 Today, we're going to talk about Hans Nyman, and he's been accused of cheating at chess, and it's apparently a pretty big deal. Greg wants to tell us about the videos we're going to watch. Yeah. The interview is with the St. Louis Chess Club, and of course comes up with this big thing. There are apparently some deep-seated accusations of cheating that are shaking the chess world to its core. So let's go from there. Yeah. Apparently, there's almost a hundred and five people who have been really affected by this. Hans Nyman, Hans, seemed like a tough position. You came up with this interesting idea we hadn't seen before with C5. Tell us a little bit about that. Yeah. Well, first of all, this Bishop B3 move is slightly, is that the main line? The main line is actually out of one. Yeah, out of one. And I had some ideas there, which I thought would be a nice surprise, and so that was my main point. But Bishop B3 is sort of the stopping 9G6 because then there's D4. So the point behind 9E7 is that you can't play D4 because of 9C6. And this is a common idea. This is also an idea. There was a game, actually, let's say the pawn is on A2, or the pawn is on A7, and the bishop is on B6. This idea is a position. There was a game, I think, Alexenko-Carijuana from the candidates, 2021. So this idea of going back and forth is a nice little trick, especially because he played 9DD2 first. Yes. You could argue it's a slightly inaccurate order because you sort of aren't able to punish 9G7 directly. Like, let's say you played 9G2, Rick E1, castles H3, let's say 9G7, now then D4 and you can sort of punish it directly. So the main idea was just to sort of avoid this immediate D4 break, which is by getting sort of a semi-close position that I had more knowledge about. So, okay, we can go back to C5. Yes. So yeah, I didn't check it too much. It was sort of a spur of the moment. I was not too sure about what opening to play could have been better prepared in this specific game, of course. But obviously, I don't remember, of course, what I remember is that actually A5 is most precise move. Here in this position? Yes. That's what I remembered. You play bishop to E6 and then this sort of weird move, 9 to C4, when I saw this, I was like, this is a bit weird. I don't think the edge will give this. I don't remember. I think maybe Rick C8 is a move. But this looked pretty fine to me. It's like a weird marshal. And I guess you could sort of have the bishop on A7, isn't that bad on a marshal? Because you're sort of always stopping the D4 break, which is the main positional break in these positions. It's usually D4 and it's never really working here. So I thought that it was possible for him to sort of lack a direct plan, which he kind of did. He brought the knight to E3, which I don't think, from what I remember, knight to G3, and then sort of ideas with knight h2, knight g4, knight h4, knight h5 was the most precise. So I didn't think this was so critical, but I think my main mistake was actually after the move was move bishop B8. That's right here. Yes. So instead of bishop A7, so after he plays the move A5, I should of course understand that the idea is to play bishop A4 and C4. This is sort of the only way that he can time the closing of the position to where I don't get direct counterplay. So in anticipation. Greg, what do you got? Yeah, good baseline, even if it is a bit long and torturous. This guy is doing what he does, stroking his chin. Look, he's a chess master. He's going to have to do something that makes him look like a chess master. He's doing that. His cadence is middle of the road with clear annunciation and speech pattern. He illustrates with his hands, even if he crosses his torso and uses a single hand as he's illustrating what he's thinking. He pauses and then he goes in and clearly communicates specific messages. Some of them, you know, I don't have any knowledge of what he's talking about. So it doesn't affect me that way I play chess, but against who? Not anybody like that. So cadence slows at I could have been more prepared and he squints, which shows some discomfort that maybe he was not ready for the game. And again, when he said it was a weird move, he squints, closes his eyes, narrows them, showing some discomfort. His hands to his chin again. This is just more of the same, but we get a really good baseline for what he does, including his whole body starts to get excited at about two minutes, 25 seconds. His whole body illustrating as he's talking about these moves and he's geeking on what he does, just like we do when we do what we do. Chase, what do you got? He was glad to see that Malcolm Gladwell's son is doing so well in the chess world. You're going to get burned for that. I'm getting him a huge Malcolm fan for that every second. Yeah, me too. In this video, there's lots of self soothing. There's adapting behavior. I'm not convinced this is a baseline. Watch later to see if this goes away or gets stronger. It's probably going to surprise you. But let's talk about some language here. Let's just do the language analysis. When he said, I had some ideas there and he says, when I saw this, when I saw this, it was a bit weird. He's talking about his own move, as I understand it. So he's referencing a lot of what he's thinking and doing in terms of third person when I received that, he said. When I received that, all the language is focused on getting. So pay attention. The language is focused on receiving some of these techniques. So pay attention to his memory of maybe him personally owning the moves. Maybe let's find some language about that. All the descriptive language is focused on observing his moves instead of making them. I want you to maybe play this back again. The language is focused on watching the moves instead of making them. There's some strange behavior here that I suggest a strong need for reassurance. A little bit of discomfort and just kind of bouncing around in this chair could be baseline. I haven't seen him in any other video. I did zero research for this. This is full disclosure here. But there's concealment and deception potentially are two different things. So concealment is one thing, deception is another. So let's see what happens in the next one. Mark, what do you got? Yeah, so I baselined him from before he moved to Europe. So he's around he's in under 17s at the time. So he's certainly under 17 at that time. But he's probably I'm guessing probably 16, 15, something like that. And and he's going through the match that he just played. He's way more direct. He'll just do he has the moves in his memory. And he's just going through each move, each move, each move, super direct with his gestures. No problem with recall at all. Still has lots of lip grooming at the same time. So that's baseline for him. If you see lip grooming here, you see it years ago in the same way. But I agree with you, Chase, that you've got. I had some ideas there that I thought would be a nice surprise. So there's a weird kind of way that he's communicating how he's thinking about chess and how he's playing it, which aren't consistent with three or four years ago. Is he direct or indirect? I think he's quite indirect in this baseline of him, whereas in the baseline that I've seen before three, four years ago, he's just super direct castles, a three. There's one of those Wallace and Gromit looks of fear on his face. Again, we don't normally see that with him when I've baselined him on giving interviews with people where he's talking about how he's lost and is being beaten savagely. He's kind of super calm about it. And just like I'm just a terrible, terrible player, awful player. And I deserve to be losing. And I'm going to go and watch Netflix and calm myself down is his kind of kind of way of dealing with these things. And then he's got from what I remember and I don't remember. So there's even in this kind of baseline of him, there's some weird language about not remembering what happened, some surprises that he kind of thinks might be a bit nice and a bit cool. But the lip licks and most of the body language is that we might associate with stress is baseline for him. His indirectness at this point, I don't think is is baseline. So I would say he's already under quite a bit of unusual stress for him. Just going through here's the way that this game played out. Scott, what do you got on this one? All right, yeah, that's a pretty good get a pretty good baseline on compared to what we see later on. I see what you're saying, Chase, because he sort of goes back into this when the heat is off him a little bit later on, we'll we'll see that. And this was extra long. So we get a good idea of what he looks like when he's just talking and we just explaining things now for our British panelists. That's what this is for. There's a show called that Mitchell and Weblook. And there's there's a thing they have on their bit they do called number Wang, and this guy looks like it sounds like the host from number Wang when he goes Hans Nieman. That's what the guy sounds like. There's a bunch of British people laughing right now, won't be in Americans laughing right now. His illustrators are really smooth. He touches his face a lot and he speaks really quickly. Now, where does he have ever seen that before? I talk really fast and I touch my face a lot. And what's happening here with this guy is this when he speaks, he talks in he has the idea and he has the concept. And that's what he tries to push out. He's not trying to structure his sentences as he explains what's happening. He's just trying to get the idea out. That's why it runs it. They run into each other. It stops a lot of us, a lot of change in his mind, a lot of jumping around. That's the way I deliver information. I get the idea, the concept and I try to get it out. And then you put passion along with that. And that's what starts getting things backed up and you start rethinking as those right behind there is those things we're trying to get them out. So that's what's happened there. Plus this guy is really smart. Obviously, like you were saying, Greg, if you've got to be smart, if you're going to be a chess champ, right? But there's a little parlor trick I do. And I think Greg, you've seen me do it. And it's where I can tell you what books you've been reading. By the way, you're talking and what your interests are. And that just comes from being an interrogator and trying to get into somebody's head and so I'll know where to approach them when I'm talking to them. I would bet thousands of dollars this guy is into to history and and war stuff, war thing, not World War Two, older stuff, like the Revolutionary War and Genghis Khan, even back in the 12th century, those types of things. That's what my bet would be because he's really smart. And that's what chess is. You're basically having a war with someone on the little table on a bunch of little squares. So I think that's where that's what we're seeing there. Somebody who's really, really smart, trying to get their concepts out and their ideas out, but not structuring their sentences. But as vernacular tells us that he's not only really smart, but he's a big reader because even though those words are coming out in jumbles and things like that, they're in these they're in groups that make sense as they come out. So you see these chunks of things that make sense because that's the way his brain sees things when he's reading. That's just what I think. That's why it looks to me. That's that's I'm familiar with that. And I'm pretty familiar with what that looks like. I know on here we don't do a lot of statement analysis because we're we're supposed to focus on body language. And I think we can a lot of times we see statement. We're not the body language panel. We're the behavior panel statements of behavior. Yeah. But what I'm saying is we we most of us come from the from observing body language. And that's that's where I come from mostly because a lot of times a lot of people say that if you go through statement analysis when you're talking about body language, body language specifically and then statement analysis specifically that you're being a wuss by not by. And then you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to the body language part, it's a safe place to run. That's not what we're doing here. Like you just said, we're the behavior panel. So in this time and this one, we're going to sort of lean, I think more on statement analysis than body language at this point. Well, there's a lot of choices of work. Yeah, there's a lot of choices of words in this whole thing that you're using interrogation all the time and speech pattern deviations and all that. I agree. Yeah. I got two things, Scott, for you on my notes. I said, this guy has a lot of Scott Rouse behaviors. He crosses his body, uses a single hand to speak. And he does, he does do that. He pushes those words out and he's got passion when speaking. So yeah, it's funny. You say that because it's in my notes. But you know what, that's that's Scott's behavior when he's hanging out with us. Yeah. When Scott's in front of like new people, for sure. Presenting even to any of that. But that's the Scott's hanging out with friend behavior, I think. Yeah, yeah, that's that's I'm saying, but he's doing the same thing. He's using a hand to gesture and say what he's thinking. He's putting word patterns together a lot the same way. That's why I thought it seemed more like baseline. And yeah, I mean, these guys have to be smart, but they're smart about what they do. And I think we'll see him playing chess as we watch this show. Dang it. That was on my lines, dude. Oh, you own it. You can control it. No. Hans Nieman, Hans, seem like a tough position. You came up with this interesting idea we hadn't seen before with C5. Tell us a little bit about that. Yeah, well, first of all, this Bishop B3 move is slightly is not the main line. The main line is actually out of one. Yeah. And I had some ideas there, which I thought would be a nice surprise. And so that was my main point. But Bishop B3 is sort of the stopping 9G6 because then there's D4. So the point of behind 9G7 is that you can't play D4 because of 9G6. And this is a common idea. This is also an idea. There was a game, actually, let's say the pawn is on A2. The pawn is on A7 and the bishop is on B6. This idea is a position. There was a game, I think, Alexenko-Carouaner from the candidates, 2021. So this idea going back and forth is a nice little trick, especially because he played 9DD2 first. This is like a... You could argue it's a slightly inaccurate order because you sort of aren't able to punish 97 directly. Like, let's say you played 9DD2, rook E1, castles H3, let's say 97. Now then D4 and you can sort of punish this directly. So the main idea was just to sort of avoid this immediate D4 break, which is by getting sort of a semi-close position that I had more knowledge about. So, OK, we can go back to C5. Yes. So yeah, I didn't check it too much. It was sort of a spur of the moment. I was not too sure about what opening to play could have been better prepared in this specific game, of course. But obviously, knight of one, I don't remember, you know, of course, what I remember is that actually A5 is most precise move. Here in this position, it's a knight of one. Yeah, that's what I remembered. And then you play bishop to E6. And then this sort of weird move, knight to C4. When I saw this, I was like, this is a bit weird. I don't think the angel will give this. I don't remember. I think maybe Rxc8 is a move. But this looked pretty fine to me. It's like a weird marshal. Yeah. And I guess you could sort of have the bishop on A7. Isn't that bad on a marshal? Because you're sort of always stopping the D4 break, which is the main positional break in these positions. It's usually D4, and it's never really working here. So I thought that it was possible for him to sort of lack a direct plan, which he kind of did. He went, he brought the knight to E3, which I don't think From what I remember, knight to G3, and then sort of ideas with knight H2, knight G4, knight H4, knight to F5 was the most precise. So I didn't think that this was so critical. But I think my main mistake was actually after the move, was the bishop to B8. Yeah, so instead of bishop to A7, so after he plays the move A5, I should of course understand that the idea is to play bishop A4 and C4. This is sort of the only way that he can time the closing of the position to where I don't get direct counterplay. Hans Nieman. All right, and while you didn't collapse and actually got back fully into the game, mate, an important draw here were the black pieces. You're feeling about the game in general? I think the preparation, first of all, it's decent. It's decent. The black games against these top guys are ridiculous, you know, because they're just... Lenier is just such an esteemed theoretician. So that was slightly intimidating. So the opening, I think that I'm slightly disappointed that I should have been a bit more familiar with this position, but I think in general he just played quite well and I think I kept my calm because if I'm lost after 96, then it was very bad long before that. There wasn't really much I could... Maybe there's something I could do, but very, very unpleasant for most of the game. Mark, what do you got? Yeah, so we get a little rice mile from him about him being intimidated. Again, going back to other interviews when he's under pressure from a game, when he thinks he's under pressure and he's beat, he gets this little rice mile on his face. There's some kind of sense of humour, I mean, sense of balance that he has to have around being against tough opponents. Remember, he's come from not being the best at all to being up against, you know, the grandmaster for the last 10 years. I think that's why we might be getting some differences in his behaviour, even going through how a game played out, because the game that he's been playing back then is not the game that he's having to play right now to be one of the best in the world. Now, you might go, OK, well, probably because he's cheating in this game, yeah, maybe we'll maybe get there, or maybe he's just got very, very good very quickly and people don't like that idea that you could improve so dramatically, quickly. Both are a possibility in my mind at this point. So, very unpleasant, he says, at the end, and kind of threat checks with the interviewer there. Forehead is lowered against that and just checking, where are we going now? I think that's because he knows that the most important question is about to start coming up, these accusations around cheating. I think that's partly why we've got his tension up at the start of this interview and he's nervous at the start of the interview. He knows what's going to come. And partly, I think it's about he's going through a very different game that he's not used to playing. Greg, what do you got on this one? Yeah, not a lot. He's got the data intake pose where he's sitting like this with his brow down. That's a pose he's developed. I mean, you can see some of this stuff is and this all the way is 19. He's been doing this for a long time. I read today, how many permutations do you think there are in chess? Just wild number. What do you think? 70,000. More permutations in chess moves than there are atoms in the observable universe. 10 to 111 to 10 to 123. The power of 123. So, if that gives you an idea of what they're doing, much like what we do, and you know, very different from chess, but in the same way, a person only has so many moves they can make with their face, hands, and body. But reading that and trying to string it together and come to something is an art form. And the same thing is true of chess. So, Mark, to your point, this guy could have come out of nowhere. Sure, because there's that many different moves that could happen and how does that guy learn? So, it's automatic for us to think, okay, there's only so many moves a piece can make, but times what? Times every one of those moves. I also read that the first time a computer ever beat, ever beat anybody was Kasparov and Deep Blue, and that was in 1996. So, it took AI, it took a computer that long to be able to beat because of all those different permutations. So, is it possible that he's just out of the blue and winning yet? But there's some interesting stuff here. He does a mouth withdrawal, kind of that, you called it the fear move from Wallace and Grumit, that move when he talks about the guy's preparation. And it's interesting to me because he does a cast eyes down right when he's talking about a couple of these things with a knitted brow. So he's feeling some, hey, maybe I failed there. But look, this guy's not showing a lot of emotion, not showing a lot of movement. I think part of it is because he came with a message and we're gonna hear that message. He's starting to put the pieces on the board now to use the chest analogy so that he can actually cover those. In general, he planned quite well. He's talking about his opponent. He does the eat facial expression, a little bit of disapproval. And I, there's a confidence shift and a cadence shift up till now he's just rattling along. Like you said, Scott, then he says, he doesn't say I did okay. He says, I kept my cool. He didn't say I did okay. He didn't say any of those other things he didn't say. I lost whatever was the key. He changed directions entirely. I think what he's preparing for, I think what we're seeing when he starts to change in talking about chess is he knows this interview is about to not be about chess. And while he might know every move there's in chess, he's now got to deal with the human part and out there in the public part. We'll see where that goes. Scott, what do you got? All right. He covers his mouth a lot when he's thinking, which is, you know, we've seen that in that first video when he comes through and he's thinking he's covered his mouth a lot. And he barriers when he's thinking about the problems that he's had. We've seen barrier. This was his illustrator stop and he gets a barrier or is anything you put between you and the other person to help separate yourself from that person or from the lie as a lot of people would say. And he completely opens up and relaxes as he's talking about the game because that's the spot he's most comfortable within the whole world. That is his world. Chess is his whole world. So that's where he's most relaxed because he can scooter around there and do anything. We all have subjects outside of behavior that we talk about that we feel completely relaxed in that the other person, the other three of us wouldn't know anything about that world. So he's in his world where he feels completely comfortable and really good. When he said, maybe there was something I could do that's one spot where he doesn't, I don't, he's not lying. That would be like a little teeny tiny lie but he does that up that one shoulder shrug and the chin goes, goes toward that. And for me personally, never seen anybody be honest being honest about something when that happens. I learned that from to watch for that from Joe Navarro who first brought that to my attention. We see hint of nervousness when he's thinking about the upcoming questions. We can see him tighten up a little bit and his cadence speeds up as he gets more passionate about what he's passionate about what he's talking about and he's starts to lean into it. So let's go back to the first thought process as we were talking about earlier about how he's pushing out concepts and ideas. That's why he's getting tripped up, I think, as we go along here. All right, Chase, what do you got? I just want to talk about one thing that Mark mentioned here. And this is, Mark mentioned something called threat checking. And in the threat checking you see the heads down and the eyes are kind of looking up to make sure maybe there's a bad question coming. If you are coming on to make a message about something that's very honest and very pure in your own behavior and you want to talk about that, would you view it as a threat? Would you want to push it off? Would you be scared about that subject coming up? All right, and while you didn't collapse and actually got back fully into the game, an important draw here were the black pieces. You're feeling about the game in general? I think the preparation, first of all, it's decent. It's decent. The black games against these top guys are ridiculous because they are just, Lenier is just such an esteemed theoretician. So that was slightly intimidating. So the opening, I think that I'm slightly disappointed that I should have been a bit more familiar with this position. But I think in general he just played quite well and I think I kept my calm. If I'm lost over 96, then it was very bad long before that. There wasn't really much I could, maybe there's something I could do, but very, very unpleasant for most of the game. Hans, we got to speak about the elephant in the room. You've asked to have some words. For us? Yeah, so there's been a lot of things that have been the social media stuff and I just have a lot of things to say and I've thought a lot about what I want to say and how I'm going to say it. And I think I can just, maybe I'll forget something, but let's just discuss a few things. So first of all, my accent, I'm sorry. This is just the first thing. This is just the most funny thing because if you want me to speak like an American right now, I can't even tell. But for the last two years, I have lived in a suitcase traveling around Europe playing chess nonstop. I spend so much time working on chess that I simply don't go outside and socialize with people who speak fluent English. Like this is just one thing I want to talk about. I'm just, before I say anything, like I have spent the last two years not spending any time in America. And even when I'm in America, I don't go outside other when I pick up my food. I'm just too busy with chess. So all these things saying that like I'm faking an accent and that like I'm putting on some facade, that is like the most ridiculous thing I've ever said. And if anyone is using my newfound accent to make any conclusions about anything chess related is like absolutely insane. Because like I don't spend any time in America. I only speak the chess players who have bad English. So maybe think maybe it's a product of my environment. Okay, maybe that was a bit too, okay. And then. All right, Greg, what do you got? Yeah, this is a really interesting one because he's starting down his path. He's going to put his pieces on the board. My favorite one is that I'm a chess martyr. Well, were you going to be a rugby player, sir? I don't think so. I think this was where you were going, but he makes it out that, look, I've sacrificed all this and that. You can't miss it. I think what he's doing is saying, look, I got this accent. He doesn't really talk about cheating. He goes way down the path to getting away from the cheating thing. He starts off with a cadence that is fluid. And then he goes from so, so, he's not touching his chin this time. He's guarding his throat. So the threat is clear. It's there. He can see it. Then he says, later he says, I don't have social media, but then he starts off talking about social media here. He says, I eliminated all my social media. Then later he'll come back up and say, well, social media says this. So we know something is wrong there. His head comes up at like a request for approval at a lot of stuff to say. And he continues to say, I got a lot of things to say, but never really says much. So this is stress. This is the brain. We say you lose language first. Clearly this is the threat he's been expecting. He came with a plan that he would go martyr. Then he would say, you're attacking my accent. That's an aiming stake argument. Let's take the simplest of the arguments, take it apart. And then if that one doesn't hold water, the rest of them must not be true as well. He stammers, pontificates, then steps right into the accent. I think that was a chess move for him to be able to chaff and redirect and move into something he knows. Then he dismisses everything with a smile, points out how stupid the whole thing about the accent is. Listen to him when he gets to this point where he starts to talk about this accent because he speeds up. His cadence gets rapid, rapid, rapid. He's got something he wants to say. He wants to get out. He goes into the, I've sacrificed. He's emphatic. And he does kind of a self soothing adaptors. He gets into that emphatic. And then the very next move, he does that what I always call the pulling taffy. He tries to draw the guy's eyes back over to him. I don't think he's even doing it intentionally. I think it's just there. His mouth goes wide open. And he just, look, he just reiterates, reiterates, reiterates the same thing over and over and over. And at the end, he purses his lips to disapprove. And then he says, using my new found accent after he goes through all that part. So look, there's nothing really ground shaking here except for the guy has tried his best to go at the most ridiculous of the things to knock the water out of that one in the beginning so that the rest of them must not hold water if this one won't. Scott, what do you got? All right. After the question, we see him adjusting his chair. And then he puts his hand up to guard his throat. He does that as he smiles because he's going into some territory he's unsure about. His illustrators are at this point being used as barriers, I think. It looks like to me anyway. And he's only using them to barrier. I don't know if those two things go together. That's what I've got notes was in here. But he smiles uncomfortably as he's trying to recall these things because again, he's got a lot of things backing up in there. He's wanting to cover. He knows the points he wants to cover. He's got the bullet points but he doesn't have the specifics planned out. And like you were saying, Greg, when he starts talking about it, the accent, his cadence speeds up and he gets a little bit louder, his volume increases and he smiles a lot more. And his illustrators get really stiff and that palm gets really stiff as well and it turns toward his body. Now, there's a lot of talk about when you see someone's palms, does that mean you can trust them or not trust them, that kind of thing? Still, the studies on that hasn't been nailed down yet. As far as I know, unless you guys know something different than me, but I've read things that say yes and things that say no and things that fight it. And it always seems like an argument still at this point. And when you see him doing this praying hands thing, it's the same type of thing when Trump does that little pinch that he does, he goes, and this is the greatest thing in the whole wide world. He's making a specific point there. When Trump does it, he's pointing out something, he's pinpointing something and this guy's doing the same thing as he's doing. He makes sure he gets that pinpoint thing across to it. He wants to make sure you get that. Then he starts using his left hand for illustrators, which is kind of odd. I thought, because he went from the right and switched over to the left one. And we see a whole lot of shrugs and double shrugs. That lets us know that he's really not sure about this or maybe he's not unsure, but he's not very competent with what he's talking about at this point. Chase, what do you got? Yeah, right here, you guys have covered some of this. There's an immediate abdominal protection. There's humorous retraction. His upper arms are coming in, which is a fear response. Throat protection, confirmation glance, all in the same little, probably one and a half seconds. I'm not saying that these are any indicators of deception. If you look at the context, there might be reason for this because there's a hard questions coming up. And I think there's a potential for this to be honest. He's socially nervous and there's stress behavior here, like increasing speed, like insanely increasing speed, his pitch, his movement. And somebody else on the internet will absolutely tell you that this means deception. When we talk a lot about context, clusters and environment, if you see somebody tell you this deception is here in this clip or this video here, you're talking to somebody with information and no experience or somebody with a little bit of experience using bad information or somebody with neither of either one of those who just maybe calls himself an expert. But let's take this for right now as data either way. And we're getting a quick baseline on maybe some of his stress behavior in case we see something different in the next few videos. So there's a left-hand preference during the denial. I want you to remember that for the future videos. When we see denials, there's a preference for him using his left hand. There's increased speech during the denial. His fluency is intact. He's very fluent. The sentences may be completely screwed up, but he's fluent. And there's a tendency toward attempting to be more likable by using innocence right here, using frequent confirmation glances to the interviewer. The blink rate goes up, which indicates a stress. He's blinking more often, stress at these key moments surrounding being the recipient of social judgment or criticism, just and only, and what I've seen, just when he's the recipient of some kind of social criticism. So interesting point here, and we'll use that data in the videos that are coming up. Mark, what do you got? Yeah, so look, he becomes way more direct at this point than we've seen him before, explaining how he goes through his chess match. In fact, the kind of directness that he has in some baseline videos that I've watched of him when he's 17. So for me, he starts to look quite confident. Now, I know he does this stuff here and some elbow protection. I absolutely get that, and I think you're right, Chase. If you take those things as an indicator of he's under stress and lying, you're probably going down the wrong route because there's so many factors in here. One of them that he's being more direct, we get some double shoulder shrugs, not single shoulder shrugs. So he's quite assured of some of the stuff that he's saying. We get him hands together down what I call the wheel plane. So it's like both sides of his mind are coming together on something that he's very assured of and quite direct around. This smiling, which, you know, people will say, oh, you know, you see him smile when he's talking about this. That means he's lying. He smiles when he's under pressure. That's one of the things he does. When he's getting hammered by somebody, he starts to smile. That's in his baseline. Now, I agree, Greg, he is kind of going for the strawman argument and dispensing with an easy one for him to dispatch. And so, therefore, anything you have further on. But let's look at that strawman argument. Either his mother or his father, I don't know which one is Danish for a start, okay? He was educated in the Netherlands, I think, from the ages of seven until 10. In his baseline, when he's talking with his most American accent that I've seen, he says the word structure. So he uses a Netherlands sound. And you'll see him doing that throughout. You know, when you see him talking to this guy, there he is doing an American interview with a guy who speaks like Hans Nyman. It's like, yeah, if you are around people who are American who go, Hans Nyman, all the time, you're gonna start to adapt your accent to fit in with the mainly European, Eastern European grandmasters of chess, okay? So I think there is a fair argument to say he grew up around Northern European accents and was schooled in them, okay? And then, if it's true that he started, you know, hiding in his room for a couple of years and studying even further and mainly having conversations with people who are very, very good at chess, yes, you're gonna hear a lot of Eastern European accents which have a certain cadence and you're gonna pick up on that in order to fit in. And regardless of that, when you hear his baseline American accent at the age of like 15, 16, 17, he still has the Dutch sounds in as many, as well as many others. So look, you know, if you wanna call him a liar by video three, at this point, the jury's still out for me at this point. He gets more direct, he gets to an extent more confident. Yeah, I think he knows some even more tricky questions are coming up and that's what the barriering may well be about here. Beth, that's all I got of that one. Yeah, I think it's a good point to point out here. We say it all the time. There are no indicators of deception, just discomfort and that can be caused by lots of reasons. The threat, this is he's identified the threat. He's got a plan, clearly got a plan. Hans, we gotta speak about the elephant in the room. Can you fast, to have some words? Floors? Yeah, so there's been a lot of things that have been the social media stuff and I just have a lot of things to say and I've thought a lot about what I want to say and how I'm going to say it and I think I can just, maybe I'll forget something but let's just discuss a few things. So first of all, my accent, I'm sorry. This is just the first thing. This is just the most funny thing because if you want me to speak like an American right now, I can't even tell. But for the last two years, I have lived in a suitcase traveling around Europe, playing chess nonstop. I spend so much time working on chess that I simply don't go outside and socialize with people who speak fluent English. Like this is just, this is just one thing I want to talk about. I'm just, before I say anything, like I have spent the last two years not spending any time in America and even when I'm in America, I don't go outside other when I pick up my food. I'm just too busy with chess. So all these things saying that I'm faking an accent and that I'm putting on some facade, that is the most ridiculous thing I've ever said and if anyone is using my newfound accent to make any conclusions about anything chess related is absolutely insane because I don't spend any time in America. I only speak to chess players who have bad English so maybe think maybe it's a product of my environment. Okay, maybe that was a bit too, okay. And then Hans Nieman in the game Quintex E4, Bishop C6, knight of three, and then I thought knight to D7. He plays castles, I thought bishop to D5 and then I play C5 and then I thought this was my plan. So I understood at least not in most precise way but I understood that there was going to be the move knight of three thus leading to a transposition. So this is why I took some time. People are saying that I'm taking time and that I'm making up that I made it. Like I checked it because it's a transposition. I'm spending extra time to make sure that the transposition is correct because it's the world champion and he's just sprung a very dangerous trap. Now if I don't know this, it can be very dangerous but the fact that it's not a miracle. It's actually me being extremely tedious and going through every single possible transposition or a sort of line that he could play in the cattle. That's the first thing, okay. I need to, there's just so many things that I... All right, Greg, what do you got? Yeah, so he's back to baseline as he talks about this chess, about the game. Anytime he's in his comfort zone is something he can talk about, boom, boom, boom. See how quickly he speaks. When his cadence looks like it's fluid. There's not a chop in there. There's no stammer or stutter. And then when you get back to why did you take your time? He starts to slow and look, the guy's 19. But, and again, this is another attack. This is another place where he's got to defend. So he goes into this speaking and editing as he speaks. And there's a thing I used to teach people to always look for when a person's talking. I've interrogated a lot of people in my life. When you put them under high pressure to get to the end of the sentence and they still have other things to say but are not sure how to say them. They come out with a bunch of garbage at the end that is unintelligible and he does it. So he had the other things he wanted to say, Scott, I think you're dead on about, he has a plan for what he wants to say and not formulated the words. He's trying to put them out. And by the end of it, he's got trapped words and he squirms his way out of it and does, his eyes go down to the right. And he does kind of just what I'm gonna call shaft for its own sake. There's no redirect, he's not trying to do it. It's just trying to throw out information. And anytime you see him go into this thing, you'll see when he's feeling concerned, his brow is knitted and he's got his forehead up. So there's something going on in his head around this. I'll also tell you this, look, body language, just like I said earlier about chess has a handful of moves that you can make. But the permutations are limitless and how a person strings them together. The problem, and it happens to a lot of people at about two to three years into this game, is you get so much confidence you think you can read somebody's mind because you know a little bit of body language. That ain't it. What we're doing is looking for indicators that make us want to go that next step and ask that next question. I'll often say, if I had control of the conversation, this would be a different outcome because the real key is knowing when to push, when to put enough pressure and to ask that next question. I would have said, the hell you talking about at the end of that little stammering roll he did there and put a little more pressure on him and then give him an out and say, well, maybe it's not this. But his whole argument that he came to dismantle that's part of it. It's I didn't cheat, I didn't take time, I didn't do this. The accent, look, of all the things that he's got, that's easy when you should have left that one off the table and not brought it up or let him bring it up and push him on the things that have to do with cheating. Mark, what do you got? Yeah, not only do I think Greg, like you, that he goes back to his baseline, he goes right back to his baseline of many years ago. This is how he normally goes through a game that direct. He knows all the moves and you see the board moving with him. It's super fast like that, very, very clear. But then once he gets to this moment of leading to a transposition, which is an inflection point in the game, we then see a collision of facial gestures run over him. Now, is that because he's a cheat and he didn't know what to do in that transposition and he was waiting for some kind of electronic signal to come in so he knew what to do at that point? Or is it that when you are playing a Grand Master and you never have played at this level and you're about to play a game that maybe this Grand Master hasn't quite seen before because of your kind of neurotype? And I'll say right now, I think he's probably dyslexic. So I think there are, and that's why he has feelings for stuff and the words are just behind that. He hasn't got the ideas sorted out in his mind. He's got kind of just sorts of kind of information that's going on and he has to somehow bring it forward. And I think because of that, we'll see some of the behaviors that we see later on in this. And because of that, we might see somebody who might be actually quite difficult to play at chess. You know, after a while, once they start to play at that supreme level, they could actually be an adversary. Well, maybe they're just a cheat. Don't know yet. Don't quite know yet. But anyway, we get this collision on this moment of transposition because maybe he doesn't know or didn't know at that point exactly what to do and they did need to work out multiple ramifications of that. He looks down. He swings his head. There's an eyebrow raise at that point. That is all probably congruent with this transition point, not necessarily with a lie being made up. TDS, we get an eyebrow raise on that for agreement on, look, you can just pause because you're just a tedious person and you're gonna work out every ramification at that point. You're gonna, the clock's gonna run and you need that moment to work through everything. But I'm in agreement with you, Greg, that I need to and then there's dot, dot, dot, dot, dot. I mean, what? You need to what? What is, what's going on here? Is it that you need to unburden yourself of a lie or is it you need to tell the public what the truth is? You need to stop this social pressure of being a cheat because yes, you didn't do it in the past but you didn't do it now and that's unfair. He needs to get something out and that's what we're gonna get to. What is it that he actually needs to get out here? Scott, what do you got on this one? All right, you guys care a lot. His cadence is really fast and he's loud because his passion is showing through again as he's talking about these things. And the passion turns from passion to nervousness and we can see that start happening as he starts to tighten up and his words start to clog together even more and more. He starts calming down a little bit and starts thinking about what he just said. And as he's going through that, as he's talking, he's still thinking about what he said to see if he needs to check anything to make sure everything's okay. That's when things start to get a little bit iffy and when he says there are just so many things, this is where it starts to smell to me. This is where it looks like somebody's starting to be deceptive here, not being honest. And I agree with you Greg when he gets down to the end there, he's got a lot going on as he's thinking but at this point I think he's trying to hide the deception in all these words, all the things he's saying, he's just got that middle and second bunch of, like that fish tornado on that thing on, what was the big thing on the Nature Channel was all about the world and the ocean. They had a fish tornado, did you ever see that? I don't recall it. I've heard of Rainow Frogs, I've never heard of a fish tornado. No, it's underwater, it's underwater. It's such a huge fish tornado. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Oh, okay. Where they bore up to stop predators. Like sardines or where those things, yeah. Like a mad star. Yeah, like millions up and then there's a big one. So he's putting this thing in the middle of that, his deception and he's covering it with all that stuff because he's starting to head down a road and he knows he's got to go down that road and that's why it's starting to smell weird. Chase, what do you got? What could I have after all of this? I will say, I think there's a lot of concealment here. Not necessarily a lot of deception, but there's definitely concealment. Not no specific denial here is made in regards to cheating or misconduct. The statements that are offered, the very specific statement, avoid very specific things. If you go back and listen, so these statements could theoretically stand on their own as being truthful, but they're very much avoidant of certain topics. This denial is not about what we're really doing this video on. This denial looks kind of honest, albeit his baseline is ridiculous so far from a social perspective. That's all I'll say. In the game, Quintixie IV, Bishop C6, nine of three. And then I thought nine to D7. He plays castles. I thought Bishop to D5. And then I play C5. And then I thought this was my plan. So I understood, at least not in most precise way, but I understood that there was going to be the nine of three, thus leading to a transposition. So this is why I took some time. People are saying that I'm taking time and that I'm making up that I'm in. Like I checked it because it's a transposition. I'm spending extra time to make sure that the transposition is correct because it's the world champion and he's just sprung a very dangerous trap. Now if I don't know this, it can be very dangerous. But the fact that it's not a miracle. It's actually me being extremely tedious and going through every single possible transposition or a sort of line that he could play in the catalan. That's the first thing, okay? I need to, there's just so many things that I, first thing, okay? I need to, there's just so many things that I, so I think those are the main things. And then, okay, of course. And then the fact that my analysis is not at the level of a top player. Am I getting against Fruja? You need to understand that when I play the move Queen to G3, I did not elaborate this during the game, this is a purely psychological move. If clearly people don't know anything about Fruja, his style, how to beat him, the way to beat him is to attack him. He really, really hates being attacked and the main ways he loses is by being attacked. Now we had a game in Miami where I got an attack and he completely collapsed. And I studied previous games knowing attack. So when I see the position and I say Queen G3, I think to myself, okay, I highly doubt based on my intuitive feeling that I'm losing here. I don't feel the need to calculate every single variation because I'm confident that there's no way first he's gonna take. And if he takes, he's gonna be shared shitless. Okay, okay. So that's this game. Now, All right, Greg, what do you got? Yeah, I'll keep this one pretty short but there's some interesting body language. This is him trying to think on the fly and he runs into a log jam. I mean, he has some idea what he's gonna say, but this is one of those things where I think he has an idea and then he runs up against his body. His body's starting to be uncertain. All of those things we talked about discomfort. This has nothing to do with an indicator of deception. This has to do with something's going on in his head that's causing him to have second thoughts about something he's saying. If you pay attention to when he says at the end of that psychological move, he does lip retraction, his lips come back in like he's looking for some kind of reassurance. And if you pay attention to also his eyes open wide and he almost looks like a child when he does it. That makes me not have confidence that that was his intent. He did something. He also does a single shoulder shrug there. So all those three together, we always say clusters matter. Those three clusters make me wanna go, wait a minute, hold on, something has shifted. Let's talk about that. And then he gets to some words, things like if he dances in the chair, anytime he's talking about something has nothing to do with chess. And then when he gets back to chess, he's boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. When he talks about moves, he's methodical and process-driven. When he gets off anything to do with that, his personality is one that has to dance around a little bit to get away from it. His tactic here, in my opinion, is to shift feels. This is not Chaff and redirect. That's when you drop stuff, I hope somebody picks it up and go after it. This is field shifting. And by that, I mean, if I get you into what I do well, then I own it. I can talk about it all day. And when we did a show called We Can Make You Talk, there's a young, brilliant guy, brilliant young guy. And we pushed him until he gave us information, exchanged it for a cookie. But I remember putting him on a real high duress and he screamed out, I have a brilliant mind. And of course he did, but so what? We don't need it for what we do, we win. And that's what you have to remember is, if a person could put you in their field, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If they can out thank you in their field or talk about it in a way where you have respect for them, clearly this guy has respect for them, then you change the entire conversation. Does it make me feel warm and fuzzy when a person does that in defending themselves against some kind of an accusation? The accusation should stand on its own. You should respond to the accusation. It immediately makes my radar go out and go, hold on, let's dig in a little bit and figure out what's going on. Chase, what do you got? I want you to focus really closely on one phrase here. He says, I got an attack. He uses the word, I got an attack. Got means to receive something or receive some kind of information, not something that you actually perform. And maybe there's some secret chess terminology here at play that I was unable to find. I actually looked and I don't think it's normal. The sentence translates to I received an attack, but he's talking about his own move. So his statements about knowing how to strategically defeat this person are now absent his usual behavior. It's gone, his usual behavior is gone. His explanation about the psychological approach to his choice of movement lacks everything that we saw before. There's a loss of fluency. There's slowed and deliberate language. There's stillness, there's a postural freeze, which is a deviation. There's increased confirmation glances to the interviewer and host right now. Something is definitely up and we're hoping to maybe uncover that in this video from one of the other panelists or maybe in the next video. Mark, what do you got? Yeah, so he says, his issue here is saying that people say that my analysis isn't good enough and therefore I can't play at this level because I'm just not able to analyze it. And then he brings in this idea of intuitive feeling, which is completely against, I would suggest the norms of chess. And so this isn't good. This is not good for somebody like, Carlson, who is 10 years older than him, a grandmaster and is, nine men here should be disadvantaged playing black. So you shouldn't be able to play intuitively or have any moments of just, it felt like I should attack and be able to win. It's just not possible to be able to progress that quickly. And that's kind of the argument here. You just can't do that. It's impossible. Cause at this point, no, it's only been insinuated that he's cheating because his opponent has walked out and gone, I won't, I won't play him anymore, but I won't, but it's not up to me to say he's a cheat. It's up to him to say, I can call him a cheat. There seems to be some kind of, you know, gentlemen's arrangement around, around shouting out cheats, which actually a bit later on, Nils, nine men is going to stop because he's going to call him, call out his opponent as slander, which is pretty bold in a moment. Anyway, I do, so for me, there's some veracity to the idea of, it's just not acceptable to be an intuitive player at this point. And therefore that's people's beef with me. But at the same time, I think you're right, Chase, when he talks about psychological playing, then there is some tongue jut, which is outside of his usual baseline of lip-blicking, and there is a single shoulder shrug around that, as well as all the other things that you've talked about there. Now, does that mean he's lying about his psychological playing? No, it may not, it may be that he's not even sure about what's going on here. You get poker matches all the time that fall to bits because suddenly people start not trusting the math and they start making psychological moves and top players in the world make terrible mistakes because the game just isn't going how the patterns are meant to go. The gambits aren't the usual patterns. So is it that people are playing outside of a usual pattern here and everybody's getting themselves in a tizzy and getting upset, or is somebody a cheat? I still don't know at this point. Scott, what do you got on this one? All right, I agree with you. And when, like Greg was saying, you have this world that not a lot of people are familiar with, when you're talking to someone, you're bringing into that world on this level that he's in and you start talking about psychological stuff, you can get your boots out because it's coming really soon. Now, when he says you need to understand, like he's telling him, he needs to understand, like he knows all these things he doesn't get and that's his shield up against what he's doing back here. That's, this is, this smells really bad. This is where the shit is right in here. This is where it all starts. And once, and when he says, that's scared, what is it to say, I scared the shit out of him or whatever. That's when, that's not in his vernacular. He doesn't do that. He doesn't say that. He's taking this down to the lowest common denominator like I've been doing to use foul language to connect with this guy. And so that sort of ends it right there. This is where there's a lot going on. And this is where there's a lot going on up in his head where he thinks he's getting away with something that same time. But the key thing is here where he says, you need to understand this. That's where it's happening right there. I know that this is, I'm not talking a lot about body language, but let's listen to what he's talking about here. Yeah, I'm gonna leave it there because that right there is where it all starts happening for me when I said, I see what this guy's doing at this point. For me, at this point, I think he's full of it. And be hard to change my mind. Okay, are we good? Oh man, those are good leans. First thing, okay. I need to, there's just so many things that I, so I think those are the main things. And then, okay, of course. And then the fact that my analysis is not at the level of a top player. Am I getting against Fruja? You need to understand that when I play the move Queen to G3, I did not elaborate this during the game. This is a purely psychological move. If clearly people don't know anything about Fruja, his style, how to beat him, the way to beat him is to attack him. He really, really hates being attacked and the main ways he loses is by being attacked. Now we had a game in Miami where I got an attack and he completely collapsed. And I studied previous games knowing attack. So when I see the position, and I say Queen G3, I think to myself, okay, I highly doubt, based on my intuitive feeling that I'm losing here, I don't feel the need to calculate every single iteration because I'm confident that there's no way Furs is gonna take. And if he takes, he's gonna be shared shitless. Okay, okay, so that's this game. Now, that's this game. Now, after the game, first of all, you're extremely tired. And it's extremely difficult sometimes to recollect the things that you're talking about, the moves, the variations. It's not like I'm coming in here full of energy, right? And especially in the analysis, okay, you can debate full of energy, but it's not, sometimes you just forget things. So the notion that I simply can't speak about chess on a high level is completely ridiculous. I'm a very intuitive player. I made a gut call to play Queen G3 and it paid off. And even if you look at the pattern of my games, you know, I'm clearly missing many, many chances and it's extremely human chess. No, no, okay. So this is, I think, is that everything about the interviews? Have I covered everything? That's up to you. No, no, because the interviews have been a key point. So that's just something I wanted to cover, that people are ridiculous. Okay, like my accent is, I don't even, I can't even, because I'm numb to it, I'm numb to it. But this is not a facade, I'm sorry. I just don't socialize much, because I work so hard at chess. Like I'm literally sorry, I delete all social media, I sit inside, I study chess, and I leave to pick up my delivery food twice a day. That is my life, I enjoy it, okay? And if my English is not as native as it is, sometimes, I'm sorry, but when I speak to, let's say, an American friend, it comes right back, right? It's something subconscious. So maybe now it's coming back, anyways. So in terms of the interviews, that's fine, right? So now, I've noticed throughout social media, a lot of people who I once had respect for, who I once sort of looked up to, a lot of my heroes have decided to hop on this bandwagon. Now, there have been a lot of speculation and there's a lot of things said. And I think I'm the only one who knows the truth. So there's a few things that need to come to light. Chase, what do you got? Let's talk a little bit about the speed of his language in this and a lot of the other videos. I'm pretty well-versed in languages, I speak a few. I couldn't understand some of this. I've rewound it and listened again. I couldn't get it as much as I wanna pretend like I've got everything figured out. I couldn't get this language, some of it, some pieces of it. I think sometimes the speed of language is a thought process and other times it's typically a fear of being interrupted. And I think in his case, it's just rapid processing and there's stress going on here. And if you have a team and a coach, never use the phrase, I'm the only one who knows the truth because it sounds a little bit unusual. And right here, there's a complete loss of fluency at this precise moment. And there have been a few, he says there have been a lot of speculation and there has been a lot of things said. Then he says and and I and and and and I think I am the only one that knows the truth. That's a loss of fluency, big time. Then there's the single shoulder shrug, which if you don't know what that means that typically indicates a person lacks confidence in what they're saying or lacks a belief in what they're saying. There's an eyebrow flash to the interviewer, which is a request for some kind of social approval. There's lip licking here, which we haven't seen a whole lot of. Maybe I'm wrong there. There's some postural adjustment in the seat, some actual postural movement back and forth there. And when he says it's extremely human chess, what's wrong with just human? So there's some kind of point being made to it's extremely human as in I'm really pushing the point that there is nothing else involved that isn't a human. I really want to push the point that there's nothing non-human involved in this chess game. I thought that was pretty interesting. Greg, what do you think? Yeah, this one's interesting because he says something that I don't usually pay that much attention to when people say you, you always talk about people socializing things. I don't pay as much attention to that until I hear something odd. He says, you are extremely tired. Not that that's socializing matters because he's talking about a player in general. But then his pattern shifts and he paddles and has a lot of backup filler words right at the end of that for some reason. Don't understand why, but he's editing as he speaks. And then he says, not like I'm coming in here full of energy. And then he says something really weird like it's debatable when you come in full of energy. So is he trying to prevent discussion? That's an odd word pattern to argue your own facts, to prevent someone else from attacking them possibly. Maybe that's one of the points he has fear about. Don't know, something's odd there. That's an odd shift in pattern. I agree, he speaks very rapidly. I talk fast and he's speaking very rapidly. With the accent, there can be some interesting ones in there that are tough. And then when somebody said, when the guy asked about an interview, he says, in that interview, Swallow's really hard and then shifts gears. He finally comes back. All this is leading up to the question about whether he was capable of analysis. And there's nothing said in that entire thing about analysis until he gets down to this point. Then he does, I'm a very intuitive player, raises his brow, single shoulder shift, just like you said that single shoulder shrug comes up and then he, when he says, I am not, he turtles. Watch his head shrink down in there. You can't miss it. The guy is just going on and on and on about nothing. And then he gets back to his favorite part and that's about his accent. That's been his argument. Look, if you feel like that's not really an issue, why do you keep coming back to it? Unless it's an anchor to your overall argument that they're just picking on me and this is not fair and I've been a martyr. That's what I think we're seeing here. I think maybe in his life, there's a pattern of that, don't know. But if you watch him, he goes back to that. My accent is because my life is chess. I'm a martyr and a minute and eight. If you stop the video, you see his brow up in request for approval and up on the edge of his seat. It's really odd. Then he goes into my favorite thing of the whole thing. Now I'm starting, now my bullshit meter is on full here because he says, I deleted my social media but then he talks about social media again in this video. So how is it that you deleted your social media but you saw things on social media? I'm starting to wonder where his logic is coming from because he just goes on and on and on. Let's see, last one, somebody's going to point out he says two but he uses three fingers and he says two twice and uses three fingers. I go out twice a day. But all he's doing is emphatically illustrating and if you pay attention, that's his baseline. He uses three fingers every time he illustrates with the singing. Mark, what do you got? Yeah, so I agree. Chase, he's emphasizing this idea of very human chest and saying, look, there were lots of opportunities that I missed. And so that's a very human trader, computer wouldn't have missed all of these things. The antithesis to that is people saying, yeah, you've been helped out by some, you know, is somebody's, I think it's Tesla's idea, isn't it? That's the way that he's being instructed on this. Oh, it's possible, it's possible. It's absolutely possible that there are just signals being sent to him for special moments in this match. Or maybe, maybe it actually knows what he's doing to a certain extent and maybe he feels unfairly treated. As you were saying, Greg, maybe he's felt unfairly treated for most of his life. Maybe people have told him, you're not good enough. You can't do this. You don't think in the same way as all these masters think. And so maybe there is this passion of unfairness and the person being attacked. And so they attack my accent and they attack the way I can't explain my chess. And yet here I am winning. And it's a terrible position for Carlson because he's winning on black. There should be a maximum 6% chance that he should lose, more likely to lose 6%. Whoever starts the game of chess is 6% maximum, more likely to win it because they get the first move. This guy's been winning on black. So it's an unusual position. Is it so unusual? Is it so unusual that we're getting this very erratic communication from him which may be in his neurotypical baseline anyway? That's possible. Or is it very erratic because he's an absolute liar and he's got something which is sending him messages from somebody with a computer elsewhere? For my mind, both are possible at this point. Still, both are a strong possibility. Scott, what do you think? All right, Greg, going back to your point about where he's talking about, whether his energy is debatable or not. The guy, the game show host over there, that little fella, he looks at him and gives him a little look. So that's why he says, well, that's debatable. That's what happened because I wanted about that too. So I kept watching that. I was like, oh, it's the Hans Niemen guy. So that's what that was. To me, that's what it looked like to me anyway. So he gets caught up in defending his playing style. That's what happens there. And he's explained how smart he is and how intuitive he is and how he made the right move. See, this is, when you start talking about being intuitive in this kind of situation like that, again, it goes back to that part where you're just. So he knows the concept he wants to get across. He just can't get it across. However, he starts structuring a sentence and that's when he starts, it starts breaking up and stopping on there because he knows he has to get that point out. And he tries to regain control by steepling, but that goes away pretty fast as well. Then my favorite parts where he chaff and redirects going right to his accent. And the accent, you know what? It sounds like that part, I think he's probably telling the truth. I think that accent is a conglomeration of a lot of different things because it's fairly consistent. And maybe he does talk to somebody, one of his American friends, and it snaps right back or something. But if Mark, if he was living in all those different places like you said and grew up in the Netherlands, and that's gonna be in him. So that's gonna be part of his accent. So I don't think he needs to keep bringing that up. I think he thinks it's cute. I think some girl along the way has said to him, oh, your accent is so whatever. That's what I think's happening there. That's why he keeps bringing it up because he thinks somebody said something about it. I think that's what happened there. And the swallowing, that's giving him time to think. A lot of times people say, well, or they'll say, hmm, or they'll do something to give him a little bit of time, but it doesn't take a whole lot of time to start thinking up an answer or creating something because your brain works so fast. But that big swallowing thing, that's what's going on there, I think. That's my impression of it anyway. All right, are we good? Yeah. All right. Nicely done. That's this game. Now, after the game, first of all, you're extremely tired and it's extremely difficult sometimes to recollect the things that you're talking about, the moves, the variations. It's not like I'm coming in here full of energy, right? And especially in the analysis, okay, you can debate full of energy, but it's not, sometimes you just forget things. So the notion that I simply can't speak about chess and a high level is completely ridiculous. I'm a very intuitive player. I made a gut call to play QG3 and it paid off. And even if you look at the pattern of my games, you know, I'm clearly missing many, many chances and it's extremely human chess. Now, okay, so this is, I think, is that everything about the interviews? Have I covered everything? That's up to you. No, because the interviews have been a key point. So that's just something I wanted to cover that people are ridiculous about. Okay, my accent is, I don't even, I can't even really, because I'm numb to it, I'm numb to it. But this is not a facade. I'm sorry, I just don't socialize much because I work so hard at chess. Like I'm literally sorry, I delete all social media, I sit inside, I study chess, and I leave to pick up my delivery food twice a day. That is my life, I enjoy it, okay? And if my English is not as native as it is, sometimes, I'm sorry, but when I speak to, let's say, an American friend, it comes right back, right? It's something subconscious. So maybe now it's coming back, anyways. So in terms of interviews, that's fine, right? So now, I've noticed throughout social media, a lot of people who I once had respect for, who I once sort of looked up to, a lot of my heroes have decided to hop on this bandwagon. Now, there had been a lot of speculation and there's a lot of things said. And I think I'm the only one who knows the truth. So there's a few things that need to come to light. Hans Nieman, there's a few things that need to come to light. So first of all, there's the situation with chess.com. Now, people have, there have said that my chess.com was banned twice. Okay, so this is what happened. When I was 12 years old, I was with a friend and I was playing Tettle Tuesday. And I was playing and you came over on the iPad with Anjan and I was 12 years old and he said, you know, he started giving me the moves. I was a child, I had no idea what happened. Now, this happened once in an online tournament. I was just a child and nothing happened then. Now, four years later, when I was 16 years old during my streaming career, and an absolutely ridiculous mistake in on-rated games, after that, I had, when I was 12, I have never, ever in my life cheated in an over-the-board game in an online tournament. They were in on-rated games. And I'm admitting this and I'm saying my truth because I do not want any misrepresentation. I am proud of myself that I learned from that mistake and now have given everything to chess. I have sacrificed everything for chess and I do everything I can to prove. So I'm gonna get started. Basically, so, and some, I wanted to gain some rating. You know, I just wanted to get high rated so I could play stronger players. So I cheated in random games on chess.com. Now, I was confronted, I confessed, and this is the single biggest mistake of my life and I am completely ashamed. And I'm telling the world because I do not want any misrepresentation and I do not want rumors. I have never cheated in an over-the-board game. Other, when I was 12 years old, I have never, ever, ever, and I would never do that. That is the worst thing I could ever do, cheat in a tournament with prize money. Now, I made that mistake and this is something, it's not something I was doing consistently. Never when I was streaming did I cheat. Never did I misrepresent my strength. So I made this mistake. I was confronted by chess.com. I had fully admitted and I stopped playing chess.com. Now. All right, Mark, what do you got? Yeah, so he becomes very direct, very emphatic. We get vocal clicks around him cheating and his confession to the cheating. So understand here, he is confessing to cheating in online games and at a particular age. So, and we get all of the marks of stress around that, including this vocal click which keeps on coming around that. His lips start puckering in all kinds of directions when he's confessing to the cheating online. For me, when he starts to talk about over-the-board games, he becomes even more emphatic and the vocal clicks stop. So I would say there is a possibility that, yes, he is under stress because he is telling the truth about something he's... Because there's a huge amount of stress that he is a cheat. Absolutely. But that disappears for me around over-the-board games. There is some stuff that happens in his mouth, but that stuff I see in his baseline as well. So, again, for me, there is a lot of vehement denial and vehement confession at the same time. And maybe that mud is the water. Yeah, there is this idea of sacrifice and I absolutely agree, you know, he is laying that on strong, but I have never met a top performer that doesn't do that. I mean a top performer. I'm talking about somebody who is best in the world. Yeah, that every day you're with them. They're like, do you know what this has cost me? Okay, I mean, and I'm not talking about average before. I'm talking about they are supreme at something, not supreme at like, you know, I'm the best at body. Like so many, but you know, anybody can do that. I'm talking about it takes absolute technical skill and absolute sacrifice of all social relationships, of thinking and doing anything else to get to that level. Yeah, they are absolute martyrs to that. Yeah, absolute martyrs to that. And they let you know every day, at breakfast, at lunch, at dinner, every day. So, I think, look, here's the issue for me, is that we're seeing all kinds of signals here, which, you know, in many, many circumstances, you could and you should go, well, that doesn't read right to me. The same time we've got an utter outlier here. Got a complete outlier here. Go and take a look at his competitor and think, have we got an ordinary person there? Is that an ordinary person? No, not at all. All bets are off at this point, I might say. Still, just my opinion. Greg, what do you got on this one? Yeah, Mark agreed. When you're looking at these people, you're not looking at the guy who lives next door to you. Like I was saying earlier, I've played chess, not this kind of chess. I've played the kind that the computer beats me on the plane. You know, so not the same thing. But that's the reason we talk about baseline and deviation. We can't talk about how he looks compared to Chase or how he looks compared to a green beret, right? Looks, we compare him to himself. And that's what I see here that makes me concerned with him. When he starts off and he says, there are behaviors that we usually associate with a person trying to protect self. And he does a lot of these. Now, whether he's lying or not, another question. When he's admitting that he is cheated, he does some pretty standard things. He says, things that need to come to light. And then he mentions he was 12 years old, two or three times. I was a child, he mentions three times. I was with a friend, so he's blanketing himself with another person. He's blame sharing. There's another person involved. And by the way, that's non pertinent. That's personalizing. I would have said, who was that person and can I talk to him? When I'm thinking about how I go after people, and I'm not taking anything away from whether he's telling the truth or not. Look, why would you lie about cheating if you're incriminating self? Just a normal behavior of a person to try to soften the severity, use those words usually Chase, but taking away the severity of what they did. There are however, some interesting word pattern shifts. I was a child, I had no idea what happened. Hold on, what does that mean? You might not be a normal person, but you're human being and you use language to communicate things. What do you mean you had no idea what was going on? You just told me this guy gave you the moves and yet you're saying I had no idea what was going on. I would, that's a change. Something is going on there. It happened once in the tournament. And he, in online tournament, and then he rinses his lips to the side, does something weird in a pursed lip thing. Okay, that's admitting guilt, get it. Starts rocking kind of a release thing when he's talking about being 16. Now it was four years later, I was 16. He does some really weird word pattern distancing here only on unrated games other than when I was 12. He's qualifying and distancing. He's chaffing and chaffing. He's got a number mismatch. He says in a mistake in those games, those words you'd think mistakes I made during those games. Maybe it's his speech patterns because he was not spent his whole life here. And again, I don't care about his accent. It means nothing to me. We all have weird accents. And if you spend enough time with people, I'm a weird mix. I'm from South Georgia. And my mix of talking as fast as a jersey and a little bit of Southern draw is a weird mix. So all of us are gonna get those kinds of things. But it feels a lot like he's trading guilt here. He says I'm proud of myself. Stop that camera at 57 seconds and look. He does a lot of lip grooming. This is not lip grooming. This is a full blown tongue jet. And it's clear. And that's the problem, guys. When you got a baseline that has all this movement and this lip licking, it's hard to spot those things. You have to pay attention. But if you stop it, you'll see his tongue is way out of his mouth on this one. He's back to the smarter thing. That's part of his story. And here's the thing. Just because a guy's doing all this, does it mean that he's cheated or that he is cheating? Not necessarily. What we do know is, and Mark, you're dead on, that he's got some guilt associated with that cheating. But there's just some word pattern shifts and some things in here that don't fit for me. Then when he says, sorry, he gets to indigestion. I think he runs out of words and he does another one of those gobbled up incidences that we can't figure out what the hell he's talking about. This is my number one damning thing. And I don't know that it means he's guilty. I don't know that it means he's innocent. I know it means something has changed in his baseline. When he says, I have never cheated on an over the board game. He pushes his tongue inside the right side of his mouth. The only time we've seen it in this entire thing. Now, this is what body language is. It's not reading minds. It's not assuming I know what he's thinking. It's going, wait a minute, let's back up. You've never done, we don't tell him we've never seen him do that. We just start poking and asking questions. I'll just leave it at that. That gets my attention more than anything else he's done in the entire thing because that is a declaration of innocence about a single question. And there's a new piece of body language there. Interesting. What do you got? I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sure I blew it. I could help it. Sorry. I got waited. Let's try my best. Hans Nieman. Chase, what do you got? Pushing out the books again. Mark, I think you undersold us a little bit. When you said anybody can do this, I strongly disagree. I think anybody can do the science part of it. Anybody can go get a master's in psychology. That's the science. Anybody can learn the science. This is an art form. And when you hear people like criticizing body language, just like a person with a PhD and maybe culinary arts, criticizing Gordon Ramsay because the recipes haven't been proven in a laboratory somewhere. It takes work to get to this level. And I think we should be able to take some credit for that. We are the top four experts in the world. And we're looking at a person who is like at this apex here. And right at this moment, we start to see something that's a little bit revealing for him. He says I was 12 years old. Then he says I was 12 years old again. Then he says I was a child. Then he says I was just a child. And I think his defense strategy is similar to the social strategy of innocence that we saw exposing itself in the very beginning few videos. And this is inside his mind too. If he did cheat the defense in his mind, I'm saying if he did, the defense inside of his own mind is innocence. And that's only a mistake. It's not a violation. It's not anything else. He just called it a mistake. So we're hearing some of the internal dialogue come out. Let's look at the denial really quick, this huge tongue jut that Greg, you were just talking about extreme loss of fluency. When he says other, when I was 12 years old and a lot more examples of this. And this is a really bad denial in an adult. This is maybe one of the top 10 denials that we've seen here, one of the top 10 worst ones. There's also one huge point of concern here at the end of this. When he says this is not something, yada yada, he realizes he needs to shift to past tense, because he says this is not something. But he's talking about cheating as a 12 year old and then saying this is not something, then he shifts. So as a rule of thumb, research tends to show us with an ever increasing just mountain of data that the less words that are present in a denial, the more likely it is to be true. I think James Pennebaker has done the most recent work on this, I think at the University of Texas. And of course, if you rely on word count alone, you're an absolute fool. But it's a really solid place to look when you need some more data. That's all I got. Scott, what do you got? All right. I think this cat's full of s**t. I don't, I think what's going on here is it goes back to a thief is a thief is a thief and a cheater is a cheater is a cheater. And he's talking about how he was young and that was a mistake and all that. He did it more than once when he was young and he keeps bringing that up how he was 12 and he was a child. I don't know. That's really hard for me to get past that. He surrounds all this bad stuff he did about when he was young and he doesn't do that anymore. He's changed. He's a new man is, you know, he's juxtaposing his, you know, the bad stuff with the goods. It just, for me, it just doesn't work. It sounds like a magician talking through his trick as he goes through it. The whole thing and yeah, I just, I don't, I think we're seeing deception here big time. I think he's really smart. I think he's getting past. You guys know a couple of things here. Not that you're not smart. That's not what I'm saying. But I'm saying he's, I think he's got you convinced that he's smart. Now you can look at me and go, all right, dude, you, but that's my feeling. It's how passionate I am about at this point. I think we're seeing deception at this point. So I said he's deceptive. Yeah, I don't think anybody, I don't, I see clearly with that something has changed in him when he's at the direct question. Yeah, yeah. When I do my rap. Yeah, yeah, I mean, But I'm full throttle man. It's still not enough for me to say he cheated in those games. Well, this is the only time he's had an act. This is the only time he's had an active denial mark. The only time is this one thing. And it was not good to me. But it's conflated. It's conflated too much with all his confession. It's not a part for me. It's not a part enough for me to go. Okay, definitely, definitely, definitely. But there's a few things that need to come to light. So first of all, there's the situation with chest.com. Now people have, there have said that my chest.com was banned twice. Okay, so this is what happened. When I was 12 years old, I was with a friend and I was playing Tettle Tuesday. And I was playing and you came over on the iPad with an engine and I was 12 years old and he said, you know, he started giving the moves. I was a child. I had no idea what happened. Now this happened once in an online tournament. I was just a child and nothing happened then. Now four years later, when I was 16 years old doing my streaming career, and an absolutely ridiculous mistake. And on rate of games, after that I had, when I was 12, I've never ever in my life cheated in an over the board game in an online tournament. They were in unrated games. And I'm admitting this and I'm saying my truth because I do not want any misrepresentation. I am proud of myself that I learned from that mistake and now have given everything to chess. I have sacrificed everything for chess and I do everything I can to prove. So I'm gonna get started. Basically, so, and some, I wanted to gain some rating. You know, I just wanted to get high rated so I could play stronger players. So I cheated in random games on chess.com. Now I was confronted, I confessed, and this is the single biggest mistake in my life. And I am completely ashamed. And I'm telling the world because I do not want any misrepresentation. And I do not want rumors. I have never cheated in an over the board game. Other when I was 12 years old, I have never, ever, ever, and I would never do that. That is the worst thing I could ever do. Cheat in a tournament with prize money. Now I made that mistake and this is something, it's not something I was doing consistently. Never when I was streaming did I cheat. Never did I misrepresent my strength. So I made this mistake. I was confronted by chess.com. I had fully admitted and I stopped playing chess.com. Now, unfortunately now, there has been a targeted attack and some recent events have made it really, really difficult for me to not stop speaking. After the game against Magnus, obviously Magnus puts his tweet, clearly some intonations, and then everyone starts to pile. I get an email from chess.com saying that they've privately removed access to my chess.com account and that they have uninvited me from the global chess championship. Now, three days ago I met with someone very high up in chess.com at the Stinkfield Cup, had amazing words, but because of this game against Magnus, because of what he said, they have decided to completely remove me from the website. Now this, if this is, and now this is after I have already fully admitted and they have the best cheat detection in the world. They know that I'm not a cheater and that I have given, I give everything the chess. I work so hard and I chess is my entire life. Now, if they're going to try to think that I'm gonna be silent about what has happened, it is completely ridiculous. I met with Danny Wrench at Miami and I, Danny Wrench was the person who confronted me and I was deeply, deeply indebted to him for handling the ban privately and giving me the chance to redeem myself. Now, after being, after being not playing chess.com events, I went to over the board tournaments and I decided to myself that the only way to make up for my mistake was to prove to myself and to prove to others that I could win myself. Now that has been my mission and that is why I've lived in this suitcase for two years. That is why I have played 260 games in one year. That is why I have trained 12 hours a day because I have something to prove. And now that chess.com has suddenly decided to hop on Magnus's insinuations. He carries very direct accusations. Now they see the opportunity. Okay, we're just gonna get rid of this. I believe that this is completely unfair. This is a target attack and if you look at my games, this is not, it has nothing to do with my games. So why do you specifically, why do you, why does the CEO chess come to me and say we're looking forward to having the global chess championship? We're looking forward to you playing on our events and then right when I beat Magnus, they decide to remove my account and not let me play in the tournaments. This is absolutely ridiculous and they've only done this because of what Magnus has said with he carries this and that the entire social media and chess world is completely attacking me and undermining me. But and they maybe would think that I would be afraid to tell the entire world that I cheated into random games and I cheated in a tournament of 12 years, but I'm not afraid because I know who I am and I know the chess player that I am and I know what I give to chess. So I'm not going to be scared to be manipulated and to be conspired against to try to ruin my chess career when I know what has happened. So, you know, this, as far as Magnus, this is absolutely the fact that he did it without saying it. He knew the insinuations that would follow. If you look at social media, every single platform, I'm getting thousands of messages, not thousands, either thousands of tweets, everyone is attacking me and some people are defending me and I really appreciate those, but when I see people attack me with absolutely zero evidence, I, you know, people have zero, I'm the only person who knows what happened and I'm telling you guys that this is the truth. Now, you know, I really do not think that I would have the courage to say this, but some people, I'm very thankful to the people who helped me make this decision and you know what, this is the truth and I really, and now Magnus and Hikaru, Hikaru, I've never ever cheated against you in an online game. Any, never happened and the most ridiculous part and this is that, you know, the same players that in this tournament are insinuating that I'm cheating have also made insinuations about people who are making insinuations about me. So let's just say that people who are saying these things about me, they're not that innocent themselves. So it's very ridiculous, so I'm sorry if I'm rambling, but the main thing that I wanna say is that I am not going to let chess.com, I'm not going to let Magnus Carlson, I'm not going to let Hikaru Nakamura, the three arguably biggest entities in chess, simply slander my reputation because the question is, why are you going to remove me from chess.com right after I beat Magnus? Just what's with the timing? So I would, first of all, you know, again, I'm deeply, deeply sorry for what has happened. It is the biggest single regret of my life. I could, and even now to look back on it, I cannot recognize myself. To give context, I was 16 years old. I don't wanna make excuses, but I was living alone in New York City, it was the peak of the pandemic. And at that, I haven't financially independent, since I was 16 years old. I left my family and I was living alone at 16. I had rent to pay. And I wanted to, and I was willing to do anything to grow my stream. So of course I made a childish mistake and I will have to live with that. But I'd rather live with that with everyone knowing the truth instead of people making simple, you know, speculation about me because this is the full truth. And I'd like to see if everyone else can actually tell their truth. All right, Mark, what do you got? Yep, so here's what happens for me, anger. You can see it only sustains for so long. It's real anger, cause you can only keep it up for so long. He's truly angry. He feels that it's a targeted attack from Magnus. He believes it's slander. Okay, so he's very open about calling out somebody else as a liar. In the statements that I've seen from Magnus, not so open. He believes there might be cheating and it's an impression that he gets because his opponent shouldn't be doing that well at that kind of age against somebody like him. It's the idea that it's just not possible. What Neiman is saying is I have something to prove and I can understand that because he feels it's unfair. He's been maybe unfairly treated in his mind throughout his life. He wants to be the top, top performer in the world. He's vehement. He's angry about it. Never ever cheated against you in a live game. Double shrug on that, okay? Feels pretty good to me. Feels pretty good to me. I think for me, that level of aggression, that level of anger, the vehemence behind it, double shrug on never ever cheated against you. I've got something to prove which is somewhat of a motive for either, for cheating or not cheating. So it goes both ways. And the fact that he's able to call out his opponent and call it slander and a targeted attack still feels to me like I'm saying, yes, he has cheated in the past. I'm saying he has most likely cheated in over the board games and that's what that tongue inside the cheek is about. I would suggest based on that, I don't think he's cheated in this game and that's got to be super annoying to his opponent. Chase, what do you think? Yeah, I think I want to disagree just slightly with you here. Maybe like a 37.5% disagreement here. Unacceptable. Well, you're going to have to accept it. I think this is a potential case of vanishing perpetrator. And I'll explain. When he says, I'm doing this to prove to myself that I could win by myself. And if you haven't cheated in a long time, you don't need to prove to yourself that you could win by yourself, in my opinion. There's no denial, zero denial about the game in question specifically. And it makes a solid offer of a denial to the other person, not the one who accused him. I thought that was interesting. When somebody lies about someone, they have no problem denouncing that person, discussing the perpetrator and calling them a liar, which we don't hear, we hear slandering here, but we don't hear that is a lie. It's not true. It's absolutely false. You're not going to see a lot of that here. And I challenge you if you're watching to locate a complete sentence. Anywhere in this thing, locate a sentence that's complete as a start and an ending. So we know he's capable of completing sentences. We see it in his baseline right here on camera, a few videos back. But right here, we're seeing a loss of fluency which is profound loss of fluency, which could be attributable exactly what Mark said to anger. I'm not going to pretend like I have some crystal ball to understand where that's coming from. And with all the talking, there isn't a single instance of a real denial of commission for this game, not one in the entire video here. And when he's speaking about the insinuation inception here, this just insinuation of insinuation, his mindset is crystal clear. If someone insinuates something, then you're probably innocent. It's right there. If someone insinuates something, then you're, I'm sorry, you're probably not innocent. So he says they're being insinuated about too, so they're probably guilty. I thought that was interesting that he assumed that insinuation means guilt for the other people, but it doesn't mean it about him. So this entire video is highly suspicious to me. And would be one of the biggest red flags for me. And I think maybe he says, as a kid, I had this problem going on in my life, so I was willing to do anything, of course. So I'm willing to pay attention to that sentence. I had these issues and I needed to win. So I was, of course, I was willing to do anything. I think that's an important illustration of how he might view making mistakes as what he called it. And of course, we'll give our opinions here in a few minutes. Greg, what do you think? Yeah, so I'm gonna give you just a different way to look at this. Listen to where the passion is. The passion is about the accusations. Really aggressive about Magnus. Really aggressive about third party, somebody else who accused him. When it gets to where he starts to talk about this is the truth. Listen to the passion drop. It just disappears. And he does this when he says this is a truth. Those are red flags for me. Now, here's the problem. He's not talking in complete sentences. So is he talking about this game? Is he talking about something else? He's very passionate. However, when he says, watch my games. Mark, you're dead on. He's congruent as he can be when he's saying, watch my games. They're accusing me. All of that language is passionate and all up there. But watch the law just for a second. Go back and watch this and watch his body language, law and everything else law when he gets to this is the truth. But usually when we're emphatic, when we are telling the truth and people are on us and making us look bad. It's one thing to go after the person because you're angry. Another thing to keep ranting and saying, I'm telling the truth. We expect that. So for me, there's just a lot going on here. I can't say he's cheated against this guy in this game. I do believe he is cheated across the board based on the thing we saw. I'm not gonna say he cheated against this guy on this thing. I'm gonna say there's enough red flags here that if I were controlling this conversation, I would have stopped him four times and said, hold on a minute, hold on a minute, hold on a minute, hold on a minute. And I would have gotten more information. I'll leave it at that. Scott, what do you got? I see what you're saying about the law because when you go into an interrogation and you say to that person and you open up with, we know you did this. They know you did this. There's no question about that you did this. And you start that person that didn't do it most of the time, they're gonna be angry and they're gonna get up and they're gonna ramp and they're gonna stay angry and they're gonna be mad the whole time. And it's hard to get him settled down. Now, the person who usually in my experience that I've seen who did do it, they'll be angry at first, but then they'll calm down because they wanna get more information from you or they don't have that fight in them because they know they did it. There's no reason to stay angry. There's no reason to keep that thing up like that. That's what I'm seeing here. That anger should have lasted the whole time. It shouldn't have had a little like that. It shouldn't have gone down. He should have stayed right on that and been the whole time. So that really, that goes back to my thing about, this doesn't ring true to me. I don't not see behavior, that long term behavior in there that rings true to me. At the beginning, he takes that big, deep breath because he knows he's got a lot to say at this point. A lot he's gotta get across. And his cadence speeds up as he gets angry. He gets louder just like we expect him to do, but it should stay there. Or it should go up and come down just a little bit and then keep ramping back up. When he comes back down, it should ramp back up every time because he should be angry about that. He is angry about it for a while, but it should stay. I can't hit on that enough. And then when he talks about things, about how he never cheated, tons of little shoulder shrugs in your right, Greg. He hits that chin and that single shoulder shrug and I was like, man, this guy's done in my book. And then he talked about earlier about how he was cheating at 12. And he's talking about how he was cheating at 16. I'm telling you, man, a thief is a thief is a thief. And a cheater is a cheater is a cheater. That's what I'm seeing here. And his anger, again, should sustain. It should stay there. He should remain angry. That's what it looks like to me. Now, once you watch this, we're gonna come back and we're gonna tell you what we think. And we've got something we want you to do after that. We've got something special for you. We want you to do after that. So hang out, hang on. Unfortunately now, there has been a targeted attack and some recent events have made it really, really difficult for me to not stop speaking. After the game against Magnus, obviously Magnus puts his tweet, clearly some intonations, and then everyone starts to pile. I get an email from chess.com saying that they've privately removed access to my Chess.com account and that they have uninvited me from the Global Chess Championship. Now, three days ago I met with someone very high up in Chess.com at the Stingfold Cup, had amazing words. But because of this game against Magnus, because of what he said, they have decided to completely remove me from their website. Now this, if this is big, and now this is after I have already fully admitted and they have the best cheat detection in the world. They know that I'm not a cheater and that I have given, I give everything the chess, I work so hard and I chess is my entire life, okay? Now, if they're going to try to think that I'm gonna be silent about what has happened, it is completely ridiculous. I met with Danny Wrensch at Mimimi and I, Danny Wrensch was the person who confronted me and I was deeply, deeply indebted to him for handling the ban privately and giving me the chance to redeem myself. Now, after being not playing in Chess.com events, I went to over the board tournaments and I decided to myself that the only way to make up for my mistake was to prove to myself and to prove to others that I could win myself. Now, that has been my mission and that is why I've lived in this suitcase for two years. That is why I've played 260 games in one year. That is why I've trained 12 hours a day because I have something to prove. And now that Chess.com has suddenly decided to hop on Magnus's insinuations, he carries very direct accusations. Now they see the opportunity, okay, we're just gonna get rid of this. I believe that this is completely unfair. This is a target attack and if you look at my games, this is not, it has nothing to do with my games. So why do you specifically, why do you, why does the CEO Chess come to me and say we're looking forward to having the Global Chess Championship? We're looking forward to you playing on our events and then right when I beat Magnus, they decide to remove my account and not let me play in the tournaments. This is absolutely ridiculous and they've only done this because of what Magnus has said with Picardos and that the entire social media and chess world is completely attacking me and undermining me. But, and they maybe would think that I would be afraid to tell the entire world that I cheated into random games and I cheated in a tournament of 12 years but I'm not afraid because I know who I am and I know the chess player that I am and I know what I give to chess. So I'm not going to be scared to be manipulated and to be conspired against to try to ruin my chess career when I know what has happened. So, you know, this, as far as Magnus, this is absolutely the fact that he did it without saying it. He knew the insinuations that would follow. If you look at social media, every single platform, I'm getting thousands of messages, not thousands, either thousands of tweets, everyone is attacking me and some people are defending me and I really appreciate those but when I see people attack me with absolutely zero evidence, I, you know, people have zero, I'm the only person who knows what happened and I'm telling you guys that this is the truth. Now, I, you know, I really do not think that I would have the courage to say this but some people, I'm very thankful to the people who helped me make this decision and you know what, this is the truth and I really, and now Magnus can, and Hikaru, Hikaru, I've never ever cheated against you in an online game and it never happened and the most ridiculous part and this is that, you know, the same players that in this tournament are insinuating that I'm cheating have also made insinuations about people who are making insinuations about me. So let's just say that people who are saying these things about me, they're not that innocent themselves so it's very ridiculous, so I'm sorry if I'm rambling but the main thing that I wanna say is that I'm not going to let chess.com, I'm not going to let Magnus Carlson, I'm not going to let Hikaru Nakamura, the three arguably biggest entities in chess simply slander my reputation because the question is why are you going to remove me from chess.com right after I beat Magnus? Just what's with the timing? So I would, first of all, you know, again, I'm deeply, deeply sorry for what has happened, is the biggest single regret in my life, and even now, to look back on it, I cannot recognize myself. To give context, I was 16 years old, I don't wanna make excuses but I was living alone in New York City, it was the peak of the pandemic and at that, I haven't financially independent since I was 16 years old, I left my family and I was living alone at 16, I had rent to pay and I wanted to, and I was willing to do anything to grow my stream. So of course I made a childish mistake and I will have to live with that but I'd rather live with that with everyone knowing the truth instead of people making simple, you know, speculation about me because this is the full truth and I'd like to see if everyone else can actually tell their truth. Now let's talk about what we've seen so far up to this point. Mark, you wanna go first? Yeah, sure. Look, he's admitted to cheating, he's most likely cheated in some overboard game somewhere. Do I think he's cheated in this particular one? I don't actually think he has. Here's what his opponent says. His over the board progress has been unusual. Okay, well that's just an outlier, that's outlier behavior. I had the impression that he wasn't tense or even fully concentrating on the game in critical position. So because he's not behaving in the way that he's expected to behave, therefore he must be cheating. While outplaying me as black in a way I think only a handful of players can do and based on that assessment, his opponent walked out because he wasn't doing the behaviors that he thought he should be doing in order to be able to beat him. Well, sometimes there's just outliers in there because that's how you get the next best in the world. They don't do it like you expected them to do it. Now, does that mean I know for sure he's not cheating? The probability for me is he's not cheating in this particular one. Chase, what do you think? Yeah, here's a guy who's been accused of cheating in a chess game by an opponent. He talks for a long time in what you've seen about his childhood, social media, accusations, his training, his food deliveries, his teachers, his parents, his daily routine, his desires, how he feels, his youth. You know what we won't see here? One single denial of what he's actually accused of. Not one. In my opinion, knowing nothing about this person or the game of chess in general, beyond maybe what the pieces are called, something happened in his past to cause this behavior, something happened at that game, but it may not have been cheating, may have been, but it's absolutely being concealed. There is something being concealed by this guy that we're looking at here, even if it's the degree to which he listened to that signal or that thing that was helping him to move. If it's the degree to which he listened to it and then some he wanted to go somewhere else, maybe I didn't cheat that game because I didn't listen to the AI the entire time. Maybe it's up to how he defines cheating. Great. Yeah, guys, this one is a great example. Like I said, chess has this many permutations, your face, your body, your behavior has this many permutations. The interesting piece is we can't read minds. We can only find red flags in places to dig. Can any of us tell you this guy was cheating or not? No. The only way we're going to find out is for him to confess or somebody to say, hey, I did this. We're not going to see that. But what we do see are really interesting red flags. Mark, I agree with you. He could be an outlier. And I think outliers often in games like that probably have an edge. So there would be one in a however many million people that I've ever seen. Many, many million people that it takes to be a chess master. However, I'm not looking at him from that. I don't care what the guy said about him. I'm looking at deviations from who he is and what he's shown me in the conversation. And he has avoided some really big, hard questions. In fact, almost never answering the questions, which puts him in doubt, which cast doubt on him. And if you're watching this, you should know you should answer the damn question and people would have less suspicion of you. Scott. Yeah, I think after listening to what he said, watching the way he acted and having seen people do the same thing and then being accused of something similar, either taking something or doing something they shouldn't have done. I'm under the impression that he did cheat. And but that's just for what I'm looking at. That's my opinion and an opinion only. But I think he did. There are outliers. I agree with that. I agree with that. But there are too many things in there that just don't add up to many things he's done in the past that don't a solid person is a solid person. And there will be like this the whole time. There won't be these weird dropouts for the most part. There will be sometimes I don't think this is the case. I think this kid's really smart. And I think his him thinking he could outsmart of the people got the best of them at this point. So if I was a betting man, I'd put all my chips on. Hey, we don't do this often, but we have so much disagreement. Let's do a thumbs up or thumbs down. Do we think he's honest? How's that? Honest in general? OK, do we think he do we think he's lying about cheating on this game? On this particular game? Yeah, thumbs up or thumbs down? Do we think he's lying? He's lying about this game. This I can't tell this game. I can't tell this game, but he's lying about something. So I mean, oh, so it's thumbs up. Yes, he is a thumbs down. No, yeah, thumbs up. Yes, he is lying about this game. No idea. No idea. Oh, yeah, I don't know. You said thumbs up or down? Yeah, yeah. So I'm just going, yeah, I don't know. No, I don't know. Look, guys, I can't tell if he's lying or not, but he's hiding something for sure. Yeah, I don't know whether he's lying about this particular game. If he's lying about something, whether this or not is a question. No, and I had to bet. I would bet on no. And I would bet on yes. So that's just the way I bet based on. On the probability that you have to have an outlier in order to have an outlier. Yeah. OK, OK, I bet you all, each of you 100 bucks, it'll come out that he that he did cheat. I just said, if given a choice of betting, I would say cheating. Yeah, I'll put seven twix on it. Seven twix. OK, all right. Good luck. Hang on now. Hang on now, because what we want you to do is watch this last clip and then let us know in the comments about what you think and what you see. And be specific that because we're going to read them. That happened. But to me, to see my hero, to see my absolute hero, try to target, try to ruin our reputation, ruin my chess career. And to do it in such a frivolous way is really, really disappointing. Because you spend your entire life looking up to someone and then you meet them. And then my dream came true. I lived my dream for a day beating Magnus. And then all of this happened. So I'm sorry, I forgot what your initial question was. How do you focus on the sink fill cup? Well, when I sit on the board, it's all chess. So even today, maybe there are moments during the game where my mind wandered. But when I'm playing chess, that's all there was on my mind. Hopefully it'll stay that way. Does this bothering you fuel you? Does it make you angry? Absolutely fuel me. It absolutely fuels me. You know, my fuel has always been maybe not anger, but spite has been a strong fuel for me. When I started to play chess and then other ones, my school teacher told me I wasn't good enough. And that certainly fueled me. I've always been one to prove people wrong. And this absolutely fuels me. And this makes me want to win the tournament even more. And you know, I can come to the game. I can completely strip. You want to do any fair play check to me you want. I don't care. Because I know that I'm clean. And they could literally time in those ridiculous things. And they want me to strip fully naked. I'll do it. I don't care. Because I know that I'm clean. And I'm willing to subject myself. You want me to play in a closed box with zero electric transmission? I don't care, you know? Name whatever you guys want. I'm here to win. And that's going to be my goal regardless. All right, fellas. I think this is a good one. And we'll see you next time. See you. Pan-sneeman. So what do you got?