Kramnik disagrees with Chess.com so they banned him.

@ClappingQueens said in #40:
> 2. I don't know about everyone else, but it seems a little weird that the ambiguous accusation of cheating is completely off-limits here, but then Lichess itself posts things like this: lichess.org/blog/ZNTniBEAACEAJZTn/breaking-the-silence
>
> I don't know. It just seems inconsistent and opaque, giving Lichess the ability to silence someone that they just don't like for any reason, while publishing potentially defamatory material themselves.

From the blog post:

> In February, chess commentator and author Jennifer Shahade publicly accused grandmaster Alejandro Ramirez of sexual misconduct. Her allegations sparked a swift and severe backlash against Ramirez, who was forced to resign from the Saint Louis Chess Club (STLCC), before being permanently banned by the United States Chess Federation (US Chess).
>
> The allegations also exposed apparent failures at US Chess and STLCC. Yet, neither organization has faced any serious scrutiny or accountability for their handling of the case.
>
> And Ramirez is not the only one. According to interviews and documents reviewed by Lichess, one other prominent American grandmaster has also been accused of sexual misconduct by multiple women, raising further troubling questions about how chess organizations deal with such matters.

What a phenomenally gross post. Shame on you.

@ClappingQueens said in #40:
> 1. This is a judicial process that includes zero transparency. I am guessing that the reason behind this is to make sure that there is no "court of public opinion" against the player being accused of cheating. Can you comment on why this is?
>

The other question isn't gross. But it's pretty simple, I would have thought.

Cheating detection in chess is a highly skilled occupation. General chess players are not qualified to do it. (I'm certainly not. I don't believe Kramnik is either.) Public opinion, or the opinion of general chess players, is not appropriate when determining whether someone has cheated. And an allegation of cheating is a very serious matter in any sport, chess being no exception.

@CadyRocks said in #41:
> What a phenomenally gross post.

And yet, you do nothing to address *why* it is gross. You're talking about pure allegation, which is what this whole conversation we are having is about.

>Shame on you.

Literally shaming me in a conversation about the shaming rules.

@Brian-E said in #42:
> The other question isn't gross. But it's pretty simple, I would have thought.
>
> Cheating detection in chess is a highly skilled occupation. General chess players are not qualified to do it. (I'm certainly not. I don't believe Kramnik is either.) Public opinion, or the opinion of general chess players, is not appropriate when determining whether someone has cheated. And an allegation of cheating is a very serious matter in any sport, chess being no exception.

I agree with this, but based on what I have seen, Kramnik didn't make an allegation, and actually suggested that someone (perhaps someone with the requisite skills) look into it. I was told that I am missing something about the details, but this one post is all that I have seen so far:

archive.is/T5Sae

All allegations should be treated as serious, and the most important part about holding someone accountable is that there is a thorough investigation. In order to know that the investigation was thorough, you need transparency around the process.

I am disappointed in Lichess because:

1. They classify this rather inert speech as "shaming".
2. They urge us to not make any public statements about potential cheating, but then don't present any details about their investigations.
3. At the same time, they are perfectly willing to publicly comment on an accusation of an actual crime, in which there was no legal investigation, the result of which may have caused permanent damage to a person's reputation.

Seems contradictory.

@Brian-E said in #42:
> Cheating detection in chess is a highly skilled occupation. General chess players are not qualified to do it.
I think you don't have to be an expert to be able to raise questions, especially behavioral weirdness, like if a player is checking a mobile phone after critical positions. Or on chess streams, players looking at certain direction after moves to get possibly current position evaluation, etc. Average players can certainly start to put some puzzle pieces together themselves.

@ClappingQueens said in #44:
> I agree with this, but based on what I have seen,

key point

> Kramnik didn't make an allegation,

uninformed opinion

> and actually suggested that someone (perhaps someone with the requisite skills) look into it. I was told that I am missing something about the details, but this one post is all that I have seen so far:
>
> archive.is/T5Sae

You know you don't have all the information, so you know you have an uninformed opinion.

I've read the first chapter of harry potter and I know there are more chapters, but based on what I've read, it's a very shallow story, it has no depth, no plot, no character development. I disagree that harry potter is a good book.

just saying, in the forum-etiquette there is a part that says " Do not engage in arguments that devolve into insult contests" i think that's what's happing now

Who the ef cares
What do chess.com and cheat lecturer Kramnik have in common.

@h2b2 said in #46:
> uninformed opinion

I basically said that my position was uninformed. I asked for information, and then **you** were the one who provided that link

I have no idea where to look, and you had to dig this out of an internet archive tool.

- We had to ban him because of what he said
- Wow that's pretty bad, where can we see what he said?
- Oh you can't see it because we deleted it, but trust us, it was bad.

Yeah right. Then you ask a stranger on another chess forum for an example, and the example is completely benign.

Bad look for justice ️

I wonder why people talk about chess.com and the clowns that play there.
Could it be that they think chess.com is better or they are wannabees.