Quote Originally Posted by Ricki Barak View Post
As Carlsen is making the claim of cheating, shouldn't the onus be on him to prove the positive claim rather than Niemann prove the negative?
Defamation law is different everywhere so it's hard to say (even if I knew anything about it). Niemann has to be able to counter the claim of truth and couldn't achieve that through silence like a defendant in a criminal trial - it wouldn't be a criminal case and he wouldn't be defending.

Carlsen could use various defences, and I imagine that he has run his latest release past a lawyer who may, for instance, have advised that expressing an opinion that someone cheated is not in law the same as making a specific claim of that.

Proving that it's true Niemann cheated would be a good defence, but to what standard? Would a non-specialist audience think that prior cheating in online chess, plus a rapid rise in ranking, plus expert opinion of top GMs constitute sufficient proof - even some chess players think that.

Overall it's a risk, at best it makes some money but doesn't really clear your name, and you can always do it next week.