Kramnik Hates Chess.com
Sort:
I do t really know at this point, evidence on both sides hit hard, so I’m kinda gonna be a little more neutral
*Don’t
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 doe
Just watch his videos, he presents all the calculations and he also reviewed works of those experts you mention and other experts were involved in that review, just watch the videos you will find all answers.
Ask yourself who has mountains of data analyzed for patterns by statisticians
Kramnik. He has data on every player on every move (I'm quoting him here)
elf right, rejecting all counter arguments out of hand.
No, he is ready to admit that he was wrong if he was wrong.
veiled accusations are recognized in U.S. law as defamation by implication, but somehow even this just whizzes right by you.
Whether it was an accusation or not is debatable. Plus Kramnik lives in Switzerland, there are certain freedom of expression protections. Even if he lived in U.S. it's impossible to prove that Kramnik had malicious intent, so the case would fail.
Danya is the goal of chess.com
Grey836 wrote:
I’ve got to say, the video was pretty convincing
The clip of Levy and Hikaru is taken out of context and we don't know what they concluded. There is also no link to the video of their discussion, which is suspicious. If we saw it for ourselves we might not come to the conclusion the channel owner wants us to. Considering both Levy and Hikaru have publicly and repeatedly expressed support for Danya, as far as I'm concerned the video is a likely manipulation, and I don't believe it for a second.
Video? What video?
basketstorm wrote:
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 doe
Just watch his videos, he presents all the calculations and he also reviewed works of those experts you mention and other experts were involved in that review, just watch the videos you will find all answers.
Ask yourself who has mountains of data analyzed for patterns by statisticians
Kramnik. He has data on every player on every move (I'm quoting him here)
elf right, rejecting all counter arguments out of hand.
No, he is ready to admit that he was wrong if he was wrong.
veiled accusations are recognized in U.S. law as defamation by implication, but somehow even this just whizzes right by you.
Whether it was an accusation or not is debatable. Plus Kramnik lives in Switzerland, there are certain freedom of expression protections. Even if he lived in U.S. it's impossible to prove that Kramnik had malicious intent, so the case would fail.
I'm not going to watch an arrogant amateur try to explain why experts are wrong, and I don't believe he has hard calculations in his videos because no one else has said this. What I believe is that I it's not possible for me to make progress in a debate with you, although I felt I should try. Claims are easy, and refuting them takes work, as I said, and I've put in enough effort already. One last thing, though, telling people to go watch videos instead of offering the evidence yourself is a very poor way to argue.
Oaky, I'm finally done. It's been a test, but kind of fun.
I'm not claiming anything, also I'm not arguing or debating, I'm just asking to watch his videos if you need evidence. And he did use help of experts to explain why chess.com experts are, maybe not wrong, but it's all about the question, about what do you ask an expert to analyze, the selectivity. Anyway, I just don't see any point in repeating everything from the videos, because it would be too much text and the information will be distorted.
So they were talking about this on Fabiano caruanas show and in the comments I saw a great idea for Daniel to clear his name - why not do a series of live over the board matches against Hans Niemann!
It will not only show that he's able to play against other grand masters, gives both players chance to answer their critics over the board, gives us the chess fans some decent quality content but most of all it's likely that kramnik (as Hans coach) will back off and leave him alone after seeing him put on a good performance against his student.
basketstorm wrote:
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 doe
Just watch his videos, he presents all the calculations and he also reviewed works of those experts you mention and other experts were involved in that review, just watch the videos you will find all answers.
Ask yourself who has mountains of data analyzed for patterns by statisticians
Kramnik. He has data on every player on every move (I'm quoting him here)
elf right, rejecting all counter arguments out of hand.
No, he is ready to admit that he was wrong if he was wrong.
veiled accusations are recognized in U.S. law as defamation by implication, but somehow even this just whizzes right by you.
Whether it was an accusation or not is debatable. Plus Kramnik lives in Switzerland, there are certain freedom of expression protections. Even if he lived in U.S. it's impossible to prove that Kramnik had malicious intent, so the case would fail.
If he's that expert then why couldn't he beat Hikaru or Magnus who can even beat cheaters is he all talk then?
Honestly manipulation I didn’t think about but I know as a fact levy and Hikaru are our most reliable sources. If I saw that video live from a official channel I think it would be more believable
Joey Cage’s idea seems pretty solid.
Demoord also has a Point
In some ways you are right basket, but there is much that sways for Danya. I believe hard evidence, so send some video/article that could explain how Kramnik sees this
*Demonlord
@Grey836
what are you talking about? Levy and Hikaru? Is there some video? Could you share?
@DrHussamNoobBlunders lol
That was when they were disucssing Petrosian gazing down (Danya video was overlayed on top that's obvious). Petrosian was later banned. It started with Wesley So's allegations, then it was this gazing controversy and then chess.com said his moves were too good and banned him. He himself denied everything.
So Levy and Hikaru were speaking about Petrosian.
BUT
But this exposes the huge hypocrisy. Of everyone. Because it was normal to discuss where Petrosian is looking, it was normal for chess.com to investigate him. And no one said that Hikaru or Levy or Wesley So are paranoids.
So it was apparently ok for Wesley So to ask that "where are you looking" question.
