Kramnik Hates Chess.com

My perspective is that Kramnik expects too much of himself, and expects too little from others (in terms of performance).

His usual performances (from what I've seen) in Tilted Tuesday were never poor. But he would sometimes withdraw early from the event after losing, due to his perceived slight of being cheated by his opponent(s). This of course would affect his standings - as the remaining players would continue to earn points from draws and wins in later rounds, while he simply stopped playing.

He also (again, from what I've seen) gets frustrated and starts tilting when his opponents play well - as if he expects all his opponents to crumble beneath him, and seems to conclude that they must be cheating if they don't ... This can negatively impact one's play, as well, if you start to give up and play morosely, believing that the outcome is already predetermined.

The psychology of playing under a secret account would be far different. His belief of being personally cheated against would be tossed aside, the more victories he racks up (confirmation bias). And his opponents, believing that they are facing a relatively unknown GM, would possibly take more risks in their play and blunder-check less, against whom they perceive as being a lower-rated, less-accomplished opponent.

Of course, the possibility of cheating also needs to be considered - and it's certainly a possibility as well. But Kramnik seems to be basing the bulk of his accusations on blitz games, against opponents who are nearly always younger (speed chess tends to tilt in favor of youth, especially contrasted against Kramnik's notoriously slow mouse-skills), and often Grandmasters themselves ...

And the sheer volume and frequency of his accusations/suspicions leads one to wonder if he's too often seeing ghosts where they are none.

oh

Yep I think base on my THEORY also why he doesn't like to match up Hikaru or Magnus on this app or other chess personalities here because he might be badly beaten by only premoves by these monsters, he only plays with someone he knows he can beat and yaps a lot when he loses

#409



“Abuse of power”
From Kramnik

MaetsNori, interesting perspective, but I think you unfairly expect too little from Grandmasters.

1) They can play very well under pressure, they are used to it, changing account isn't a big deal.

2) They know something about chess, much more than chess.com algorithms and anti-cheating experts (do not tell me that those experts are GMs and they review every single report, this is unlikely given the amount of reports).

3) Important one: they know something about true skills of their online opponents from OTB games or from playing them using a different account.

It's not only Kramnik who suspects cheaters, okay, maybe he is a champion in sharing his suspicions publicly, but that his openness only deserves respect. Many others are bound with chess.com contracts or just afraid to speak up.

Kramnik is doing this for the good, for the better future of chess. I don't understand how can chess become better if we downplay all the issues and hush and bully everyone who dares to speak about these issues.

Класс

The chess.com fair play team has at least 3 grandmasters, and several other titled players. They have statisticians and other experts, and large amounts of data on player behavior to analyze. They also have confirmed clean play data for comparison. They use an overperformance metric to help detect cheaters, which involves hard calculations, not subjective impressions.

The fair play team knows far more about what is and what is not likely to be cheating than any individual GM, and their system is far more objective. If you ever saw the famous post game analysis between Kramnik and Ding, it's very clear that even world class GM's have differing biases about game play itself, and on top of that they are subject to confirmation bias, like all of us. A great example of faulty intuition is Magnus falsely accusing Hans. He was so certain he made it public, but now it's widely recognized that he just played poorly. BTW, his accusation was by insinuation, like Kramnik's except not nearly as obvious. Everyone knew what it was, and unlike Kramnik he never denied it.

As I said before, pure chess expertise does not qualify someone as a cheat detection expert. Family doctors have excellent knowledge of anatomy but far less than a professor of that subject, but you'd go to the doctor if you were having muscle pain, not the professor. Kramnik, then, is like the professor, and chess.coms' fair play team is like the doctor. It's not a perfect analogy, but it makes the point. Cheat detection and top level play, like medicine and knowledge of anatomy, are related but different things. If nothing else, Magnus demonstrated this.

The chess.com fair play team has at least 3 grandmasters

I know but like I've said, I doubt they have time to review every game.

They have statisticians and other experts

That's not enough.

They use an overperformance metric to help detect cheaters,

Useless against smart-cheaters.

involves hard calculations, not subjective impressions.

GMs they employ cannot provide anything objective, it is always a personal opinion and personal interpretation of the data. Why do you dismiss Kramnik's hard calculations? He has used help of statisticians and other experts too.

The fair play team knows far more about wha

Who told you that? Chess.com report? Or you're the part of that team? Why are you so sure?

e was so certain he made it public, but now it's widely recognized that he just played poorly.

Oh really? But chess.com in their report found Hans's moves in that game very suspicious.

Everyone knew what it was, and unlike Kramnik he never denied it.

Kramnik has never accused anyone. He could've EXPOSED someone or he could've expressed SUSPICIONS. But suspicions are suspicions, not accusations, do not mix meanings. It is completely normal to suspect anyone in cheating online because everyone online is a potential cheater, even Kramnik himself.

As I said before, pure chess expertise does not qualify someone as a cheat detection expert.

There's no such degree as cheat detection expert. No such experts exist.

If nothing else, Magnus demonstrated this.

Then chess.com demonstrated this too.

I was originally on baskets side because of the foul play used in Ibrusts argument, but now this feels more like a un ending argument of smaller and smaller micro catogories of the main issue, why did kramnik accuse someone randomly? He did it with reason, but very bad sportsmanship and manner and then went off the rail so yea. Danya obviously would have won, yet you guys believe(at least some of you) that danya wouldn’t have been able to otherwise, I exaggerate, but my point still stands. Kramnik was banned for subtle or outright TOS violations no matter how you look at it. Mix saltiness with skill and it equals kramnik

Also bossybwdux keeps popping up with basket on extremist chess threads, kinda funny.

 Danya obviously would have won, yet you guys believe(at least some of you) that danya wouldn’t have been able to otherwise,

No one was implying that. Stop your manipulation.

 or outright TOS violations no

Chess.com rules are not just.

Yes they are, I did believe that he would have won without it albeit violation that was obviously done with good intent and Danya showed proper remorse, also I don’t understand why you don’t like the chess.com rules as they are just as they could be for almost everything. The fact is that they are a private company, which means they can choose their own rules and TOS, just like any other company such as lichess. No one here is hunting for something to take either Danya OR Kramnik. Most of these accusations, albeit subtle were made with little purpose. Kramnik is declining from his peak due to his increasing age. Danya made a honest mistake of not think about whether or not it was a violation of rules and rather about how much his viewers could learn. Either way Kramnik ban from speech was justified as he broke TOS, Accusations are accusations whether they be true or false.

what is kramnik is right?

“I exaggerate but my point still stands” I said this because I know that. Manipulation accusations are also not meant to be thrown easily, they as bad as cheating accusations

@drhussamnoobblunders kramnik is taking to broad of a stand no matter how heroic. Cheating can’t and won’t be stopped no matter the measures. He was correct about trying to privately solve the matter but it escalated to fast to keep him innocent.

@grey836 https://youtu.be/W1h-YtVT2wo?si=X38ZWai_frD39fIF

look at this broski it kinda changed my mind

I’m going to go limit my response. It’s easy to make bogus statements, and a lot of work to refute them, and with some people it’s clear no refutation can make a dent in their opinion. Kramnik is one of those.

Why do you dismiss Kramnik's hard calculations?

Point to his hard calculations. We’ve seen none, only claims that they exist.

Do some work, and try to learn about the various experts in statistics who said Kramnik doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and that he even makes basic mistakes. And don’t put the onus on me to prove anything, I’m not interested. You said you care about truth and facts, so inform yourself.

Me: They have statisticians and other experts. You: That's not enough.

IOW, nuh-uh.

chess.com in their report found Hans's moves in that game very suspicious.

Yes, unfortunately. Both their own system and Ken Regan’s found no cheating OTB by Hans ever, but they decided to publish their subjective judgment, which for obvious reasons was a suspect thing to do. It was a real low point for Danny Rensch and Erik Allebest. Hans’s past cheating is a reason to scrutinize him more than others, but if there is doubt about it when he’s looked at then he deserves the benefit of it as much as anyone else, and he didn’t get it.

Me: They use an overperformance metric to help detect cheaters. You: Useless against smart-cheaters.

Ask yourself who has mountains of data analyzed for patterns by statisticians, and who doesn’t. Then ask yourself how often even smart cheaters can get away with it when they can at best guess what chess.com knows, and likely only a fraction of it.

There's no such degree as cheat detection expert. No such experts exist.

This is such an obvious canard. Expertise in a field has to exist before anyone can issue degrees or certifications in it. There also isn’t enough need for chess cheat detection for any eductaional institution to create a program in it.

Then chess.com demonstrated this too.

Their system is primarily based on their data and statistics. The GMs intervene in special cases. Kramnik starts with suspicions based on impressions and then does everything he can to prove himself right, rejecting all counter arguments out of hand. The scientific approach is to try and prove yourself wrong and see if your theory stands up, but Kramnik is as far from scientific as it gets.

It’s very strange how you can’t face up to what the vast majority of people know intuitively, which is that there is a limit to insinuations before it becomes obvious that they are veiled accusations. As I pointed out, veiled accusations are recognized in U.S. law as defamation by implication, but somehow even this just whizzes right by you.

Good luck finding out the truth and the facts.

I’ve got to say, the video was pretty convincing

🤨 @basura I could’ve sworn there was a entire page on this subject

I agree though