Kramnik Hates Chess.com

My Elo is much higher than 400. You have no games and no rating, so by your logic you shouldn't post at all.

560 - 400 = 160 ELO

I do not think 160 ELO is much higher.

edited moderator AndrewSmith 

Like I said, I spent a lot of time investigating it. It's clear you spent none, or if you did you didn't learn from it. You certainly haven't absorbed anything meaningful I or others here have said. It's why I can't debate you any longer. I guess if Kramnik becomes persuaded that actual experts like professors of statistics know things he doesn't, you might take your cue from him, but if that happens, which it wont, you should not follow his lead. You should think about cheat detection with a critical but open mind, instead of relying on the opinion of your hero. Anyway, I insinuated you're ignorant, which I shouldn't have, so I apologize. Good luck with your chess, wherever you play. As Neal Bellon says in his sign off, I hope you win your next game.

No, they are not my games.

No, it's not "clear" that I spent none, that's just your opinion. Did you write at least one chess engine that tries to imitate human play?

Kramnik offered exactly that idea - to hire actual experts in math and statistics but independent, unbiased, not affiliated with chess.com, Kramnik offered to cover their pay, but chess.com refused. So instead Kramnik has hired a team of experts mathematicians and statisticians. It's not like he is making his own conclusions besides he is not pushing any conclusions, he is just showing some data, some FACTS, and asking to investigate while chess.com ignores or refutes that with silly excuses. For example, Kramnik was pointing at DOZENS of Hikaru streaks, but chess.com and their experts investigated only ONE. Next, Kramnik is not sure about Hikaru that he is a cheater, he is more inclined to think that Hikaru's opponents either deliberately lose or they are just weak, their rating is fake and they afraid to cheat against Hikaru. You need to watch his videos more carefully.

I am starting to be convinced that you are a Kramnik alternate account at this point.

Your account looks very interesting.

Just because you and your youtube superstars disagree with Kramnik, doesn't mean only Kramnik would agree with himself

what is going on

To do the procedure.

Danya fan, I see

I did not let other people to play on my account

This is a stupid argument.

1- Okay? Most people trust that most people online are not cheating because they are not cheating, and the few cheaters are the exception rather than the norm.

2- Okay, but I don't cheat? I fail to see how this is relevant to your point of banning online chess.

3- Most people aren't notable enough to get a significant amonut of false accusations, and of those that do, they don't take it seriously enough (especially if they do not actually cheat) to abandon the convenience of online chess.

4- Those people are in the minority. If you don't want to occasionally see stuff like that, disable chat. If someone stalls, report them and move on. No need to ban the entirity of online chess for this.

5- Because in real life all people are exactly how strong their ratings suggest they are? Real-life rating could be as inconsistent as online games. Regarding sandbaggers, again, they are the minority rather than the norm.

6- This is just incorrect. Rapid games (especially 10 minutes games) are arguably the most useful format for the improvement of low-rated players who do not know enough to make use of the classical-length game times - Rapid games allow even players who don't know how to calculate to still play and have some semblance of improvement. I will admit that blitz and bullet is less influential towards improvement, but saying Rapid is "useless for development" is just incorrect.

ALSO, not everybody plays to improve - some people play just for fun, and the existance of online chess sites like these allow a low entry barrier (requiring low amounts of investments of time) for the population at large which was one of the factors which popularised chess.
I hope that I have addressed every point you made and made it clear that your argument is incorrect.

Please avoid such words as stupid when talking about my posts. This is not nice.

1) You don't know if it is few. But potentially could be everyone, you can't argue here.

2) I don't know if you don't cheat. You might be a cheater, who knows? Only you, but there's no reason to trust your words.

3) You don't know when you will become notable. See at Hans's situation how it hit back. Yes he admitted two cases but the rest is just accusations and this damages his reputation, affects his contracts, finances etc. This is a big thing. Next, this your point is dismissive and discriminating. You are basically telling that there are some people who can be accused and we should not care about their feelings. What? Shame on you.

4) You can't disable chat in variants by default. Reporting stalls/abandons does nothing. Those people keep playing and face no consequences. Come on even if cheaters get second chance. Plus anyone can make a new account here, no one cares.

5) Yes.

6) This is just correct. Any serious chess coach, any GM would tell you that. For low-rated players 10 minute rapid is useless, just as useless as Blitz. I mean with Rapid you can go past the opening phase but then the time ends anyway. I'm not saying low-rated should spend hours per game, no. But 10 minute is just crazy fast. My argument is correct, your arguments are wrong. Because chess coaches and Grandmasters are on my side. Good bye.

We all hate Kramnik too! He's become a malignant troll

Perhaps you did, then, but I saw no sign of it in our discussion, just opinion of your own that I know I have no chance of influencing. You also said nothing I can learn from, so those things together make debate with you pointless. There's no useful point in it for you either, I would think. As for the rest of what you wrote, I left it unread.