It is entertaining. It would be more entertaining if he varied a little ... each rant is basically a carbon copy. He hasn't added any substance since the 2-hour C-squared interview.
I cannot listen anymore to Kramnik‘s repeating monologues anymore, since in the end he is only a extraordinary chess player. I hope he stops before ending like Fischer.
I'm disappointed you barely had any pushback against him in the Hikaru segment. You agreed with him that there was no direct accusation, which is meaningless since his intention was clear. then let him spout his nonsense talking points with no confrontation. I haven't watched the other parts of this yet, but I really hoped this episode would be something more than another home for Kramnik's ego heavy thoughts.
It is important Jesse allows Kramnik to express himself in a way he wants even when fundamentally wrong. This is a sign of a great interviewer/podcaster. I couldn't force myself to watch it all, but many people could and they can make their own view about it, there are plenty rebuttals online. Top chess geniuses are generally not pleasant people, and being fundamentally wrong is a very unusual feeling for them. In a civilised legal system you have to point to a move and prove: "you cheated HERE. THIS is a computer move!" A company cannot make a legal case out of "Today you are winning too much according to your expected abilities" - all it can do is exclude such player from their space, and they are doing that already. Luckily we don't live in authoritarian regime where people are locked up on suspicions. Online cheating will be part of online chess for ever, on all levels. It's the combination of flawed human nature (evident wonderfully at both Kramnik and Nakamura), and engines being better than humans. Nobody owes it to people stuck in the offline past to ease their moral panic. Titled Tuesdays will continue to be a flawed imperfect competition, yet one that people love to watch and participate. English Premier League or NBA are at absolute top of sport entertainment, multi-billion dollar businesses - does anybody really thing they are fair? No, but they are a spectacle. Instead of virtuously demanding perfection from an online entertainment site, we must focus on improving FIDE rules and practices and anti-cheating measures. Maybe FIDE blitz/bullet ratings could be derived exclusively from on-site play in the same room, using a screen and mouse and arbiter present - just like slow play OTB rating (as playing no increment bullet on physical board is absolutely ridiculous). This is where Mr. Kramnik could actually contribute - he knows the people and has the influence - while he clearly has no clue about online chess entertainment business. We need to separate what is official chess sporting competition with a FIDE rating, and what is chess entertainment - which makes more money, just like Lil Wayne makes more money than university cello lecturer. Equating online rating farming with cheating in OTB tournament is a ridiculous position that benefits nothing.
Exactly the same with Hikaru's "Golly, I never said he cheated, I just kept saying 'this is sus' over and over for a month" rambles. Ans besides, without incredible assumptions and gaming the numbers towards Hikaru, a 45.5/46 is in fact very interesting according to statisticians.
You are feeling this way, because people you adore... streamers that like clicks... intentionally ridiculed his posts as preposterous. Have you actually read every blog post of his? Or watched his multiple 1 hour discussions? I'm guessing not because of what you just wrote. Kramnik NEVER named names. He never intended to accuse anyone of anything. His argument is as follows: (1) We know some people cheat that are titled players, especially when prizes are on the line. This is indisputable. Who was not a point he broached. In fact, he made it a point to present his argument without names, because he did not want to accuse anyone of cheating. (2) If any player has unusual performance, and he has said even if he were the one to do it, he thinks chessc should investigate it with vigor. That's it. That's his entire argument. He wants that, because it is reassuring if the largest chess website on the internet looks into players who outperform their ratings. [Side note: He made an error in what constitutes an unusual performance. He assumes that chessc rankings are perfectly accurate. Ratings are quite good predictors in official FIDE matches, because there is no horseplay. People prepare for each other, people do their routines to show up ready to play, and people play with the concrete goal of doing as well as they can. This is obviously not the case for 5-minute blitz matches on chessc. Despite this error in his judgment that some unnamed player had unusual statistics, the structure of his argument is sound. If any player has weird statistics, that is a good reason to investigate them. Are you claiming otherwise?] (3) OTHER PEOPLE dug into the claimed statistics, and they immaturely spread the word of which player had the statistics that Kramnik thought were unusual. By this point and with the context I have given you, you should understand that he truly never intended to accuse any player of anything. Otherwise, surprise surprise, he would have named the player right away. He continued his argument that there was a play with unusual statistics, meaning it would be good for chessc to validate nothing evil had happened. That's it. (4) Content creators kinda started looking into his blog posts around this point. People had it in their mind that he had accused someone by name of cheating. No. The entire time, he had named no one and merely used the statistics to justify a policy to protect the integrity of the game by investigating anyone who performs unusually. That's it, and that's why he keeps saying he accused no one of anything. Now, if you jumped into the blog posts at this point and heard what content creators were saying, it might sound like he kept accusing players while paradoxically saying he is accusing no one. With the context I've provided [points (1) and (2)], you should understand his perspective better now. He just wants assurance that chessc looks into unusual performance. Nothing more and nothing less. He has no aim to ruin a career, he has no aim for a ban to be issued, and he has nothing else in his sights. (5) A bunch of people started attacking him with their perception of the situation from point (4). He is a serious man, so he seriously couldn't understand what trolling is. And you know what? It is refreshing to see a person on this planet that doesn't look at trolling and think, "Man, this is routine internet behavior. It makes perfect sense a person would invest time into trying to upset a stranger for absolutely zero logical reason." This is where you heard him say things about how others had misrepresented his position, because they had... for clicks. This is also where you heard him say that perhaps bots were making those comments. The idea of wasting your time just to hurt a stranger was so foreign to him that that is the best explanation he could come up with. Kudos to him for not understanding weird internet culture. I kind of which I didn't myself. (6) The trolling got to him, so he wanted to make his point of unusual performance as clear as possible. Here, he did make a mistake -- he actually did start naming players. Since he made a real mistake, chessc muted his account. This is forgivable, because look at it from his view: He just wants solid anticheat measures in place to investigate unusual performances, and he was treated as if he were an insane person. When the entire world looks at you insane when you are sane, that itself can make you go a little insane. He went nuclear in response to the trolling and with the aim of helping chess. That's it. Nothing else happened. If a person believes that there are weird statistics that justify examination no matter the person (and he has repeatedly said to please analyze him if he scored unusual results -- this is not an accusation), this is just common sense. Please do that. There isn't any harm in it. In his ideal solution, he'd like a full report about any player that has a major performance atypical to their historical ability. This isn't going to happen for obvious reasons. However, I think every GM that enjoys chess on chessc wouldn't see this idea and think, "What is he talking about? Is this man insane? He would like reassurance that people playing extra well are not cheating. WHAT?" Your perspective is more like, "I don't even play chess that seriously, and I don't play in TT. Why is he accusing my streamer of cheating?!" Well, he isn't and never did. It's just an example of his of an exceptional performance. Yes, he misunderstands the accuracy of chessc rating are not as valid as FIDE ones. Yes, he might underestimate how good a prodigy kid can be at chess as kids weren't that good back in his era. Yes, people can be farmed. But no: He is not crazy, and his suggestion is understandable to the max. When he says "statistics" and "math," all he means is that people performing better than expected a bunch might indicate someone is cheating. That's it. Do you think it indicates they are not cheating? He is focusing on match results. That's all. If these kinds of measurements are done very carefully, it could be a valuable way to estimate how much cheating is going on. It's not a bad idea. Chessc instead uses other techniques to estimate if someone is cheating -- not performance but stuff like how many sound players report them, time between move, how many top engine moves are played, the subjective evaluation of a bunch of GMs as to whether a bunch of games have "engine" moves, etc. They are just two different ways of approaching the cheating problem, which exists to some extent no matter if you want to plug your ears. Here's an alternative ending that could have happened: No one said who had those statistics, people discuss how unusual performances can happen legit or illegit, people discussing the validity of chessc ratings, people agreeing that if someone is performing unusually then sure check them out because why not, chessc respecting this perspective as it's perfectly reasonable, etc. Instead, content creators wanted content, so they pretended a world champion has just lost his marbles.
It's painful to hear him abuse the term mathematics so much. He says the analysis is wrong but does not explain why. Even from the point of view of perfomance rating there's nothing wrong with Hikaru's data, I checked it as did many others. Not to say that his concerns are not founded in general, but he picked a case that is actually easy to dismiss...
As a real math PHD from a top university, I am too busy to check something like this. Not sure how a professor has time go through all the data, stop lying to strengthen your claim, it is really pathetic And it is not painful to hear him abuse the term mathematics at all and when the premise of the analysis is wrong the conclusion you draw will be wrong , there is no reason to delve further once you realise the premise is wrong. This is elementary I wouldn't know whether Hikaru cheated or not nor do I care. But people like you are disgusting, lying through your teeth to defend your favourite streamer. While I am %99.999999 sure you have no idea about actual mathematics, it wouldn't even matter if you did because as I said the premise is wrong hence you cannot analyse anything based on that assumption. Who knows, maybe low-tier unis give academic titles to everyone who can take a simple integral
@@user-de8ku2uo1c it's not that complicated, here is a 5 line Python function that computes streak probabilities based on an absorbing Markov chain: def streak(N, K, p): A = p * np.eye(K+1, k=-1) A[0, :-1] = (1-p) A[-1, -1] = 1. P = matrix_power(A, N) return P[-1, 0] I can't post the experimemts here, but can you can do them yourself using probabilities from data scraped using the API. Or look up other, similar analyses, which are dismissed by Kramnik but are actually sound. Caruana also gives a good explanation of Hikaru's performance.
@@user-de8ku2uo1c you are making assumpions and attacking me for no reason. For a start, I'm not invested in Hikaru and don't follow him. Secondly, you make assumptions about my credentials when you know nothing about them. Thirdly, it's not about making the most precise analysis but first determining whether there is anything suspicious about Hikaru farming players for the entertainment of his viewers (I'm not one of them btw). I'm purely interested in this because I grew up admiring Kramnik, I share his concerns, but he is damaging his cause and making a fool of himself Edit: the pathetic post I'm replying to was removed, but I will leave this reaponse
I would honestly be shaking if I was Kostya having to ask these questions, much respect for having the courage to do it despite being in front of such a juggernaut of the sport
Very kind of the Dojo team to give Kramnik a channel to speak. Aside from whether he's right or wrong, I think the internet should be a bit more charitable with him...
juggernaut or not i dont care, questions are questions, if you have a good basis and logic to ask them , you shouldnt be afraid, the underlying subject is not calculaiton, or a line or a variation, are just basic logical, and statistical subjects, where Kramnik has no advantage over them, maybe even they have more education than him on certain subjects.. i think it was a really poor interview.
Why wouldn't Kramnik just publish his "statistics" and "mathematics" at this point? This would at least be a step to resolve the issue instead of writing and saying vague statements.
Statistically, after using Elo to understand the win%, a 45.5/46 is very unlikely even after 10,000 games. I wish Kramnik had shown what he started with because the stats works is relatively simple after setting parameters. The issue would be an understanding and agreement on win/loss/draw percentages based on the games played for the winning stretch. If we use known values, then we understand where Kramnik is coming from. There are always a lot of assumptions that follow like "Hikaru's blitz rating is undervalued" plus "his opponents Elos were overvalued" and some "we don't trust Elo stats" even though the stats are baked into Elo.
'It's all statistics it's all mathematics, my guys and I can proof it." Well, Mr. Kramnik after months you haven't published 'your numbers' and nobody knows who your 'team' is.
What numbers is Kramnik saying “they” got wrong? And what numbers is he asking for? I feel like everyone else is very clear on what numbers they’re talking about but I have no clue what numbers Kramnik is using that proves cheating? The only numbers I’ve seen him mention are Hikaru’s streaks and that’s a basic statistical cherry picking mistake on his end.
The merit of this interview is so poor. "I know nothing about statistics and maths, but I still published some articles to show the possibility of cheating" - if you can't do statistics why on earth do you publish this nonsense and then attack every real mathematician and statistician to point out that it is bullshit?! "I didn't accuse Hikaru of cheating" - either Vlad is stupid or his english is so bad...You don't have to use the phrase " I hereby accuse Mr. Xyz of cheating" to make accusations, the usage of certain words and phrases is implying that beyond any reasonable doubt that he accused Hikaru of cheating and pretending now that it didn't happen is pathetic. Vlad also doesn't understand online ratings which is funny and sad at the same time. Even throwing away ELO vs Gleko difference out of the window it is not hard to see that the differences in rating between players online has no comparison to OTB simply because of the amount of games played. Even a very active OTB player plays less than a thousand games a year, usually less than a couple hundreds and then you try to compare it to online when sometimes a player plays 1000 games in a single month!
Kramnik is correct to be skeptical. The problem that arises is that chess site rating pools don't have coherent time controls (You can get your rating playing G/3 or you can get it playing say 5 minutes with 3 second delay). Similar to how ICC "blitz" ratings were often all over the place (and much higher) relative to "pure" G/3 pool on ICC back in the day where you couldn't select your opponent. This problem gets worse when mischievous teenage (or often younger) titled players or anonymous can do types of rating transferring (against chess site rules) by making multiple accounts, then getting a rating high enough transferred to one account to face people like Hikaru on stream. They then have performances also not indicative of their rating as they generally play honest against Hikaru. Lastly chess site uses Glicko ratings while FIDE uses Elo ratings. Kramnik appears to use the Elo rating win percentage expectations rather than the glicko win percentage expectations. Glicko win rates tend to be less clear. This is because ELO rating have clear win-rate probability as a decimal between 0 and 100%. Meanwhile Glicko rating win % rate depends on both players’ ratings -as well as- the opponent’s rating deviation. So for example Hikaru may overperform in Glicko vs a 2900 with a higher rating deviation (which chess site doesn't make too visible). This explains why Kramnik is finding incoherent mathematical results in Hikaru's performance. So the problem here isn't "cheating" per se, it's that ches site has a rating system that can be too easily manipulated. As to titled tuesday cheating, I think chess site should have a "titled tuesday" blitz rating exclusive to it, so that performance anomalies in titled tuesday can be more easily isolated. Perhaps players initial titled tuesday rating can be their Fide blitz rating.
make sure in replies to refer to the chess site simply as "chess site" as other form is auto deleted because utube thinks u are advertising a website if u say its full name
Caruana explains the issues with the rating system nicely in his podcast. He mentions that the "true" difference between Hikaru and Alireza is not 300 points, and that he himself could easily work his ratimg up to 3200 or more by selectively "farming" lower rated players (to test it he went on a run of 11 wins against one but then stopped, but said it was getting easier with every game)
Kramnik is trying to do near impossible but he is dead right! I can point out 9/10 cheaters u2200 level that have not been banned for months and I have played against these guys and to discover what they did was dead simple. Why are they still allowed to play months later? At near top level to prove that someone is cheating must be extremely difficult to do because around 2200 you will see people in simpler position to deviate from top 5 engine moves perhaps only max 7 times out of 40 moves. And that is a very low number if you ask me. So to catch someone at the very top, who will on most occassion be within top 5 most of the time? Tough. To cheat in online chess on the other hand is extremely simple and to get undetected comes with it. If someone like me decided to cheat, you wouldnt even know it has happened. And I am far from GM level.
This is what character looks like. Here you see an adult (having character, taking a stand on his principles, and addressing this issue in depth and with attention to detail) in a world of emotional adolescents. And he is under attack because adolescents don't like adults. That is how adolescents respond to adult behavior. For me, his comment that "we create the world we live" in really hit home. There is also his point that there has to be consequences and his analogy with crime. I mean, that's so true. I think Vlad is right in the way he is handling this.
Kramnik accused Hikaru based on the streaks. When the math shows that it is plausible and even likely for Hikaru to get such streaks, Kramnik has no reasons left. If you want to accuse Hikaru, show us the games and moves where he supposedly cheated!
The stunning thing is that if you look at that streak, Hikaru wins at times by flagging, or even by his opponent resigning from a much better (possibly winning) position. Like, what kind of cheating could he hypothetically be doing? Is it a bionic hand to improve mouse speed to flag better? Mind-rays to ruin his opponents' evaluations? If he's cheating, it's obviously not in such a way that he is objectively winning every game in terms of chess evaluation. Even if the math showed this streak to be very unlikely, I'd be very interested in hearing ideas about how Hikaru could even theoretically be cheating in that video. People are trashing Kramnik's understanding of stats and I'm sure it's bad (and he should obviously show his work if he thinks it's that damning), but seriously, statistics are almost irrelevant in evaluating that streak for cheating.
@@neutralrobot simply having an eval bar would work. He would still have to rely on his instincts, resourcefulness and flaggimg skills, but here and there it could give him an indication that there is a tactic to look out for. Statistically it would make a difference. That being said, I see no reason to suspect that he is cheating, there is nothing unusual (or 'intteresting') about his streaks.
They didn't even ignore it. They told him that his demands have no merit because they are based on a poor understanding of statistics. They don't owe Vladimir anything and he isn't the authority who gets to decide who should be investigated. He needs to let it go and save face
@@Ruedigerkackgans12 and their "report" is clearly wrong, understandable for anyone who knows math even a bit. But Hikaru fans dont, so good enough for them, I see
are you trolling?? I am so sick of people like you saying it's wrong without showing. Two named Math professors shared their views on this and Kramnik deleted one of their comments. If you and him want to be taken seriously refute the points brought up with actual math and stop this madness@@vlenkrus1809
I hold a PhD in theoretical computer science and work as a data analyst. If Kramnik accuses, he should provide evidence. Unfortunately, his statistical knowledge seems to be similar to an elementary school student.
Ok Mr. Data Scientist, whatever you say. I happen to have TONS of evidence that Hikaru is cheating, compiled by the world's best mathematicians. However, I will not be sharing the evidence until the time is right, nor will I be sharing the names or credentials of these mathematicians. PS - this in no way means that I am accusing Hikaru of cheating.
I would have more respect for Vladimir if he stopped deleting comments for disagreeing with him and lying about it. He also insults "amateur datascientists" with degrees by claiming they have too little experience to opine, when he himself is a complete amateur in that field.
If rufus and dufus is cheating online that is to be expected, but if titled players are cheating big time online and maybe even over the board. That would not be good for chess.. The doping scandals almost destroyed cycling in Europe, and it took 10 - 20 years for cycling to recover after that..
This guy's fact-divorced conspiracy theories are so Trumpy, I can't even ... Also, if he's "ready to present," why doesn't he just do it? Why does he need a signed notarized invitation from Danny Rensch?
Congratulations Jesse @ChessDojo for being the first person to give *A LITTLE BIT* of pushback to big Vlad. He is sooo utterly righteous that he wont look into the flaws of his thinking on this issue. First problem he doesnt seem to understand is that statistics is not *evidence*. To convinct someone you need proof.
"I make a lot of statistics, I can tell you, I was shocked" -- yea makes sense, I used to be shocked with some of my answers when I first started learning probability too. Over many years and many courses, I slowly corrected my mistakes. :D
Thanks for the video ChessDojo, would be great if you did an interview with Dorian Quelle who wrote Analysis of Cheating in Titled Tuesday. It’s a really good read and kinda shows where a lay persons understanding can be incorrect even though their intuition is leading them in that direction
Performance data is a good indicator of foul play, but surely engine analysis is far more accurate an indicator. If someone is following the top engine move every move it's obvious. Even when the engine move is followed in key positions it's fairly obvious. In engines we should trust to stop the cheaters!
Strange to see the amount of ridicule for Kramnik. Even if he was wrong about Hikaru (which nobody knows for sure), the case he is making is still an important one.
Bro you can't just go making random statements that defame people's character and reputation without definite proof that's FUCKING ILLEGAL and for good reason. You can't just go and fuck up people's ability to pay bills because you're old and want attention...
@@tannerhachey1525 What are you even talking about? He made a case and provided his reasoning. He may be wrong regarding Hikaru (again: nobody knows!), but cheating is a major problem in modern chess, and he is actually putting his reputation on the line to fight it.
What is the case he is making? I've heard him make it four times now - several hours wasted - and I still have no idea what "the case" is. Or what standing he has to make it - as someone no longer directly involved in the chess world.
@@sdaiwepmthat cheating detection often fails and nobody should be beyond scrutiny. He even denied having called Nakamura a cheater but tries to show how statistical methods may not be considered by websites. Now Nakamura was the worst example and target for many reasons but that's another story.
Kramnik has real concerns. But he needs to legitimize them by providing his “statistical” findings. The fact that he has not, and continues blathering just makes him look foolish. It’s sad to see really. I completely agree with his position that chess cheating on line is a major issue. But unless he’s discovered some kind of respectable chess cheating algorithm, and divulges his numbers, he needs to stop acting like he has the Rosetta Stone.
Shame on ChessDojo... Kramnik hasn't even graduated high school, why do you let him talk about math & statistics in anti-cheating? You let him make a fool of himself just to farm views.
I was shocked when interviewer said he should “let it go”…u don’t have to stand by what exactly kramnik may or not be saying but generally speaking, who if not people directly from the chess community can change it. Not a single pro is doubting there’s TONS of cheating going on so the chess community can be happy that someone is willing to take the heat and do the necessary, which is speak up and raise awareness instead of going mute. Interviewer saying “overthinking about it ruines the game” how one dimensional is his brain Problems don’t resolve themselves by ignoring them? Chess has a thousand year old history and is now at a point where sooner or later it will be ruined by technology if they don’t catch up and act accordingly. But hey, “ as a fan of the game, let it go, ruins the game” 😭😭😭😭😭🤡🤡🤡
Within the chess world, Kramnik is to me a majestic creature. His chess heart is pure as it can be. That's why I'm saddened that Kramnik comes out blazing guns. This doesn't suit his stature. Some say ego. To me he remains majestic and I wish he would stop this.
'I don't care if an innocent titled player gets falsely accused, it's part of life.' Also he keeps interrupting, rambling, accusing without evidence and saying that actual evidence is not sufficient for him, all this by playing the victim. Wow, what a huge narcissist, how sad.
I don’t understand his point he claims something with 3600 Elo performance rating. But you have to consider that hikaru is 3300 online. So let’s say I am rated 2000, playing at 2300 rating level isn’t absolutely crazy. But the main issue is that he chose 45 specific games out of 30000, everyone has good streaks, so it’s not suspicious, even mathematically
Not being diplomatic, he clarified a lot of things and a lot of his points make sense. And he is right in the bigger point that cheating is a very large issue. A lot of people have made up their minds already which is unfortunate though. -Kostya
@@ChessDojo the problem is that he mixes a lot of nonsense into an otherwise valid case that deserves attention. His "interesting" post was a borderline accusation based on what he subjective perceived as a statistical anomaly. Then refusing to engage with any explanation (whether statistical or based on the rating system, see the c2 podcast on the latter), moving the goalposts ("it's not about streaks") and constantly refering to mathematics and logic without presenting any, does not help his case. I appreciate that you tried to give him a chance to clarify this though.
Yes, cheating in chess is a problem. Kramnik is not and never will be mathematically as well as scientifically correct. He sees white mice everywhere, and then shuffles the numbers until it fits. Leave him alone… each stage you give him just makes it worse. Give a stage only to real experts in this regard.
The determination of the win% based on Elo is not that hard, and the statistics that are required to determine likelihood is not that hard because we have so many tools handy. People need to stop pretending that a math degree is required. The issue is of the win%, which is glossed over by the so-called mathematicians who will begin with "let's assume Hikaru will win 95% of such games" and proceed as though they haven't made one of the most fundamental mistakes possible. We may as well assume he would win 99% and see where that takes us, then assume... In my opinion the most basic issue is of Elo and calculated Elo win percentages. All of the results that follow after a proper and thoughtful designation of win% is fairly simple to find and can agree upon by all people with internet access. According to Elo, Hikaru's win% of the 45.5/46 would be close to 80% at best (all assumptions leaning in Hikaru's favor for the 46 games) and then we will all arrive at the same results: it is very unlikely that 45.5/46 occurs even after 10,000 such games played. Thus the "interesting" idea.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that cheating happens, but it's somewhat moronic to accuse a top super gm of cheating especially when 95% of his games are streamed live. Just shows you don't need to be very intelligent to succeed at chess. Just making himself look very silly in this instance. Stopped watching after 10 mins, it's mostly gibberish
Anyone rational who listened to Kramnik for the last couple of months have realized it is futile to do so. This is an attention seeking exercise from him and I don't know why you even bring him on.
Thank you for having Kramnik on, I really think he's saying the difficult things that need to be said right now. If they're letting 9/10 dudes keep cheating, the problem propagates really badly because 1) it's obvious that cheaters aren't getting banned, and 2) players feel like they *have* to cheat to stay competitive. The 1/5 that Jameel(spelling?) actually sees banned, if those are just the super obvious ones, then there's a LOT more that he's facing that aren't getting banned. ~2k was awful last I played, so bad that I quit playing online again. I'm sure that's doing wonders for my chess playing ability. I did go 3/4 against a player who would reliably lose a piece in the first 10-15 moves and then defend super tenaciously. And when I say defend, I mean attack me ruthlessly. A huge part of how cheaters avoid detection is by literally throwing games to get to that 98% certainty and stay unbanned, as Vladimir said. Too high of certainty requirements results in *RAMPANT* cheating. It's like there's two groups in the intermediate range, but realistically it's the same group; People who play like 1200's for 10 moves and then play like Tal had a baby with AlphaZero, or people who play like 1200's all game. That's cause they're 1200's using assistance. They can't win EVERY game, or they'd get banned. c.c refuses to even take the first logical step in dealing with "smart cheaters" and pretends like they don't exist. I've been talking about it for years but I've been ignored to ridiculed about it because I "don't have statistical proof." That's not my job lmao that's theirs, but they refuse to actually do their job.
It can be difficult to detect cheating in a single game, but cheat detection methods work across multiple games and also detect when players are deliberately playing badly. Search for interviews with Ken Regan on YT if you want to understand how things really work.
I would have much more empathy for Kramnik if he didn't delete all comments opposing his views, if he provided evidence, and stopped calling me a bot as well as lying about what he deletes and showcasing clear hypocrisy. I want facts, not "common sense explanations" and criticisms of experienced datascientists by an amateur one that accuses these individuals of being... Amateurs.
Kramnik answer "Yes deleting comments of presumably bots who left already hundreds of comments under my posts with always the same intention, to compromise my words. Since no one in his mind would spend hours writing all those things knowing it will be deleted, and they keep on doing it again and again, obviously there are bots or paid commentators nowadays you can find on the internet such people,50 usd per hour, and they keep writing anything you want. So will continue deleting those plus insults disrespectful comments disinformation conclusions based on wrong data Everything else stays"
Anyone remember the Bobby Fischer interviews from the Philippines? "Okayyyyyy Bobby..." GM Jesse Kraai tried hard, but I could only hear, "Okayyyyyy Vladimar..."
It might be TH-cam. I get comments deleted on multiple channels. It seems to have pegged me as a potential spammer or something, and my trouble started on this channel.
So, for the 4th time my very thorough and opinionated comment has been removed, either by a biased member of the community or the channel owner. Take note, I have shared the video to two places where I control the narrative and I will say what I want on these matters, and they won't get deleted. If I find out who you are, I will report you for harassment and censorship, for not breaking the rules. I hope you like my proverbial middle finger.
You can tell when someone has a legitimate point, instead of someone debating the content of what they have to say, they just delete it or flag it as offensive, controlling the narrative, rather than addressing the merits or lack thereof.
I respect Kramnik's anti-cheating mission, and also think Naka is clean. You *can* do both! I wish Kramnik would focus on players like Hans over Nakamura, as Hans has had all kinds of suspect and irregular play.
While that is true of Hans, I think at this point, everything that can be said about him and cheating has been said (often multiple times, by many people). Unless a new incident arises involving him, I'm not sure there's anything further that Kramnik or anyone else could add to the conversation.
@chesscomsupport8689 has everything been said though? I didn't hear a peep when Danny reiterated recently that the Chesscom Fairplay team 100% stands behind the findings in their "Hans Report." *If* that report is true, then Hans bold-face lied to the entire chess community at Sinquefield when he claimed he ~'never has and never would' cheat in monied tournaments. Several of the games in the Chesscom report were, in fact, monied tournaments. Has anyone reckoned with this point, that either Chesscom's Fairplay team is wrong about the report *OR* Hans basically lied to everyone in the chess world with a straight face about the severity of his cheating? I don't think this shoe has dropped and it should.
@@AnHonestDoubter Fair point - I suppose the lawsuit, coupled with people's fading interest in the story, got things to eventually peter out. For what it's worth, I think Hans probably cheated in more online games than he admits, but I've yet to see what I would consider satisfactory proof that he has cheated in OTB games. I'm as certain as I can be, without being able to read his mind, that he did not cheat in the Sinquefield game against Magnus, or in any of the subsequent games where Hikaru took issue with his post-game analysis.
"Yes, maybe 1 or 2 out of 100 people are falsely in jail. But if we don't jail these people, you would die just walking in the streets within 2 days." Oof
Kramnik is right about this in principle. The problem is his method would return false positives for cheating far more than 2% of the time. Even with an incredibly demanding "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" standard for criminal cases, the frequency of innocent people in jail exceeds 2%.
if Hikaru and his fanbase is that offensive towards Hans, then Hikaru should not be sensitive about Kramnik suggesting certain measures in chess to exclude cheaters. and Hikaru and his fans accused HANS Niemanns without any real evidence, hence the chess authorities allowed Niemann to play chess again
For someone who talks so much about math, Kramnik should show some math. What are 'his' numbers? I understand Kraai's perspective and line of questioning, however, I think you guys should've asked Kramnik to show evidence and explain his argument a little better than this evasive and vague "it's probability"
Probability is a pure mathematical term, learn math, men. And first would be interesting to see some proper math from the platform instead of this nonsense they published. If some doesnt have the basic knowledge of staristics, probabilities, it doesnt make this "report" less laughable
Great question from David. Even if Kramnik's explanation is correct, that most people cheat only in a few games, if 20-30% of the pool is cheating, then individually, a non-cheater should not be able to win 9.5/11 like Magnus and Hikaru do (assuming they are not cheating). Someone should simulate this.
Ok Jesse is just one degree away from getting Kasparov on the show. I'd like to see whether Jesse keeps it together when interviewing Kasparov (I know he's met the dude over dinner, but a long interview would be another matter entirely).
even the slightest implication of cheating can damage your reputation (defending Hikaru/his chess community) 58:44 that is nonsense, everything can be checked. and Hikaru and his fans accused HANS Niemanns without any real evidence, hence the chess authorities allowed Niemann to play chess again. if Hikaru is that offensive towards Hans, then Hikaru should not be sensitive about kramnik suggesting certain measures in chess to exclude cheaters.
"even the slightest implication of cheating can damage your reputation" I definitely agree about this and Hikaru's hypocrisy with his yellow journalism in covering the cheating allegations toward Hans.
Kramnik is right, and the Magnus/Hikaru fanboys are in denial. they are kind of okay with cheating to protect their stars. the comparison with other sports dont work that either, in other sports you cannot do it online and you cannot do it that easy.
You talk a lot how "they should present you something discussible" but they don't owe you that. On the other hand, it is definitely high time YOU presented something discussible, as you are the one who from the very beggining was trying to create a discussion in the first place. You hide between the vague statements because you know that if you shared your "analysis" you'd only open yourself to more scrutiny, so you just don't want to "worsen your position". You make empty claims that "their math is weak" but your math was SHOWN to be weak, and you have slowly adjusted your arguments over time, so now you use different ones than you used to, because the original ones were shown to be weak beyond any doubt. Still hiding behind the veil of vagueness and pretending that it's others who should say something concrete first - no, it's you who should say something concrete, you wanted to initiate this conversation.
Making the numbers public gives insight into anticheating measures and allows for ways to circumvent them. It's the same reason youtube gives for stonewalling a video. They dont have a behavioral model that can account for target adaptation
All the people here calling out Kramnik's lack of education are missing the point. It's not about who has the more credentials, it's about whether he has a good argument or not. However, him just flatly dismissing all the well-meaning people who put explanations out there and happen to know what they are doing is bizarre.
90 percent are cheating in online chess after i win one game they send rematch and play other game Like Topalov. But you cant win them on they chess site if you do somehow they Will ban you 😂
i think chess people have a lot of diifficulties asking the correct quesations, and pressing on points.. i think Dojo guys really underperformed here, a waste of time.. and opportunity
@@ChessDojo one thing you can do, is bring another opinionated Russian supergm.. . bring in Grischuk, because everyone on the Kraminik bandwagon keep referencing "Grishuk interview on cheating" which is in russian.. so no one can actually see it.. but Grishuk himself in those russian interviews has super recently talked about Hikaru chess strength.. and compared it to other super gms.. when levitov asked him if a Clutched Caruana will simply dominate The Candidates, because when he is clutched he is close to Magnus level.. GRischuk immediately shut that down and Specifically said " i dont have that impression.. on the contrary, if there are two TOP GMs that ive always felt totally on par with me, are Caruana and Kramnik.. on the other hand Nepo or Nakamura, are extremely difficult to play" .. meaning he feels Nakamura is way better than Fabiano and Kramnik himself.. and GRishuk is multiple times Blitz champ, so then this goes totally against the claims of kramnik.. who often cites his own underperformance or Fabis as proof of others cheating.. Let me very specific about what i mean.. One of the less obvious, and sneaky pushers of Kramnik Theoriues , has been actually Fabiano Caruana in his podcast with Chirila.. he has never really pushback against Kramnik contradictions.. why? because he is Slow in Blitz, and Specially slow in Online Blitz.. people have put him on this pedestal because of his monster level calculation, and vast opening knowledge.. but all these qualities lose ALL PURPOSE in Titled Tuesday.. and He himself has admitted he has been also losing his calculation strength even in classical.. so of course he performs badly in TT.. he cant cope with it.. similarly Ian performs badly online, he is a great Blitz OTB player, but online he just doesnt have it.. so these two guys are the main promotors of KRamnik bs.. because they are essentially salty, that they cannot perform usually at the same level than other great online players..
You didn't mention his name but anyone getting a 3500 performance will be top of the rating chart, so it is obviously Hikaru. I agree, he should be checked, but don't do that in public. All the cryptic 'interesting' insinuations turn this investigation into a public spectacle rather than a rational investigation.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 78 | คู่เอก "ปกรณ์ vs ฟาบิโอ"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LSOmgl0Th2c/mqdefault.jpg)
Kramnik is a world class player no denying but man these cheating accusations do not look good for him. Slowly watching him burn sucks...
It is entertaining. It would be more entertaining if he varied a little ... each rant is basically a carbon copy. He hasn't added any substance since the 2-hour C-squared interview.
Who the f..c u r to judge world champion ??
I cannot listen anymore to Kramnik‘s repeating monologues anymore, since in the end he is only a extraordinary chess player. I hope he stops before ending like Fischer.
Yeah it's really sad to see him go down this path. He's fighting a losing battle. :(
KRAMNIK WILL SET US FREE, THE REAL STRONG CHESS PLAYERS AND NOT THE CHEAT HIKARU
I'm disappointed you barely had any pushback against him in the Hikaru segment. You agreed with him that there was no direct accusation, which is meaningless since his intention was clear. then let him spout his nonsense talking points with no confrontation. I haven't watched the other parts of this yet, but I really hoped this episode would be something more than another home for Kramnik's ego heavy thoughts.
This.
It is important Jesse allows Kramnik to express himself in a way he wants even when fundamentally wrong. This is a sign of a great interviewer/podcaster. I couldn't force myself to watch it all, but many people could and they can make their own view about it, there are plenty rebuttals online. Top chess geniuses are generally not pleasant people, and being fundamentally wrong is a very unusual feeling for them.
In a civilised legal system you have to point to a move and prove: "you cheated HERE. THIS is a computer move!" A company cannot make a legal case out of "Today you are winning too much according to your expected abilities" - all it can do is exclude such player from their space, and they are doing that already. Luckily we don't live in authoritarian regime where people are locked up on suspicions.
Online cheating will be part of online chess for ever, on all levels. It's the combination of flawed human nature (evident wonderfully at both Kramnik and Nakamura), and engines being better than humans. Nobody owes it to people stuck in the offline past to ease their moral panic. Titled Tuesdays will continue to be a flawed imperfect competition, yet one that people love to watch and participate. English Premier League or NBA are at absolute top of sport entertainment, multi-billion dollar businesses - does anybody really thing they are fair? No, but they are a spectacle.
Instead of virtuously demanding perfection from an online entertainment site, we must focus on improving FIDE rules and practices and anti-cheating measures. Maybe FIDE blitz/bullet ratings could be derived exclusively from on-site play in the same room, using a screen and mouse and arbiter present - just like slow play OTB rating (as playing no increment bullet on physical board is absolutely ridiculous). This is where Mr. Kramnik could actually contribute - he knows the people and has the influence - while he clearly has no clue about online chess entertainment business.
We need to separate what is official chess sporting competition with a FIDE rating, and what is chess entertainment - which makes more money, just like Lil Wayne makes more money than university cello lecturer. Equating online rating farming with cheating in OTB tournament is a ridiculous position that benefits nothing.
Exactly the same with Hikaru's "Golly, I never said he cheated, I just kept saying 'this is sus' over and over for a month" rambles. Ans besides, without incredible assumptions and gaming the numbers towards Hikaru, a 45.5/46 is in fact very interesting according to statisticians.
You are feeling this way, because people you adore... streamers that like clicks... intentionally ridiculed his posts as preposterous. Have you actually read every blog post of his? Or watched his multiple 1 hour discussions? I'm guessing not because of what you just wrote. Kramnik NEVER named names. He never intended to accuse anyone of anything. His argument is as follows:
(1) We know some people cheat that are titled players, especially when prizes are on the line. This is indisputable. Who was not a point he broached. In fact, he made it a point to present his argument without names, because he did not want to accuse anyone of cheating.
(2) If any player has unusual performance, and he has said even if he were the one to do it, he thinks chessc should investigate it with vigor. That's it. That's his entire argument. He wants that, because it is reassuring if the largest chess website on the internet looks into players who outperform their ratings. [Side note: He made an error in what constitutes an unusual performance. He assumes that chessc rankings are perfectly accurate. Ratings are quite good predictors in official FIDE matches, because there is no horseplay. People prepare for each other, people do their routines to show up ready to play, and people play with the concrete goal of doing as well as they can. This is obviously not the case for 5-minute blitz matches on chessc. Despite this error in his judgment that some unnamed player had unusual statistics, the structure of his argument is sound. If any player has weird statistics, that is a good reason to investigate them. Are you claiming otherwise?]
(3) OTHER PEOPLE dug into the claimed statistics, and they immaturely spread the word of which player had the statistics that Kramnik thought were unusual. By this point and with the context I have given you, you should understand that he truly never intended to accuse any player of anything. Otherwise, surprise surprise, he would have named the player right away. He continued his argument that there was a play with unusual statistics, meaning it would be good for chessc to validate nothing evil had happened. That's it.
(4) Content creators kinda started looking into his blog posts around this point. People had it in their mind that he had accused someone by name of cheating. No. The entire time, he had named no one and merely used the statistics to justify a policy to protect the integrity of the game by investigating anyone who performs unusually. That's it, and that's why he keeps saying he accused no one of anything. Now, if you jumped into the blog posts at this point and heard what content creators were saying, it might sound like he kept accusing players while paradoxically saying he is accusing no one. With the context I've provided [points (1) and (2)], you should understand his perspective better now. He just wants assurance that chessc looks into unusual performance. Nothing more and nothing less. He has no aim to ruin a career, he has no aim for a ban to be issued, and he has nothing else in his sights.
(5) A bunch of people started attacking him with their perception of the situation from point (4). He is a serious man, so he seriously couldn't understand what trolling is. And you know what? It is refreshing to see a person on this planet that doesn't look at trolling and think, "Man, this is routine internet behavior. It makes perfect sense a person would invest time into trying to upset a stranger for absolutely zero logical reason." This is where you heard him say things about how others had misrepresented his position, because they had... for clicks. This is also where you heard him say that perhaps bots were making those comments. The idea of wasting your time just to hurt a stranger was so foreign to him that that is the best explanation he could come up with. Kudos to him for not understanding weird internet culture. I kind of which I didn't myself.
(6) The trolling got to him, so he wanted to make his point of unusual performance as clear as possible. Here, he did make a mistake -- he actually did start naming players. Since he made a real mistake, chessc muted his account. This is forgivable, because look at it from his view: He just wants solid anticheat measures in place to investigate unusual performances, and he was treated as if he were an insane person. When the entire world looks at you insane when you are sane, that itself can make you go a little insane. He went nuclear in response to the trolling and with the aim of helping chess. That's it. Nothing else happened.
If a person believes that there are weird statistics that justify examination no matter the person (and he has repeatedly said to please analyze him if he scored unusual results -- this is not an accusation), this is just common sense. Please do that. There isn't any harm in it. In his ideal solution, he'd like a full report about any player that has a major performance atypical to their historical ability. This isn't going to happen for obvious reasons. However, I think every GM that enjoys chess on chessc wouldn't see this idea and think, "What is he talking about? Is this man insane? He would like reassurance that people playing extra well are not cheating. WHAT?" Your perspective is more like, "I don't even play chess that seriously, and I don't play in TT. Why is he accusing my streamer of cheating?!" Well, he isn't and never did. It's just an example of his of an exceptional performance. Yes, he misunderstands the accuracy of chessc rating are not as valid as FIDE ones. Yes, he might underestimate how good a prodigy kid can be at chess as kids weren't that good back in his era. Yes, people can be farmed. But no: He is not crazy, and his suggestion is understandable to the max. When he says "statistics" and "math," all he means is that people performing better than expected a bunch might indicate someone is cheating. That's it. Do you think it indicates they are not cheating? He is focusing on match results. That's all. If these kinds of measurements are done very carefully, it could be a valuable way to estimate how much cheating is going on. It's not a bad idea. Chessc instead uses other techniques to estimate if someone is cheating -- not performance but stuff like how many sound players report them, time between move, how many top engine moves are played, the subjective evaluation of a bunch of GMs as to whether a bunch of games have "engine" moves, etc. They are just two different ways of approaching the cheating problem, which exists to some extent no matter if you want to plug your ears.
Here's an alternative ending that could have happened: No one said who had those statistics, people discuss how unusual performances can happen legit or illegit, people discussing the validity of chessc ratings, people agreeing that if someone is performing unusually then sure check them out because why not, chessc respecting this perspective as it's perfectly reasonable, etc. Instead, content creators wanted content, so they pretended a world champion has just lost his marbles.
The money incentive and the pinky promise to not cheat are not a heavenly match
It's painful to hear him abuse the term mathematics so much. He says the analysis is wrong but does not explain why. Even from the point of view of perfomance rating there's nothing wrong with Hikaru's data, I checked it as did many others. Not to say that his concerns are not founded in general, but he picked a case that is actually easy to dismiss...
As a real math PHD from a top university, I am too busy to check something like this. Not sure how a professor has time go through all the data, stop lying to strengthen your claim, it is really pathetic
And it is not painful to hear him abuse the term mathematics at all and when the premise of the analysis is wrong the conclusion you draw will be wrong , there is no reason to delve further once you realise the premise is wrong. This is elementary
I wouldn't know whether Hikaru cheated or not nor do I care. But people like you are disgusting, lying through your teeth to defend your favourite streamer. While I am %99.999999 sure you have no idea about actual mathematics, it wouldn't even matter if you did because as I said the premise is wrong hence you cannot analyse anything based on that assumption. Who knows, maybe low-tier unis give academic titles to everyone who can take a simple integral
@@user-de8ku2uo1c it's not that complicated, here is a 5 line Python function that computes streak probabilities based on an absorbing Markov chain:
def streak(N, K, p):
A = p * np.eye(K+1, k=-1)
A[0, :-1] = (1-p)
A[-1, -1] = 1.
P = matrix_power(A, N)
return P[-1, 0]
I can't post the experimemts here, but can you can do them yourself using probabilities from data scraped using the API. Or look up other, similar analyses, which are dismissed by Kramnik but are actually sound. Caruana also gives a good explanation of Hikaru's performance.
@@user-de8ku2uo1c you are making assumpions and attacking me for no reason. For a start, I'm not invested in Hikaru and don't follow him. Secondly, you make assumptions about my credentials when you know nothing about them. Thirdly, it's not about making the most precise analysis but first determining whether there is anything suspicious about Hikaru farming players for the entertainment of his viewers (I'm not one of them btw). I'm purely interested in this because I grew up admiring Kramnik, I share his concerns, but he is damaging his cause and making a fool of himself
Edit: the pathetic post I'm replying to was removed, but I will leave this reaponse
As a math professor, the increase of math professors in chess related comment sections is surprising.
@@fundhund62some people might find this interesting
I would honestly be shaking if I was Kostya having to ask these questions, much respect for having the courage to do it despite being in front of such a juggernaut of the sport
Very kind of the Dojo team to give Kramnik a channel to speak. Aside from whether he's right or wrong, I think the internet should be a bit more charitable with him...
The internet was charitable, they listened to his dumbass takes over and over. That's more than the majority of people could ask the internet.
juggernaut or not i dont care, questions are questions, if you have a good basis and logic to ask them , you shouldnt be afraid, the underlying subject is not calculaiton, or a line or a variation, are just basic logical, and statistical subjects, where Kramnik has no advantage over them, maybe even they have more education than him on certain subjects.. i think it was a really poor interview.
Why wouldn't Kramnik just publish his "statistics" and "mathematics" at this point? This would at least be a step to resolve the issue instead of writing and saying vague statements.
he did, he consider the win streaks and lazavik's accuracy "statistics" which just to show how incompetent and little he knows about statistics
Statistically, after using Elo to understand the win%, a 45.5/46 is very unlikely even after 10,000 games. I wish Kramnik had shown what he started with because the stats works is relatively simple after setting parameters.
The issue would be an understanding and agreement on win/loss/draw percentages based on the games played for the winning stretch. If we use known values, then we understand where Kramnik is coming from. There are always a lot of assumptions that follow like "Hikaru's blitz rating is undervalued" plus "his opponents Elos were overvalued" and some "we don't trust Elo stats" even though the stats are baked into Elo.
@@markwu5252 Where can you find that? I want to read it.
Among other things ... he doesn't listen. Whatever reasonable thing Jesse offers, Kramnik deflects, interrupts, and returns to his vacuous monologue.
honestly I think this is 100% good intentions and 0% personal skills from him, it's really sad to see how this is playing out
'It's all statistics it's all mathematics, my guys and I can proof it."
Well, Mr. Kramnik after months you haven't published 'your numbers' and nobody knows who your 'team' is.
What numbers is Kramnik saying “they” got wrong? And what numbers is he asking for? I feel like everyone else is very clear on what numbers they’re talking about but I have no clue what numbers Kramnik is using that proves cheating? The only numbers I’ve seen him mention are Hikaru’s streaks and that’s a basic statistical cherry picking mistake on his end.
How exhausting. Sad to see someone like Kramnik be immune to reason.
Hopefully everyone will find this interview interesting
more interesting than I thought it would be, this topic is getting very old but not going away any time soon unfortunately
The merit of this interview is so poor. "I know nothing about statistics and maths, but I still published some articles to show the possibility of cheating" - if you can't do statistics why on earth do you publish this nonsense and then attack every real mathematician and statistician to point out that it is bullshit?!
"I didn't accuse Hikaru of cheating" - either Vlad is stupid or his english is so bad...You don't have to use the phrase " I hereby accuse Mr. Xyz of cheating" to make accusations, the usage of certain words and phrases is implying that beyond any reasonable doubt that he accused Hikaru of cheating and pretending now that it didn't happen is pathetic.
Vlad also doesn't understand online ratings which is funny and sad at the same time. Even throwing away ELO vs Gleko difference out of the window it is not hard to see that the differences in rating between players online has no comparison to OTB simply because of the amount of games played. Even a very active OTB player plays less than a thousand games a year, usually less than a couple hundreds and then you try to compare it to online when sometimes a player plays 1000 games in a single month!
Kramnik is correct to be skeptical. The problem that arises is that chess site rating pools don't have coherent time controls (You can get your rating playing G/3 or you can get it playing say 5 minutes with 3 second delay). Similar to how ICC "blitz" ratings were often all over the place (and much higher) relative to "pure" G/3 pool on ICC back in the day where you couldn't select your opponent.
This problem gets worse when mischievous teenage (or often younger) titled players or anonymous can do types of rating transferring (against chess site rules) by making multiple accounts, then getting a rating high enough transferred to one account to face people like Hikaru on stream. They then have performances also not indicative of their rating as they generally play honest against Hikaru.
Lastly chess site uses Glicko ratings while FIDE uses Elo ratings. Kramnik appears to use the Elo rating win percentage expectations rather than the glicko win percentage expectations. Glicko win rates tend to be less clear. This is because ELO rating have clear win-rate probability as a decimal between 0 and 100%. Meanwhile Glicko rating win % rate depends on both players’ ratings -as well as- the opponent’s rating deviation. So for example Hikaru may overperform in Glicko vs a 2900 with a higher rating deviation (which chess site doesn't make too visible).
This explains why Kramnik is finding incoherent mathematical results in Hikaru's performance.
So the problem here isn't "cheating" per se, it's that ches site has a rating system that can be too easily manipulated.
As to titled tuesday cheating, I think chess site should have a "titled tuesday" blitz rating exclusive to it, so that performance anomalies in titled tuesday can be more easily isolated. Perhaps players initial titled tuesday rating can be their Fide blitz rating.
Zzzzzzzzzzz
make sure in replies to refer to the chess site simply as "chess site" as other form is auto deleted because utube thinks u are advertising a website if u say its full name
Caruana explains the issues with the rating system nicely in his podcast. He mentions that the "true" difference between Hikaru and Alireza is not 300 points, and that he himself could easily work his ratimg up to 3200 or more by selectively "farming" lower rated players (to test it he went on a run of 11 wins against one but then stopped, but said it was getting easier with every game)
Kramnik is trying to do near impossible but he is dead right! I can point out 9/10 cheaters u2200 level that have not been banned for months and I have played against these guys and to discover what they did was dead simple. Why are they still allowed to play months later?
At near top level to prove that someone is cheating must be extremely difficult to do because around 2200 you will see people in simpler position to deviate from top 5 engine moves perhaps only max 7 times out of 40 moves. And that is a very low number if you ask me. So to catch someone at the very top, who will on most occassion be within top 5 most of the time? Tough.
To cheat in online chess on the other hand is extremely simple and to get undetected comes with it. If someone like me decided to cheat, you wouldnt even know it has happened. And I am far from GM level.
This is what character looks like. Here you see an adult (having character, taking a stand on his principles, and addressing this issue in depth and with attention to detail) in a world of emotional adolescents. And he is under attack because adolescents don't like adults. That is how adolescents respond to adult behavior. For me, his comment that "we create the world we live" in really hit home. There is also his point that there has to be consequences and his analogy with crime. I mean, that's so true. I think Vlad is right in the way he is handling this.
Kramnik accused Hikaru based on the streaks. When the math shows that it is plausible and even likely for Hikaru to get such streaks, Kramnik has no reasons left. If you want to accuse Hikaru, show us the games and moves where he supposedly cheated!
he then moves the goal posts and claims it was not about the streaks
He has a mathematics presentation ready, but they won't let him!!
The stunning thing is that if you look at that streak, Hikaru wins at times by flagging, or even by his opponent resigning from a much better (possibly winning) position. Like, what kind of cheating could he hypothetically be doing? Is it a bionic hand to improve mouse speed to flag better? Mind-rays to ruin his opponents' evaluations? If he's cheating, it's obviously not in such a way that he is objectively winning every game in terms of chess evaluation. Even if the math showed this streak to be very unlikely, I'd be very interested in hearing ideas about how Hikaru could even theoretically be cheating in that video. People are trashing Kramnik's understanding of stats and I'm sure it's bad (and he should obviously show his work if he thinks it's that damning), but seriously, statistics are almost irrelevant in evaluating that streak for cheating.
@@neutralrobot Very good point, and I hope one of the podcasters brings it up in the inevitable next interview(s).
@@neutralrobot simply having an eval bar would work. He would still have to rely on his instincts, resourcefulness and flaggimg skills, but here and there it could give him an indication that there is a tactic to look out for. Statistically it would make a difference. That being said, I see no reason to suspect that he is cheating, there is nothing unusual (or 'intteresting') about his streaks.
I would love to see the math and statistics Vladimir is referring to. Without it, it all just words.
Why doesn't he show his mathematics?
Online blitz gaming is frigging ridiculous to begin with. I don't know why people take it so seriously.
Besides from just speaking. Has GM Kramnik discuss the actual numbers with a Chess anticheating expert?.
great stuff, very sensible, the platform must answer the questions Kramnik is raising. Very suspicious they are doing everything to ignore it
They didn't even ignore it.
They told him that his demands have no merit because they are based on a poor understanding of statistics. They don't owe Vladimir anything and he isn't the authority who gets to decide who should be investigated. He needs to let it go and save face
@@Ruedigerkackgans12 and their "report" is clearly wrong, understandable for anyone who knows math even a bit. But Hikaru fans dont, so good enough for them, I see
@@vlenkrus1809 I am not a 'Hikaru fan', and among those criticizing Vladimir are numerous actual mathematicians, so that's that
are you trolling?? I am so sick of people like you saying it's wrong without showing. Two named Math professors shared their views on this and Kramnik deleted one of their comments. If you and him want to be taken seriously refute the points brought up with actual math and stop this madness@@vlenkrus1809
Didn't expect this one
I hold a PhD in theoretical computer science and work as a data analyst. If Kramnik accuses, he should provide evidence. Unfortunately, his statistical knowledge seems to be similar to an elementary school student.
He’ll just call you a fake pHD and then say that some unnamed top researcher told him that you were dumb and had the wrong numbers
Ok Mr. Data Scientist, whatever you say. I happen to have TONS of evidence that Hikaru is cheating, compiled by the world's best mathematicians. However, I will not be sharing the evidence until the time is right, nor will I be sharing the names or credentials of these mathematicians. PS - this in no way means that I am accusing Hikaru of cheating.
Oh yeah. Well I have binders full of Polish mathematicians who disagree with you.
I'm pretty sure Kramnik hasn't directly accused anyone.
@irgendwerjoker Are you a Bayesian or a frequentist?
Before you shoot Kramnik down let me remind you that Fabi basically agrees that online cheating is widespread. The Hikaru specifics is another matter.
I don't think anybody disagrees with Kramnik on general terms. The shitstorm is because he specifically accused Hikaru and has nothing.
It's the only matter that's relevant and the reason he's being mocked at all.
I would have more respect for Vladimir if he stopped deleting comments for disagreeing with him and lying about it. He also insults "amateur datascientists" with degrees by claiming they have too little experience to opine, when he himself is a complete amateur in that field.
If rufus and dufus is cheating online that is to be expected, but if titled players are cheating big time online and maybe even over the board. That would not be good for chess.. The doping scandals almost destroyed cycling in Europe, and it took 10 - 20 years for cycling to recover after that..
CHESS IN PHILIPPINES IS THE WORST. ASK WESLEY SO
14:55 The title says Mathematics but Mathematics were not in display for the World to see.
This guy's fact-divorced conspiracy theories are so Trumpy, I can't even ... Also, if he's "ready to present," why doesn't he just do it? Why does he need a signed notarized invitation from Danny Rensch?
Trumpy... Ok blue hair simmer down lmao
This
@@rawbmar1166 OP is right. Don't get triggered, snowflake.
He's missing orange hair tho
Congratulations Jesse @ChessDojo for being the first person to give *A LITTLE BIT* of pushback to big Vlad. He is sooo utterly righteous that he wont look into the flaws of his thinking on this issue. First problem he doesnt seem to understand is that statistics is not *evidence*. To convinct someone you need proof.
"I make a lot of statistics, I can tell you, I was shocked" -- yea makes sense, I used to be shocked with some of my answers when I first started learning probability too. Over many years and many courses, I slowly corrected my mistakes. :D
Thanks for the video ChessDojo, would be great if you did an interview with Dorian Quelle who wrote Analysis of Cheating in Titled Tuesday. It’s a really good read and kinda shows where a lay persons understanding can be incorrect even though their intuition is leading them in that direction
As much push back as a fly on the walls
Performance data is a good indicator of foul play, but surely engine analysis is far more accurate an indicator. If someone is following the top engine move every move it's obvious. Even when the engine move is followed in key positions it's fairly obvious. In engines we should trust to stop the cheaters!
Surely?
Strange to see the amount of ridicule for Kramnik.
Even if he was wrong about Hikaru (which nobody knows for sure), the case he is making is still an important one.
Bro you can't just go making random statements that defame people's character and reputation without definite proof that's FUCKING ILLEGAL and for good reason. You can't just go and fuck up people's ability to pay bills because you're old and want attention...
@@tannerhachey1525 What are you even talking about? He made a case and provided his reasoning. He may be wrong regarding Hikaru (again: nobody knows!), but cheating is a major problem in modern chess, and he is actually putting his reputation on the line to fight it.
Agreed!
What is the case he is making? I've heard him make it four times now - several hours wasted - and I still have no idea what "the case" is. Or what standing he has to make it - as someone no longer directly involved in the chess world.
@@sdaiwepmthat cheating detection often fails and nobody should be beyond scrutiny. He even denied having called Nakamura a cheater but tries to show how statistical methods may not be considered by websites. Now Nakamura was the worst example and target for many reasons but that's another story.
Kramnik has real concerns. But he needs to legitimize them by providing his “statistical” findings. The fact that he has not, and continues blathering just makes him look foolish. It’s sad to see really. I completely agree with his position that chess cheating on line is a major issue. But unless he’s discovered some kind of respectable chess cheating algorithm, and divulges his numbers, he needs to stop acting like he has the Rosetta Stone.
Hikaru: thanks for the content 😉
Wow! Here goes nothing....
Never get into an argument with a fool
Shame on ChessDojo... Kramnik hasn't even graduated high school, why do you let him talk about math & statistics in anti-cheating? You let him make a fool of himself just to farm views.
Guys planned to talk about for 10mins ))
Wow, exciting that Kramnik is on the podcast! I haven't finished listening to the episode yet, but I'm looking forward to hearing the conversation :)
I was shocked when interviewer said he should “let it go”…u don’t have to stand by what exactly kramnik may or not be saying but generally speaking, who if not people directly from the chess community can change it. Not a single pro is doubting there’s TONS of cheating going on so the chess community can be happy that someone is willing to take the heat and do the necessary, which is speak up and raise awareness instead of going mute. Interviewer saying “overthinking about it ruines the game” how one dimensional is his brain Problems don’t resolve themselves by ignoring them? Chess has a thousand year old history and is now at a point where sooner or later it will be ruined by technology if they don’t catch up and act accordingly. But hey, “ as a fan of the game, let it go, ruins the game” 😭😭😭😭😭🤡🤡🤡
Within the chess world, Kramnik is to me a majestic creature. His chess heart is pure as it can be.
That's why I'm saddened that Kramnik comes out blazing guns. This doesn't suit his stature. Some say ego. To me he remains majestic and I wish he would stop this.
The cheating is stunning at every level he has to roar
'I don't care if an innocent titled player gets falsely accused, it's part of life.'
Also he keeps interrupting, rambling, accusing without evidence and saying that actual evidence is not sufficient for him, all this by playing the victim. Wow, what a huge narcissist, how sad.
"who pretends to be a mathematician" you pretend to be a human, that's why no one should treat you as one
I don’t understand his point he claims something with 3600 Elo performance rating. But you have to consider that hikaru is 3300 online. So let’s say I am rated 2000, playing at 2300 rating level isn’t absolutely crazy. But the main issue is that he chose 45 specific games out of 30000, everyone has good streaks, so it’s not suspicious, even mathematically
Kramnik probably have more brain 🧠 left then all of the chat calling him out combined.
c'mon, you gotta admit it'shilarious that Hikaru is episode 99 and Kramnik 101 of Dojo Talks
interesting
Just another brillant mind going down the rabbit hole. Maybe Kramnik should exile to Iceland. Not worth any attention anyway…
It was a very interesting convo!
@@ChessDojo Very diplomatic response!
Not being diplomatic, he clarified a lot of things and a lot of his points make sense. And he is right in the bigger point that cheating is a very large issue. A lot of people have made up their minds already which is unfortunate though. -Kostya
@@ChessDojo the problem is that he mixes a lot of nonsense into an otherwise valid case that deserves attention. His "interesting" post was a borderline accusation based on what he subjective perceived as a statistical anomaly. Then refusing to engage with any explanation (whether statistical or based on the rating system, see the c2 podcast on the latter), moving the goalposts ("it's not about streaks") and constantly refering to mathematics and logic without presenting any, does not help his case. I appreciate that you tried to give him a chance to clarify this though.
Yes, cheating in chess is a problem. Kramnik is not and never will be mathematically as well as scientifically correct. He sees white mice everywhere, and then shuffles the numbers until it fits.
Leave him alone… each stage you give him just makes it worse. Give a stage only to real experts in this regard.
The determination of the win% based on Elo is not that hard, and the statistics that are required to determine likelihood is not that hard because we have so many tools handy. People need to stop pretending that a math degree is required. The issue is of the win%, which is glossed over by the so-called mathematicians who will begin with "let's assume Hikaru will win 95% of such games" and proceed as though they haven't made one of the most fundamental mistakes possible. We may as well assume he would win 99% and see where that takes us, then assume...
In my opinion the most basic issue is of Elo and calculated Elo win percentages. All of the results that follow after a proper and thoughtful designation of win% is fairly simple to find and can agree upon by all people with internet access. According to Elo, Hikaru's win% of the 45.5/46 would be close to 80% at best (all assumptions leaning in Hikaru's favor for the 46 games) and then we will all arrive at the same results: it is very unlikely that 45.5/46 occurs even after 10,000 such games played. Thus the "interesting" idea.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that cheating happens, but it's somewhat moronic to accuse a top super gm of cheating especially when 95% of his games are streamed live. Just shows you don't need to be very intelligent to succeed at chess. Just making himself look very silly in this instance. Stopped watching after 10 mins, it's mostly gibberish
Oh lord Mary and Joseph what am I about to watch…
Anyone rational who listened to Kramnik for the last couple of months have realized it is futile to do so. This is an attention seeking exercise from him and I don't know why you even bring him on.
bruce neal for the next episode !!!!!
Thank you for having Kramnik on, I really think he's saying the difficult things that need to be said right now. If they're letting 9/10 dudes keep cheating, the problem propagates really badly because 1) it's obvious that cheaters aren't getting banned, and 2) players feel like they *have* to cheat to stay competitive. The 1/5 that Jameel(spelling?) actually sees banned, if those are just the super obvious ones, then there's a LOT more that he's facing that aren't getting banned. ~2k was awful last I played, so bad that I quit playing online again. I'm sure that's doing wonders for my chess playing ability.
I did go 3/4 against a player who would reliably lose a piece in the first 10-15 moves and then defend super tenaciously. And when I say defend, I mean attack me ruthlessly. A huge part of how cheaters avoid detection is by literally throwing games to get to that 98% certainty and stay unbanned, as Vladimir said. Too high of certainty requirements results in *RAMPANT* cheating. It's like there's two groups in the intermediate range, but realistically it's the same group; People who play like 1200's for 10 moves and then play like Tal had a baby with AlphaZero, or people who play like 1200's all game. That's cause they're 1200's using assistance. They can't win EVERY game, or they'd get banned.
c.c refuses to even take the first logical step in dealing with "smart cheaters" and pretends like they don't exist. I've been talking about it for years but I've been ignored to ridiculed about it because I "don't have statistical proof." That's not my job lmao that's theirs, but they refuse to actually do their job.
I see my reply to you was also removed.
It can be difficult to detect cheating in a single game, but cheat detection methods work across multiple games and also detect when players are deliberately playing badly. Search for interviews with Ken Regan on YT if you want to understand how things really work.
this is so painful to watch, 2 people correct, talking past each other, communication is hard
Is his book recommended for 1400 FIDE rating? I like to buy but not sure if I could read it well.
Sad to witness this. He was once a great player.
Maybe, and it pains me to say this, Topalov was right.
Thanks GM Jesse Kraai for another excellent video!
Kramnik 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
we want bruce neal plssssssss❤
WOAH I’m scared to watch this one 🫣
I would have much more empathy for Kramnik if he didn't delete all comments opposing his views, if he provided evidence, and stopped calling me a bot as well as lying about what he deletes and showcasing clear hypocrisy. I want facts, not "common sense explanations" and criticisms of experienced datascientists by an amateur one that accuses these individuals of being... Amateurs.
Kramnik answer
"Yes deleting comments of presumably bots who left already hundreds of comments under my posts with always the same intention, to compromise my words. Since no one in his mind would spend hours writing all those things knowing it will be deleted, and they keep on doing it again and again, obviously there are bots or paid commentators nowadays you can find on the internet such people,50 usd per hour, and they keep writing anything you want. So will continue deleting those plus
insults
disrespectful comments
disinformation
conclusions based on wrong data
Everything else stays"
To discount Kramniks’ suspicions would be shortsighted and naive.
What do you want, Fischer Random Chess in a Faraday cage? Two men enter, one man leaves...😉
As an undergrad student, everythin Vlad says makes sense! Happy to debate.
It is sad, but Kramnik, like his countryman Fomenko has completely lost the plot.
I would love to debate Kramnik.
Anyone remember the Bobby Fischer interviews from the Philippines? "Okayyyyyy Bobby..." GM Jesse Kraai tried hard, but I could only hear, "Okayyyyyy Vladimar..."
Can you tell me the reason why you keep deleting or flagging my comments?
It might be TH-cam. I get comments deleted on multiple channels. It seems to have pegged me as a potential spammer or something, and my trouble started on this channel.
So, for the 4th time my very thorough and opinionated comment has been removed, either by a biased member of the community or the channel owner. Take note, I have shared the video to two places where I control the narrative and I will say what I want on these matters, and they won't get deleted. If I find out who you are, I will report you for harassment and censorship, for not breaking the rules. I hope you like my proverbial middle finger.
No one on this channel deletes or flags comments. That is done by YT's auto-filter
USS warship vs a lighthouse operator joke is hiding somewhere in here ;-)@@ChessDojo
You can tell when someone has a legitimate point, instead of someone debating the content of what they have to say, they just delete it or flag it as offensive, controlling the narrative, rather than addressing the merits or lack thereof.
I respect Kramnik's anti-cheating mission, and also think Naka is clean. You *can* do both!
I wish Kramnik would focus on players like Hans over Nakamura, as Hans has had all kinds of suspect and irregular play.
While that is true of Hans, I think at this point, everything that can be said about him and cheating has been said (often multiple times, by many people). Unless a new incident arises involving him, I'm not sure there's anything further that Kramnik or anyone else could add to the conversation.
@chesscomsupport8689 has everything been said though? I didn't hear a peep when Danny reiterated recently that the Chesscom Fairplay team 100% stands behind the findings in their "Hans Report." *If* that report is true, then Hans bold-face lied to the entire chess community at Sinquefield when he claimed he ~'never has and never would' cheat in monied tournaments. Several of the games in the Chesscom report were, in fact, monied tournaments. Has anyone reckoned with this point, that either Chesscom's Fairplay team is wrong about the report *OR* Hans basically lied to everyone in the chess world with a straight face about the severity of his cheating? I don't think this shoe has dropped and it should.
@@AnHonestDoubter Fair point - I suppose the lawsuit, coupled with people's fading interest in the story, got things to eventually peter out. For what it's worth, I think Hans probably cheated in more online games than he admits, but I've yet to see what I would consider satisfactory proof that he has cheated in OTB games. I'm as certain as I can be, without being able to read his mind, that he did not cheat in the Sinquefield game against Magnus, or in any of the subsequent games where Hikaru took issue with his post-game analysis.
"Yes, maybe 1 or 2 out of 100 people are falsely in jail. But if we don't jail these people, you would die just walking in the streets within 2 days."
Oof
Yes, typical Russian "strong leader" thinking, that leads to oppression.
Kramnik is right about this in principle. The problem is his method would return false positives for cheating far more than 2% of the time. Even with an incredibly demanding "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" standard for criminal cases, the frequency of innocent people in jail exceeds 2%.
Crazy Gibberish. A Booksalesman is not a Astrophysics. Period.
What a rambling mess. This is so sad to see.
Sad to see a former great being so misguided despite the campaign itself being a noble one.
22:19 he is clearly lying. Why is he saying this?
ok. let's do the procedure. Nice monolog. too sad. I was expecting a dialog :D
if Hikaru and his fanbase is that offensive towards Hans, then Hikaru should not be sensitive about Kramnik suggesting certain measures in chess to exclude cheaters. and Hikaru and his fans accused HANS Niemanns without any real evidence, hence the chess authorities allowed Niemann to play chess again
Nonsensical points there. Hans is a proven cheater.the ethics committee said so already!
@@Ran_Ttwhat about Supi,Erigasi and many others Hikaru directly accused of cheating in past? And they were found innocent by the platform
For someone who talks so much about math, Kramnik should show some math. What are 'his' numbers? I understand Kraai's perspective and line of questioning, however, I think you guys should've asked Kramnik to show evidence and explain his argument a little better than this evasive and vague "it's probability"
Probability is a pure mathematical term, learn math, men. And first would be interesting to see some proper math from the platform instead of this nonsense they published. If some doesnt have the basic knowledge of staristics, probabilities, it doesnt make this "report" less laughable
@@vlenkrus1809 Kramnik is the accuser, burden of evidence is on him. He promised his facts. Let him bring them.
if u are goiung to do such lack luster questions and requestioning, no pressing on any issue, better dont do these interviews.
Great question from David. Even if Kramnik's explanation is correct, that most people cheat only in a few games, if 20-30% of the pool is cheating, then individually, a non-cheater should not be able to win 9.5/11 like Magnus and Hikaru do (assuming they are not cheating). Someone should simulate this.
You didnt hear the answer? Just listening to questions here?
@@vlenkrus1809 I literally mentioned his answer in my comment and addressed it. Get me some of what you're smoking.
Because there is no reason why non cheater cant win in such conditions from time to time
maybe time to go to school instead talking nonsense?
Ok Jesse is just one degree away from getting Kasparov on the show. I'd like to see whether Jesse keeps it together when interviewing Kasparov (I know he's met the dude over dinner, but a long interview would be another matter entirely).
Whatever scientific journal he is publishing articles in must be a rag that will publish anything.
even the slightest implication of cheating can damage your reputation (defending Hikaru/his chess community) 58:44 that is nonsense, everything can be checked. and Hikaru and his fans accused HANS Niemanns without any real evidence, hence the chess authorities allowed Niemann to play chess again. if Hikaru is that offensive towards Hans, then Hikaru should not be sensitive about kramnik suggesting certain measures in chess to exclude cheaters.
"even the slightest implication of cheating can damage your reputation"
I definitely agree about this and Hikaru's hypocrisy with his yellow journalism in covering the cheating allegations toward Hans.
@@synchronium24 yes
Let's be honest, Kramnik is a disgrace
Kramnik is right, and the Magnus/Hikaru fanboys are in denial. they are kind of okay with cheating to protect their stars. the comparison with other sports dont work that either, in other sports you cannot do it online and you cannot do it that easy.
You talk a lot how "they should present you something discussible" but they don't owe you that. On the other hand, it is definitely high time YOU presented something discussible, as you are the one who from the very beggining was trying to create a discussion in the first place.
You hide between the vague statements because you know that if you shared your "analysis" you'd only open yourself to more scrutiny, so you just don't want to "worsen your position".
You make empty claims that "their math is weak" but your math was SHOWN to be weak, and you have slowly adjusted your arguments over time, so now you use different ones than you used to, because the original ones were shown to be weak beyond any doubt. Still hiding behind the veil of vagueness and pretending that it's others who should say something concrete first - no, it's you who should say something concrete, you wanted to initiate this conversation.
Making the numbers public gives insight into anticheating measures and allows for ways to circumvent them. It's the same reason youtube gives for stonewalling a video. They dont have a behavioral model that can account for target adaptation
All the people here calling out Kramnik's lack of education are missing the point. It's not about who has the more credentials, it's about whether he has a good argument or not. However, him just flatly dismissing all the well-meaning people who put explanations out there and happen to know what they are doing is bizarre.
Interesting.
well, at least now we know high chess ability does not correlate with high IQ
Moral values>IQ
90 percent are cheating in online chess after i win one game they send rematch and play other game Like Topalov. But you cant win them on they chess site if you do somehow they Will ban you 😂
i think chess people have a lot of diifficulties asking the correct quesations, and pressing on points.. i think Dojo guys really underperformed here, a waste of time.. and opportunity
Unfortunately two of us had no Internet for the entire interview, so we weren't able to have a more dynamic conversation
@@ChessDojo one thing you can do, is bring another opinionated Russian supergm.. . bring in Grischuk, because everyone on the Kraminik bandwagon keep referencing "Grishuk interview on cheating" which is in russian.. so no one can actually see it..
but Grishuk himself in those russian interviews has super recently talked about Hikaru chess strength.. and compared it to other super gms.. when levitov asked him if a Clutched Caruana will simply dominate The Candidates, because when he is clutched he is close to Magnus level.. GRischuk immediately shut that down and Specifically said " i dont have that impression.. on the contrary, if there are two TOP GMs that ive always felt totally on par with me, are Caruana and Kramnik.. on the other hand Nepo or Nakamura, are extremely difficult to play" .. meaning he feels Nakamura is way better than Fabiano and Kramnik himself.. and GRishuk is multiple times Blitz champ, so then this goes totally against the claims of kramnik.. who often cites his own underperformance or Fabis as proof of others cheating..
Let me very specific about what i mean.. One of the less obvious, and sneaky pushers of Kramnik Theoriues , has been actually Fabiano Caruana in his podcast with Chirila.. he has never really pushback against Kramnik contradictions.. why? because he is Slow in Blitz, and Specially slow in Online Blitz.. people have put him on this pedestal because of his monster level calculation, and vast opening knowledge.. but all these qualities lose ALL PURPOSE in Titled Tuesday.. and He himself has admitted he has been also losing his calculation strength even in classical.. so of course he performs badly in TT..
he cant cope with it..
similarly Ian performs badly online, he is a great Blitz OTB player, but online he just doesnt have it.. so these two guys are the main promotors of KRamnik bs.. because they are essentially salty, that they cannot perform usually at the same level than other great online players..
15:00 wow was there even one coherent sentence in this answer?
Kramnik is a smart guy. History will be kind to him.
if he is so smart, he's hiding it very well
Thank you for bringing him on
You didn't mention his name but anyone getting a 3500 performance will be top of the rating chart, so it is obviously Hikaru. I agree, he should be checked, but don't do that in public. All the cryptic 'interesting' insinuations turn this investigation into a public spectacle rather than a rational investigation.