[mrkajz44]

I've followed both the chess and poker stories a bit and both of them are extremely similar:

- Well respected vet gets beat by a relatively inexperienced player
- Well respected vet accused the other one of cheating because their ego has a hard time handling the loss
- Zero evidence is presented other than "this is odd / unusual"
- Most people side with well respected vet and form all sorts wild theories about how/why the other player cheated

It's clearly an abuse of power and the chess one is even worse because Carlsen is basically the GOAT so his word carries a ton of weight. I've seen some commentary thrown around legal defamation because these top players are obviously harming the reputation of the lower players with no actual evidence other than "they shouldn't have beat me and they played unusual".

I had no idea about the fishing story, but that one seems pretty clear.