วีดีโอ

What did he do that is wrong? Where should he admit?

That’s just how Russians look

Roncho Poncho. You are very smart and witty commentator.

Jospem beat Carlsen 4 consecutive times in titled tuesdays. He also have a positive score against Lagrave( in titled tuesdays) and some other strong players. Yet his perfomance in a match doesnt reflect it.

@@user-rh1gk3mg2f​​⁠different time controls even if he didn’t win a single game against Kramnik it’s a meaningless comparison since the formats aren’t the same (he also had two games removed from his wins and replayed them despite only 1 having a clock issue that’s arguably common on cc) as for the wins against magnus it’s possible given magnus just trolls games occasionally because he’s good enough to get away with it. Also this match isn’t quite like TT in that you can actively prepare to play 1 player something which having been a WC I imagine Kramnik probably is better at/

​@@user-rh1gk3mg2fkramnik's argument/procedure is flawed because sometimes he (and others) plays at sub 2000 rating level and openly blundering when he's tired. He doesn't understand that it's easier to get "high accuracy" rating when your opponent blunders and all/most/easy roads lead to victory. Plus master level of opening theory counts for a lot of accuracy too

@@user-kb1xy7tr5h Why 1 second difference suddenly make it as though it is a different game? I dont get it. Ok flagging tendencies may be different bit overall play should be same, no? Please correct me if I am wrong. Ok, in titled tuesdays, Jospem beat Karuana +3 -1; he beat Nihal +2 -1; he beat Firouzja +6-3; beat Naroditsky +3-1; beat Maxime Vachier Lagrave +5-1; beat Zhigalko +15-3. Ok, you can explain Carlsen because of bad openings. Even though Carlsen lost even with good openings. Can you explain beating other players? So he consistently beats Maxime Vacheir Lagrave? That cant be dont with the quality of play he showed in a match with Kramnik. Beating Firouzja? Karuana? He does have negavie score against some other Gms, but that ok. Even super strong player have some negative scores. That is not suspicious to you?

@@foraminutethere23 I think he knows what you are talking about and accounts for obvious blunders.

bullshit. equal game off and onboard. but at titled tuesday jospem destroyed him constantly. kramnik never say that jospem is weak player. he said that he is cheater. what that games shows

Jospem showed lesser quality of play. Which is what counts. Why do you think it was about beating Kramnik? It was to compare his quality of play

"Destroyed". 12,5-14,5. 🤡🤡🤡🤡

In the podcast episode with me, he claimed that he has a team of statisticians working for him. Unfortunately, we cannot verify this since he refused to reveal their names or any other details

@@MustreaderChess It is long past time for Kramnik to put up or shut up.

3+1 is not well-suited for OTB and OTB and online games should have the same time control, therefore 3+2 was chosen for both.

What made you convinced he is clean? The fact that he won? Wasn’t that widely expected, including by Kramnik?

​@@nick1olaef I wrote down in advance what it would take to convince me. I was looking for a convincing win from Jospem in the computer games, didn't give much weight to the OTB games. I didn't expect him to replicate his online performance exactly, especially not in 3+2

@@nick1olaef the fact that he is being recorded while playing and monitored by several referees

One fact that Mustreader doesn't mention is that based on Jospem's Elo you can calculate the odds of him winning Titled Tuesday so many times (including twice in a single day). You don't need Kramnik's Elo for this analysis. It will show if Jospem wins "too often" according to statistics.

To calculate the odds of Jospem winning you can do a Monte Carlo simulation (it would take a few hours for me to write this) based on his Elo and the expected average Elo to win Titled Tuesday. Then you can use a cumulative binomial calculator to ascertain the probability of Jospem winning as many times as he has. I bet it would be a small number, a very improbable number, but I've not done the math.

@@raylopez99a Russian chess player with a PhD in Math (ChessRay) has done this and confirmed that the expected prizes of Jospem in TT are around the same as the reality

@@MustreaderChess Oh. I see. I'd like to see his results. Overnight I thought about how I would calculate this: first, do a Monte Carlo simulation to see how often Jospem wins TT each time he plays (what probability of winning each time he plays). This is easy using C# (I've done it before many times). Then, use a binomial cumulative probability calculator to figure out how probable it is for Jospem to win TT as often as he has (these calculators are found online and easy to use). Then, do a "chi-square" analysis and see how probable it is, with 99% confidence, that Jospem winning TT is due to chance after finding out the binomial cumulative probability of Jospem winning TT as often as he has (that is, if I, rated 2100 Elo on LiChess blitz won somehow TT say three times out of five times, it would not be "due to chance alone" with 99% probability, but probably some other factor like maybe my opponents all decided to lose to me on purpose or I cheated). I think this model is "rock solid" but I would like to see how "ChessRay" did it. Please do a followup video on this! For us STEM nerds.

Also of course for my model you have to know the average winning score for TT and the variance, to do the "chi-square' analysis but of course that goes without saying.