This link should work to WSJ story:
For more details, you can find the official announcement on the FIDE website which includes a link to the full decision by the Ethics and Disciplinary Commission at: Decision on the Magnus Carlsen / Hans Niemann case
The 10K euro fine seems substantial and appropriate for improper withdrawal by a world champion. The media has seemed to latch onto the other statements where the report references the already available chess.com report. I don’t recall a fine of this size.
I find two curiosities out of this result. The first curiosity is why there is no perceptible effort for US Chess as an organization to have a position on the matter. USA soil with USA grandmasters involved both officially and informally across chess media.
The second curiosity comes from point 13.7 of the FIDE Case 2/2023 document.
“13.7…The EDC Chamber finds it unnecessary however to make a distinction between different forms of cheating. Whether it be over-the-board cheating, or online cheating in chess, it does not make one lesser of an offence than the other; it is still an assault on the integrity of the sport.”
Yes cheating is bad. Taken further, this could be interpreted as support for major online servers and the potential for FIDE to have more assumed authority for player actions on those servers. My curiosity is whether Naka or anyone else will take Kramnik to school on the basis of this point. Vlad continues to push the point (some would say harass) where the online investigations have revealed nothing. If FIDE believes the above quote, this could give an opening to punish unsubstantiated harassment over suspicions and “interesting” worldviews.
It would be improper for US Chess to take a position on the matter because it could be perceived as biased (especially as Niemann is an American while Carlsen is not). More generally, I do not see how it is the place of a national federation to intervene in an international ethics case; it would be just as odd for the Texas Chess Association to publish a statement about a US Chess ethics case involving a Texas player in a national championship. I should also point out that, considering that David Hater (an Executive Board member) is a member of the ethics and disciplinary commission, the United States presumably had some influence in the decision.
tl;dr: Many positions are entirely proper to benefit US Chess international and domestic interests, and I can completely understand if the risks outweighed the benefits of a federation statement. Overt bias towards a player or cause is not suggested. It is the job of a board to discuss positions and matters of national interest, regardless of statements or influential actions.
There are a wide variety of matters related to the investigation that are entirely proper for a federation to have and announce a position upon. Agreed, there are many biased positions that are tantamount to hanging a piece or a mate in one. Rather a possible evaluation approach could be, “What positions are ethically improper, which positions are useful for continued USA influence with FIDE and our members, and which positions matter so little that we won’t waste time on?”
A federation can always support due process when the existing investigative process is adequate for the issue. I can recall many (many) FIDE issues in past decades without good process. Over time the USA influence into governing those issues has grown. We are still learning how public statements can help.
The Texas Chess Association example will work for the moment. Years ago at the US Open in Dallas, two Texas players had a dispute during their game against each other. While many directors were available, it was NTD Franc Guadalupe handled the claim. In that case, all three people and the location were Texan. It would have been entirely proper if the TCA had issued a statement appreciating the due process, by-the-rules outcome, and cautioned other members to not make assumptions about rulings that don’t involve them. A position or comment of that kind does not have any bias but for good governance.
In the case of Neimann, it was (and is) possible to have a position that is all for due process and player care when hearing accusations. Obviously it would have to be balanced without blind support of a player just because of citizenship. And that balance may be where nothing was publicly mentioned. As I said, it was a curiosity on Perceptible (public) Effort. I trust the political benefits were calculated and that it was better to seek influence in other areas given all that has happened over the past 18 months.
Ultimately this case (suggestion of cheating if not outright accusation) is not isolated and already has many variations. A position, a governance framework, gives the board a starting point to go into the next step of reviewing what is same or different, relevant or minor detail, and what factors could create issues for national policy or international influence.
I was a bit puzzled by the notion that this was not something on which US Chess should comment (if they felt a reason to comment). It took place at a US tournament and involved a US player, who might have faced some serious sanctions. If the FIDE investigation came to the conclusion that Niemann cheated at the Sinquefield Cup, then that accuses both Niemann of cheating and the St. Louis organizers of failing to prevent it.
If you look at how national track and field associations deal with doping allegations, often (at this point probably most of the time), they accept the sanctions, but sometimes they go to the mat in support of their athlete. The sane federations pick their battles carefully.