Kramnik Hates Chess.com - Chess Forums - Page 9

AlekhineEnthusiast46

8 days ago

0

#161

Very true. The chess.com officials probably know more about cheating then Kramnik

basketstorm

8 days ago

0

#162

sqjs wrote:

basketstorm wrote:

AlekhineEnthusiast46 wrote:

You threatened to close their site, so you know how that is going to go. I'm sorry for speaking the minds of 90% of the community and Chess.coms opinions themselves. They will agree with me. Not you, me.

No you shouldn't be sorry, you should STOP that and speak only for yourself. Also stop your abusive behavior and violation of chess.com community rules. Also if you have reported me, that's fine but you don't have to write a dozen of posts about that.

Just to let you know you are the one breaking TOS.

How?

basketstorm

8 days ago

0

#163

AlekhineEnthusiast46 wrote:

Very true. The chess.com officials probably know more about cheating then Kramnik

Kramnik knows a little more because he is a chess player.

basketstorm

8 days ago

0

#164

Busara wrote:

@MaetsNori

People think their subjective impressions of cheating are more reliable than the evaluations of chess.com's fair play team of 30 or so professionals with relevant expertise in areas like statistics, and who take into account every possible factor that correlates with cheating. It's ridiculous. I've been falsely accused, and to my regret I once accused someone I subsequently realized was honest. The people to listen to are the ones with the specific applicable knowledge, not self appointed experts who happen to be good at chess. Being good at chess doesn't mean being free of unwarranted suspicion and confirmation bias, as Kramnik has proven.

You can't deny that bias is what chess.com has to have. Because there are business interests. Let's not be naive.

Busara

8 days ago

0

#165

AlekhineEnthusiast46 wrote:

Very true. The chess.com officials probably know more about cheating then Kramnik

Using their data they figured out a standard for overperformance, and those who meet it, in Titled Tuesday for example, are scrutinized. The overperforming TT cohorts are about 2%, and cheaters are a subset of them. Sitewide, cheating is less than that. Compared to false accusations and paranoia, actual cheating is a very small problem.

From what I've seen of Kramnik, he's pretty much clueless about cheat detection.

basketstorm

8 days ago

0

#166

Busara wrote:

AlekhineEnthusiast46 wrote:

Very true. The chess.com officials probably know more about cheating then Kramnik

Using their data they figured out a standard for overperformance, and those who meet it, in Titled Tuesday for example, are scrutinized. The overperforming TT cohorts are about 2%, and cheaters are a subset of them. Sitewide, cheating is less than that. Compared to false accusations and paranoia, actual cheating is a very small problem.

From what I've seen of Kramnik, he's pretty much clueless about cheat detection.

Is Caruana a paranoid too? Because his estimate for TT is not 2% but 50%+.

basketstorm

8 days ago

0

#167

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

AlekhineEnthusiast46

8 days ago

0

#168

Yeah let's not trust the owners of the site who actually see the cheating and instead grandmasters with a little hunch that cannot be confirmed. What kinda thinking is that?

Busara

8 days ago

0

#169

basketstorm wrote:

Busara wrote:

@MaetsNori

People think their subjective impressions of cheating are more reliable than the evaluations of chess.com's fair play team of 30 or so professionals with relevant expertise in areas like statistics, and who take into account every possible factor that correlates with cheating. It's ridiculous. I've been falsely accused, and to my regret I once accused someone I subsequently realized was honest. The people to listen to are the ones with the specific applicable knowledge, not self appointed experts who happen to be good at chess. Being good at chess doesn't mean being free of unwarranted suspicion and confirmation bias, as Kramnik has proven.

You can't deny that bias is what chess.com has to have. Because there are business interests. Let's not be naive.

Chess.com used their cheat detection system to examine Hans Niemann's OTB games and it found no evidence of cheating. With Magnus being an owner, you'd expect them to say their system found something, if they are as corrupt as you and others believe. Also, there would be no reason to hire so many people for their team if they weren't concerned about accuracy and believed they could b.s. their way through the issue. Further, Ken Regan has no stake in chess.com's finances, and his cheat detection method also found low levels of cheating on the site.

Chess.com is run by people who have personal values. Assuming all they care about is money is, to be kind, cynical,

AlekhineEnthusiast46

8 days ago

0

#170

Yes Basura, besides people being suspicious of everything, actual cheaters are low. Me personally I have almost never played cheaters at all. I can't even remember when I last played a cheater to be honest, which at 1800, cheating is higher than in really low elod.

AlekhineEnthusiast46

8 days ago

0

#171

Busara my bad

basketstorm

8 days ago

0

#172

Chess.com used their cheat detection system to examine Hans Niemann's OTB games and it found no evidence of cheating.

No evidence of online cheating either, only 2 cases Hans admitted himself, the rest is just fantasies. They only managed to say that he is "likely" cheated in some online games. For OTB they've found suspicions and anomalous rating growth, read the report. It's full of accusations without any proofs. Whatever Ken Regan said, chess.com still accused Hans.

From chessbase website (September 2022):

Dr. Regan analyzed all of Hans Niemann's games over the last two years, including online games, such as played on Chess.com and their events, and his conclusion is there is no reason whatsoever to suspect him of cheating.

Let's not forget that it's usually impossible to detect cheating with high degree of confidence. But Grandmasters that actually play against cheaters, not just analyze some random games (Regan couldn't possibly have analyzed all the games on chess.com), they understand when a cheating is happening but they also understand that it's impossible to prove.

basketstorm

8 days ago

0

#173

ibrust wrote:

The reason you are 360 elo is you suck

I am not actually 360 Elo and stop your personal attack and insults. Reported.

basketstorm

8 days ago

0

#174

AlekhineEnthusiast46 wrote:

actual cheaters are low

You promise me?

basketstorm

8 days ago

0

#175

ibrust wrote:

basketstorm wrote:

ibrust wrote:

The reason you are 360 elo is you suck

I am not actually 360 Elo and stop your personal attack and insults. Reported.

You played 5 games on this account a month ago, you lost 3, drew 1, and won 1. Your average opponent rating was about 380. So yes, you are still somewhere around 360 elo.

I did not

Busara

8 days ago

0

#176

basketstorm wrote:

Busara wrote:

AlekhineEnthusiast46 wrote:

Very true. The chess.com officials probably know more about cheating then Kramnik

Using their data they figured out a standard for overperformance, and those who meet it, in Titled Tuesday for example, are scrutinized. The overperforming TT cohorts are about 2%, and cheaters are a subset of them. Sitewide, cheating is less than that. Compared to false accusations and paranoia, actual cheating is a very small problem.

From what I've seen of Kramnik, he's pretty much clueless about cheat detection.

Is Caruana a paranoid too? Because his estimate for TT is not 2% but 50%+.

Last I heard he lowered his estimate to 20%, and yes he's very likely wrong. His belief is as subjective as anyone else's. I'm really surprised that someone as smart as him doesn't understand the problem of confirmation bias. It's why an objective statistical measure is vastly more reliable than personal impressions.

basketstorm

8 days ago

0

#177

Busara wrote:

basketstorm wrote:

Busara wrote:

AlekhineEnthusiast46 wrote:

Very true. The chess.com officials probably know more about cheating then Kramnik

Using their data they figured out a standard for overperformance, and those who meet it, in Titled Tuesday for example, are scrutinized. The overperforming TT cohorts are about 2%, and cheaters are a subset of them. Sitewide, cheating is less than that. Compared to false accusations and paranoia, actual cheating is a very small problem.

From what I've seen of Kramnik, he's pretty much clueless about cheat detection.

Is Caruana a paranoid too? Because his estimate for TT is not 2% but 50%+.

Last I heard he lowered his estimate to 20%, and yes he's very likely wrong. His belief is as subjective as anyone else's. I'm really surprised that someone as smart as him doesn't understand the problem of confirmation bias. It's why an objective statistical measure is vastly more reliable than personal impressions.

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.

basketstorm

8 days ago

0

#178

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.

basketstorm

8 days ago

0

#179

@ibrust, that was not me and stop spamming. Online ratings are nothing, they are not credible and often faked through cheating, I don't know why are you so obsessed about them.

bossybwudx

8 days ago

0

#180

ibrust wrote:

basketstorm wrote:

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?