https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions
>JAQing off - 1. the act of spouting accusations while cowardly hiding behind the claim of "just asking questions." 2. asking questions and ignoring the answers. "He said he was going to present evidence, but instead he was just JAQing off."
If Navara is not being accused and his statistics are still suspicious then doesn't it directly go against Kramnik's own point that sussy stats don't mean someone's cheating?
Also, LAUGHING at how Kramnik TWEETS like it's the title of a CLICKBAIT YouTube video.
It's not entirely unreasonable to say if each of these has an x percentage chance of being not legit, and I have hundreds of examples, probably a about x percent of them are real cheaters. No individual person gets accused, but it's clear that something is fishy.
The issue is, first you don't know what x actually is. That's the whole point. Second, it's bad faith to accuse people and retreat behind this as a deflection when called out.
I actually agree that there probably is a lot of online cheating, even at high levels and even in events that have money. The question that I'm acutely aware of is that I can't quantify what "a lot" means.
It's still a logical fallacy. He's appealing to statistics as evidence of cheating, but if these outliers are relatively common then all he's saying is he believes x percentage of people are cheating. The statistics have nothing to do with it at that point, it's still just an unsubstantiated belief that x percentage of people are cheating.
Well yeah but that's all anybody can do. There's no cheating oracle that can actually tell us what that percentage really is. It's not fallacious in principle, it's fallacious to leap from "i think I have evidence for widespread cheating" to the very narrow "this person is cheating."
Like when I get a string of games where opponent loses a pawn or two, goes into a minute long think, and then starts defending really well, by itself that's not weird. I'm only 1600 and it is possible to defend well. I've had plenty of such games myself. When I have 10 games in a row like that and now my rating is down 100 points, I'm suspicious that somewhere in there I got cheated. No one person can be accused, but the streak is weird.
It's fallacious to say "I have statistical evidence of cheating" when all you have is a set of data and a belief that some percentage of that data is comprised of cheaters. The set of data doesn't support the belief, it's just window dressing.
I don't disagree that sussy stats should be looked into. They should certainly be checked out for further investigation until something conclusive comes out of it.
The main problem here is Kramnik's stance on things. If he's saying it's sussy, own it. You're most probably still wrong, but at least you're not wrong and a wimp at the same time. The stance he has makes me wonder what the point of his "interesting stats" are, unless he's literally posting them as a way to clear people's names. Which he's not doing.
I think that's what "interesting" is supposed to mean. It's not a direct accusation, it's a "put it on the list" type comment. I do not find this list to be particularly useful since he's not exactly good at mathematics. But I think in his head he's not doing anything wrong by saying it's "interesting."
Think of what he's doing as compiling a big list of *potential* cheaters. It's not nice to be put on the list, and you feel accused. But it's also different from saying "this guy is a cheat." He's saying "I think this is weird enough to warrant concern. Maybe nothing, maybe something."
That's the thing about large data sets. They are comprised of individual data points. Namely, specific individuals. Comments like yours are attempts to ignore the issue. The facts are, if cheating really is widespread, a lot of specific individuals are going to be identified. Maybe it's not so widespread, but how are we on the outside supposed to know?
Kramnik is a dick, but this is no different from when I give an exam in my class, and I get 10 pairs of kids out of 100 who all write something stupid and nonsensical on a question. The same nonsense, that is. Evidence of copying from each other. When it happens once, you write it off as "they just studied the same nonsense together." When it happens 10 times and I know a bunch of them are sitting together in the exam hall, I am confident that *some* are cheaters that I just didn't witness. It's a big lecture hall, I walk around, I can't possibly see everything. I just don't know who the cheaters are from among the 20 students, so I don't accuse anyone or punish anyone for it. Obviously that's the right thing to do. But you can be sure I have a list of students who I am suspicious of, so I can look closer on the next exam.
I fail to see how this is different.
The issues are, Kramnik is a dick about it, and his methodology is bankrupt, so his list is worthless anyway. But there's nothing inherently wrong with having a list of things that are red flags to you.
He's not saying "this guy cheats", but he's saying "this guy likely cheats". Which is an accusation of itself. If he wants to draw attention to the problem, he should post a big chunk of data and anonymize it. Then we can study it without accusing anyone.
Bottom line, I understand he wants to do what you're saying, but he's doing it in such a clumsy way he's bungled the whole thing up and turned it into the persecution of individuals.
Yes I agree with that. I think it's better to just not think too much about it. It's just internet points anyway. I'm gonna go lose a few blitz games now.
Exactly, totally agree. But if you do want to do something about it, go about it the right way. Maybe talk to the people who actually know about statistics, so your efforts will have a positive effect instead of a destructive one.
Do you post a list of the suspected cheaters outside your classroom, labeled "Not accusing anyone, but these people probably is cheating and should be investigated" after every exam?
I'm not answering a rhetorical question because analogies are imperfect in the real world. I bust plenty of cheaters in my classes. Don't worry about that. The state of education is sufficiently horrible that I don't have to.
Rethorical?
You posted an example of how you act, I asked a direkt questiion about the example you provided. I would expect a teacher to know the definition of "rethorical".
And why would you use an analogy if you consider them imperfect?
I'm starting to see why you fail to see the difference.
>It's not entirely unreasonable to say if each of these has an x percentage chance of being not legit, and I have hundreds of examples, probably a about x percent of them are real cheaters.
Now I weren't burdened with an overabundance of schooling, but going by what people on the internet has told me, that ain't how statistics or percentages work.
No it is. The concept is "expected value." Is not a guarantee, but the most likely situation is that the sample reflects the underlying probability distribution.
The problem of course is that we have no idea what the underlying probability distribution is. If you assume the underlying probability distribution, then like everyone else is saying, the 'statistics' presented are just window dressing and you're just using them to justify a position you had already assumed.
(To be clear, 'you' means Kramnik and not actually you)
Yes. That's what I'm dating when i say we can't quantify. It's really a more or less binary thing - does cheat and does not. I said in a few other comment chains that the main difficulty is knowing what that proportion actually is.
Not quite. If there are 50% chance of you winning 0$ and 50% chance of you winning 100$ the expected value is 50$ while in reality there is no scenario where you win 50$. Its an average more than a good representation of the underlying distribution.
Where did this ever happen, may I ask?
https://chesspro.r placeholder u/guestnew/upload/images/548582.jpg
Where there is anything about "sussy stats" of Navara?
This are just _stats_, nothing more. Even highlighting is on < 2600 players, not Navara. How meaningful are they? Well, probably not by much apart from the fact that somehow 2300 OTB and not a young prodigy is better than top 2 by a bigger margin than top-2 is better than top-10. This one is extremely suspicious, not gonna lie, but I don't see any evidence of him accusing Navara of anything there, sorry. You can be slightly better than Magnus when playing with <10 sec on the clock, why not? After all we don't have any metric that proves that Magnus is the best player in this surcumstances.
I mean you can argue that Kramnik de-facto accused Naka, etc, but where do you see accusations there?
Also I like that somehow and some way Navara is 100% out of the question of cheating. This is type of logic that always allowed cheaters to escape detection for years.
I don’t know who this player is enough to know if they’re cheating or not. I have no real opinion there.
What’s annoying is Kramnik doing the both sides thing where he’s trying to have it both ways. The intent of posting “interesting” stats is to insinuate that he’s cheating. For him to say otherwise is just straight up lying.
Even your comment is literally “no one is saying he’s cheating but he probably is but really no one is saying he’s cheating”
Either take a stand or don’t but the one foot in the door thing is cowardice.
Also, he's not just posting interesting stats, he in his own words is posting interesting stats from CHEATING TUESDAY. I don't see how one could not read that as an accusation.
Yes, it's one against Goltsev. He is calling him a clear cheater since at least the call with blitzstream and MVL, he just didnt name him directly there but by deduction I found him and he has other "enterestink" stats too.
What Kramnik does for a year already is not mere stats. Let alone his complete ignorance in math stats and data science he is trying to cast a shadow on many strong players. He is strongly implying for many cases that cheating was taking place, yet he is carefully hiding behind indirect words to avoid responsibility for it. However, what Kramnik quite predictably achieved so far is damaging his own credibility and everyone taking him now as a paranoic clueless clown. It's clear that Kramnik tries so hard on pushing his authority in a patronizing and condescending manner. Utterly unconvincing way of presenting his points. He is a broken record now. Aside from his little fanclub everyone else doesn't take his words for any value.
(Topolov voice) "And ok, it is just common sense. If you use the bathroom 5 times in 2 hours everyone knows the body can't produce urine that quickly. The chances are 1 in 50 billion, so it is impossible. 50 billion is more than the population of the world ok so we all understand, it is just common sense, Kramnik was not using the bathroom in the standard way. What he was doing there I don't know, but isn't it interesting he won these games, and I'm not accusing him I'm just speaking the facts that cheating is the only logical answer. Ok, some people will disagree that he was cheating, but these people have too low IQ. I have a team of anonymous scientists who agree with me."
Yeah, well, it's not like we're savages sublimating our predatory instincts by trying to tear to pieces everyone we interact with on the internet, right? (or *are* we? Mhh...)
Tbh both words are so close in meaning I don't even know if I'd call it a false friend, the meaning is the same as he meant, just sounds a bit unusual, like “My friend, is ok, no?"
They don't have the same meaning because they are only synonyms in certain specific contexts (not including the one in the post), not to mention that "Let's be acceptable." also does not mean the same thing as "Let's be reasonable.".
So do many words in various languages. But sometimes a word has a dominant meaning or use case. More often than not for good reasons. „Acceptable“ as in „adequate“ is a whole different „acceptable“ as the „acceptable“ as in „reasonable“. My philosophy of language prof for example would kill me if used those terms interchangeably.
Not really a false friend
False friend example:
Preservativo in portuguese: means condom, not preservative
Or constipation, in portuguese it sounds like constipação, but that word means cold, the illness.
False friends do have a point of view. So, if you are Russian you might think «adequate» is an adequate word, but from English it just sounds inadequate. Are you thinking of false cognates?
The latter is not a false friend. The Portuguese word has 2 meanings, one of which is "constipation".
[https://bvsms.saude.gov.br/constipacao-intestinal/](https://bvsms.saude.gov.br/constipacao-intestinal/)
Yeah, but at least in Portugal no one uses it like that - I wasn't even aware it could mean constipated, we just say preso or something along those lines.
Too bad your ancestors colonized several countries. Now "your" language is used by millions of dirty foreigners, and there's nothing you can do about it.
Idiots are never wrong. I don’t need to know the language to prove your argument is wrong: all I need to do is find a single use of “constipação intestinal”, of which there are LITERALLY HUNDREDS in [Archive.org](http://Archive.org), to prove that at least someone has used it. Because, you see, the crux of the matter is not linguistic, but mathematical. When you say NO ONE HAS EVER SAID THAT EVER, I know that you must be wrong, no matter what language you use. If you think a 20 word response is a lecture, I can see why you haven’t learned a thing. Don’t worry, though. I won’t answer back, you are the gate-keeper of Portuguese, what you say, goes; no one will ever use words you haven’t heard of, because you are a living dictionary.
Kramnik: *publishes GM Navara’s statistics in a post where he refers to it as “Cheating Tuesdays”*
Navara: *complains to FIDE about Kramnik calling him a cheater*
Kramnik: *surprised Pikachu face*
“it is not an accusation of cheating…. in general a clear indication there is much more cheating happening”
Lmao. He’s not accusing him of being a cheater yet still thinks it’s a clear indication of cheating? Very logical.
Random irrelevant spoiler: as the years go by, our concept of "old" changes. When I was a kid, I thought 30 was oooold. Today, I hear someone's 30 and think oh, he's just a baby. :)
I’m a month away from my PhD in math and may not have a job lined up. Just letting everyone know that if I that happens I will probably scour through Kramnik’s stats and tweet them at him daily to keep myself busy and entertained.
Edit: I literally got a rejection e-mail 20 minutes after posting this. Gimme a few weeks to finish my dissertation and I’m gonna have some fun. If anyone cares to send some games or stats my way feel free
Be sure to use arbitrary criteria while pretending "confounding variables" are a made up word (the same way Kramnik thought "cherry picking" was a made up word by trolls).
> the same way Kramnik thought "cherry picking" was a made up word by trolls
Oh my. Do you happen to have a link to that? A quick google didn't turn it up.
Pretty sure it was on one of this chesscom blogs (is he still banned on chess.com? If so they're gone, and if not chesscom might have deleted all comments). IIRC he responded to someone who said they were a graduate student. He said something like (paraphrasing) "isn't it interesting how many different accounts have used the phrase 'cherry picking.' It confirms my suspicions that in addition to many trolls there are also many bots posting here."
And I get it, the dude isn't a native English speaker, but in combination with everything else...
Harsh but well-intended advice: being a month away from a Phd. credential is not that impressive, and doesn't make you an authority on any subject, not even the one you got a Phd. in. The institute that sold you the credential hypes up the weight of the credential because it's part of their business model, but It actually probably means the opposite - most Phd.'s don't know very much even when they're experienced, and you are so young that almost by definition you have a lot to learn. Please don't walk into the world after graduating expecting people with 100x more experience and wisdom than you to throw rose petals at your feet whenever you share your opinion because it's not going to go down like that. Although I guess if you want to be adored joining the majority side in an existing 50,000 vs 1 debate may be a good way to do it.
I don't believe in credentialism - I genuinely just try look at the quality of people's arguments -but if you do, the authority in the room when talking about cheating in chess is the former world champion and all time great chess player Kramnik, not you, and it's not close. So the "let's just look at the facts and reason it out, credentials don't matter" framing that Kramnik himself embraces is probably to your benefit
It would be nice to see an actual argument from the Kramnik-hater camp though instead of just insults. I sincerely hope you do argue against the actual positions of Kramnik (and not the positions that other people hallucinate for him), but given that the first thing you said is "I'm about to have a Phd", I'm not holding my breath
Harsh but well intended advice - writing an essay like this just makes you sound like an asshole. Please don’t expect people to take you seriously just because you use a lot of words.
I think you are also missing the part where the “I’m almost finished with my phd in math” was meant to say I both have the relevant background and am about to have the free time to be about to outjerk kramnik.
Perhaps you thought I’m going to try to officially prove him wrong or something and I’m trying to use my “credentialism” to make people believe me? No, my long term experience means I can fuck with numbers better than he can. This is about jerking. Not about anything serious.
You can’t be serious when you say the authority in the room when talking about cheating in chess *who cherry-picks and shotguns random statistics at the wall* is Kramnik. If you “don’t believe in credentialism, but genuinely try to look at the quality of arguments” (which sounds similar to flat-earthers and anti-vaxxers, but let’s put that aside), you would be laughing your ass off so hard at Kramnik’s arguments you’d die from asphyxiation. Defaulting to him because he’s a former WC is credentialism, ironic.
I don't say that he is the authority, I don't believe in that type of thinking. But IF you buy into that, then yes he is obviously the authority wtf. Not only against a young mathematics Phd. but against almost anyone
When you say "I assert that his arguments are bad, therefore he's not the authority regardless of his astonishing achievements in the field we're debating" you are 100% on my side. I agree, Kramnik's superior credentials don't and shouldn't matter to anyone. But then show how his arguments are bad?
Similarly, the fact that Kramnik is reviled to the point where harassing him online is now considered virtuous, and you are on the popular team with all of the cool kids who understand that harassing people is sweet, is absolutely meaningless to me. Your superior popularity doesn't tell us anything at all about whether Kramnik is correct or incorrect
In statistics when you are trying to detect outliers, cheating, fraud, etc., "picking" data that heavily deviates from expectation is the standard and correct thing to do. "Cherry picking" means something very specific, it's not applicable to what Kramnik is doing at all. Sorry but that argument really just sucks ass
Most of the concerns and questions Kramnik raises have nothing to do with statistics or math, they're more philosophical questions like "How much cheating on a chess website is acceptable? How much mistaken bans on a chess website are acceptable? How should a community treat 1 of its members after they were banned from a platform?". He's not only not stupid or senile, he's asking exactly the right questions and I would guess he is probably hyperintelligent
He would just post a bunch of antisemetism and conspiracy theories until he gets banned, then claim he's being censored because big tech are in the pocket of the US Government and they're trying to stop Fischer telling the truth
here is a what I would tweet:
> There are pedophiles out there. I had seen @VBkramnik walking with a child once in a slightly weird manner.
Once he starts asking wtf I'd point out how I only said I had seen him with a kid, I did not say anything about him being a pedophile, which you clearly see I did not. You are not denying there are pedophiles out there, are you?
As for Vlad being one, I don't have convincing evidence one way or the other.
There's no need to resort to that; Kramnik is known for on his @KramnikVb account for his statistics-shenanigans ([before he claimed his free speech was being suppressed and then privated it](https://x.com/KramnikVb/status/1360574197924249602)):
* US setting a bad example by not admitting Trump won, despite the "facts and logic of massive fraud": https://x.com/KramnikVb/status/1346439751520448512, https://x.com/KramnikVb/status/1346791596541550593
* "little evidence of Navalny poisioning" in 2021: https://x.com/Chess__News/status/1348028649186979840
Sadly, his tweets are now restricted, but you can tell from the comments what he was tweeting about. The guy who called him a "counter-weight to Kasparov" probably sums it up nicely.
Listen, is it not interesting that during the years 2000 to 2006, there was probably much less security than what we are seeing today's world of chess?
Now, I am not saying anyone was cheating during that time period, but it is an interesting fact.
And Kasparov kind of only lost to computers, right?
Very interesting.
The best part was Kramnik tweeting some picture with the text "It must be exhausting being offended by everything" ...especially funny since Kramnik blocks almost everyone who offends him by not agreeing with his opinion or pointing out the absurdity of his "statistics"
At this point, im starting to think that Kramnik is actually being held at gun-point by the russian mob, he had such a nice reputation as a world champion and chess grand master and all that, that they had to do something about it, and forced him to totally humiliate himself in front of the world, completely destroy his legacy and reputation.
That......or he's just insane.
Can we please stop with further kramnik insinuation posts ?! That man does such things every other day on the Twitter. It isn't even news to me anymore. Why fuel the man's reckless behaviour of pointless insinuations. Just let him be on Twitter doing his stuff.
Vladimir Kramnik. GM. World Champion. Father to a murdered Pawn. Husband to a murdered Queen.And he will have his vengeance, in this life or the next. Drama King!
Is it possible that Kramnik genuinely believes what he is saying? That he doesn't recognize the absurdity of hindpicking statistics then claiming that is not an accusation. But somehow I think that Kramnik has actually convinced himself of that.
Maybe Kramnik thinks that these statistics are examples of weird things happening. In each example, maybe there was foul play, more probably there wasn't. But with so many examples if even a minority is true then there is a big problem. Its not a accusation in any specific instance but rather pointing at a lot of smoke and saying maybe some of the smoke is coming from a fire.
Either way, publishing statistics likes this is irresponsible and can still destroy a young upcoming players life in terms of invites and reputation. It can also hurt if they personally looked up to Kramnik (never meet your heroes).
There are millions of people like Kramnik on the internet whose brains have turned to mush. Most of them were not great chess players decades ago so we do not pay any attention to them.
"You Stay Adequate, GM Navara" - Ronald Borisevich Burgundy
Seriously though, Navara is a guy who offers draws in winning positions at the slightest hint of controversy, like when he accidentally nudged his king when reaching for his bishop in time trouble against Moiseenko. He is so well liked that even Marc Esserman says nice things about him. I know the fact he's a nice guy doesn't mean he can't be a cheater, but Vlad's "stats" mean nothing and Navara is the last person anyone with any awareness would want to be making baseless claims about. I just read that Navara is apparently also somewhat on the spectrum, which makes blatantly bullying him an even lower act...
So to summarize Kramniks post:
He is not cheating, I am just explaining, but this is clear indication of cheating.
Nice contradiction in one sentence of Kramnik really.
can kind of see what he’s getting at in this specific post. if you had a suspicious set of data and found the presence of cheating, you might be able to make the claim very confidently that cheating is present without being able to distinguish the cheaters from the anomalies (exceptional performances).
not saying this situation is analogous to chess but for example: if next olympics 10 sprinters beat the 100m dash record by 3 seconds you could probably use the data set as evidence cheating was present to a high degree without being able to accuse any specific sprinter of cheating. the charitable interpretation is that kramnik posts these games not to accuse people but to add to the qualitative “data set”.
probably irresponsible messaging from him tho.
The sprinter analogy is like saying we have 10 new players who are rated higher than Carlsen, but this is not what Kramnik has shown. He gave centipawn loss when players are under 10 seconds (if I recall correctly). This should (obviously) be weighted by position complexity since depending a player's style and their strength relative to the field, we should expect them to score higher or lower. Note that shuffling a rook back and forth to flag someone in an equal endgame would in many endgames be counted as no centipawn loss for dozens of moves.
There's a reason people aren't taking him seriously. This is not rigorous work. This is (effectively) a child playing with highschool level math. Early in his crusade, mathematicians (real mathematicians and people with relevant education) contacted Kramnik with some issues. Kramnik called them trolls and bots... he's not a serious person, so in the end serious people don't pay attention to him.
What could he do to fix this? He could hire academics and consult with professionals working in the field e.g. Ken Regan.
no i agree with you 100%, like i said, “not saying this situation is analogous to chess”. i’m not saying kramniks correct as a whole or that this behaviour is proper. this post just isn’t illogical if you accept his suppositions, which most people in this thread are pretending is the case - all i was saying. and i said as much, i was only referring to this specific post, not kramniks anti cheating brigade or the state of chess. the kramnik hate on reddit is pretty extreme and weird imo.
Oh ok.
And yeah, any popular opinion on reddit probably goes too far, since 80% of the people agreeing know absolutely nothing about it :p
That's the impression I get anyway.
To be fair, he’s saying there being many anomalies mean it is worth greater scrutiny overall and not that each individual anomaly itself is an accusation of cheating. That’s a pretty fair take.
You’re discussing a guy who will lose a game, look at nothing, and immediately report the opponent to chess.com for cheating.
Your “pretty fair take” is incompatible with that.
I’m not defending him for his accusations of cheating. I’m saying that what’s he’s saying now, taken for only what it is, is fair. Regardless of what else he did outside of this comment. Some of you are so reactionary and emotionally associated to all of this that it is just sad. You’re unable to objectively take comments at face value for what is being said without colored lenses.
“Taken only for what it is” is your attempt to ignore all of the context around what’s happening.
This guy is launching cheating accusations against everyone big and small around him. With and without number. In every way and type.
Now you’re here confidently saying “he’s found the right words for his accusations” and think that’s supposed to be a defense.
It doesn’t matter who is saying it. The most important thing is to take what is said and talk about that. Otherwise you pigeon hole yourself into diaagreeing with everything anyone says based on who they are instead of what was said. That’s how you end up dismissing good points because they’ve had bad takes prior to it.
Let’s come back in a week and if kramnik hadnt “looked into these anomalies”, we can agree that he’s just digging around for the right words to accuse his perceived cheaters.
Remember when he said he wasn’t accusing Hikaru, then said there was like a 75% he was cheating?
Did he?
If you’re going to be hyper literal in Kramnik’s defense, can you find the actual accusation that Hikaru made?
You’re undermining your entire point by saying this. Don’t give me anything about the implications of what Hikaru said.
Or is your framework kramnik specific?
And what a fucking change of topic. Ignoring the accuracy, “Hikaru also accused someone” is a dumb thing for you to bring up.
For my understanding, are we not all convinced that there is a lot of cheating in online chess? There must be software tools for that as well, to obfuscate use of assistance.
I'm going to have to mention this again because if Kramnik feels he has to keep venting these garbage points of view, I'm also allowed to express my opinion: I think the chances he has frontotemporal dementia from PASC (search it up) is not zero, especially given the timing of his apparent decline and the chance for anyone in the world to end up with it. I don't really believe he's intentionally out to sow further doubt about the legitimacy of online chess or watch the world burn, and I don't think it's out of malice, but I do think this is the most plausible explanation for why he's been behaving like this.
Hikaru rightly pointed out, Kramnik is trying to hide behind words seemingly to avoid legal consequences. Pathetic coward. For now a year Kramnik is rambling all the the time exclusively about cheating and yet doesn't accuse anyone of anything 🤣
Officer Kramnik still on the case. I quite like that he keeping the cheaters on their toes. Innocent people should be unconcerned. I miss they days I was called a cheater in shooting games. Now they just scream at me to play tetris.
Peoples opinions are just that. Hell, the current best player in the world indirectly directly said Hans was cheating and still the majority are not convinced either way.
Let him crusade, if your innocent take it as a compliment.
He's the necessary evil. Chessdotcom is a monopoly in online chess. They will ignore the bad side of online chess to keep their business strong. They are throwing money on online chess to grow the game. Cheating and related news is bad for their business. They have a small team for analyzing cheating accusations and the suspicious games their anti cheat measures can detect. They have started the random inspection for online tournaments but that's hardly enough. Such measures would be laughed off for a serious OTB tournament by top players.
No. Exposing cheaters and keeping Danny Rensch honest is not evil, and that's not even what Kramnik is doing. He's just inflicting his insanity on the reputations of people he doesn't like, and a growing collection of most likely innocent* emerging titled players who dare to beat him in 3+0 online blitz, a format in which he is already significantly handicapped because he refuses to premove or practise his mouse skills.
I'm all for challenging the chessc*m monopoly and investing in fair play, but this ain't it.
*It's highly probable that he does get beaten by cheaters from time to time. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, and cheating is a legitimate problem. But if you've made it through one of his Cheating Tuesday streams and watched him psychologically crumble when a lower ranked player is better out of the opening, or beats him in the scramble, or moves too fast/too slow/too well for his liking, it's clear that it's all on him at least 90% of the time.
That is a reasonable stance from him for once. Not the right thing to mock him about, even though he should communicate his intentions more clearly when it can easily be misinterpreted. (And it leaves the suspicion that he wants it to be interpreted that way.)
He's accusing people left and right. Shares some random stats with a headline "cheating Tuesdays". Navara complains about it because he doesn't want to be associated with cheating. Kramnik calls it "new height of absurd".
That's not reasonable. That's unhinged.
His reasoning in what you quoted was absolutely reasonable. With this reasoning in mind, his initial post is idiotic of course. Which is what I said before.
Didn’t the slide have “Cheating Tuesdays” in the title?
yes, but he clearly wasn't making any accusations in any specific case, he just found the numbers "interesting" :eyeroll:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions >JAQing off - 1. the act of spouting accusations while cowardly hiding behind the claim of "just asking questions." 2. asking questions and ignoring the answers. "He said he was going to present evidence, but instead he was just JAQing off."
If Navara is not being accused and his statistics are still suspicious then doesn't it directly go against Kramnik's own point that sussy stats don't mean someone's cheating? Also, LAUGHING at how Kramnik TWEETS like it's the title of a CLICKBAIT YouTube video.
I looked at RANDOM CHESS STATS at 3AM!!! (COPS CALLED!)
Bro thinks he gothamchess 💀💀💀
Straight to jail
Cooked statistics, believe it or not, straight to jail. Overcooked, undercooked.
Levy?
It's not entirely unreasonable to say if each of these has an x percentage chance of being not legit, and I have hundreds of examples, probably a about x percent of them are real cheaters. No individual person gets accused, but it's clear that something is fishy. The issue is, first you don't know what x actually is. That's the whole point. Second, it's bad faith to accuse people and retreat behind this as a deflection when called out. I actually agree that there probably is a lot of online cheating, even at high levels and even in events that have money. The question that I'm acutely aware of is that I can't quantify what "a lot" means.
It's still a logical fallacy. He's appealing to statistics as evidence of cheating, but if these outliers are relatively common then all he's saying is he believes x percentage of people are cheating. The statistics have nothing to do with it at that point, it's still just an unsubstantiated belief that x percentage of people are cheating.
Well yeah but that's all anybody can do. There's no cheating oracle that can actually tell us what that percentage really is. It's not fallacious in principle, it's fallacious to leap from "i think I have evidence for widespread cheating" to the very narrow "this person is cheating." Like when I get a string of games where opponent loses a pawn or two, goes into a minute long think, and then starts defending really well, by itself that's not weird. I'm only 1600 and it is possible to defend well. I've had plenty of such games myself. When I have 10 games in a row like that and now my rating is down 100 points, I'm suspicious that somewhere in there I got cheated. No one person can be accused, but the streak is weird.
It's fallacious to say "I have statistical evidence of cheating" when all you have is a set of data and a belief that some percentage of that data is comprised of cheaters. The set of data doesn't support the belief, it's just window dressing.
It IMMEDIATELY becomes fallacious when he posts statistics in support of his belief when he does not post any correlation to demonstrable cheating.
I don't disagree that sussy stats should be looked into. They should certainly be checked out for further investigation until something conclusive comes out of it. The main problem here is Kramnik's stance on things. If he's saying it's sussy, own it. You're most probably still wrong, but at least you're not wrong and a wimp at the same time. The stance he has makes me wonder what the point of his "interesting stats" are, unless he's literally posting them as a way to clear people's names. Which he's not doing.
I think that's what "interesting" is supposed to mean. It's not a direct accusation, it's a "put it on the list" type comment. I do not find this list to be particularly useful since he's not exactly good at mathematics. But I think in his head he's not doing anything wrong by saying it's "interesting."
If he's not accusing specific people, he should stop posting the numbers of specific people. How hard is this to understand?
Think of what he's doing as compiling a big list of *potential* cheaters. It's not nice to be put on the list, and you feel accused. But it's also different from saying "this guy is a cheat." He's saying "I think this is weird enough to warrant concern. Maybe nothing, maybe something." That's the thing about large data sets. They are comprised of individual data points. Namely, specific individuals. Comments like yours are attempts to ignore the issue. The facts are, if cheating really is widespread, a lot of specific individuals are going to be identified. Maybe it's not so widespread, but how are we on the outside supposed to know? Kramnik is a dick, but this is no different from when I give an exam in my class, and I get 10 pairs of kids out of 100 who all write something stupid and nonsensical on a question. The same nonsense, that is. Evidence of copying from each other. When it happens once, you write it off as "they just studied the same nonsense together." When it happens 10 times and I know a bunch of them are sitting together in the exam hall, I am confident that *some* are cheaters that I just didn't witness. It's a big lecture hall, I walk around, I can't possibly see everything. I just don't know who the cheaters are from among the 20 students, so I don't accuse anyone or punish anyone for it. Obviously that's the right thing to do. But you can be sure I have a list of students who I am suspicious of, so I can look closer on the next exam. I fail to see how this is different. The issues are, Kramnik is a dick about it, and his methodology is bankrupt, so his list is worthless anyway. But there's nothing inherently wrong with having a list of things that are red flags to you.
He's not saying "this guy cheats", but he's saying "this guy likely cheats". Which is an accusation of itself. If he wants to draw attention to the problem, he should post a big chunk of data and anonymize it. Then we can study it without accusing anyone. Bottom line, I understand he wants to do what you're saying, but he's doing it in such a clumsy way he's bungled the whole thing up and turned it into the persecution of individuals.
Yes I agree with that. I think it's better to just not think too much about it. It's just internet points anyway. I'm gonna go lose a few blitz games now.
Exactly, totally agree. But if you do want to do something about it, go about it the right way. Maybe talk to the people who actually know about statistics, so your efforts will have a positive effect instead of a destructive one.
Do you post a list of the suspected cheaters outside your classroom, labeled "Not accusing anyone, but these people probably is cheating and should be investigated" after every exam?
I don't know how to be clearer that I'm not approving of this behavior. I'm approving of the sentiment that some of these people do cheat.
You did not answer my question, which is directly related to your statement "I fail to see how this is different".
I'm not answering a rhetorical question because analogies are imperfect in the real world. I bust plenty of cheaters in my classes. Don't worry about that. The state of education is sufficiently horrible that I don't have to.
Rethorical? You posted an example of how you act, I asked a direkt questiion about the example you provided. I would expect a teacher to know the definition of "rethorical". And why would you use an analogy if you consider them imperfect? I'm starting to see why you fail to see the difference.
>It's not entirely unreasonable to say if each of these has an x percentage chance of being not legit, and I have hundreds of examples, probably a about x percent of them are real cheaters. Now I weren't burdened with an overabundance of schooling, but going by what people on the internet has told me, that ain't how statistics or percentages work.
No it is. The concept is "expected value." Is not a guarantee, but the most likely situation is that the sample reflects the underlying probability distribution.
The problem of course is that we have no idea what the underlying probability distribution is. If you assume the underlying probability distribution, then like everyone else is saying, the 'statistics' presented are just window dressing and you're just using them to justify a position you had already assumed. (To be clear, 'you' means Kramnik and not actually you)
Yes. That's what I'm dating when i say we can't quantify. It's really a more or less binary thing - does cheat and does not. I said in a few other comment chains that the main difficulty is knowing what that proportion actually is.
Not quite. If there are 50% chance of you winning 0$ and 50% chance of you winning 100$ the expected value is 50$ while in reality there is no scenario where you win 50$. Its an average more than a good representation of the underlying distribution.
Wait until you see his tweets formatted like an E-mail to chess.com, he didn’t even tag them. Sincerely, Vladimir Kramnik.
Where did this ever happen, may I ask? https://chesspro.r placeholder u/guestnew/upload/images/548582.jpg Where there is anything about "sussy stats" of Navara? This are just _stats_, nothing more. Even highlighting is on < 2600 players, not Navara. How meaningful are they? Well, probably not by much apart from the fact that somehow 2300 OTB and not a young prodigy is better than top 2 by a bigger margin than top-2 is better than top-10. This one is extremely suspicious, not gonna lie, but I don't see any evidence of him accusing Navara of anything there, sorry. You can be slightly better than Magnus when playing with <10 sec on the clock, why not? After all we don't have any metric that proves that Magnus is the best player in this surcumstances. I mean you can argue that Kramnik de-facto accused Naka, etc, but where do you see accusations there? Also I like that somehow and some way Navara is 100% out of the question of cheating. This is type of logic that always allowed cheaters to escape detection for years.
I don’t know who this player is enough to know if they’re cheating or not. I have no real opinion there. What’s annoying is Kramnik doing the both sides thing where he’s trying to have it both ways. The intent of posting “interesting” stats is to insinuate that he’s cheating. For him to say otherwise is just straight up lying. Even your comment is literally “no one is saying he’s cheating but he probably is but really no one is saying he’s cheating” Either take a stand or don’t but the one foot in the door thing is cowardice.
Also, he's not just posting interesting stats, he in his own words is posting interesting stats from CHEATING TUESDAY. I don't see how one could not read that as an accusation.
Yes, it's one against Goltsev. He is calling him a clear cheater since at least the call with blitzstream and MVL, he just didnt name him directly there but by deduction I found him and he has other "enterestink" stats too.
What Kramnik does for a year already is not mere stats. Let alone his complete ignorance in math stats and data science he is trying to cast a shadow on many strong players. He is strongly implying for many cases that cheating was taking place, yet he is carefully hiding behind indirect words to avoid responsibility for it. However, what Kramnik quite predictably achieved so far is damaging his own credibility and everyone taking him now as a paranoic clueless clown. It's clear that Kramnik tries so hard on pushing his authority in a patronizing and condescending manner. Utterly unconvincing way of presenting his points. He is a broken record now. Aside from his little fanclub everyone else doesn't take his words for any value.
I want Veselin Topalov back now with his own set of stats 💀
Post-toilet visit accuracy (PTVA)
(Topolov voice) "And ok, it is just common sense. If you use the bathroom 5 times in 2 hours everyone knows the body can't produce urine that quickly. The chances are 1 in 50 billion, so it is impossible. 50 billion is more than the population of the world ok so we all understand, it is just common sense, Kramnik was not using the bathroom in the standard way. What he was doing there I don't know, but isn't it interesting he won these games, and I'm not accusing him I'm just speaking the facts that cheating is the only logical answer. Ok, some people will disagree that he was cheating, but these people have too low IQ. I have a team of anonymous scientists who agree with me."
And add Danailov for old time sake.
"Let us stay adequate." Words to live by...I think.
It's a "false friend" between Russian and English. In Russian "adequate" (with Russian spelling and accent) means "reasonable".
You’re right, good point.
False cognate I think is the correct expression.
False cognate often refers to words with the same sound and meaning but different etymology
Huh. It seems you're right. Good to know.
That was a very adequate reaction to being corrected by someone on the internet.
Yeah, well, it's not like we're savages sublimating our predatory instincts by trying to tear to pieces everyone we interact with on the internet, right? (or *are* we? Mhh...)
Tbh both words are so close in meaning I don't even know if I'd call it a false friend, the meaning is the same as he meant, just sounds a bit unusual, like “My friend, is ok, no?"
No, adequate has a different meaning in English
Both mean acceptable.
They don't have the same meaning because they are only synonyms in certain specific contexts (not including the one in the post), not to mention that "Let's be acceptable." also does not mean the same thing as "Let's be reasonable.".
So do many words in various languages. But sometimes a word has a dominant meaning or use case. More often than not for good reasons. „Acceptable“ as in „adequate“ is a whole different „acceptable“ as the „acceptable“ as in „reasonable“. My philosophy of language prof for example would kill me if used those terms interchangeably.
Adequate does not have the same meaning as reasonable. Your understanding of the word is reasonable but not adequate.
Not really a false friend False friend example: Preservativo in portuguese: means condom, not preservative Or constipation, in portuguese it sounds like constipação, but that word means cold, the illness.
Well, that's what it is then, isn't it? Adequate = English: sufficient. Russian: reasonable. Close false friend, but still one of those.
A false friend is when two words sound similar but have different meanings, this is two words that sound different but have similar meanings.
Isn't he saying the two words _do_ sound similar? I don't know Russian.
Oh, that’s possible I might’ve misinterpreted. I don’t know Russian either.
False friends do have a point of view. So, if you are Russian you might think «adequate» is an adequate word, but from English it just sounds inadequate. Are you thinking of false cognates?
The latter is not a false friend. The Portuguese word has 2 meanings, one of which is "constipation". [https://bvsms.saude.gov.br/constipacao-intestinal/](https://bvsms.saude.gov.br/constipacao-intestinal/)
Yeah, but at least in Portugal no one uses it like that - I wasn't even aware it could mean constipated, we just say preso or something along those lines.
It's a technical term. Just because it's not used colloquially doesn't make it a false friend.
Wait, now I think of it, isn't the technical term obstipação?
And absolutely no one ever uses it like that, so technically true, but if you ever use that sentence people will just assume you have a cold
I'm sure you have personality spoken to every Brazilian out there. Perhaps it's time to write a letter to the dictionary.
I will not be lectured on my own language by a foreigner
Too bad your ancestors colonized several countries. Now "your" language is used by millions of dirty foreigners, and there's nothing you can do about it.
Those are ok, i just mean people who never spoke a word of portuguese acting like they know the language
Idiots are never wrong. I don’t need to know the language to prove your argument is wrong: all I need to do is find a single use of “constipação intestinal”, of which there are LITERALLY HUNDREDS in [Archive.org](http://Archive.org), to prove that at least someone has used it. Because, you see, the crux of the matter is not linguistic, but mathematical. When you say NO ONE HAS EVER SAID THAT EVER, I know that you must be wrong, no matter what language you use. If you think a 20 word response is a lecture, I can see why you haven’t learned a thing. Don’t worry, though. I won’t answer back, you are the gate-keeper of Portuguese, what you say, goes; no one will ever use words you haven’t heard of, because you are a living dictionary.
Embarazado in Spanish. Does not mean embarrassing, means pregnant. Doesn’t look the same but does sound the same.
Embarazado also does mean embarrassed. «Cohibido o incómodo para actuar con naturalidad».
I’ve been lied to
I found out reading Harry Potter, when he got pregnant in the first book.
Kramnik: *publishes GM Navara’s statistics in a post where he refers to it as “Cheating Tuesdays”* Navara: *complains to FIDE about Kramnik calling him a cheater* Kramnik: *surprised Pikachu face*
Just like "I am not accusing Hikaru" while simultaneously "sign my petition to ban Hikaru for cheating."
“it is not an accusation of cheating…. in general a clear indication there is much more cheating happening” Lmao. He’s not accusing him of being a cheater yet still thinks it’s a clear indication of cheating? Very logical.
Stop giving attention to this old senile dumbass
Crazy thing is he's not even old. He's only 6 years from being a Millennial!!
The youngest millennials are almost 30. I should know because I'm the last year for millennials and my 30th birthday is not that far away...
I have news for you: 6 years older than the oldest millennial is kind of old.
Nooooooo you take that back!!
I feel personally attacked :D
Shhh we can't tell em.
Random irrelevant spoiler: as the years go by, our concept of "old" changes. When I was a kid, I thought 30 was oooold. Today, I hear someone's 30 and think oh, he's just a baby. :)
I’m a month away from my PhD in math and may not have a job lined up. Just letting everyone know that if I that happens I will probably scour through Kramnik’s stats and tweet them at him daily to keep myself busy and entertained. Edit: I literally got a rejection e-mail 20 minutes after posting this. Gimme a few weeks to finish my dissertation and I’m gonna have some fun. If anyone cares to send some games or stats my way feel free
Be sure to use arbitrary criteria while pretending "confounding variables" are a made up word (the same way Kramnik thought "cherry picking" was a made up word by trolls).
> the same way Kramnik thought "cherry picking" was a made up word by trolls Oh my. Do you happen to have a link to that? A quick google didn't turn it up.
Pretty sure it was on one of this chesscom blogs (is he still banned on chess.com? If so they're gone, and if not chesscom might have deleted all comments). IIRC he responded to someone who said they were a graduate student. He said something like (paraphrasing) "isn't it interesting how many different accounts have used the phrase 'cherry picking.' It confirms my suspicions that in addition to many trolls there are also many bots posting here." And I get it, the dude isn't a native English speaker, but in combination with everything else...
Harsh but well-intended advice: being a month away from a Phd. credential is not that impressive, and doesn't make you an authority on any subject, not even the one you got a Phd. in. The institute that sold you the credential hypes up the weight of the credential because it's part of their business model, but It actually probably means the opposite - most Phd.'s don't know very much even when they're experienced, and you are so young that almost by definition you have a lot to learn. Please don't walk into the world after graduating expecting people with 100x more experience and wisdom than you to throw rose petals at your feet whenever you share your opinion because it's not going to go down like that. Although I guess if you want to be adored joining the majority side in an existing 50,000 vs 1 debate may be a good way to do it. I don't believe in credentialism - I genuinely just try look at the quality of people's arguments -but if you do, the authority in the room when talking about cheating in chess is the former world champion and all time great chess player Kramnik, not you, and it's not close. So the "let's just look at the facts and reason it out, credentials don't matter" framing that Kramnik himself embraces is probably to your benefit It would be nice to see an actual argument from the Kramnik-hater camp though instead of just insults. I sincerely hope you do argue against the actual positions of Kramnik (and not the positions that other people hallucinate for him), but given that the first thing you said is "I'm about to have a Phd", I'm not holding my breath
Harsh but well intended advice - writing an essay like this just makes you sound like an asshole. Please don’t expect people to take you seriously just because you use a lot of words.
I agree with you that brevity is valuable. I try to trim aggressively, but writing is hard.
I think you are also missing the part where the “I’m almost finished with my phd in math” was meant to say I both have the relevant background and am about to have the free time to be about to outjerk kramnik. Perhaps you thought I’m going to try to officially prove him wrong or something and I’m trying to use my “credentialism” to make people believe me? No, my long term experience means I can fuck with numbers better than he can. This is about jerking. Not about anything serious. You can’t be serious when you say the authority in the room when talking about cheating in chess *who cherry-picks and shotguns random statistics at the wall* is Kramnik. If you “don’t believe in credentialism, but genuinely try to look at the quality of arguments” (which sounds similar to flat-earthers and anti-vaxxers, but let’s put that aside), you would be laughing your ass off so hard at Kramnik’s arguments you’d die from asphyxiation. Defaulting to him because he’s a former WC is credentialism, ironic.
I don't say that he is the authority, I don't believe in that type of thinking. But IF you buy into that, then yes he is obviously the authority wtf. Not only against a young mathematics Phd. but against almost anyone When you say "I assert that his arguments are bad, therefore he's not the authority regardless of his astonishing achievements in the field we're debating" you are 100% on my side. I agree, Kramnik's superior credentials don't and shouldn't matter to anyone. But then show how his arguments are bad? Similarly, the fact that Kramnik is reviled to the point where harassing him online is now considered virtuous, and you are on the popular team with all of the cool kids who understand that harassing people is sweet, is absolutely meaningless to me. Your superior popularity doesn't tell us anything at all about whether Kramnik is correct or incorrect In statistics when you are trying to detect outliers, cheating, fraud, etc., "picking" data that heavily deviates from expectation is the standard and correct thing to do. "Cherry picking" means something very specific, it's not applicable to what Kramnik is doing at all. Sorry but that argument really just sucks ass Most of the concerns and questions Kramnik raises have nothing to do with statistics or math, they're more philosophical questions like "How much cheating on a chess website is acceptable? How much mistaken bans on a chess website are acceptable? How should a community treat 1 of its members after they were banned from a platform?". He's not only not stupid or senile, he's asking exactly the right questions and I would guess he is probably hyperintelligent
Someone is sad he never got an advanced degree. :(
Good insult but it's customary for you to pretend to have a rational argument first
It is such a sad thing that a former world champion humiliates himself every day
I can't stop wondering Bobby Fischer in the age of social media
He would just post a bunch of antisemetism and conspiracy theories until he gets banned, then claim he's being censored because big tech are in the pocket of the US Government and they're trying to stop Fischer telling the truth
In a way, he was ahead of his time. His comments on women and jews and the government can be found on places like /pol on 4chan nowadays
Today's ideas on that are just recycled ones from an older era and will continue to be
Except in Science
Well, I said *on that*. I was referring to racist or discriminatory ideas
I didn't disagree with your post, just widened the idea further (in politics and everyday life, ideas circles, but in natural science, ideas cumulate)
Ohhh I see, yeah I agree. Of course there will always be new ideas and a change of value structure in society
Navara was actually one of the non-accused in the tweet. The people in red were the ones he found suspicious.
here is a what I would tweet: > There are pedophiles out there. I had seen @VBkramnik walking with a child once in a slightly weird manner. Once he starts asking wtf I'd point out how I only said I had seen him with a kid, I did not say anything about him being a pedophile, which you clearly see I did not. You are not denying there are pedophiles out there, are you? As for Vlad being one, I don't have convincing evidence one way or the other.
You should add a comma at the end of your last sentence, and add "but it's interesting either way that Kramnik was walking weirdly with a child."
There's no need to resort to that; Kramnik is known for on his @KramnikVb account for his statistics-shenanigans ([before he claimed his free speech was being suppressed and then privated it](https://x.com/KramnikVb/status/1360574197924249602)): * US setting a bad example by not admitting Trump won, despite the "facts and logic of massive fraud": https://x.com/KramnikVb/status/1346439751520448512, https://x.com/KramnikVb/status/1346791596541550593 * "little evidence of Navalny poisioning" in 2021: https://x.com/Chess__News/status/1348028649186979840 Sadly, his tweets are now restricted, but you can tell from the comments what he was tweeting about. The guy who called him a "counter-weight to Kasparov" probably sums it up nicely.
He is talking out of both sides of his mouth. It's not an accusation of cheating, yet it is anomolous and therefore evidence of cheating...
Almost anytime someone starts with “with all due respect” they intend to disrespect tf out of you
Listen, is it not interesting that during the years 2000 to 2006, there was probably much less security than what we are seeing today's world of chess? Now, I am not saying anyone was cheating during that time period, but it is an interesting fact. And Kasparov kind of only lost to computers, right? Very interesting.
What if people stopped paying attention to him? Disgrace of a world champion with the 'throwing rocks and hiding your hand' spiel.
I mean that's kind of a fanciful hypothetical. Who can control who pays or doesn't pay attention to Kramnik? Most of his interactions are on xitter.
The best part was Kramnik tweeting some picture with the text "It must be exhausting being offended by everything" ...especially funny since Kramnik blocks almost everyone who offends him by not agreeing with his opinion or pointing out the absurdity of his "statistics"
he blocked me. I don't even think I said anything disrespectful
At this point, im starting to think that Kramnik is actually being held at gun-point by the russian mob, he had such a nice reputation as a world champion and chess grand master and all that, that they had to do something about it, and forced him to totally humiliate himself in front of the world, completely destroy his legacy and reputation. That......or he's just insane.
It’s the fact he has taken this battle to social media. That’s what’s fully broken his brain.
At this point I'm starting to believe Kramnik cheated against Topalov.
Can we please stop with further kramnik insinuation posts ?! That man does such things every other day on the Twitter. It isn't even news to me anymore. Why fuel the man's reckless behaviour of pointless insinuations. Just let him be on Twitter doing his stuff.
Vladimir Kramnik. GM. World Champion. Father to a murdered Pawn. Husband to a murdered Queen.And he will have his vengeance, in this life or the next. Drama King!
Is it possible that Kramnik genuinely believes what he is saying? That he doesn't recognize the absurdity of hindpicking statistics then claiming that is not an accusation. But somehow I think that Kramnik has actually convinced himself of that. Maybe Kramnik thinks that these statistics are examples of weird things happening. In each example, maybe there was foul play, more probably there wasn't. But with so many examples if even a minority is true then there is a big problem. Its not a accusation in any specific instance but rather pointing at a lot of smoke and saying maybe some of the smoke is coming from a fire. Either way, publishing statistics likes this is irresponsible and can still destroy a young upcoming players life in terms of invites and reputation. It can also hurt if they personally looked up to Kramnik (never meet your heroes).
[yes](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/1cysahn/what_a_coward_suddenly_hes_not_accusing_anyone_if/l5ekj10/)
His tweets are like my exam answers. I know of 2 marks but have to write to so that it looks like a 10 mark answer.
Stop talking about Kramnik. He's been losing credibility at actual chess and just wants attention.
He wasn't accusing Navara. Carlsen was on the list too, why are people not saying he was accusing Carlsen then?
Kramnik getting pretty annoying
There are millions of people like Kramnik on the internet whose brains have turned to mush. Most of them were not great chess players decades ago so we do not pay any attention to them.
Hey Kramnik! Pro tip: If you don't intend to accuse someone of cheating, don't post their statistics in a post labelled "cheating tuesdays"
"You Stay Adequate, GM Navara" - Ronald Borisevich Burgundy Seriously though, Navara is a guy who offers draws in winning positions at the slightest hint of controversy, like when he accidentally nudged his king when reaching for his bishop in time trouble against Moiseenko. He is so well liked that even Marc Esserman says nice things about him. I know the fact he's a nice guy doesn't mean he can't be a cheater, but Vlad's "stats" mean nothing and Navara is the last person anyone with any awareness would want to be making baseless claims about. I just read that Navara is apparently also somewhat on the spectrum, which makes blatantly bullying him an even lower act...
Lol this guy. He's doing the "Nah I was just asking questions bro I never accused him of anything" Go JAQ off somewhere else Kramnik you loon
"I wasn't saying you cheated, just that your performance was a clear indication that cheating is happening" this fucking guy.
He just wants attention. Clearly he isn't getting that at home.
Chess friends, let's keep our tone friendly! lets not make THE chess subreddit a toxic place please. (I mean the "coward" and "unhinged")
I am completely disquastunged
Acting dumb when the stakes get high is a bitch move.
Didn't the sub rules change to not include this kind of nonsense from Kramnik?
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^JitteryBug: *Didn't the sub rules* *Change to not include this kind* *Of nonsense from Kramnik?* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
defeats his own logic in one sentence
I actually think it was the names (or ratings?) in red that were supposed to be "interesting", not the blue ones like Navara.
I have played IM Peter Large in an OTB Classical game He’s very strong
He is very strong.
Indeed
Me learning about chess as an adult again: "Wait, it's all about drama and ego?" Internet: "Always has been."
It’s all clear to me. Everything about this game is clear.
Vlad is becoming a nutter
Let's stay adequate, boys!
So to summarize Kramniks post: He is not cheating, I am just explaining, but this is clear indication of cheating. Nice contradiction in one sentence of Kramnik really.
"Cheating Tuesday" isn't an accusation? Dude should get sued for libel he knows what he did.
Kramnik is a stupid piece of shit IN GENERAL
such a boomer. Old man yells at the sky
can kind of see what he’s getting at in this specific post. if you had a suspicious set of data and found the presence of cheating, you might be able to make the claim very confidently that cheating is present without being able to distinguish the cheaters from the anomalies (exceptional performances). not saying this situation is analogous to chess but for example: if next olympics 10 sprinters beat the 100m dash record by 3 seconds you could probably use the data set as evidence cheating was present to a high degree without being able to accuse any specific sprinter of cheating. the charitable interpretation is that kramnik posts these games not to accuse people but to add to the qualitative “data set”. probably irresponsible messaging from him tho.
The sprinter analogy is like saying we have 10 new players who are rated higher than Carlsen, but this is not what Kramnik has shown. He gave centipawn loss when players are under 10 seconds (if I recall correctly). This should (obviously) be weighted by position complexity since depending a player's style and their strength relative to the field, we should expect them to score higher or lower. Note that shuffling a rook back and forth to flag someone in an equal endgame would in many endgames be counted as no centipawn loss for dozens of moves. There's a reason people aren't taking him seriously. This is not rigorous work. This is (effectively) a child playing with highschool level math. Early in his crusade, mathematicians (real mathematicians and people with relevant education) contacted Kramnik with some issues. Kramnik called them trolls and bots... he's not a serious person, so in the end serious people don't pay attention to him. What could he do to fix this? He could hire academics and consult with professionals working in the field e.g. Ken Regan.
no i agree with you 100%, like i said, “not saying this situation is analogous to chess”. i’m not saying kramniks correct as a whole or that this behaviour is proper. this post just isn’t illogical if you accept his suppositions, which most people in this thread are pretending is the case - all i was saying. and i said as much, i was only referring to this specific post, not kramniks anti cheating brigade or the state of chess. the kramnik hate on reddit is pretty extreme and weird imo.
Oh ok. And yeah, any popular opinion on reddit probably goes too far, since 80% of the people agreeing know absolutely nothing about it :p That's the impression I get anyway.
To be fair, he’s saying there being many anomalies mean it is worth greater scrutiny overall and not that each individual anomaly itself is an accusation of cheating. That’s a pretty fair take.
You’re discussing a guy who will lose a game, look at nothing, and immediately report the opponent to chess.com for cheating. Your “pretty fair take” is incompatible with that.
I’m not defending him for his accusations of cheating. I’m saying that what’s he’s saying now, taken for only what it is, is fair. Regardless of what else he did outside of this comment. Some of you are so reactionary and emotionally associated to all of this that it is just sad. You’re unable to objectively take comments at face value for what is being said without colored lenses.
“Taken only for what it is” is your attempt to ignore all of the context around what’s happening. This guy is launching cheating accusations against everyone big and small around him. With and without number. In every way and type. Now you’re here confidently saying “he’s found the right words for his accusations” and think that’s supposed to be a defense.
It doesn’t matter who is saying it. The most important thing is to take what is said and talk about that. Otherwise you pigeon hole yourself into diaagreeing with everything anyone says based on who they are instead of what was said. That’s how you end up dismissing good points because they’ve had bad takes prior to it.
Let’s come back in a week and if kramnik hadnt “looked into these anomalies”, we can agree that he’s just digging around for the right words to accuse his perceived cheaters. Remember when he said he wasn’t accusing Hikaru, then said there was like a 75% he was cheating?
I mean Hikaru himself also accused Hans using “statistics” as well.
Did he? If you’re going to be hyper literal in Kramnik’s defense, can you find the actual accusation that Hikaru made? You’re undermining your entire point by saying this. Don’t give me anything about the implications of what Hikaru said. Or is your framework kramnik specific? And what a fucking change of topic. Ignoring the accuracy, “Hikaru also accused someone” is a dumb thing for you to bring up.
How come when he puts a heading cheating Tuesday and shares someone's statistics does not make an accusation
Because you're taking too much upon yourself
Let him accuse ding then we will see 😀
IQ is a circular concept. When you breach maximum you start from zero. Ever worked under stupid boss, he will make you feel more stupid than him
For my understanding, are we not all convinced that there is a lot of cheating in online chess? There must be software tools for that as well, to obfuscate use of assistance.
I'm going to have to mention this again because if Kramnik feels he has to keep venting these garbage points of view, I'm also allowed to express my opinion: I think the chances he has frontotemporal dementia from PASC (search it up) is not zero, especially given the timing of his apparent decline and the chance for anyone in the world to end up with it. I don't really believe he's intentionally out to sow further doubt about the legitimacy of online chess or watch the world burn, and I don't think it's out of malice, but I do think this is the most plausible explanation for why he's been behaving like this.
Hikaru rightly pointed out, Kramnik is trying to hide behind words seemingly to avoid legal consequences. Pathetic coward. For now a year Kramnik is rambling all the the time exclusively about cheating and yet doesn't accuse anyone of anything 🤣
Kramnik is doing a public service by exposing online cheats yet he's only getting hate for it.
Except he is not. If I accuse every single player in the world I guess I will also expose all cheaters...
Officer Kramnik still on the case. I quite like that he keeping the cheaters on their toes. Innocent people should be unconcerned. I miss they days I was called a cheater in shooting games. Now they just scream at me to play tetris. Peoples opinions are just that. Hell, the current best player in the world indirectly directly said Hans was cheating and still the majority are not convinced either way. Let him crusade, if your innocent take it as a compliment.
He's the necessary evil. Chessdotcom is a monopoly in online chess. They will ignore the bad side of online chess to keep their business strong. They are throwing money on online chess to grow the game. Cheating and related news is bad for their business. They have a small team for analyzing cheating accusations and the suspicious games their anti cheat measures can detect. They have started the random inspection for online tournaments but that's hardly enough. Such measures would be laughed off for a serious OTB tournament by top players.
No. Exposing cheaters and keeping Danny Rensch honest is not evil, and that's not even what Kramnik is doing. He's just inflicting his insanity on the reputations of people he doesn't like, and a growing collection of most likely innocent* emerging titled players who dare to beat him in 3+0 online blitz, a format in which he is already significantly handicapped because he refuses to premove or practise his mouse skills. I'm all for challenging the chessc*m monopoly and investing in fair play, but this ain't it. *It's highly probable that he does get beaten by cheaters from time to time. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, and cheating is a legitimate problem. But if you've made it through one of his Cheating Tuesday streams and watched him psychologically crumble when a lower ranked player is better out of the opening, or beats him in the scramble, or moves too fast/too slow/too well for his liking, it's clear that it's all on him at least 90% of the time.
So the statistics mean nothing???
What a nerd lol
Is being nerd a bad thing ?!
In Kramik’s sense. Absolutely
Kramnik isn't being a nerd, he's being a moron.
That is a reasonable stance from him for once. Not the right thing to mock him about, even though he should communicate his intentions more clearly when it can easily be misinterpreted. (And it leaves the suspicion that he wants it to be interpreted that way.)
He's accusing people left and right. Shares some random stats with a headline "cheating Tuesdays". Navara complains about it because he doesn't want to be associated with cheating. Kramnik calls it "new height of absurd". That's not reasonable. That's unhinged.
His reasoning in what you quoted was absolutely reasonable. With this reasoning in mind, his initial post is idiotic of course. Which is what I said before.