User talk:122.162.145.191

October 2022
Hello, I'm Moops. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Fischer random chess have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. — Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 01:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at FIDE World Fischer Random Chess Championship 2022. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. — Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 01:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The first third fifth and seventh place matches happened on the last day, and they all had the same starting positions as you can see in the table, them being in the same table makes sense and score is 2-2 in the official frchess press release not 3-2 122.162.145.191 (talk) 02:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * armageddon does not count as a normal 30 min game 122.162.145.191 (talk) 02:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Edit regarding "immediate" closure of Hans Niemann's account after Carlsen withdrew from Sinquefield
Hi, I'm not interested in a reversion war, so I'm sharing the following thoughts: The closure of Niemann's chess.com account did occur soon after Magnus Carlsen withdrew from the Sinquefield Cup, but I don't think it sounds neutral to use the word "immediately," for a few reasons: (1) in explaining its decision to close the account, chess.com claims, per its statement in the Niemann report, that it arrived at this decision "after deliberation" and consideration of various factors, which the Niemann report explains; (2) to write that the closure was made "immediately" could be read to imply that chess.com simply reacted to Carlsen's withdrawal; (3) the broader controversy has zealous partisans on more than one side. Those who assert that chess.com colluded with Magnus Carlsen to "maliciously and viciously" defame Niemann and destroy his career (as is pleaded in the federal court case filed on behalf of Niemann) claim that such malicious collusion is evidenced by the supposed immediacy with which, they say, chess.com closed Niemann's account. Someone reading your edit ("immediate") might get the impression that your intention is to assert that chess.com is lying about the "deliberation" and that your additional intention is to support the allegations in Niemann's federal lawsuit.

I'm not intending to accuse you of having such an agenda. Instead, I'm asking you to consider whether a reader of the article might understand the word "immediately" in that context as aiming to support the collusion allegations, rather than as neutral reportage. 208.66.214.86 (talk) 21:57, 31 October 2022 (UTC)