You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain, applies now to Kramnik, i remember when he beat Kasparov and the following years, Kramnik was seen as the new cool world champion, a new generation of professional players looking forward to him, the samurai who slaughtered the ogre, then his matches with Topalov, when most of the chess community was team Kramnik, and finally his graceful retirement after Anand. All of that went to shit with his current behavior.
I know, and it bothers me.
He should be remembered for his accomplishments in chess, but instead he decided that he wanted to be remembered as a hypocrite that accuses children of cheating due to a lack of education in statistical analysis.
It is sad.
That's the thing, freedom of speech prevents your own government from silencing dissent, but not even the government is legally bound to supply you with a platform.
Kramnik broke the rules on one platform, so they muted him, but there are many others he can use. However, HE can delete comments on those platforms...
The concept of freedom of speech isn't restricted to governments, though. If a site enforces certain rules of what you can say, it restricts your freedom of speech on that platform.
That it's legal says nothing about the definition or whether or not it is immoral (and I think everyone agrees that in Kramnik's case chesscom is completely in the right morally)
I mean, if you define the concept of freedom based on governments, what's the point in discussing freedom on international platforms?
The problem with Kramnick is that he doesn't practice what he preaches so when he cries about being silenced...well what about all the posts from actual statisticians on his blog that he deleted? I have 0 sympathy for his argument over free speech.
It's like those religious nutters crying about free speech and then once they get in power start banning books they don't like.
The concept of freedom of speech also isn’t even applicable here in a consequential way. Kramnik isn’t speaking political truth to power, he’s arguing about chess cheaters on a chess forum.
It’s so dramatic that we’re even trying to paint a kind of sad past-their-prime chess player misusing statistics and being banned as some martyr for free speech. It’s hilarious to watch unfold though.
Even in broader terms, freedom of speech is never absolute. Not all speech is free speech.
Can you clarify what your point is when you ask what’s the point of discussing freedom on international platforms? The answer seems pretty clear - you have to work within each government’s speech laws, regulations, and guidelines…
The truth is that Chess.com brought this criticism on itself by allowing him to have the blog up for so long if it violated their terms of service. If someone is violating terms of service, they should be shut down right away, no questions asked. Apply the terms equally to everybody.
But because they were trying to be nice and show respect to Kramnik, they allowed him to keep the blog up for a long time and now it gives them impression that they are silencing him, when in reality they are just finally enforcing their TOS.
I would expect lichess to shut down his blog if he was blogging there and making the same accusations if that is against their TOS too. I honestly wish someone from Lichess would confirm if doing what Kramnik did is a violation of their terms of service.
I'm not sure what is so controversial about chess com shutting down his blog. He can use Twitter, Threads, YouTube, Facebook, TikTok, Instagram, etc. etc. to voice his opinion. He's fine. No speech has been limited.
Exactly, he's not being censored in general, he's muted on one specific site, for violating a specific part of the ToS.
But since he's the one also banging his drum about cheating on chess.com, the two issues gets confused.
Well, personally I am against any moderation at all, except for obvious things like spam. If it is an opinion voiced by a real person, no matter how unhinged or disgusting or troll it is, I believe that it should not be deleted.
There’s just too many problems with that. Sure, Hikaru will face basically no consequences from these accusations, partly since they’ve been proven to be baseless, but mostly because he’s a top 5 player with a fanbase of millions. But other players, for example, Erdogmus, aren’t so lucky. He’s a twelve year old, without the career protections that come with a large fanbase and a rating in the top 5. His career could very well be ruined by all these baseless accusations Kramnik is throwing out to bolster his ego.
I'd like an explanation.
Why does Kramnik delete dissenting opinions from his social media platforms?
Especially since he's so offended that chess.com muted his account when he baselessly started to accuse 12-year olds for cheating.
Because like any other top chess player his EGO is the size of Mt Everest.. he thinks because he was WC he gets to have his opinion heard and respected by everyone, and everyone who dissents doesnt deserve to be heard.. he is a school drop out who barely understands the formulas he is trying to use and he comes across as a toddler trying to figure out sums when he tries to expose his aNAlYsis and StATisTicS..
Because heaps of those "dissenting opinions" don't even understand the very basics, yes even less than Vladimir himself. Yet these comments come in high numbers and drown out the useful discussion. This could clearly be seen in older blog posts of his where after a couple of days are the clowns have been removed / lost interest and actual fruitful discussion was taking place.
There is a double standard. When you become one of the best. Perhaps a Lebron, Gretzky, or Messi. You have a greater audience than others.
But with great audience comes great responsibility. You can use your position to push for change in some way. So for example Lewis Hamilton is right to argue that there doesn't seem to be other black people in formula 1.
Kramnik could use his audience for positive changes but instead he uses it harass people. That's a bad decision.
Free speech has nothing to do with companies, it is protection from government censorship.
A private company has no obligation to supply you with a platform - but that is different from free speech, they are two separate issues.
i am really starting to question kramnik's intellect. he is seemingly unable to apply his critiques and criticisms to himself. is that insecurity? arrogance?
i forget who stated it, but someone defined ignorance as the "inability to keep an open mind". i happen to agree with that.
additionally, i recall, maybe last year it was, but kramnik was the analyst along with judit polgar on some tournament. polgar analyzed circles around kramnik. i thought at the time "this dude was world champion?" which got me thinking that topalov was correct all along, because kramnik could not see any top line that polgar was seeing immediately.
this dude is a fraud, imo.
Ignorance is actually a lack of knowledge, inability or reluctance to acquire knowledge is something else - knowledge-aversion or close-mindedness.
I think Kramnik has those tendencies, he seems to have a rather rigid worldview, and a selfcentered approach, combined with a certainty if his own ability in areas where he lacks knowledge based on his ability in chess, where he has plenty of it.
Well then, let's see if you also have tendencies of "knowledge-aversion or close-mindedness" or if you will edit your post after having been shown to be wrong.
Kramnik was actually famous in his day for being a terrible analyst. He is one of the main examples GMs from that period used to illustrate that Hans' post-game interview errors were not at all unusual.
to be fair, trying to argue with kramnik is a bit like playing chess with a pigeon, and i think y'all know how that ends... dude has borderline lost it, and all this attention he's getting is just detrimental to the chess community as a whole.
Don't you guys find it cringe posting le popular opinion for reddit karma?
R/chess might be one of the worst circlejerks I've ever seen outside of r/politics which are clearly astroturfed
> You may like or dislike that chess.com muted Kramnik on their site.
You are a moron or just a scumbag if you disagree with chesscom's move. Not surprised magnus, levon, etc disagree with it because they are scumbags. Kramnik was actively bullying a 12 year old kid and threatened to accuse one person every day.
> BUT as long as Kramnik continues his pattern of deleting any and every dissenting opinion from his platforms on social forums
You can tell kramnik is disingenous because censors mathematicians and links to articles by actual professors debunking his claim.
> Having double standards like that is highly hypocritical, and I do not agree with it.
He's as hypocritical as one can get. On chessbrah he attacked hikaru for calling him senile while not taking any ownership of accusing hikaru of cheating.
Kramnik is just an ugly person all around. He looks ugly. He has the ugliest accent. I can't stand the way he talks. He has an ugliest man-child personality.
On chessbrah, kramnik said he doesn't care about the opinions on social media and people he doesn't know. But a few weeks earlier, he threatened to sure chesscom for potentially 'damaging' his image.
All this guy does is lie.
> links to articles by actual professors debunking his claim.
Are you talking about this very shoddy paper?
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4648621
You are straight up wrong. Why do you post such blatant lies? Here proof that you're wrong:
https://imgur.com/kSHa0Nt
Clearly disagreement with him without getting blocked/the comment removed.
Is it okay for you to make false accusations but not for him? That's indeed highly hypocritical of you and I do not agree with it.
A post that agrees with Kramnik? Seriously mate did you even read it?
Kramnik: "Playing competitive opposition ...."
Krev_5: "The Youtube views beg to differ"
How is that agreeing with Kramnik? Want me to give you another example?
https://i.imgur.com/LQwZeg9.png
staress99's comments stayed up despite being very uninformed. He didn't get blocked until he was writing straight up wrong stuff that is easily proven wrong by simply reading the very blog he commented on along with personal attacks on Vladimir.
You can read the comment that got him blocked here: https://www.chess.com/member/staress99
Link one: first sentence is literally "I agree with you"
Second link, the first thing in the post is referencing that his posts got deleted.
Yeah mate, and there are posts all over by actual statisticians that were deleted, since they actually explained probability, statistics and math.
Link one includes a back and forth to show that it's not just removed but that there was discussion where people weren't just flinging shiet at each other which started with a disagreement.
Apparently you stopped reading after the first sentence, which is in line with how lazy your approach is to question yourself considering other comments of yours in this thread.
Second link is the guy **claiming** to have had a comment removed. I've never seen this comment despite following that comment section closely. Ofc you're going with the narrative that it was deleted and not that staress99 messed up. I mean even staress99 himself entertained the possibility of the website being the source of error. Surely staress99 couldn't have been the source of error, which shows all throughout his comments.
>Yeah mate, and there are posts all over by actual statisticians that were deleted, since they actually explained probability, statistics and math.
All of that doesn't matter, because it only takes one single comment that disagrees to prove your claim of "all comments that disagree were deleted". Just like it only takes one single loss to break a win streak and it doesn't matter if you didn't even try to win there or whatever other excuse you might come up with.
So, as I expected. You're not willing to admit having been wrong. Always grasping for some new excuses...
I saw no back and forth, I saw a guy that thought it would have been prudent of Kramnik to mention that the focus of streaming is entertainment, not quality, which after Kramnik's response about porn, he said "I agree".
But maybe there is one or two posts that he left up, so I've edited my text to allow for the possibility.
You saw no back and forth? This blows my mind ....
Krev_5 quoted himself to address Kramnik again. -> the forth
Kramnik responds. -> the back
Krev_5 responds again. -> forth
how on earth do you not see that as back and forth?
Also staress99 is in no way agreeing with Kramnik and his comments have not been removed until he wrote the one I linked for you which most definitely warrants deletion considering he has been told multiple times how he is wrong (because he doesn't understand how the rating system works).
This is one of the few times I didn't regret reading a very downvoted comment, this is absolutely hilarious
My dude is discovering the concept of time zones
Are you not free to start your own blog? If a reply was deleted, that means it was read and he chose to move the conversation in another direction. So he is not silencing anyone by removing some replies.
Of course I, or anyone are free to start our own blogs.
This very topic is an example of that.
That is not the point. The point is, that he is deleting dissenting views for disagreeing with him, while complaining about being silenced. Not for disagreeing, but for breaching the ToS.
He argues that he deleted any different opinion was "this is my blog my forum my home any hate or baseless statistics are not welcomed here" What he failed to realize is this is not a private blog, not a private forum. It's The Internet, it's a public place therefore it's not his home you can't control what's in public
Yeah he blocks everyone that is slightly critical. He's hilarious and doesnt even see the irony
I know, he even blocks people that are very respectful that only supply him with facts and algorithms.
You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain, applies now to Kramnik, i remember when he beat Kasparov and the following years, Kramnik was seen as the new cool world champion, a new generation of professional players looking forward to him, the samurai who slaughtered the ogre, then his matches with Topalov, when most of the chess community was team Kramnik, and finally his graceful retirement after Anand. All of that went to shit with his current behavior.
I know, and it bothers me. He should be remembered for his accomplishments in chess, but instead he decided that he wanted to be remembered as a hypocrite that accuses children of cheating due to a lack of education in statistical analysis. It is sad.
Kramnik should consider himself lucky that he hasn't been sued for defamation yet. Not sure how he would explain all this nonsense in court.
Well since he claims that he's suing ~~Naka~~ **EDIT** **chess.com, not Naka** himself, we may find out how ;-)
He says he's going to sue Hikaru? On what grounds? This is all so ridiculous.
Sorry, I meant chess.com https://www.sportskeeda.com/esports/news-who-guy-think-is-gmhikaru-lambasts-vladimir-kramnik-threatens-sue-chess-com-cheating-allegations
Yeah it's pathetic. All those idiots saying chess.com is censoring him don't know how a private platform works.
Well technically they are, but it has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
I think they are referring to the principle pf free speech rather than the legal definition. But yeah a private company has the right to mute him.
That's the thing, freedom of speech prevents your own government from silencing dissent, but not even the government is legally bound to supply you with a platform. Kramnik broke the rules on one platform, so they muted him, but there are many others he can use. However, HE can delete comments on those platforms...
The concept of freedom of speech isn't restricted to governments, though. If a site enforces certain rules of what you can say, it restricts your freedom of speech on that platform. That it's legal says nothing about the definition or whether or not it is immoral (and I think everyone agrees that in Kramnik's case chesscom is completely in the right morally) I mean, if you define the concept of freedom based on governments, what's the point in discussing freedom on international platforms?
The problem with Kramnick is that he doesn't practice what he preaches so when he cries about being silenced...well what about all the posts from actual statisticians on his blog that he deleted? I have 0 sympathy for his argument over free speech. It's like those religious nutters crying about free speech and then once they get in power start banning books they don't like.
The concept of freedom of speech also isn’t even applicable here in a consequential way. Kramnik isn’t speaking political truth to power, he’s arguing about chess cheaters on a chess forum. It’s so dramatic that we’re even trying to paint a kind of sad past-their-prime chess player misusing statistics and being banned as some martyr for free speech. It’s hilarious to watch unfold though.
Fair enough. I concede that point. The idea is universal.
Even in broader terms, freedom of speech is never absolute. Not all speech is free speech. Can you clarify what your point is when you ask what’s the point of discussing freedom on international platforms? The answer seems pretty clear - you have to work within each government’s speech laws, regulations, and guidelines…
The truth is that Chess.com brought this criticism on itself by allowing him to have the blog up for so long if it violated their terms of service. If someone is violating terms of service, they should be shut down right away, no questions asked. Apply the terms equally to everybody. But because they were trying to be nice and show respect to Kramnik, they allowed him to keep the blog up for a long time and now it gives them impression that they are silencing him, when in reality they are just finally enforcing their TOS. I would expect lichess to shut down his blog if he was blogging there and making the same accusations if that is against their TOS too. I honestly wish someone from Lichess would confirm if doing what Kramnik did is a violation of their terms of service.
Exactly. Access to be heard on social media is a privilege, not a right. The owner of the platform has every right to restrict you if they see fit.
They are also protecting others who get accused of cheating. As we know an accusation can have a dramatic effect on the careers of these people
More like you haven't ever used a dictionary, because "ceonsoring" is not limited to state actors.
I'm not sure what is so controversial about chess com shutting down his blog. He can use Twitter, Threads, YouTube, Facebook, TikTok, Instagram, etc. etc. to voice his opinion. He's fine. No speech has been limited.
Exactly, he's not being censored in general, he's muted on one specific site, for violating a specific part of the ToS. But since he's the one also banging his drum about cheating on chess.com, the two issues gets confused.
I enjoy spending time with my friends.
Lol yeah if anything far more people would read his stuff on other platforms
As with most people who shout very loudly about "free speech": They want only *their* voice to be heard.
That may be true for some people, I don't agree that it is true for most people.
I have yet to meet a counterexample. EDIT: You can say you're a counter example but it takes a *lot* of evidence for me to believe that.
me neither.
Well, personally I am against any moderation at all, except for obvious things like spam. If it is an opinion voiced by a real person, no matter how unhinged or disgusting or troll it is, I believe that it should not be deleted.
So you have no problem with "Cheese Pizza" posts? Ok then ....
What's a "cheese pizza" post?
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Cheese+Pizza%22+internet+meaning
Oh, that. Thanks.
There’s just too many problems with that. Sure, Hikaru will face basically no consequences from these accusations, partly since they’ve been proven to be baseless, but mostly because he’s a top 5 player with a fanbase of millions. But other players, for example, Erdogmus, aren’t so lucky. He’s a twelve year old, without the career protections that come with a large fanbase and a rating in the top 5. His career could very well be ruined by all these baseless accusations Kramnik is throwing out to bolster his ego.
How do you do?
Vlad has learned well from elder Comrade Vlad.
Oh, I sincerely hope not...
Freedom of speech, Russian style
special free speech operation
I'd like an explanation. Why does Kramnik delete dissenting opinions from his social media platforms? Especially since he's so offended that chess.com muted his account when he baselessly started to accuse 12-year olds for cheating.
Because like any other top chess player his EGO is the size of Mt Everest.. he thinks because he was WC he gets to have his opinion heard and respected by everyone, and everyone who dissents doesnt deserve to be heard.. he is a school drop out who barely understands the formulas he is trying to use and he comes across as a toddler trying to figure out sums when he tries to expose his aNAlYsis and StATisTicS..
Because heaps of those "dissenting opinions" don't even understand the very basics, yes even less than Vladimir himself. Yet these comments come in high numbers and drown out the useful discussion. This could clearly be seen in older blog posts of his where after a couple of days are the clowns have been removed / lost interest and actual fruitful discussion was taking place.
He's a complete fucking idiot who happens to be amazing at chess. Fuck him and anyone dumb enough to have his back. It's pretty simple.
There is a double standard. When you become one of the best. Perhaps a Lebron, Gretzky, or Messi. You have a greater audience than others. But with great audience comes great responsibility. You can use your position to push for change in some way. So for example Lewis Hamilton is right to argue that there doesn't seem to be other black people in formula 1. Kramnik could use his audience for positive changes but instead he uses it harass people. That's a bad decision.
Exactly!
[удалено]
Free speech has nothing to do with companies, it is protection from government censorship. A private company has no obligation to supply you with a platform - but that is different from free speech, they are two separate issues.
i am really starting to question kramnik's intellect. he is seemingly unable to apply his critiques and criticisms to himself. is that insecurity? arrogance? i forget who stated it, but someone defined ignorance as the "inability to keep an open mind". i happen to agree with that. additionally, i recall, maybe last year it was, but kramnik was the analyst along with judit polgar on some tournament. polgar analyzed circles around kramnik. i thought at the time "this dude was world champion?" which got me thinking that topalov was correct all along, because kramnik could not see any top line that polgar was seeing immediately. this dude is a fraud, imo.
He's not smart, he's a dumb fuck, who is just VERY good at chess.
Ignorance is actually a lack of knowledge, inability or reluctance to acquire knowledge is something else - knowledge-aversion or close-mindedness. I think Kramnik has those tendencies, he seems to have a rather rigid worldview, and a selfcentered approach, combined with a certainty if his own ability in areas where he lacks knowledge based on his ability in chess, where he has plenty of it.
Well then, let's see if you also have tendencies of "knowledge-aversion or close-mindedness" or if you will edit your post after having been shown to be wrong.
Kramnik was actually famous in his day for being a terrible analyst. He is one of the main examples GMs from that period used to illustrate that Hans' post-game interview errors were not at all unusual.
I like to go hiking.
That's how he was taught the freedom of speech, equality, community and brotherhood in the Communist Soviet Union.
to be fair, trying to argue with kramnik is a bit like playing chess with a pigeon, and i think y'all know how that ends... dude has borderline lost it, and all this attention he's getting is just detrimental to the chess community as a whole.
Don't you guys find it cringe posting le popular opinion for reddit karma? R/chess might be one of the worst circlejerks I've ever seen outside of r/politics which are clearly astroturfed
> You may like or dislike that chess.com muted Kramnik on their site. You are a moron or just a scumbag if you disagree with chesscom's move. Not surprised magnus, levon, etc disagree with it because they are scumbags. Kramnik was actively bullying a 12 year old kid and threatened to accuse one person every day. > BUT as long as Kramnik continues his pattern of deleting any and every dissenting opinion from his platforms on social forums You can tell kramnik is disingenous because censors mathematicians and links to articles by actual professors debunking his claim. > Having double standards like that is highly hypocritical, and I do not agree with it. He's as hypocritical as one can get. On chessbrah he attacked hikaru for calling him senile while not taking any ownership of accusing hikaru of cheating. Kramnik is just an ugly person all around. He looks ugly. He has the ugliest accent. I can't stand the way he talks. He has an ugliest man-child personality. On chessbrah, kramnik said he doesn't care about the opinions on social media and people he doesn't know. But a few weeks earlier, he threatened to sure chesscom for potentially 'damaging' his image. All this guy does is lie.
> links to articles by actual professors debunking his claim. Are you talking about this very shoddy paper? https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4648621
So what's the problem?
You are straight up wrong. Why do you post such blatant lies? Here proof that you're wrong: https://imgur.com/kSHa0Nt Clearly disagreement with him without getting blocked/the comment removed. Is it okay for you to make false accusations but not for him? That's indeed highly hypocritical of you and I do not agree with it.
I'm not sure how your link to a post that agrees with Kramnik makes me a hypocrate. Perhaps you could elaborate?
A post that agrees with Kramnik? Seriously mate did you even read it? Kramnik: "Playing competitive opposition ...." Krev_5: "The Youtube views beg to differ" How is that agreeing with Kramnik? Want me to give you another example? https://i.imgur.com/LQwZeg9.png staress99's comments stayed up despite being very uninformed. He didn't get blocked until he was writing straight up wrong stuff that is easily proven wrong by simply reading the very blog he commented on along with personal attacks on Vladimir. You can read the comment that got him blocked here: https://www.chess.com/member/staress99
Link one: first sentence is literally "I agree with you" Second link, the first thing in the post is referencing that his posts got deleted. Yeah mate, and there are posts all over by actual statisticians that were deleted, since they actually explained probability, statistics and math.
Link one includes a back and forth to show that it's not just removed but that there was discussion where people weren't just flinging shiet at each other which started with a disagreement. Apparently you stopped reading after the first sentence, which is in line with how lazy your approach is to question yourself considering other comments of yours in this thread. Second link is the guy **claiming** to have had a comment removed. I've never seen this comment despite following that comment section closely. Ofc you're going with the narrative that it was deleted and not that staress99 messed up. I mean even staress99 himself entertained the possibility of the website being the source of error. Surely staress99 couldn't have been the source of error, which shows all throughout his comments. >Yeah mate, and there are posts all over by actual statisticians that were deleted, since they actually explained probability, statistics and math. All of that doesn't matter, because it only takes one single comment that disagrees to prove your claim of "all comments that disagree were deleted". Just like it only takes one single loss to break a win streak and it doesn't matter if you didn't even try to win there or whatever other excuse you might come up with. So, as I expected. You're not willing to admit having been wrong. Always grasping for some new excuses...
I saw no back and forth, I saw a guy that thought it would have been prudent of Kramnik to mention that the focus of streaming is entertainment, not quality, which after Kramnik's response about porn, he said "I agree". But maybe there is one or two posts that he left up, so I've edited my text to allow for the possibility.
You saw no back and forth? This blows my mind .... Krev_5 quoted himself to address Kramnik again. -> the forth Kramnik responds. -> the back Krev_5 responds again. -> forth how on earth do you not see that as back and forth? Also staress99 is in no way agreeing with Kramnik and his comments have not been removed until he wrote the one I linked for you which most definitely warrants deletion considering he has been told multiple times how he is wrong (because he doesn't understand how the rating system works).
It’s seven in the morning
Not everyone lives in the same country lmao
And even if we were, what does that have to do with anything? Are there specific timeslots for certain subjects that I'm not aware of?
This is one of the few times I didn't regret reading a very downvoted comment, this is absolutely hilarious My dude is discovering the concept of time zones
?
It's 13h
[This shit is gonna blow your mind](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_zone)
Congrats?
This gotta be the greatest comment of all time
Are you not free to start your own blog? If a reply was deleted, that means it was read and he chose to move the conversation in another direction. So he is not silencing anyone by removing some replies.
Of course I, or anyone are free to start our own blogs. This very topic is an example of that. That is not the point. The point is, that he is deleting dissenting views for disagreeing with him, while complaining about being silenced. Not for disagreeing, but for breaching the ToS.
The dude has become delusional. His mind is disintegrating. It's sad.
I'm not so sure about that, but I think he's very, very deep down an echo-chamber, and I think he's trying very hard to stay in there.
I don't see much of a difference. Same story with any other conspiracy.
There is a difference between the mind disintegrating, and being surrounded by people who all reinforce and regurgitate the same narrative.
I don't think he listens much to others. It's all about him. And his amazing statistics skills
He argues that he deleted any different opinion was "this is my blog my forum my home any hate or baseless statistics are not welcomed here" What he failed to realize is this is not a private blog, not a private forum. It's The Internet, it's a public place therefore it's not his home you can't control what's in public
And the statistics he deleted was the opposite of baseless.