<Comment deleted by user>
@ClappingQueens said in #19:
I think this is the one that started it all. it seems kramnik is saying without saying he suspects naka of cheating. To me, kramnik talks like a mobster, the classic "it would be a shame if something happened to your wife" style of talking. a threat without a threat, but the intent is clear.
I thought this post was free clicks for chess.com, but kramnik got a lot of criticism and got a lot crazier in my opinion. He intends on naming one player a day. I guess now it will be on facebook. He's going to name so many players there's a 50 50 chance he will eventually name a cheater.
archive.is/T5Sae
I think this is the one that started it all. it seems kramnik is saying without saying he suspects naka of cheating. To me, kramnik talks like a mobster, the classic "it would be a shame if something happened to your wife" style of talking. a threat without a threat, but the intent is clear.
I thought this post was free clicks for chess.com, but kramnik got a lot of criticism and got a lot crazier in my opinion. He intends on naming one player a day. I guess now it will be on facebook. He's going to name so many players there's a 50 50 chance he will eventually name a cheater.
archive.is/T5Sae
@h2b2 said in #22:
> I think this is the one that started it all. it seems kramnik is saying without saying he suspects naka of cheating. To me, kramnik talks like a mobster, the classic "it would be a shame if something happened to your wife" style of talking. a threat without a threat, but the intent is clear.
I am not aware of Kramnik threatening anything to anyone's wife. And what is the possible threat he could have? Beat her at chess?
> I thought this post was free clicks for chess.com, but kramnik got a lot of criticism and got a lot crazier in my opinion. He intends on naming one player a day. I guess now it will be on facebook. He's going to name so many players there's a 50 50 chance he will eventually name a cheater.
> archive.is/T5Sae
Thank you h2b2, you are at least willing to substantiate your grievances. I personally don't think there is much offence here, maybe when he says: "So, gentlemen, crazy to have doubts or not to examine? Just substitute the name to any other and the answer is clear "?
79 unbeaten streak would make anyone want to examine, surely? I do think if it wasn't Hikaru, this would definitely have been investigated. I think that with the chess.corn statisticians having read it, they would probably now investigate it. Do you have a link to the post for the reason they are talking about Kramnik "going mad" or "he's a rock-bottom awful human being and a pathetic narcissist"?
> I think this is the one that started it all. it seems kramnik is saying without saying he suspects naka of cheating. To me, kramnik talks like a mobster, the classic "it would be a shame if something happened to your wife" style of talking. a threat without a threat, but the intent is clear.
I am not aware of Kramnik threatening anything to anyone's wife. And what is the possible threat he could have? Beat her at chess?
> I thought this post was free clicks for chess.com, but kramnik got a lot of criticism and got a lot crazier in my opinion. He intends on naming one player a day. I guess now it will be on facebook. He's going to name so many players there's a 50 50 chance he will eventually name a cheater.
> archive.is/T5Sae
Thank you h2b2, you are at least willing to substantiate your grievances. I personally don't think there is much offence here, maybe when he says: "So, gentlemen, crazy to have doubts or not to examine? Just substitute the name to any other and the answer is clear "?
79 unbeaten streak would make anyone want to examine, surely? I do think if it wasn't Hikaru, this would definitely have been investigated. I think that with the chess.corn statisticians having read it, they would probably now investigate it. Do you have a link to the post for the reason they are talking about Kramnik "going mad" or "he's a rock-bottom awful human being and a pathetic narcissist"?
@Nomoreusernames said in #23:
> I am not aware of Kramnik threatening anything to anyone's wife. And what is the possible threat he could have?
I didn't know kramnik threaten someone's wife, can you link to it?
> Thank you h2b2, you are at least willing to substantiate your grievances.
I love finding something to argue about. If I have to swap mid thread then so be it.
> I personally don't think there is much offence here, maybe when he says: "So, gentlemen, crazy to have doubts or not to examine? Just substitute the name to any other and the answer is clear "?
If I was a clean titled player, and kramnik accused me, without accusing me, of cheating, I would take it as a huge compliment.
> 79 unbeaten streak would make anyone want to examine, surely?
kramnik examined naka and found naka regularly plays people that are 100s of points lower rated than he is.
> I do think if it wasn't Hikaru, this would definitely have been investigated.
naka was investigated. fair if you don't trust chess.com, I don't, but kramnik investigated and said naka regularly plays lower rated people, and others that claim to be statisticians and independent of chess.com said the unbeaten streak isn't improbable.
> Do you have a link to the post for the reason they are talking about Kramnik "going mad" or "he's a rock-bottom awful human being and a pathetic narcissist"?
yes, I do.
> I am not aware of Kramnik threatening anything to anyone's wife. And what is the possible threat he could have?
I didn't know kramnik threaten someone's wife, can you link to it?
> Thank you h2b2, you are at least willing to substantiate your grievances.
I love finding something to argue about. If I have to swap mid thread then so be it.
> I personally don't think there is much offence here, maybe when he says: "So, gentlemen, crazy to have doubts or not to examine? Just substitute the name to any other and the answer is clear "?
If I was a clean titled player, and kramnik accused me, without accusing me, of cheating, I would take it as a huge compliment.
> 79 unbeaten streak would make anyone want to examine, surely?
kramnik examined naka and found naka regularly plays people that are 100s of points lower rated than he is.
> I do think if it wasn't Hikaru, this would definitely have been investigated.
naka was investigated. fair if you don't trust chess.com, I don't, but kramnik investigated and said naka regularly plays lower rated people, and others that claim to be statisticians and independent of chess.com said the unbeaten streak isn't improbable.
> Do you have a link to the post for the reason they are talking about Kramnik "going mad" or "he's a rock-bottom awful human being and a pathetic narcissist"?
yes, I do.
Imagine Nakamura has a chess position evaluation cheat on the upper right corner of the monitor. Now go watch his youtube videos.
@h2b2 said in #24:
> I didn't know kramnik threaten someone's wife, can you link to it?
I didn't think he had, but there are quite a few accusations about him flying around. I have not said that Kramnik threatened anyone's wife, even at beating her in chess, if that's what you thought.
> I love finding something to argue about. If I have to swap mid thread then so be it.
That's not bad at all, to learn and change your opinion, or even assess things from a different perspective.
> If I was a clean titled player, and kramnik accused me, without accusing me, of cheating, I would take it as a huge compliment.
Sure, but don't think accusations should be swept under the carpet, they should be backed with fact. Kramnik has said he has some method, and we are waiting for him to publish.
> kramnik examined naka and found naka regularly plays people that are 100s of points lower rated than he is.
> naka was investigated. fair if you don't trust chess.com, I don't, but kramnik investigated and said naka regularly plays lower rated people, and others that claim to be statisticians and independent of chess.com said the unbeaten streak isn't improbable.
It would be sensible to trust qualified strangers more than chess.corn, but bear in mind that this is not necessarily the method Kramnik's statisticians are using to find the outliers, and that really is what matters. It would be safer to trust Kramnik's results only when he shares his method, but that is not the same as considering his methods "debunked".
> yes, I do.
Please may you kindly share?
> I didn't know kramnik threaten someone's wife, can you link to it?
I didn't think he had, but there are quite a few accusations about him flying around. I have not said that Kramnik threatened anyone's wife, even at beating her in chess, if that's what you thought.
> I love finding something to argue about. If I have to swap mid thread then so be it.
That's not bad at all, to learn and change your opinion, or even assess things from a different perspective.
> If I was a clean titled player, and kramnik accused me, without accusing me, of cheating, I would take it as a huge compliment.
Sure, but don't think accusations should be swept under the carpet, they should be backed with fact. Kramnik has said he has some method, and we are waiting for him to publish.
> kramnik examined naka and found naka regularly plays people that are 100s of points lower rated than he is.
> naka was investigated. fair if you don't trust chess.com, I don't, but kramnik investigated and said naka regularly plays lower rated people, and others that claim to be statisticians and independent of chess.com said the unbeaten streak isn't improbable.
It would be sensible to trust qualified strangers more than chess.corn, but bear in mind that this is not necessarily the method Kramnik's statisticians are using to find the outliers, and that really is what matters. It would be safer to trust Kramnik's results only when he shares his method, but that is not the same as considering his methods "debunked".
> yes, I do.
Please may you kindly share?
@vexch said in #25:
> Imagine Nakamura has a chess position evaluation cheat on the upper right corner of the monitor. Now go watch his youtube videos.
Kramnik said headphones at least should be banned from online tournaments. I don't know what the argument is against that, nobody seems to have addressed it. Their justification may be that Hikaru would be upset because he wants to be like XQC or something.
> Imagine Nakamura has a chess position evaluation cheat on the upper right corner of the monitor. Now go watch his youtube videos.
Kramnik said headphones at least should be banned from online tournaments. I don't know what the argument is against that, nobody seems to have addressed it. Their justification may be that Hikaru would be upset because he wants to be like XQC or something.
@h2b2 said in #22:
> I think this is the one that started it all. it seems kramnik is saying without saying he suspects naka of cheating. To me, kramnik talks like a mobster, the classic "it would be a shame if something happened to your wife" style of talking. a threat without a threat, but the intent is clear.
>
> I thought this post was free clicks for chess.com, but kramnik got a lot of criticism and got a lot crazier in my opinion. He intends on naming one player a day. I guess now it will be on facebook. He's going to name so many players there's a 50 50 chance he will eventually name a cheater.
>
> archive.is/T5Sae
I appreciate you digging up this archived page.
I looked at this thread. They banned him for this? Asking questions and making accusations should be commonplace in any competitive system. I wouldn't trust one that didn't allow this kind of discourse.
Am I missing something?
> I think this is the one that started it all. it seems kramnik is saying without saying he suspects naka of cheating. To me, kramnik talks like a mobster, the classic "it would be a shame if something happened to your wife" style of talking. a threat without a threat, but the intent is clear.
>
> I thought this post was free clicks for chess.com, but kramnik got a lot of criticism and got a lot crazier in my opinion. He intends on naming one player a day. I guess now it will be on facebook. He's going to name so many players there's a 50 50 chance he will eventually name a cheater.
>
> archive.is/T5Sae
I appreciate you digging up this archived page.
I looked at this thread. They banned him for this? Asking questions and making accusations should be commonplace in any competitive system. I wouldn't trust one that didn't allow this kind of discourse.
Am I missing something?
@zugzuang said in #13:
> What he made as clear as day was: These performances are totally outside the reality of any human being, they deserve a more rigorous analysis by chess.com.
There's the problem: the performances Kramnik was questioning are *NOT* "outside the reality of any human being" - they are in fact WELL WITHIN the realms of statistical possibilty, as demonstrated by multiple mathematicians. And they DID get additional analysis by Chess.com in response to Kramnik's statements, but Kramnik refused to accept Chess.com's conclusion that the performance were not suspicious at all and continued to make the similar accusations using similar reasoning. Which is why Chess.com muted him and removed his blog from their site.
If Kramnik were to open a lichess account (maybe he already has one) and make similar accusations here, what would lichess' response be?
> What he made as clear as day was: These performances are totally outside the reality of any human being, they deserve a more rigorous analysis by chess.com.
There's the problem: the performances Kramnik was questioning are *NOT* "outside the reality of any human being" - they are in fact WELL WITHIN the realms of statistical possibilty, as demonstrated by multiple mathematicians. And they DID get additional analysis by Chess.com in response to Kramnik's statements, but Kramnik refused to accept Chess.com's conclusion that the performance were not suspicious at all and continued to make the similar accusations using similar reasoning. Which is why Chess.com muted him and removed his blog from their site.
If Kramnik were to open a lichess account (maybe he already has one) and make similar accusations here, what would lichess' response be?
@ClappingQueens said in #28:
> I appreciate you digging up this archived page.
> I looked at this thread. They banned him for this?
he didn't get banned for that, no.
> Am I missing something?
yes.
> Asking questions and making accusations should be commonplace in any competitive system. I wouldn't trust one that didn't allow this kind of discourse.
lichess doesn't allow the kind of discourse that got kramnik muted. they call it public shaming.
> I appreciate you digging up this archived page.
> I looked at this thread. They banned him for this?
he didn't get banned for that, no.
> Am I missing something?
yes.
> Asking questions and making accusations should be commonplace in any competitive system. I wouldn't trust one that didn't allow this kind of discourse.
lichess doesn't allow the kind of discourse that got kramnik muted. they call it public shaming.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.