Chess.com banned Hans after beating Magnus. Why?

So Hans just admitted in an interview that Chess.com privately banned him after beating Magnus, providing no reason.

Now this makes no sense. Unless you have factual evidence, you should not ban any player. And no actual evidence is given. The only thing we know is that Hans was previously banned and then unbanned privately.

So, Danny Rensch, what’s all this fuss about?

i’m very interested in knowing, and so are many other people most likely.

https://youtu.be/1jdiiPiu87I

Reference starts at 5:10:50.

https://youtu.be/1jdiiPiu87I

Reference starts at 5:10:50.

I just watched from about 5:00:00 til the end and I gotta say he sounds honest.  It's good he addressed the situation.  

My post from here:

Chess.com doesn't need to reveal any evidence publicly. Hans could probably email them to get more information.

I like the 1984 reference. 

This is the most unfair banning chess.com has ever done. They used to say that it didn’t matter who made the accusations, they would treat players fairly.

The only thing they could analyse is the moves in the game and nothing else, since everything else is outside their control. They dont control the tournament nor the location. And considering we are talking about two top of the world GMs, they can't say they are cheating just because their engines told them they are playing moves close to what the engine suggests. 

This site is crap, why? I'll tell you why, it's full of low 1000 elo playing at 30 centipawn loss or less, they all play exactly the same every game, even in 1+1 bullet games. I've even reported a 1000-elo player TWICE, who's playing Daily at 1500 level, with a record of over 70 wins and 1 loss, who even plays Daily 60-move games at under 10 centipawn loss (titled player strength)... YET he still plays Daily. 

- But when someone is caught cheating, they accept their "apologies", and allow the cheater to open a new account and keep playing just a couple of days after getting banned (https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-com-community/im-back-with-an-apology-71661015). 

- When Nakamura cried on his stream a guy had cheated playing him, chess.com immediately banned him, and then had to go and unban him and issue a public apology because they checked him and he was innocent. They just banned him because HIKARU SAID SO, not because he was found cheating. 

- So it's not surprising they are banning Hans without proof or evidence, just because they don't want to have an issue with Magnus, especially now they are in the process of buying off his website PlayMagnus or whatever it's called. 

I wonder how many other things are being swept under the rug on this site ... 

No, the account wasn't closed but the individual game was aborted and Naka was awarded a win. That wasn't "chess.com" doing that either, that was one of Nakamura's corrupt moderators who he now no longer works with. Immediately after that event moderators were stripped of their ability to do this anyway.

I have full faith in chess.com's cheat detection, it is the best in the world by far. If Hans is telling the truth that his account is shadowbanned then I have absolutely do doubt he cheated somewhere (whether that is in online games or OTB is a matter between Hans and the site)

This is an outrage. 

There is no proof about him cheating in this tournament. Where is the proof?

If we dont need evidence, then what's to stop me saying Magnus cheated? Im sure if we analyse many of his games they are close to perfect. I have no evidence but could I say Magnus cheated OTB? Could I say Nakamura cheated? Fabiano? 

I mean, if lack of evidence is not an issue then I could claim all super GMs cheat. 

How are you all so certain that there isn't any evidence?  It's possible that chess.com is being careful about publishing evidence to avoid defaming any players involved.  There are privacy concerns, at least at the beginning.

I would also like and appreciate an answer from Chess.com about this, having seen the same interview myself...

Because if there is no *EVIDENCE* that Hans cheated, Chess.com should absolutely not be punishing Hans in any way, shape, or form.  

So Chess.com?... What's the reason?  

I don't know why people think there is no evidence. If chess.com closed the account it means that they are 99.999% certain beyond all reasonable doubt that Hans cheated and would be willing to defend it in court.

“Chess.com does not discuss fair play matters publicly and, as such, we decline to comment on the happenings at Sinquefield Cup and/or any speculations made by the community” - Danny Rensch 

I think Chess.com has to speak out about banning Hans and they have to bring receipts. At least now that Hans has spoken out about it. Why is he currently banned? What event/action was the cause? What evidence was used in that decision? How does this line up with their policy relative to other players being banned?

I'll be the first to admit that I don't know if he cheated in the Sinquefield Cup, and as far as I can tell that's the only accusation put out there and not even directly stated and certainly not with any evidence. TBH though, I really struggle to see how he would cheat in the OTB circumstance of the Sinquefield Cup. It would be very hard to pull off.

If I were Chess.com, I would take an innocent until proven guilty M.O. on the issue. Until there is evidence that he cheated since his last suspension was lifted, it's not fair for him to be banned on Chess.com and from Chess.com tournaments IMO.

If Chess.com doesn't address this issue to my satisfaction, I plan to cancel my membership and tell everyone else I know to do the same thing. They can't be allowed to do what looks like essentially unwarranted bullying of Hans as puppets for what coincidentally appears to be a corporate attack from Magnus Carlsen and his chess empire.

To be clear, I'm not convinced by Hans' explanation, I'm still very much in the IDK camp, but I think until there's evidence presented publicly by Chess.com (again since Hans called out Chess.com publicly today), it's not right to ban him.

Except the tournament is not a chess.com tournament - it's an OTB tournament and it's beyond their control so they can't determine whether the person cheated in the event or not. 

1. there is overwhelmingly obvious evidence

2. they wouldn't ban without #1

3. HANS ADMITTED TO CHEATING.

Chess.com can and do use their cheat detection algorithm to determine cheaters in OTB events. Danny mentioned that on a state of chess.com broadcast about 2 years ago.

I think chess.com only bans if they are very sure, because they are prepared to show evidence in court if they get sued for defamation