Kramnik Hates Chess.com

No, I'm good at chess actually, I'm a chess player.

Why, my real rating is much higher, disregard my online ratings, I didn't even play those games.

You wouldn't believe anyway, so what's the point. Let's not focus on that.

I find it more satisfying to outsmart a real life human being than a computer. Also, can I take the test please? I want to see if I can see the difference.

I know but you must understand that this is just a psychological factor, has nothing to do with the actual game, the moves etc. I mean if a bot would "wear"a nickname, profile picture and will have a profile full of games and some random bs in description that would be convincing enough for you. But this is just self-deception.

Will get back to you with a test later.

huh? what do you mean blackbelt?

Indeed very reasonable arguments

@AlekhineEnthusiast46,

okay so here is the test. For each game you have to pick an answer:

• A - White is human, black is bot
• B - White is bot, black is human
• C - Both are humans
• D - Both are bots

Answers are already here so that you can't blame me that I'm changing the answers on fly: https://pastebin.com/xFhN44hH

but you need a password to open, I will tell you password to the answers after you will provide your answers. After that I will also share info about each game if you wish.

And I'm relying on your honesty: do not use engine to analyze the games. If you want, you can record your answers without using engine and then analyze and share another set of answers.

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

7)

8)

9)

10)

11)

12)

Thinking time could be randomized and/or connected to the complexity of the move to imitate thinking, so this shouldn't be a metric.

I'm talking about automatic control of thinking time. And some cheaters are quite advanced players already.

chesssblackbelt, that's interesting, my test was for AlekhineEnthusiast to determine which side is a bot, not which side is cheating, but you can continue, we will compare later assuming cheating side is a bot

Thanks, would be interesting to hear about more games from you, you still have time because I'm not revealing answers until AlekhineEnthusiast will provide their input as well.

Thanks for the test. I will answer and get back soon!

Number 1: Both are human. Black played some weird moves that I don't think a bot would think about playing.(Most people don't even play b6 and e6 against d4.) and though white was completely outplaying black for most of the game, they blundered their queen, which a bot probably would not do.

Number 2: White is a bot. played perfect the entire game with no flaws. That bishop retreat on move 14 is also a move I would not see a human playing. Black had some inaccuracies and blundered their knight at the end.

Answers so far:
AlekhineEnthusiast46: 
C,B

chesssblackbelt: 
B,D,A,A,A,D,A

Every player, who was without proof accused or declared as "suspicious" by Kramnik, should send a letter to FIDE about his insane behavior. So did f.e. GM David Navara, when he appeared on some of Kramnik´s list... If there is a number of players complaining about Kramnik, FIDE should take some action against this. Yes, cheating is killing the fun of online chess - for hobby players maybe even more than for PRO´s. But: there should be always a proof.

FIDE has nothing to do with online chess website

And Kramnik has never accused anyone

+ FIDE President once said about online: no one can be trusted.

Are you sure about that?