For anyone interested, Caruana is four-time United States Chess Champion (still reigning). With a peak rating of 2844, Caruana is the third-highest-rated player in history after Kasparov and Carlsen.
I don't know why you posted that in this thread, but maybe we can agree on something: Caruana is an amazing chess player, but also a wonderful human being.
Listen, who is Caruana and who are you to say that Caruana is wrong and how he doesn't understand something in chess? This is just ridiculous.
Who are you to say Caruana's or anyone's opinion is any good?
I spent many hours looking into cheat detection after Magnus accused Hans. The information I picked up from interviews with Danny Rensch, Erik Allebest and Ken Regan, as well as in online discussions, is a lot more valuable than any GM's opinion about cheating. GMs are experts in how to play chess, not recognizing cheaters. I'm also keenly aware of of how confirmation bias distorts people'd perceptions, and I've listened while Fabi and Cristian made a conclusion about a player using an analogy about athletic performance and chess performance that I know from personal experience is false. Being expert in one area doesn't make someone's opinion worthwhile in another area, even if the areas are related. That's something any adult should know.
@basketstorm
BTW, on Danya's Bc8 idea, Artur's Neiksans dug up several of his own games where he played the same move in similar positions. Some top GMs finding it strange proves nothing. They think they know how other GMs, including lower ranked ones, play, but Neiksans has shown they don't.
Yo basketstorm I thought reporting people meant you ran out of ideas and I am right. Stop contradicting yourself
Please tell me how to cheat at bullet chess.
There is an app you can download (not free) it plays the moves for you, it has all kinds of modes, even set your ELO. I played someone in lichess, 25 moves and he took 2.7 sec to think about them, while I took all 60 seconds. I am guessing they were using that app, because no one can think 25 moves in 2.7 seconds.
I was told you can't cheat in bullet, but clearly you can. That plugins also works on here. You have to use chrome browser from what I read.
Look, even Magnus, the greatest chess player of all time, was wrong about cheating with Hans Nieman. If his suspicions are wrong, anyone's is.
Listen, who is Caruana and who are you to say that Caruana is wrong and how he doesn't understand something in chess? This is just ridiculous.
Who are you to say Caruana's or anyone's opinion is any good?
I spent many hours looking into cheat detection after Magnus accused Hans. The information I picked up from interviews with Danny Rensch, Erik Allebest and Ken Regan, as well as in online discussions, is a lot more valuable than any GM's opinion about cheating. GMs are experts in how to play chess, not recognizing cheaters. I'm also keenly aware of of how confirmation bias distorts people'd perceptions, and I've listened while Fabi and Cristian made a conclusion about a player using an analogy about athletic performance and chess performance that I know from personal experience is false. Being expert in one area doesn't make someone's opinion worthwhile in another area, even if the areas are related. That's something any adult should know.
Can a person make 25 moves with just 2.7 seconds to think about them? Is that possible?
Nobody is entitled to talk about cheating except for those who run the site and see the cheating occur. Chess.com is by far the most trustworthy source and I trust them more than a grandmaster.
So basically everyone who claims that cheating is a big issue is just paranoid and we should only trust chess.com and their "less than 1%" estimations. And if you ask questions, you're an ACCUSER because HOW DARE YOU. Such a circus omg
The reason you are 360 elo is you suck, it has nothing to do with cheating being a big issue. But if you put as much time into learning the game as you do into making cheating allegations you'd probably rise at least 200 elo, based on the amount of effort combined with the actual thinking ability you have. Probably would end up 560 elo if you could just buckle down and focus on the game for a while. And at that point you would be above where my sister is rated who has only played 3 games in her life, right now you aren't quite there, she's 400 elo.
You're in no position to point out anyone's elo. I directly challenged you to a best of 3 and you ignored.
Your comments are that of an emotional coward.
The challenge still stands.
Are you ready now?
You challenged me to a bullet game and you said whoever wins is correct about Kramnik in this conversation, that is an asinine statement since it has absolutely no bearing on the facts of the conversation - just as Kramniks challenge to Danya had absolutely nothing to do with the facts of that case - and so I ignored it, you're correct.
As for your proposal here, there are 3 issues with it. 1) You made it a bullet game, which is a game mode I think is a joke and do not take seriously. Bullet games reward memorization, not thinking. 2) I stand nothing to gain from this proposal since regardless of who wins it you will still be wrong, Kramnik still remains wrong and you remain a fool, 3) The fact basket is 360 elo is relevant to the conversation, a 360 elo player does not understand chess enough to comment on cheating or rating farming. Whether you or I would win in a bullet game, or a rapid game, is completely irrelevant to the conversation. I play chess to enjoy myself, I don't play it to measure egos / bump egos with the gays on this site.
So my answer to your challenge is no, I don't care about you, I don't feel a strong need to measure the size of my appendage against yours, and you are simply wrong regardless.
Keep trying!
If you're not aware, I'm showing you up. Stop trying to point out others elo if you're scared to put yours to the test.
I challenged you because I sensed that you're a coward deep within who felt you could 'shame' another person with a lower elo than you.
Online elo ratings are irrelevant to the conversation... and anyone with a brain can see that Basket is more composed and knowledgeable than you on the topic.
And your answer to my challenge is no, because you are scared to embarrass yourself by losing to me. I know you won't admit that publicly. So I never expected you to.... just like how I knew you wouldn't accept the challenge.
Yo ibrust how has the Nimzi Silician been working out? :tup
Just spent ten minutes reading through this thread, do none of you guys have anything better to do than insulting each other? This thread is patently pointless.
Honestly Jade I really don't have many things to do.
Listen, who is Caruana and who are you to say that Caruana is wrong and how he doesn't understand something in chess? This is just ridiculous.
Who are you to say Caruana's or anyone's opinion is any good?
I spent many hours looking into cheat detection after Magnus accused Hans. The information I picked up from interviews with Danny Rensch, Erik Allebest and Ken Regan, as well as in online discussions, is a lot more valuable than any GM's opinion about cheating. GMs are experts in how to play chess, not recognizing cheaters. I'm also keenly aware of of how confirmation bias distorts people'd perceptions, and I've listened while Fabi and Cristian made a conclusion about a player using an analogy about athletic performance and chess performance that I know from personal experience is false. Being expert in one area doesn't make someone's opinion worthwhile in another area, even if the areas are related. That's something any adult should know.
Can a person make 25 moves with just 2.7 seconds to think about them? Is that possible?
Even if he were lying about his editor removing that down time, which we have no proof of, it would be completely irrelevant since he was a 3200 playing an 1100 in an educational speedrun, aiming at providing accurate commentary on an account where all rating points were to be refunded. This is completely and totally irrelevant.
?????????????
How does that answer my question?
I usually have a lot of free time I spend on here and play chess constanly
And when I see chess opinions, I argue with them. Ask rust, we argued about chess openings for days. No insults though. Just debate.
Listen, who is Caruana and who are you to say that Caruana is wrong and how he doesn't understand something in chess? This is just ridiculous.
Who are you to say Caruana's or anyone's opinion is any good?
I spent many hours looking into cheat detection after Magnus accused Hans. The information I picked up from interviews with Danny Rensch, Erik Allebest and Ken Regan, as well as in online discussions, is a lot more valuable than any GM's opinion about cheating. GMs are experts in how to play chess, not recognizing cheaters. I'm also keenly aware of of how confirmation bias distorts people'd perceptions, and I've listened while Fabi and Cristian made a conclusion about a player using an analogy about athletic performance and chess performance that I know from personal experience is false. Being expert in one area doesn't make someone's opinion worthwhile in another area, even if the areas are related. That's something any adult should know.
Can a person make 25 moves with just 2.7 seconds to think about them? Is that possible?
Even if he were lying about his editor removing that down time, which we have no proof of, it would be completely irrelevant since he was a 3200 playing an 1100 in an educational speedrun, aiming at providing accurate commentary on an account where all rating points were to be refunded. This is completely and totally irrelevant.
?????????????
How does that answer my question?
Because Danyas response to your question was that his editor edited out 20 seconds of him setting up the board, and we have no proof of whether that happened. Hence I'm speaking to Danya's response to your question. Educate yourself on the facts of this case before commenting.
Educate myself? I was not asking about Danya response. I was asking a general question, nothing to do with that.
Which was:
Can a person make 25 moves with just 2.7 seconds to think about them? Is that possible?
You don't want to answer it fine.
And when I see chess opinions, I argue with them. Ask rust, we argued about chess openings for days. No insults though. Just debate.
True, from what I've read you seemed quite reasonable throughout this thread. I was mainly refering to the other pair of people arguing, bossybwudx and ibrust.
Mr Bonehead, it is impossible without premoves and with premoves they would have to guess your every move perfectly. That is a cheater.
Mr Bonehead, it is impossible without premoves and with premoves they would have to guess your every move perfectly. That is a cheater.
That must mean there is software that allows you to cheat at bullet. I must admit that shocked me. I then looked into it to see if there is software out there and yep there is. Chess in my view is finished online. If you have a lichess account I will post you the link, just to show I am not lying.
@basketstorm
"No evidence of online cheating either, only 2 cases Hans admitted himself, the rest is just fantasies."
Irrelevant to my point. His online cheating, up to 100 games, is why I used his OTB play to illustrate that chess.com doesn't lie about what their cheat detection system detects.
It was very unfortunate that in their prosecutory zeal, chess.com included purely subjective opinions about Han's cheating OTB. This shows they had an anti Hans agenda, and underlines the fact that they don't misrepresent their cheat detection system findings. BTW, Ken Regan agreed with their findings about Hans's online play, but disagreed with their opinions about his OTB games, saying he was in the clear.
Han's fast ascent is misunderstood. First, Aronian did similar, so it wasn't unprecedented. Second, over time it was very quick, but over number of games it was about the same as other recently high performing juniors. He got suspected because he played a lot in a shorter time than others.
I find it interesting that you think it's difficult for chess.com to detect cheaters with a sufficeint degree of confidence using a sophisticated statistical model and scrutiny by their fair play team's GMs who are informed about all the relevent issues, but you think Kramnik and others can do it just by feel.
Edit: To be clear, chess.com found that Hans cheated in about 100 games online. That wasn't fantasy, Ken Regan's system found the same. Neither found anything OTB.