This is shining a light on someone's approach to solve the problem of cheating: by using faulty grade school understanding of statistics to insinuate/expose purported cheaters, one a day, and call anyone who wants a more rational methodical approach a conspirator or an incompetent. We are discussing the approach and behaviour of a particularly prominent member of the chess community and i think it is alright (good even) to be critical in public forums like this of such a public figure when his actions are harmful.
Yes, Kramnik is completely correct in his suspicions! FIDE should intervene in this while there is still a shred of credibility left in online chess. A website, even if it is a private company, should not have the right to use its own team and anti-cheating tools when online tournaments involve money and players titled GMs with FIDE registration, in these cases only anti-cheating tools and FIDE experts should be permitted as final authority. Denying that there is no possibility of chess.com, as a private company, being biased when suspicions fall on its golden chickens, denying this possibility is the same as putting a sucker label on your forehead. chess.com's extensive code of conduct (which in many ways is simply disgusting) is not there to protect users or any chess player, it is there to protect solely chess.com itself. Anyone who reads and accepts the terms must be aware that chess.com can do anything, you have the right to remain silent. Obviously, after reading all the nonsense contained there, you always have the right not to click the button (I accept)
@zugzuang said in #32:
> Yes, Kramnik is completely correct in his suspicions! FIDE should intervene in this while there is still a shred of credibility left in online chess. A website, even if it is a private company, should not have the right to use its own team and anti-cheating tools when online tournaments involve money and players titled GMs with FIDE registration, in these cases only anti-cheating tools and FIDE experts should be permitted as final authority. Denying that there is no possibility of chess.com, as a private company, being biased when suspicions fall on its golden chickens, denying this possibility is the same as putting a sucker label on your forehead. chess.com's extensive code of conduct (which in many ways is simply disgusting) is not there to protect users or any chess player, it is there to protect solely chess.com itself. Anyone who reads and accepts the terms must be aware that chess.com can do anything, you have the right to remain silent. Obviously, after reading all the nonsense contained there, you always have the right not to click the button (I accept)
Is lichess or any other website different?
> Yes, Kramnik is completely correct in his suspicions! FIDE should intervene in this while there is still a shred of credibility left in online chess. A website, even if it is a private company, should not have the right to use its own team and anti-cheating tools when online tournaments involve money and players titled GMs with FIDE registration, in these cases only anti-cheating tools and FIDE experts should be permitted as final authority. Denying that there is no possibility of chess.com, as a private company, being biased when suspicions fall on its golden chickens, denying this possibility is the same as putting a sucker label on your forehead. chess.com's extensive code of conduct (which in many ways is simply disgusting) is not there to protect users or any chess player, it is there to protect solely chess.com itself. Anyone who reads and accepts the terms must be aware that chess.com can do anything, you have the right to remain silent. Obviously, after reading all the nonsense contained there, you always have the right not to click the button (I accept)
Is lichess or any other website different?
@CadyRocks said in #26:
> Would anyone like to point to any particular stretch of time in these videos that seems suspicious?
On critical positions he often looks up right of the screen, could be just position evaluation number there and he must do move thinking himself? For example first video starting at 2:03:37. He is very aware of the mistakes he made immediately after bad moves (and after looking up right), and often finds better move he could have made instead. This ( I would say 3500+ ELO) backwards "better previous move" thinking in blitz chess is also suspicious.
> Would anyone like to point to any particular stretch of time in these videos that seems suspicious?
On critical positions he often looks up right of the screen, could be just position evaluation number there and he must do move thinking himself? For example first video starting at 2:03:37. He is very aware of the mistakes he made immediately after bad moves (and after looking up right), and often finds better move he could have made instead. This ( I would say 3500+ ELO) backwards "better previous move" thinking in blitz chess is also suspicious.
WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE
@vexch I don't quite agree with the interpretation here (case in point, around 2:04:05, where he doesn't notice the opponent's counterplay until it happens), but I'm also no chess expert, and I have to respect that you offered a plausible answer.
I think a good activity for fans of the holy grail of the fast game of C.C would be to ask why they are not participating in the fast and blitz world cup in Samarkand. Maybe it was a cold, a prolonged honeymoon, or maybe the super mega ultra refined technique is only in the online game, the mouse at the speed of light. I even saw some users asking the chess.com presenters why the goose that lays the golden eggs is not participating in the world fast and blitz, it was impossible not to notice the presenters' embarrassment in answering a simple question.
@Eireahmhon said in #3:
> Kramnik is a genius. I don't know if he's right or wrong, but Chess.com, AKA the dictators, think he 's wrong so they banned him from the site.
Well, they didn't ban him, they just sort of 'banned him from blogs' cuz he was going way too far abt hikaru and cheating
> Kramnik is a genius. I don't know if he's right or wrong, but Chess.com, AKA the dictators, think he 's wrong so they banned him from the site.
Well, they didn't ban him, they just sort of 'banned him from blogs' cuz he was going way too far abt hikaru and cheating
@Grumpymantooth said in #13:
> Not all statisticians agree. In fact, they disagree on just about everything.
> And this is not about the opinion of one individual, math professor or chess player, it's about the broader concept of allowing people to speak their mind without being canceled and censored. Kramnik might be wrong, and chess.com might be right, but there is no reason to cancel his blog.
> Let the man speak.
Yeah i mean i guess they should like 'allow' freedom to all of their users, just like in the case of countries, they should allow freedom to their citizens. Now i don't know, but maybe (just maybe) they sort of are using their supreme power to shut up people who speak against them, y'know?
Idk why they did that, cuz kramnik was indeed saying that chess.com is wrong and all
> Not all statisticians agree. In fact, they disagree on just about everything.
> And this is not about the opinion of one individual, math professor or chess player, it's about the broader concept of allowing people to speak their mind without being canceled and censored. Kramnik might be wrong, and chess.com might be right, but there is no reason to cancel his blog.
> Let the man speak.
Yeah i mean i guess they should like 'allow' freedom to all of their users, just like in the case of countries, they should allow freedom to their citizens. Now i don't know, but maybe (just maybe) they sort of are using their supreme power to shut up people who speak against them, y'know?
Idk why they did that, cuz kramnik was indeed saying that chess.com is wrong and all
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.