i think what makes my feelings on hans so muddled is that there seems to be no discernable truth to him, there's no concrete narrative or even throughline to hold onto.
i started out believing hans, partly bc my initial view on magnus was shaped by my inclination to contrarianism, but also bc the facts simply aren't in his favor. looking at this tangibly, what magnus said, alongside the prevailing undercurrent characterizing hans, has been rooted purely in bias and irrationality.
however, grandmasters have been speaking on how his play is uncharacteristically engine-like, both his playing style and level are notably unstable and he's not consistently good in any format. he has no foundational characteristics. which is suspicious when you're operating in a sector predicated on skill and ranking.
on the other hand, magnus' loss to him has been analyzed as reasonable through both fair play and quality analysis, with it being said that his strategy was simply impaired on the day. and its not like magnus hasn't been susceptible to being psychologically affected by elements he finds suspicious or distracting before. however, magnus' impaired play doesn't preclude hans from cheating, and him making a few inaccuracies or blunders could easily have been intentional. yet, i would immediately write off the theorizing and confirmation bias inherent in sustaining this position, and i initially did, except hans is the one who most incriminates himself in this whole situation.
however, i honestly think hans' reactions thus far have been completely understandable, i think there's reason to his hyperbolic and paranoid view of chesscom and the top players, and how scarring and overwhelming it must be to be dogpiled and ostracized, especially as a teen and burgeoning talent. its obvious why your idols persecuting and shunning you must've crushed him, or how bravado would be an instinctive mask to that. or even that he would demand more from bystanders like levy for example, and would regard impartiality as betrayal when the definitive narratives around him were so punitive and overt. its clear why he would be impulsive and retaliative and uncordial. i think hans is right that his life was ruined over nothing™.
but i also know that the nothing in question is only for present proof, and that regardless, demonstrably, he has a propensity to morally grandstand and equate punishment with remorse, which is partly justified bc at least he has been punished, but the question of magnus or even hikaru's dues begin to grow dubious when its not just them who constructed the cheater narrative, it preceded and eclipses them. its not merely a reactionary stance, but one rooted in consensus and skillful inclination. but magnus was also vulnerable to confirmation bias, and the inconsistency in which cheaters they play holds gravity.
which makes one think abt what exactly in him elicits sm ire, and whether its truly his play or rather his attitude — which is further complicated by magnus' eagerness to nurture the youth, and his embracing of competition he sees as genuine and substantive, with him platforming alireza, pragg and others, despite the former's equally inconsistent play, yet historic aptitude with faster time controls and success in less pressurized events. this eliminates hubris or elitism as magnus' motivating factor, especially when his legacy goals are so attuned to the youth and fostering their growth and succession.
ultimately, it blurs the lines between bias and justification: when hans has a history of cheating which he vehemently downplays, obfuscates and cherrypicks, and consequently twists the juvenile shellshock that could've resulted in his pisspoor post-game analysis into smth more implicating and sinister. it calls into question the premature and subpar blunders he makes, or his association with a supposed anti-cheating figure like kramnick. and also forces equal skepticism when he psychologically outmaneuvers elite talents like wesley, and when he unexpectedly loses to typically middling IMs. and where this otherwise would have been branded an expected lapse, hans' glaring lack of stylistic and rating consistency, supposed cheating in both prize and non-prize events, and overall cheating history, which extends into the hundreds in actuality, will forever cast doubt on him — painting him as more of a glory cheater if anything.
the central question remains, why exactly is a guy so historically inconsistent now in the top 20, and what delineable evolution has he underwent in his play when he's still as inconsistent as ever. turning what may have otherwise been a witch-hunt into smth inadvertently understandable. hans is overt in his irregularity, he's unabashed. but, he's also logically and evidentially innocent.
hans can't account for his growth, yet neither can his detractors. he's an amorphous oscillation relegated perpetually to inscrutability. he's an inherent contradiction, and any objectivity we try apply is inevitably refracted through his personhood, and whatever sentiment he reflects back at you. the question of hans' validity, of his professional narrative, is now his career. hans is tasked with completing a picture with colours he doesn't have.
there is no way to know, no vision to clarify, and i hate that.
Imagine you're Nepo and vow to win your match and take on Magnus (it's most likely going to be him) Things look good. Hikaru is making blunders and youve got a 3 point lead. Then suddenly Hikaru goes "nah fuck you I didn't come this far for a participation trophy" and demolishes you quickly and effectively. You will not move on to the semis. The next day this is the thumbnail Hikaru uses on his video analysing the match.
When Beth and Benny were playing speed chess, Beth asked for a coffee, and Benny asked for fucking apple juice (but not in a shitty styrofoam cup, it has to be a milk glass)
42. When Hammie was first drafted to the Phoenix Riders, she was anxious so Asher would play games of chess with her to calm her down and boost her confidence.
