entire problem with institutional traders and misrepresented what the GME movement was about. It was also painfully clear that he cranked out that video last minute to bandwagon on the topic to attract views and subscribers.
You don’t need need to be an expert on anything to see this. Just pay attention to his channel, sensational topic comes out and in a matter of a day or two he will crank out a video on it and it will likely be on a legal topic that hes not an expert on. The problem is that most of us aren’t experts either so it’s hard to tell how accurate he is. But when you are producing at that rate, and you are desperate to play the algorithm, you’re going to get a lot of errors or misrepresentations. It’s a theme that’s common across youtubers who depend on current events to stay relevant.
I followed legal eagle when he was a small channel and i dont remember him being that bad, once I noticed what he was doing I stopped paying attention to him. Like I said, you don’t need to be a genius to notice that he’s trying really hard to play the YouTube algorithm at the cost of his content a la Linus.
Yeah, he has more expertise than I do that’s for sure. I’m not trying to detract from his expertise, he’s clearly smart and knowledgeable and it’s hard to find alternatives for a niche like this. If it works for you then it works for you. I know that he’s not the only lawyer youtuber, there is a lawyer twitch streamer out there who does commentary on popular cases, I haven’t been in that corner of the internet in a while.
I think sometimes I’m too critical of people like them when I should realize that it’s for popular consumption and its not an academic exercise. But I personally have an issue with someone who is clearly trying to play the algorithm in a way which directly conflicts with him trying to be an authority on these issues. You cannot be a pop culture commentator, and figure, while maintaining an academic level of integrity. I’ve seen this problem in some scientific channels, (where i actually know my stuff) and the more popular channels tend to dilute the content and sometimes just give a wrong impression of a scientific topic.
This seems like a huge win for Niemann. I remember Legal Eagle’s video on it and he made it seem like Niemann didn’t have much of a case for defamation. Him getting a settlement of having his critics withdraw their accusations of cheating, getting his account reinstated on chess.com and being able to play in future over-the-board tournaments is just about the best settlement he could have hoped for.
He didnt have much for the case of defamation, which is why he lost that case against Magnus. It is however fair that Magnus has no proof for him cheating in OTB matches, and keeping that up without proper evidence could end up in a successfull defamation lawsuit.
This doesnt necessarily change anything for OTB tournaments, which are regulated by FIDE, who had the report on their investigation postponed until October (I believe).
I agree it is wild his chess.com account was reinstated after their report in which they claimed to have proof for iirc hundreds of times cheating in online matches!
They merely stated his play was, across many games, indistinguishable from a cheater, they didn’t have actual hard proof that he was cheating.
If they had actual proof they wouldn’t have needed to settle
In chess, doesn’t that mean he was playing well?
It’s a bit more nuanced than that. Chess engines exist, and computers have the ability to always make the most correct move given the current board state 100% of the time, even when viable alternatives exist. That’s how they tend to catch cheaters. If you’re out of book moves and making engine optimal moves every turn, there’s a strong suspicion that you are using a computer to cheat. Even Grandmasters play sub-optimal moves, so when novices come out swinging with near-100% accuracy on their scorecard, it raises a lot of alarm bells.
Legal Eagle videos are a rush job that he cranks out last minute to stay relevant to the news cycle and algorithm and doesn’t necessarily curate information carefully. Same exact problem as Linus.
I’d like more information about this if you care to share any links
There are no articles or detractors that I can point to, it’s what I noticed. A specific example I remember was the GME thing, I was deep in the weeds at the time and when I watched Legal Eagle video on it I noticed there were a couple of inaccuracies in that video that essentially meant he missed the point of the entire problem with institutional traders and misrepresented what the GME movement was about. It was also painfully clear that he cranked out that video last minute to bandwagon on the topic to attract views and subscribers.
You don’t need need to be an expert on anything to see this. Just pay attention to his channel, sensational topic comes out and in a matter of a day or two he will crank out a video on it and it will likely be on a legal topic that hes not an expert on. The problem is that most of us aren’t experts either so it’s hard to tell how accurate he is. But when you are producing at that rate, and you are desperate to play the algorithm, you’re going to get a lot of errors or misrepresentations. It’s a theme that’s common across youtubers who depend on current events to stay relevant.
I followed legal eagle when he was a small channel and i dont remember him being that bad, once I noticed what he was doing I stopped paying attention to him. Like I said, you don’t need to be a genius to notice that he’s trying really hard to play the YouTube algorithm at the cost of his content a la Linus.
So one video multiple years ago that you didn’t like, got it.
Damn, sorry for pissing on your cereal kid
He’s a lawyer though, which gives him more credibility for legal things than not in my book. Do you know of other lawyers who covered the subject?
Yeah, he has more expertise than I do that’s for sure. I’m not trying to detract from his expertise, he’s clearly smart and knowledgeable and it’s hard to find alternatives for a niche like this. If it works for you then it works for you. I know that he’s not the only lawyer youtuber, there is a lawyer twitch streamer out there who does commentary on popular cases, I haven’t been in that corner of the internet in a while.
I think sometimes I’m too critical of people like them when I should realize that it’s for popular consumption and its not an academic exercise. But I personally have an issue with someone who is clearly trying to play the algorithm in a way which directly conflicts with him trying to be an authority on these issues. You cannot be a pop culture commentator, and figure, while maintaining an academic level of integrity. I’ve seen this problem in some scientific channels, (where i actually know my stuff) and the more popular channels tend to dilute the content and sometimes just give a wrong impression of a scientific topic.
I appreciate this comment. It crystallised my thinking on this, ad this Linus fellow.