Huge like and thank you a lot for having the courage to speak out about this problem. Cheating is killing chess. And it might spill over into OTB FIDE too like Kramnik said. It has already happened to some extent. All honest players should speak out about this problem. It's killing chess. Serious measures should be taken. Also kudos to Caruana for speaking out at least a little bit about this problem.
Cheating is only possible because of the broader context of technological development. Chess engines are far, far superior to human players (and we all know I'm actually understating the disparity). And so it makes little sense now to reward anyone with a 'grandmaster' title because people are no longer the measure of chess expertise; technology has taken over that role. And because that's the case, professional tournaments also make little sense -- at least in the way they exist currently. If people want to have fun playing chess as a hobby and vie with each other over the board for unmoneyed bragging rights, sure, that's great; go for it. It'd be like organizing a peewee baseball league in which cheating wouldn't be a problem because the stakes are too low. But organizing a system of financial reward for chess achievements but then outlawing efficient tool use and mandating that only caveman-level technologies (that is, human beings) be used is obviously an invitation for conflict. Cheating isn't the broader problem; humanity's unresolved role within the technological landscape is.
@declup cars are much faster than humans, but people still compete in running and jumping and football (while some sort of ball cannons will success in hitting the targets much better). why chess are different? it's all about organizing people who willing or not willing to take a countermeasures.
@@kagegakurenokuni Good point. I'd rather agree with you than Declup (previous comment). That's because I don't think chess is meaningless just because we have chess engines. I don't think arithmetic is useless either (or knowing the multiplication table) just because we have calculators. By the way, it holds for many board games with heavy calculations. I don't think they are all useless like the Chinese go, checkers, backgammon, etc. Besides computers and machines are not yet that sophisticated to replace humans: There are things like creativity, strategies in chess, and things like that. I don't think we should dumb down everything. It's not just about calculation. The calculator does't know math better than me. Sure, it calculates much better. Still it doesn't replace a "human touch". The same goes for chess engines.
BTW, chess engines are not prohibited when you practice and learn chess. They are prohibited only when you cheat vs other players. It's just like a running competition: say, someone says, "Why do you run folks? Use a bicycle." -- Wanna use a bicycle in a running competition? Sorry, that's not an option. That's cheating like using computers in chess tournaments for money. Sure, bicycles are great. Chess engines are great too. But if you run on your two feet in a competition, you just run, you don't get to ride a bicycle. The same with chess engines. Wanna use chess engines, folks vs honest players? Go and use it vs your friend or relatives. DO NOT USE THEM ONLINE AND IN COMPETITIONS!
@@billmorrigan386 -- The earliest generations of chess engines focused exclusively on brute calculation. More recent engines, however, "think" heuristically, probabilistically, intuitively the way grandmasters do. Only, they're far, far superior to human grandmasters. Within the narrow confines of chess at least, technology now eclipses human beings not only in calculation but also in creativity, strategy, and understanding. Engines are no longer mere chess calculators; they're chess geniuses. And even in common practice, they've become the undisputed arbiters of chess excellence.
La difficulté ici est de laisser suffisamment de place et de respect à l'autre pour pouvoir expliciter ses arguments. Et comme par magie, le ton est plus cordial, plus posé, la pensée est mieux organisée aussi ! Kramnik semble plus apaisé et moins "brouillon", c'était très intéressant et montre toute l'ampleur du problème ! Donc, bravo à vous 2 d'avoir aussi bien accueilli cette parole dans ce podcast !
First time in 30 years I've advocated for Fairplay and competitive matchups in online gaming than an actual former pro player has come forth like this. This guy is turning into my hero. He is right the game companies have never wanted to take responsibility. They are quick to mute and ban people for their speech but not their gameplay. I have to also say all the comments on your video are so much more mature and respectable compared to a lot of comments we see on the streamers who jave made videos on this subject. And I think that is part of the problem. I don't think we can expect the website that makes exceptions for its streamers to Smurf for entertainment and ad money to be taking any kind of cheating as serious enough as we want them to. For me as a fan of Chess just regulating money events is not enough for me either. We must not forget the fans are the reason these money events exist, and the more fans to respect the game the more money in the game there will be.
@@sesanti he's never accused anybody only suspected. have you even watched the video? To me anyone who would get extra defensive about someone looking into their stats is suspicious in itself. Like Maxime said you should take it as a compliment for playing so well. Maxim also said the top players are who should get regularly checked the most. No exceptions. Kramnik says There is no such thing as 100 percent surety, but either we let all the cheaters cheat online unless we catch them red-handed and they admit it or just give up on online being a valid sport, or maybe adopt measures suggested by MVL which is what online poker does. I guess the world now knows what you would choose.
@@cooloutacYou dont need to say "I accuse you of cheating" to accuse someone of cheating. Kramnik is CLEARLY accusing people of cheating when he brings up X player's performance, his rating, and the cheating problem in online, all at the same time. If you cannot tell then you are very naive.
@@sesanti he is merely asking a question. In the example of hikaru getting five 50 game winning streaks in a single month with historic performance ratings for online play, one would beg the question why that is not automatically flagged and checked. People claiming the two 2900s he played nine games in in a row doesn't explain it. And the website has now confirmed before the world they never even looked into the stats even after kramnik question them because saying that he played 55,000 games in 10 years as the reason absolutely does not explain it either. So I guess you also think Maxime is dumb for wanting player that has a 97 percent probability of cheating to be demanded by the website to prove their performance ir be monitored with physical presence? Again you are making the case that we should just totally give up on online chess do you not understand this? Because doing nothing and being afraid to accuse someone is giving up. Online poker would not be as profitable as it is if they took that stance they'd be just another dead esport like all the rest have been for 30 years. We are talking about chess players trying to make a living play the game and I think you are the one being naive. I think if this website fails to take action krambik is probably going to start publicly questioning more people online of cheating and putting out more names and publishing stats. Because you are calling for the death of online chess as a valid sport and potential career. And all these streamers that are sponsored by that corrupt website are cutting their own nose to spite their face by doing the same.
@@cooloutacWhen he got told Hikaru's games had already been checked, he doubled down and could not accept it. He's not merely asking a question. He's clearly accusing all other players he mentions of cheating, but being lowkey about it as he does not want to get sued for libel, since he has no proof and he knows it. He's the one trying to bring online chess into disrepute, probably because he sucks at it (compared to other top players and even no so top but still pro players). He can't accept he's worse so they have to be cheating, but he can't say it. He's recently hinted Danya and Bok are also suspicious in online chess. Dude take the blind off your eyes.
J'ai vu l'interview en direct et c'était vraiment super. Merci à MVL et à Blitzstream (et à Kramnik) pour nous permettre de voir/écouter ça. On voit qu'il y a du travail derrière et c'est payant.
Ce tacle les 2 pieds décollés à 1:11:30 ! Sinon très bonne interview, dans d'autres vidéos Kramnik a pu sembler assez aigri vieux et peu constructif en étant assez brouillon dans ce qu'il avançait, c'est l'une des premières fois que l'on peut le voir davantage argumenter sur le sujet, très sympa à écouter !
Et les intervieweurs n’y sont pas pour rien ! Y’a quelques heures de préparation derrière. Comme tout ce qu’on fait c’est travaillé sur le fond, c’est ce qui permet cette fluidité.
Comme toujours. Un rendu simple et fluide demande toujours un travail complexe en amont. Paradoxal, mais pas pour les dupes !! Super travail, comme d'hab patron !@@Blitzstream-live
Kevin tu devrais organiser un showmatch contre Maxime ( 10 parties de Blitz?) ou tu as le droit de regarder une ligne 3 fois durant la partie. Voir le résultat final et si une anaylse statistique et humain poussée pourrait le detecter apres coup. Je pense ca apporterait une énorme perspective sur ce qui est possible de faire en trichant.@@Blitzstream-live
L'argument de Maxime a 44:00 est interressant, Un événement de 1/10000 est rare Mais si on étudie 50 tilted tuesday avec 500 joueurs on va finir par avoir une probabilité élevée que l'événement arrive de temps en temps (2.5 sur les 50 TT) Ce sont les mêmes arguments que pour les enfants souffrant de cancer dans leur école prêt d'une usine ou un champ plein d'engrais. La proba que 2 élèves souffrent la même année d'un cancer dans la même école est très faible. Mais si vous multipliez cela par le nombre d'école prêt d'un champ, cela devient plausible que cela arrive de temps en temps en France sans qu'on puisse prouver quoi que ce soit.
He said he was only comparing the top 50-100. For Kramnik it seems he feels it is a more serious issue when someone is taking home prize money. And apparently it is not time to time. its like 11 out of 50 players in every event.
GM Kramnik has become one of the few heroes in chess in his anti-cheating crusade. Additionally, as some point, we need to discuss the possibility that corrupt chess organizers, corrupt chess officials, and corrupt online chess sites exist, in which they are working in tandem with chess cheaters for financial gain and for other dishonest reasons.
Franchement, les gars, aussi émouvant en redif que live ! Un magnifique moment, puisse-t-il être entendu en haut lieu ! Btw, avec google translate, je comprends mieux votre Portugais ^^
This is true and it does happen offline at the world Blitz too I think that 8 year old kid the Magnus took a photo with gained like 182 points lol. But I think what Kramnik is getting at that that's so rare it makes news in offline world and in the online world it's so common it's at 11 out of 50 thing lol
To be clear, the performance of the 8-years old prodigy (Shogdzhiev Roman) is: 2301 in blitz (starting rating is 2117, 7.5/21) 2429 in rapid (starting rating is 2042, 5.5/13) Its absolutely rare and incredible result which was gained a lot of deserved attention. Just because of the age. But even here there is not +500 overperformance (lets carefully consider he was 2100 candidate master at the start). And in TT you can see 11/50 results from regular masters/gms that easily overperforms really historical performance of the young prodigy. Its not normal.
@IamNeo94 well said. Roman is a player whose only been playing for 3 years and is a newly rated player. that's like making a new account online it's not the same scenario. The problem is players who have been playing for years my friend turn into God online and it makes no sense. I agree with you it's very rare in the OTB world but for some reason it's all too very common online.
Yep, il a prouvé qu'il n'avait pas la compréhension d'un lycéen en probabilité, statistiques et après il était en pure fuite en avant à cause d'un gros ego mais c'est dommage car son combat est vraiment noble et il a les cojones de mettre les pieds dans le plat, mais bon, il changera plus à son âge :/
I feel like this problem of "proof" or "not proof" is the same as the evidence in medical clinic research I mean there is always a chance of misunderstanting a result like p=0.001 is a 1/1000 chance to say "it is something" when "it isn't" But there is a time where you have to conclude even if those little chances exist, otherwise you never go forward and problems stays forever So i feel for Kramnik on the beginning of this interview --- trad pour les frenchouillards Un saucisson est une charcuterie composée d'un hachis d'une ou plusieurs viandes, principalement du porc, que l'on assaisonne de multiples façons suivant des traditions locales, régionales ou nationales. Après avoir été mis dans un boyau naturel ou artificiel (embossage) pour lui donner sa forme, le saucisson est soit « étuvé et/ou séché »,
I like MVL's Idea of having them prove they are not cheating in a secure environment on a clean pc. This has happened in the past in other e-sports, but not so often. For example I remember many years ago in quake a pro brazillian player being banned. Then having to prove he was not cheating in such a way playing against other top players and he was re-instated. I also remember Hikaru having a total meltdown when magnus insisted he have an arbiter in his room for a meltwater tournament. Which he got smashed in and never entered again. MVL's idea would also act as a deterrent alone.
stats sound clear about cheating problem with some players... They have to play with constraints (referee, a few web cameras) to secure what they do.... Thanks Kramnik. Ethics is respecting of the work of true chess players.
That's not the classic trolley problem though: the latter thought experiment posits a scenario with 100% certainty of whatever consequence: either you save more people through your actions at the expense of a "lesser" (numerically) tragedy, or you do not intervene regardless of which tragedy you perceive as being worse. This has nothing to do with what Kramnik is suggesting: he is talking about when to take action, and he does not have certainty. Yes, he then goes on to say that his method would benefit the greater pool of people at the expense of one player, or in any case a smaller pool of players, but this is not necessarily utilitarian: it is only if we accept he is right. Consider the following: Kramnik thinks that x is 95% cheating and goes on to ban x. It all depends on his opinion: that x could be a small number, but it could also be the entire chess community. So now what? How was that beneficial to the greater community? Hardly utilitarian, and, in fact, much more akin to an authoritarian position.
I had 2 ideas about this but a MAJOR one: Why don't people organise little "chess internet cafés" locally? It might sound a bit far fetched but if there can be a local place that is safe and checked to play from, an official online titled player place, you can even award those who play there with a badge that says "ok, this one is anti cheat validated!" you know.... This might be the future of online high level chess! and if the money reward become too significant maybe at some point only make those who are validated that way eligible? ... Worth thinking about at least i think!
@Blitzstream-Rediff Kevin tu devrais organiser un showmatch contre Maxime ( 10 parties de Blitz?) ou tu as le droit de regarder une ligne 3 fois durant la partie. Voir le résultat final et si une anaylse statistique et humain poussée pourrait le detecter apres coup. Je pense ca apporterait une énorme perspective sur ce qui est possible de faire en trichant.
Since I started learning on the computer, for me it's extremely hard to play in 3d. I don't see everything clearly and there are big gaps between pieces it's way harder. Online my highest was 960 on the board it would probably be 200-300.
55:57 Vlad, how can you calculate accuracy taking into account only winning games? If you took his otb wining games only he would also be 2700. This argument is flawed.
Passionnante interview, et vraiment intéressant.Les exemples donnés par Kramnik sont parlants ! En tout cas les échecs sont en danger. Merci à Kevin et Maxime qui ont parfaitement mené le débat
J'ai hâte de regarder. Je trouvais vraiment que les interventions de Kramnik faisaient clochard qui ne sait absolument pas ce que sont les statistiques. J'espère qu'il arrivera à se rattraper.
Is it so big problem to make a quality computer program for "cheaters hunting" (for engine users during online or offline games) ? I think this is much better than Kramniks "STATISTIC ANALYSE OF PLAYER TOURNAMENTS RESULTS IN THE PAST" ...
@oldaco07 là t'es en train de dire "comment lutter contre les mesures anti-triche"... Ça me semble être le sens opposé... (On cherche à lutter contre la triche, non?)
In online u can't ban all cheaters. It takes times to find cheaters when someone make multiple computer line moves only it's possible. 2 or 3 lines if he cheats it's not possible to find
Imagine some very strong player(s) cheated in the past and were now being threatened by someone to give them money or else they'd tell the truth publicly. Then, these very strong players started a movement of suspicion over other chess players using one ex-cheater as scapegoat. Their idea is normalizing suspicion in a way that whoever brought valid cheating claims would be seem as paranoid. Certainly, someone in top 5 cheated a lot in the past. This entire thing is too big to be just by chance.
Vlad, what's your opinion of the other kind of cheating that's less obvious 'bullying cheating' in OTB as opposed to the more obvious 'engine cheating' in online? --- Part1 - Definition: While 'engine cheating' is usually done by lower rated to about equal or much higher rated players, bullying cheating is usually done to about equal or much lower rated players. And some bullying cheating can be done only by 2800+ players like Magnus, Garry, Hikaru or Veselin where they have so much power or influence in the chess world. --- Part2 - Some examples of what bullying cheaters do: 1 - baselessly accuse their opponent (Veselin Vs you 2006 classical WCC, Hikaru Vs Hans 2022 Sinquefield, Magnus Vs Hans 2022 Sinquefield, Garry Vs Deep Blue 1997 rematch) 2 - try to get away with touch move (Magnus Vs Nepo 2021 classical wcc, Garry Vs Judit 1994 linares, Hikaru Vs Levon 2016 candidates, Magnus Vs Alexandra Kosteniuk 2009 blitz wcc), distracting their opponent (Magnus Vs Alireza 2019 blitz WCC, Garry Vs Vishy 1995 PCA classical WCC) or knocking over pieces (Harikrishna Vs Nepo 2022 rapid or blitz wcc, Magnus Vs Anish 2023 Superbet blitz) thinking their opponents will be afraid to call the arbiters 3 - use their power to manipulate tournaments in their favour or even get other players removed (Garry Vs Alexei Shirov 2000 PCA classical WCC, Magnus Vs Hans 2022 cgc, Magnus Vs Sergey 2022 candidates, Magnus & Hikaru Vs Wesley 2022 WFRCC) 4 - outright admit to cheating and have no consequences (Garry Vs MSN 1999, Magnus Vs Danya 2020, Magnus Vs Danya AGAIN 2021, Magnus Vs many people - Magnus admitted in a 2014 ama that Magnus helped friends to win online games 'a lot'.) --- Part3 - Further explanation: As you can see 'engine cheating' is more covert & known kind of cheating while 'bullying cheating' is more overt & less known or rather less 'considered' as cheating. Unlike 'engine cheating', people see 'bullying cheating' with their own eyes, yet nothing is done really. Anna Maja got 100 euro fine while Magnus, Garry, Hikaru, Veselin & Harikrishna were fined with nothing (well except the 10,000 fine for Magnus but that came way after). So monetarily speaking, Anna Maja is more evil than Magnus, Garry, Hikaru, Veselin & Harikrishna combined. --- Part4 - Analogies & Underlying principle & Politics & Back to chess Bullying cheating Vs engine cheating is like - Tax collector Vs Pharisee - Crime Vs war crime - Lie Vs myth (JFK says enemy of the truth is often not the lie but the myth) I believe the underlying principle is Bobby Fischer's concept of 'allies of evil' (2005) to counter George Bush's 'axis of evil' (2002). Politics: - In 2002-2005, Bush's 'axis of evil' was North Korea, Iran, Iraq while Bobby's 'allies of evil' was US, UK, Japan, Australia. - Now in 2024, it appears axis of evil is Russia, Palestine, Pakistan, Cuba, Venezuela, Yemen, Serbia, South Africa, Qatar, China, Macau, etc + old axis - while allies of evil is Ukraine, Israel, India, Germany, NATO, EU, the Philippines, Taiwan, Hong Kong, etc + old allies. Chess (2022-2023) : - main axis of evil: Bobby, Carissa x Wesley, Hans, you, Sergey, Nepo - main allies of evil: Garry, Magnus, Atousa x Hikaru, Veselin, Daniil, Liren - more axis of evil: wesley so, hans niemann, bobby fischer, sergey karjakin, you, ian nepomniachtchi, alireza firouzja, nodirbek abdusattorov, andrii baryshpolets, vishy anand, jan-krzysztof duda, christopher yoo, gata kamsky, donald trump, tristan & andrew tate - more allies of evil: magnus carlsen, hikaru nakamura, garry kasparov, daniil dubov, veselin topalov, liren ding, aryan tari, vincent keymer, arkady dvorkovich, peter heine nielsen, richárd rapport, andrew tang, alejandro ramirez, george bush sr & jr, piers morgan - axis of evil (female) : tingjie lei (or paikidze), janelle frayna, dina belenkaya, sara khadem (or carissa yip), robbi jade lew - allies of evil (female) : wenjun ju, bella khotenashvili, andrea botez, atousa pourkashiyan - nakamura, nemo zhou Explanations here: p1w4Rr-nr
from here 25:31 you can see his true nature. "guilty until proven innocent" - Kramnik. He was lucky there was no "statistician Kramnik" in his game against Topalov 28:27
The objective fact is that he doesn't understand statistics at all. Many many mathematicians have time and time again said that he is CLUELESS on statistics.
I think the obvious best option is to just start naming players you think are cheating. This would work best if the accuser sports a weak grasp on the nature of the evidences - just to keep the conversation going forever. Remember to never engage honestly with counter statistical arguments.
It is a cheating problem, but you also need to jutlstify your claims with proofs when you're going to make accusations. We all know that cheating is a general problem since a gm like Hans admit doing it at some point of his life, but for Kramnik to make random accusations on Hikaru without having proofs only to mess up Hikaru's reputation, it's something that we shouldn't pardon from Kramnik. Hikaru could've also verry well to use his platform with millions of followers to return the accusations back to Kramink and say that Kramink is the actual cheater with the same type of " proofs " that Kramink tried to use on Hikaru, than how would've that been to Kramink's reputation? .
You can do statistics that shows that for example, he played 20 very good games and the likelywood of these 20 games showing up knowing his level thanks to his games offline is less than 3%. This is something statistics can do for sure You can do this for quality of games and elo performance and if both shows something that is less than 3% maybe you can "think he is 97% cheater"
Ok, c'était intéressant. La discussion avec contradiction a eu lieu et Mr Kramnik a pu s'exprimer, bravo à vous. Quid des preuves, statistiques et autres qui permettent à Mr Kramnik de prouver ses accusations ? Qui sont les membres de son équipes qui ont produit les stats ? Sont-elles publiques ? Peut-on les consulter ? de tout ça il n'en a jamais été question… C'est un peu léger tout ça. On est tous d'accord sur le fait qu'il y a un problème avec la triche, certes, mais Mr Kramnik semble accusé très spécifiquement certains joueurs, accusations appuyées par ses "stats". Seul problème : où sont ses analyses et stats ? Qu'il les publie et qu'il laisse les statisticiens/experts en la matière étudier ça.
Imho: kramnik is taking religiously fide rating as if it was the only important measure of someone's chess level; i think that's not the case since there are many players who do almost not participate in fide events but they do play a lot online, which means that their fide rating might not be a fair reflection of their actual level of play.
i also think they underestimate just how big the gap can be for some people between their OTB and online play. kramnik pays lip service to mouse skills and pre-moving, but those are astronomically huge factors in blitz where flagging happens regularly. yeah, most player's OTB and online play are similar, but having a fast mouse hand and being good at pre moving is a huge advantage over someone who doesn't pre move and is slow with thier mouse.
After watching Kramnik play titled tuesday, I realize that most of the times he is suspicious, it`s because he got outplayed or missed a tactic and is now losing. Basically, if he feels like he`s losing, he gets suspicious
Someone should make a tournament where top players sit in the same room and play on a chess on computer that they do not own. Then you can check if mouse skills and computer chess skills make a difference.
i dont think that using the games those accused players won is the correct way to gather data (as krammnik mentioned) i think that u also have to use the lost games to see the difference in their moves (assuming that for the lost games they didnt use the engine, like krammnik said) if that is indeed true, and they didnt use the engine for their lost games then wont u be able to see a clear difference between their moves strength in won and lost games ?
Dernier commentaire de fin de vidéo, Je me demande si l'IA pourrait peut-être un jour être un outil plus efficace que ces modèles, en s'entraînant à analyser les cheaters, pour trouver des patterns beaucoup trop complexe pour nous humains à compiler Par ex : un joueur qui joue systématiquement des coups très complexes après avoir regardé autre part... Un joueur avec des coups trop "rythmés"...
the website is coming out with a program titled players will be running on their computer to make sure their pc is clean and so it can be monitored. as well as cameras in the rooms will be required. Although like MVL said, and actual arbiter in the room might also be necessary. But what was shocking to me was when Erik, the ceo, told levitov chessworld that he sees nothing wrong with players using headphones if there is a time delay. I couldn't believe he made such a comment because how do we know they don't have a hidden camera in their room watching their screen feeding it to someone remotely feeding the player moves into the headphones. Which even an arbiter in the room could not detect unless headphones are simply not allowed. I'm convinced its because they don't want to face the backlash from their streamers who want to wear headphones, and I think that is silly.
Also you must calculate the speed of internet conection. Somebody have speed 4,5 G (4500 MB) pro second, and on the other side some (like me) 7 MB pro second. In blitz games internet speed is most important to have 2700 and more rating points. and to have great tournament results in live internet games, to win players from top 100 !!!
Easy solution is to limit a players ELO online. So for example one cannot get online to let's say 1000 elo from 800 unless they have played OTB and have achieved 1000 elo from 800 otb. This is easy to confirm. Names tied to the account are registred to the email provided to OTB play at registration along with the name and address of the player or at least their hometown or ect. So set a ceiling of about 200 elo or so after 1000 to maintain this increment and promote live chess as well. So you have to have held 1000 otb to be able to reach 1200 elo from 1000 online, but only up until 1200. This should be true all the way to 3000 and above. So you must get to 800 elo otb to be able to achieve 1000 elo online, hit 1000 otb to quailify playing 1200 elo online for example.
I see 2 reasons why this will never work : -I think there are too many online players (me included) who never played OTB and are not interessted in booking a whole day/weekend to go to a city to play OTB. -the elo system cannot be correctly calculated if there are people with a 1700 elo strength locked at 1000. That would force surfing and that would mean 1100 people would be on average worse players than 1000 people.
No freaking way, that's anything but an easy solution. Some people just want to have fun, not turn chess into some errand, and 1000 elo is pretty easy to reach
@@GrowingFather as it is, there aren't enough cheaters to keep players from increasing their elo, the problem is not nearly as big as kramnik makes it out to be. These players are just surprised about how good modern chess players have become, and cheaters or not, TT winners are always top GMs, so it's not like cheaters are keeping them from winning
On peut facilement choper un 1500 elo qui joue bêtement les premières lignes d'ordi pour gagner contre des 2500 elo. Mais pas quelqu'un qui se servirait de l'ordi pour vérifier que quelques coups critiques choisis humainement ne sont pas des blunders. Et on ne pourra JAMAIS repérer un GM qui triche intelligemment et à petite dose pour hausser son niveau de 100 ou 200 elo, c'est impossible. Le doute subsistera toujours, donc le mieux c'est d'arrêter de faire des tournois en ligne avec enjeu financier. Pour ma part les tournois c'est en présentiel et je joue en ligne uniquement pour m'amuser ou m'entraîner à tester et mémoriser des ouvertures, par conséquent je me fout royalement de savoir si mon adversaire triche ou pas. Finalement le sujet de la triche ne concerne que les joueurs professionnels qui vivent des échecs plus quelques streamers comme Gotham Chess qui font des vues en ridiculisant les tricheurs.
I think it concerns any truly competitive player who wants a fair and competitive match. Pro players like Kramnik and MVL care more about pro money games of course which is their focus and on engine users. But for the general playerbase, people using multiple accounts is a huge issue. And kids forming this habit because their favorite streamer "speedruns" for entertainment is part of the problem. I want to play a match where the mmr system isn't always pitting me up against players, way way above my level, or way way below it. That is not gratifying for people and gives the perception the ratings are completely undermined. That means less sponsorships and money in the sport as a result. I mean its to the point now that its pretty rare to even see someone with an account older than 1 year, or that actually has 100s of games played. Think about that. on a site that I think is over 15 years old.
Kramnik has a credibility problem, especially when he basically accused Hikaru (of all people) of cheating. It appears that everyone that beats Kramnik gets accused of cheating. By his standard, Kramnik obviously cheated to beat Kasparov. That is an extreme over-performance.
24:40 No offence Kramnik but if suspicion alone is enough for you to ban someone then you should have been banned after Topalov and his team expressed valid suspicion regarding your numerous bathroom breaks. If this is where you're going then it's not cheating that will destroy chess it'll be the banning of innocent people that will ruin chess and its reputation.
He did actually. Though I don't agree with his "Baysean" analysis, he showed that the Peruvian GM JoSperm plays much better against "lesser known" GMs than against "well known" GMs (Kramnik apparently falls in the first camp) which suggestions cheating. However IMO the sample size is still too small to say that the Peruvian GM is cheating. But Kramnik did make his statistics clear on this point.
@@Blitzstream-live Ça marche comment alors, Kévin ? On triche pour perdre ? On triche contre contre les mecs qui ont 300 elos de moins et que tu es sûr de battre ?
Naka n'oserait pas tricher contre Magnus ou MVL de peur d'être repéré ? Peut-être... mais Magnus a un meilleur elo que Naka et là ça pique d'autant que Magnus joue très peu online... Bref, de toute façon je laisse peu à peu tomber les échecs au profit du Go qui me met le cerveau 1million de x plus en feu !! Bonne continuation.
One anti-cheating measure for chess could involve chess apps sending a database of played games, allowing AI to compare if two identical games were played with the same move sequence at the same time - an occurrence practically impossible due to the countless variations possible.
@@V-ly2gkIn a hypothetical scenario, a chesscom player uses a chess app to replicate moves and determine the best options. If all apps were required to send data to a central database, artificial intelligence could detect that the player used an app to cheat, as they fed another device with the same game data played on chesscom on the same day and time. While this scenario is currently impossible, implementing such an idea would require all chess game developers to unite around an anti-cheating policy.
In a hypothetical scenario, a plataform player uses a chess app to replicate moves and determine the best options. If all apps were required to send data to a central database, artificial intelligence could detect that the player used an app to cheat, as they fed another device with the same game data played online the same day and time. While this scenario is currently unavailable, implementing such an idea would require all chess game developers to unite around an anti-cheating policy.
J'ai failli arrêter la vidéo quand il a dis qu'il utilisais chessbase comme yosha.. Quand on sais qu'elle a utilisé plus de 20 logiciel différent donc quelques perso pour arriver a des corrélations de 100% pour hans..pas credible. Edit : j'ai quand même tout regardé, la meilleure itv de kramnik sur le sujet (et je l'ai ai toutes vue/lues..)
? Comment ça, 20 logiciels ? Je ne comprends pas le sens de votre intervention. Une corrélation de 100% ? Une corrélation va de -1 à +1. Quel est le rapport entre le nombre de logiciels (quels logiciels ?) et l'amplitude de la corrélation ? J'ai vu cette vidéo ; elle dit que Niemann a joué plusieurs parties avec un taux de précision (caps) de 100%. Cela voudrait dire qu'il a joué EXACTEMENT comme l'ordinateur, le problème étant alors que deux pgrms différents auront nécessairement, au moins de temps en temps, des coups différents. Lorsque j'ai vu cette vidéo, ce qui m'a personnellement interpelé, c'est le fait que, Nieman étant un gars très loin d'être un imbécile, s'arrangerait forcément s'il trichait vraiment, pour dévier de temps en temps du meilleur coup, c'est une évidence, non ?
@@heremansmarcOula t'es pas au courant du tout on dirais.. La vidéos et les analyses de yosha ont été démontée en long et en large par plusieurs streamers/Gm.. Même ikaru a recinnu après qu'elle avait fait n'importe quoi. Dans chessbase tu met genre stockfish et tu calcule les coups joué avec ceux de l'ordi .. A la fin tu arrive a genre 82%. Ok mais elle utilisais plusieurs version de stockfish ( meme le 7!)Komodo Fritz Houdini et j'en passe. A chaque fois qu'elle rajoutait un nouveau logiciel, la corrélation montait de 82 a 85..88..92..95 etc.. Logique car chaque moteur d'echecs ( dont des tres vieux ) avait le coup en top move. Comme ca suffisait pas, elle a rajouter des logiciel "maison" pour qu'un blunder soit mis en top move et augmente la correspondance. Un exemple : ua-cam.com/video/GY0TfDtBbdY/v-deo.htmlsi=JgaILGXaSossUKxo Et un autre pour comment monter la corrélation : ua-cam.com/video/GV28HO2Ea_s/v-deo.htmlsi=3p_dGUCVHwQapQDd En gros elle s'est fait un paquet de pub sur le dos de hans.
@@ChristopheDepret , heu, je n'ai JAMAIS dit que j'approuvais sa vidéo... Il faut juste m'expliquer en quoi le fait d'utiliser plusieurs moteurs fait monter une corrélation Quelle corrélation, par ailleurs ? La seule raison imaginable pour que l'utilisation de plusieurs logiciels fasse monter le pourcentage de jeu correct (rien à voir avec une corrélation) serait qu'elle utilise des logiciels qui ne sont pas d'accord entre eux quant au meilleur coup. A la limite, avec une grande série de logiciels pointant des coups différents, le pourcentage d'exactitude pourrait monter à 100% QUEL QUE SOIT le coup joué. De plus, il me semble être clair en disant que 100% dans plusieurs parties de suite, signifierait que Niemann est débile, puisqu'il saurait qu'il ne peut être QUE débusqué avec de tels scores. J'aimerais avoir les liens de détracteurs de cette vidéo, si possible.
@@heremansmarc "la seule raison imaginable serait qu'elle utilise plusieurs moteurs qui sont pas d'accord entre eux.." Bah oui ta trouvé la réponse tout seul vu qu'apparament ta pas regardé les videos que je t'ai mis en lien.. J'en ai mis 2 mais yen a bien plus. Si ta du mal avec l'anglais, met les sous titres. Elle a utilisé tellement de moteur different, même de 20 ans d'écart + si ca match pas, on upload un logiciel fait maison.. Facile d'arriver a 100%. Leur corrélation sur chessbase est différent d'en math, ca match ou pas.. Il suffit juste d'analyser avec 20 ou 30 logiciel du meilleur au plus mauvais, voir un fait maison pour avoir un "match" sur le coup joué et augmenter le %. La corrélation chessbase ne peut pas servir de detection de triche car si tu upload tous les logiciels du monde, yen a tjs un qui va finir par avoir le coup joué en "top move" et donc augmenter la corrélation chessbase (nombre de coups joué qui corresponde au meilleur coup de l'ordi). Sur chesscom ta la precision mais stockfish 14.. Sur sue si tu rajoute a la pelle, ton score de precision va augmenter. Ce qui est marrant cest que hans avait +20 logiciel mais il était comparé aux autres gars mais eux avait juste stockish.. Juste pour le mettre dedans et se faire de la pub (ca a marché)..
@@ChristopheDepretj'aurais pas dis mieux..ses videos était a vomir.. Elle a meme upload les logiciels de son pote pour monter la corrélation ! Ceux qui n'y connaise rien sonr tombé dans le panneau, même ikaru a jump.. Avant de se rétracter mais le mal était fait. Elle s'est fait un paquet de pub, bien pour elle mais c vipère
Supposedly during fishers 20 game run he scored 72% and that was before engine's existed. No one has come even close to that since. I'm 37 years old and technology simply does not belong in chess. I'm with kramnick when it comes to old school. Read a book, throw the tablet in the trash. you want to be good at chess? Study the board. I've never played chess on a computer and never will. 1. I lose all vision of the board. I don't have notation memorized so I need a board. 2. Mouse slips makes me want to throw my screen. Now, (surprise) people cheat.
Five 50 game win streaks in a single month with performance ratings that are historic even for online player should be a major red flag. And for the websites only response is to say that its not unusual because Nakamura played 55,000 games in 10 years, is simply not an answer. Neither is the fact he played two 2900 rated players 9 times in a row. The fact Nakamura's performance rating in online blitz doesn't even correlate with his OTB performance is another red flag. The mouse skills nor the lack of increments explain this, because this is not the case for the other top 10 players.
@@astlinj and all the other top 10 players have? Use your brain. There's no difference in their performance ratings online versus OTB. Only Naka. Suspect
People have their posts arbitrarily banned on social media all the time. If players accept at the beginning they might be unfairly dropped from the tournament, like ticking a box, then it can be more aggressively policed. They can also be shadowbanned where they are not seen online by as many players, or drop out of the tournament without being banned.
Que le joueur soit coupable de triche ou non dans tous les cas une sanction (pas extrême) sera profitable s'il est innocent c'est hyper flatteur et dans l'autre cas ça calmera un minimum leurs ardeurs
That would just encourage more cheating. If you think everyone else is cheating, you’re more likely to think it’s okay to cheat or even feel like you have to cheat.
Kramnik doesn't understand the game analysis and accuse everyone of cheating if he doesn't win. In one video he overlooked two clear wins and after the game he said he had could not win and he implied that the player was cheating.
I don't agree with Kramnik on cheating, except Fide needs to do more to catch cheaters (like installing anti-cheat software on all PCs in Titled Tuesday), but it's well known that if a player thinks his opponent is cheating, that player will play worse, which could explain Kramnik's comment.
I think the having such a historical figure being a champion against cheating in chess is a great help to improving the integrity of the game, but Kramnik and MVL need to understand that because of the major rise in engines, the younger generations see the board differently than the great players who had to spend many hours to figure out the best practical solutions to problems. He should realize how much stronger a player like himself or Kasparov would be if they had the perfect solutions from the start to work with, or the ability to go through thousands of chess puzzles and compositions at the tip of a finger from the time they were starting chess. The moves they cannot see may be a product of human practicality and the kids learning from engines may have a different type of vision.
Emission de qualité qui devrait être sur la scène principale
Huge like and thank you a lot for having the courage to speak out about this problem. Cheating is killing chess. And it might spill over into OTB FIDE too like Kramnik said. It has already happened to some extent. All honest players should speak out about this problem. It's killing chess. Serious measures should be taken. Also kudos to Caruana for speaking out at least a little bit about this problem.
Cheating is only possible because of the broader context of technological development. Chess engines are far, far superior to human players (and we all know I'm actually understating the disparity). And so it makes little sense now to reward anyone with a 'grandmaster' title because people are no longer the measure of chess expertise; technology has taken over that role. And because that's the case, professional tournaments also make little sense -- at least in the way they exist currently. If people want to have fun playing chess as a hobby and vie with each other over the board for unmoneyed bragging rights, sure, that's great; go for it. It'd be like organizing a peewee baseball league in which cheating wouldn't be a problem because the stakes are too low. But organizing a system of financial reward for chess achievements but then outlawing efficient tool use and mandating that only caveman-level technologies (that is, human beings) be used is obviously an invitation for conflict. Cheating isn't the broader problem; humanity's unresolved role within the technological landscape is.
@declup cars are much faster than humans, but people still compete in running and jumping and football (while some sort of ball cannons will success in hitting the targets much better). why chess are different? it's all about organizing people who willing or not willing to take a countermeasures.
@@kagegakurenokuni Good point. I'd rather agree with you than Declup (previous comment). That's because I don't think chess is meaningless just because we have chess engines. I don't think arithmetic is useless either (or knowing the multiplication table) just because we have calculators. By the way, it holds for many board games with heavy calculations. I don't think they are all useless like the Chinese go, checkers, backgammon, etc. Besides computers and machines are not yet that sophisticated to replace humans: There are things like creativity, strategies in chess, and things like that. I don't think we should dumb down everything. It's not just about calculation. The calculator does't know math better than me. Sure, it calculates much better. Still it doesn't replace a "human touch". The same goes for chess engines.
BTW, chess engines are not prohibited when you practice and learn chess. They are prohibited only when you cheat vs other players. It's just like a running competition: say, someone says, "Why do you run folks? Use a bicycle." -- Wanna use a bicycle in a running competition? Sorry, that's not an option. That's cheating like using computers in chess tournaments for money. Sure, bicycles are great. Chess engines are great too. But if you run on your two feet in a competition, you just run, you don't get to ride a bicycle. The same with chess engines. Wanna use chess engines, folks vs honest players? Go and use it vs your friend or relatives. DO NOT USE THEM ONLINE AND IN COMPETITIONS!
@@billmorrigan386 -- The earliest generations of chess engines focused exclusively on brute calculation. More recent engines, however, "think" heuristically, probabilistically, intuitively the way grandmasters do. Only, they're far, far superior to human grandmasters. Within the narrow confines of chess at least, technology now eclipses human beings not only in calculation but also in creativity, strategy, and understanding. Engines are no longer mere chess calculators; they're chess geniuses. And even in common practice, they've become the undisputed arbiters of chess excellence.
La difficulté ici est de laisser suffisamment de place et de respect à l'autre pour pouvoir expliciter ses arguments. Et comme par magie, le ton est plus cordial, plus posé, la pensée est mieux organisée aussi ! Kramnik semble plus apaisé et moins "brouillon", c'était très intéressant et montre toute l'ampleur du problème ! Donc, bravo à vous 2 d'avoir aussi bien accueilli cette parole dans ce podcast !
First time in 30 years I've advocated for Fairplay and competitive matchups in online gaming than an actual former pro player has come forth like this. This guy is turning into my hero. He is right the game companies have never wanted to take responsibility. They are quick to mute and ban people for their speech but not their gameplay. I have to also say all the comments on your video are so much more mature and respectable compared to a lot of comments we see on the streamers who jave made videos on this subject. And I think that is part of the problem. I don't think we can expect the website that makes exceptions for its streamers to Smurf for entertainment and ad money to be taking any kind of cheating as serious enough as we want them to. For me as a fan of Chess just regulating money events is not enough for me either. We must not forget the fans are the reason these money events exist, and the more fans to respect the game the more money in the game there will be.
He could do all that without accusing other pro players of cheating with zero proof. To me, he's a clown.
@@sesanti he's never accused anybody only suspected. have you even watched the video? To me anyone who would get extra defensive about someone looking into their stats is suspicious in itself. Like Maxime said you should take it as a compliment for playing so well. Maxim also said the top players are who should get regularly checked the most. No exceptions. Kramnik says There is no such thing as 100 percent surety, but either we let all the cheaters cheat online unless we catch them red-handed and they admit it or just give up on online being a valid sport, or maybe adopt measures suggested by MVL which is what online poker does. I guess the world now knows what you would choose.
@@cooloutacYou dont need to say "I accuse you of cheating" to accuse someone of cheating. Kramnik is CLEARLY accusing people of cheating when he brings up X player's performance, his rating, and the cheating problem in online, all at the same time. If you cannot tell then you are very naive.
@@sesanti he is merely asking a question. In the example of hikaru getting five 50 game winning streaks in a single month with historic performance ratings for online play, one would beg the question why that is not automatically flagged and checked. People claiming the two 2900s he played nine games in in a row doesn't explain it. And the website has now confirmed before the world they never even looked into the stats even after kramnik question them because saying that he played 55,000 games in 10 years as the reason absolutely does not explain it either.
So I guess you also think Maxime is dumb for wanting player that has a 97 percent probability of cheating to be demanded by the website to prove their performance ir be monitored with physical presence? Again you are making the case that we should just totally give up on online chess do you not understand this? Because doing nothing and being afraid to accuse someone is giving up. Online poker would not be as profitable as it is if they took that stance they'd be just another dead esport like all the rest have been for 30 years.
We are talking about chess players trying to make a living play the game and I think you are the one being naive. I think if this website fails to take action krambik is probably going to start publicly questioning more people online of cheating and putting out more names and publishing stats. Because you are calling for the death of online chess as a valid sport and potential career. And all these streamers that are sponsored by that corrupt website are cutting their own nose to spite their face by doing the same.
@@cooloutacWhen he got told Hikaru's games had already been checked, he doubled down and could not accept it. He's not merely asking a question. He's clearly accusing all other players he mentions of cheating, but being lowkey about it as he does not want to get sued for libel, since he has no proof and he knows it. He's the one trying to bring online chess into disrepute, probably because he sucks at it (compared to other top players and even no so top but still pro players). He can't accept he's worse so they have to be cheating, but he can't say it. He's recently hinted Danya and Bok are also suspicious in online chess. Dude take the blind off your eyes.
J'ai vu l'interview en direct et c'était vraiment super. Merci à MVL et à Blitzstream (et à Kramnik) pour nous permettre de voir/écouter ça. On voit qu'il y a du travail derrière et c'est payant.
Maxime, blink twice if you are being held hostage
😂😂😂
Maxim is doing the right thing. Somebody has to speak out. Bloggers cheat and most of players keep silence.
@@billmorrigan386 It's an online board-game. Relax.
I think he knows more about Chess, so not funny
😐😑 😐😑
Excellent video with MVL and Kramnik
Franchement quand Kramnik analyse 50 de tes parties et fais une blague sur ton niveau de jeu c’est magnifique
Juste du bonheur, quelle qualité cette chaîne!
Ce tacle les 2 pieds décollés à 1:11:30 ! Sinon très bonne interview, dans d'autres vidéos Kramnik a pu sembler assez aigri vieux et peu constructif en étant assez brouillon dans ce qu'il avançait, c'est l'une des premières fois que l'on peut le voir davantage argumenter sur le sujet, très sympa à écouter !
Et les intervieweurs n’y sont pas pour rien ! Y’a quelques heures de préparation derrière. Comme tout ce qu’on fait c’est travaillé sur le fond, c’est ce qui permet cette fluidité.
Comme toujours. Un rendu simple et fluide demande toujours un travail complexe en amont. Paradoxal, mais pas pour les dupes !! Super travail, comme d'hab patron !@@Blitzstream-live
Kevin tu devrais organiser un showmatch contre Maxime ( 10 parties de Blitz?) ou tu as le droit de regarder une ligne 3 fois durant la partie. Voir le résultat final et si une anaylse statistique et humain poussée pourrait le detecter apres coup. Je pense ca apporterait une énorme perspective sur ce qui est possible de faire en trichant.@@Blitzstream-live
Yes this was kramniks best interview so far.
Tu parles, vous cheatez à mort c'est ChatGPT qui a écrit les questions ! :P
MVL's measures sound good. Let the players play on a secure clean computer in a local chess club.
How close can a local club be ?
@@ryanfloch6054 i don't know, but I guess everyone lives within 1-2 hours of a good chess club
L'argument de Maxime a 44:00 est interressant,
Un événement de 1/10000 est rare
Mais si on étudie 50 tilted tuesday avec 500 joueurs on va finir par avoir une probabilité élevée que l'événement arrive de temps en temps (2.5 sur les 50 TT)
Ce sont les mêmes arguments que pour les enfants souffrant de cancer dans leur école prêt d'une usine ou un champ plein d'engrais. La proba que 2 élèves souffrent la même année d'un cancer dans la même école est très faible. Mais si vous multipliez cela par le nombre d'école prêt d'un champ, cela devient plausible que cela arrive de temps en temps en France sans qu'on puisse prouver quoi que ce soit.
He said he was only comparing the top 50-100. For Kramnik it seems he feels it is a more serious issue when someone is taking home prize money. And apparently it is not time to time. its like 11 out of 50 players in every event.
Super format ! Merci.
C'est les vraies dents de Maxime a 1:11:45 ?
Merci pour ce moment, cette série d'interview c'est génial pour tout le monde.
C'était vraiment une très bonne vidéos, très agréable d'entendre les parties s'exprimer avec respect
GM Kramnik has become one of the few heroes in chess in his anti-cheating crusade. Additionally, as some point, we need to discuss the possibility that corrupt chess organizers, corrupt chess officials, and corrupt online chess sites exist, in which they are working in tandem with chess cheaters for financial gain and for other dishonest reasons.
My thoughts exactly!
Franchement, les gars, aussi émouvant en redif que live ! Un magnifique moment, puisse-t-il être entendu en haut lieu ! Btw, avec google translate, je comprends mieux votre Portugais ^^
1:04:14 I guess the problem is, that the chess metric is not public. So the calculation of accuracy could be different according to the Elo
Best Crossover. ¡ Aguante Vlad papá !
A player with a 2200 elo performing at 2700 in a titled Tuesday and his age is less then 10yo is very likely :)
This is true and it does happen offline at the world Blitz too I think that 8 year old kid the Magnus took a photo with gained like 182 points lol. But I think what Kramnik is getting at that that's so rare it makes news in offline world and in the online world it's so common it's at 11 out of 50 thing lol
To be clear, the performance of the 8-years old prodigy (Shogdzhiev Roman) is:
2301 in blitz (starting rating is 2117, 7.5/21)
2429 in rapid (starting rating is 2042, 5.5/13)
Its absolutely rare and incredible result which was gained a lot of deserved attention. Just because of the age. But even here there is not +500 overperformance (lets carefully consider he was 2100 candidate master at the start).
And in TT you can see 11/50 results from regular masters/gms that easily overperforms really historical performance of the young prodigy. Its not normal.
@IamNeo94 well said. Roman is a player whose only been playing for 3 years and is a newly rated player. that's like making a new account online it's not the same scenario. The problem is players who have been playing for years my friend turn into God online and it makes no sense. I agree with you it's very rare in the OTB world but for some reason it's all too very common online.
Kramnik is right in one think. If you start once, you cant stop. Dont ask me how I know that :(
Speak up and see if you can get on a podcast and tell your story... even anonymously
Le buzz avec Naka était pas heureux, mais son action me paraît justifiée et j'espère utile. Dure époque
Yep, il a prouvé qu'il n'avait pas la compréhension d'un lycéen en probabilité, statistiques et après il était en pure fuite en avant à cause d'un gros ego mais c'est dommage car son combat est vraiment noble et il a les cojones de mettre les pieds dans le plat, mais bon, il changera plus à son âge :/
Il faut qu'on reconnaisse que Kramnik ne comprend absolument rien aux statistiques.
I feel like this problem of "proof" or "not proof" is the same as the evidence in medical clinic research
I mean there is always a chance of misunderstanting a result like p=0.001 is a 1/1000 chance to say "it is something" when "it isn't"
But there is a time where you have to conclude even if those little chances exist, otherwise you never go forward and problems stays forever
So i feel for Kramnik on the beginning of this interview
--- trad pour les frenchouillards
Un saucisson est une charcuterie composée d'un hachis d'une ou plusieurs viandes, principalement du porc, que l'on assaisonne de multiples façons suivant des traditions locales, régionales ou nationales. Après avoir été mis dans un boyau naturel ou artificiel (embossage) pour lui donner sa forme, le saucisson est soit « étuvé et/ou séché »,
Merci pour la trad !
Ta trad est fausse/incomplète.
Tu as oublié d'ajouter la partie sur le fromage et la vinasse.
Le texte en français est parfait, mais j'ai un gros doute sur sa traduction...
I like MVL's Idea of having them prove they are not cheating in a secure environment on a clean pc. This has happened in the past in other e-sports, but not so often. For example I remember many years ago in quake a pro brazillian player being banned. Then having to prove he was not cheating in such a way playing against other top players and he was re-instated. I also remember Hikaru having a total meltdown when magnus insisted he have an arbiter in his room for a meltwater tournament. Which he got smashed in and never entered again. MVL's idea would also act as a deterrent alone.
Banger 🚀
Thank you all
Hello, serait-il possible de publier ces interviews sur Google/Apple podcast? Merci
stats sound clear about cheating problem with some players... They have to play with constraints (referee, a few web cameras) to secure what they do.... Thanks Kramnik. Ethics is respecting of the work of true chess players.
Kramnik has no understanding of statistics unfortunately. It's good that we are talking about cheating, but Kramnik's approach is unproductive IMO.
Loved this, thanks!
@27:50 GM Kramnik is a utilitarian! LOL the classic "trolley problem" as it's known in Western university. Jeremy Bentham would be proud.
That's not the classic trolley problem though: the latter thought experiment posits a scenario with 100% certainty of whatever consequence: either you save more people through your actions at the expense of a "lesser" (numerically) tragedy, or you do not intervene regardless of which tragedy you perceive as being worse.
This has nothing to do with what Kramnik is suggesting: he is talking about when to take action, and he does not have certainty. Yes, he then goes on to say that his method would benefit the greater pool of people at the expense of one player, or in any case a smaller pool of players, but this is not necessarily utilitarian: it is only if we accept he is right. Consider the following: Kramnik thinks that x is 95% cheating and goes on to ban x. It all depends on his opinion: that x could be a small number, but it could also be the entire chess community. So now what? How was that beneficial to the greater community? Hardly utilitarian, and, in fact, much more akin to an authoritarian position.
ça c'est du contenu ! de très loin, la meilleure chaîne européenne d'échecs
I had 2 ideas about this but a MAJOR one: Why don't people organise little "chess internet cafés" locally? It might sound a bit far fetched but if there can be a local place that is safe and checked to play from, an official online titled player place, you can even award those who play there with a badge that says "ok, this one is anti cheat validated!" you know.... This might be the future of online high level chess! and if the money reward become too significant maybe at some point only make those who are validated that way eligible? ... Worth thinking about at least i think!
I think this is what MVL was suggesting
@@Leipaa Oh, cool, didn't hear about it! (maybe i didn't watch the whole interview, as it was quite long)
@Blitzstream-Rediff Kevin tu devrais organiser un showmatch contre Maxime ( 10 parties de Blitz?) ou tu as le droit de regarder une ligne 3 fois durant la partie. Voir le résultat final et si une anaylse statistique et humain poussée pourrait le detecter apres coup. Je pense ca apporterait une énorme perspective sur ce qui est possible de faire en trichant.
Since I started learning on the computer, for me it's extremely hard to play in 3d. I don't see everything clearly and there are big gaps between pieces it's way harder. Online my highest was 960 on the board it would probably be 200-300.
Great deep conversation
55:57 Vlad, how can you calculate accuracy taking into account only winning games? If you took his otb wining games only he would also be 2700. This argument is flawed.
Passionnante interview, et vraiment intéressant.Les exemples donnés par Kramnik sont parlants ! En tout cas les échecs sont en danger. Merci à Kevin et Maxime qui ont parfaitement mené le débat
J'ai hâte de regarder. Je trouvais vraiment que les interventions de Kramnik faisaient clochard qui ne sait absolument pas ce que sont les statistiques. J'espère qu'il arrivera à se rattraper.
Why is "after novelty" irellevant? Maybe it should be defined differently, but they need away to filter out he standard openings.
Très sympa ce Vladimir !
C'est quoi ce crossover de l'espace
OMG !!! Bravo Kevin ! Merci pour cette interview !
Voilaaaaaaaa !!!!!
On l'attendait avec impatience !
Pop corn direct !!
❤️
Is it so big problem to make a quality computer program for "cheaters hunting" (for engine users during online or offline games) ? I think this is much better than Kramniks "STATISTIC ANALYSE OF PLAYER TOURNAMENTS RESULTS IN THE PAST" ...
J'aurais plutôt dit "cheating in chess" ça semble plus correct
T’as raison je pense. Can anyone else confirm ?
@@Blitzstream-liveI confirm that cheating "in" chess would be the correct version
@@Blitzstream-liveJe confirme également, c’est « cheating in chess » qu’il faudrait mettre.
@oldaco07 là t'es en train de dire "comment lutter contre les mesures anti-triche"... Ça me semble être le sens opposé... (On cherche à lutter contre la triche, non?)
@oldaco07ou d’autant plus pertinent.
Motivation, feel better about my own play
Kramnik should turn that green screen into the Stockfish logo background.
In online u can't ban all cheaters. It takes times to find cheaters when someone make multiple computer line moves only it's possible. 2 or 3 lines if he cheats it's not possible to find
Imagine some very strong player(s) cheated in the past and were now being threatened by someone to give them money or else they'd tell the truth publicly. Then, these very strong players started a movement of suspicion over other chess players using one ex-cheater as scapegoat. Their idea is normalizing suspicion in a way that whoever brought valid cheating claims would be seem as paranoid.
Certainly, someone in top 5 cheated a lot in the past. This entire thing is too big to be just by chance.
Clearly? Who? Fabi once said something along the same lines but it's not clear who he meant. It might be just a rumor.
je suis refait de l'appartition de vidéo type podcast sur ta chaîne j'éspère que ça va continuer !
Vlad, what's your opinion of the other kind of cheating that's less obvious 'bullying cheating' in OTB as opposed to the more obvious 'engine cheating' in online?
---
Part1 - Definition:
While 'engine cheating' is usually done by lower rated to about equal or much higher rated players, bullying cheating is usually done to about equal or much lower rated players. And some bullying cheating can be done only by 2800+ players like Magnus, Garry, Hikaru or Veselin where they have so much power or influence in the chess world.
---
Part2 - Some examples of what bullying cheaters do:
1 - baselessly accuse their opponent (Veselin Vs you 2006 classical WCC, Hikaru Vs Hans 2022 Sinquefield, Magnus Vs Hans 2022 Sinquefield, Garry Vs Deep Blue 1997 rematch)
2 - try to get away with touch move (Magnus Vs Nepo 2021 classical wcc, Garry Vs Judit 1994 linares, Hikaru Vs Levon 2016 candidates, Magnus Vs Alexandra Kosteniuk 2009 blitz wcc), distracting their opponent (Magnus Vs Alireza 2019 blitz WCC, Garry Vs Vishy 1995 PCA classical WCC) or knocking over pieces (Harikrishna Vs Nepo 2022 rapid or blitz wcc, Magnus Vs Anish 2023 Superbet blitz) thinking their opponents will be afraid to call the arbiters
3 - use their power to manipulate tournaments in their favour or even get other players removed (Garry Vs Alexei Shirov 2000 PCA classical WCC, Magnus Vs Hans 2022 cgc, Magnus Vs Sergey 2022 candidates, Magnus & Hikaru Vs Wesley 2022 WFRCC)
4 - outright admit to cheating and have no consequences (Garry Vs MSN 1999, Magnus Vs Danya 2020, Magnus Vs Danya AGAIN 2021, Magnus Vs many people - Magnus admitted in a 2014 ama that Magnus helped friends to win online games 'a lot'.)
---
Part3 - Further explanation:
As you can see 'engine cheating' is more covert & known kind of cheating while 'bullying cheating' is more overt & less known or rather less 'considered' as cheating. Unlike 'engine cheating', people see 'bullying cheating' with their own eyes, yet nothing is done really. Anna Maja got 100 euro fine while Magnus, Garry, Hikaru, Veselin & Harikrishna were fined with nothing (well except the 10,000 fine for Magnus but that came way after). So monetarily speaking, Anna Maja is more evil than Magnus, Garry, Hikaru, Veselin & Harikrishna combined.
---
Part4 - Analogies & Underlying principle & Politics & Back to chess
Bullying cheating Vs engine cheating is like
- Tax collector Vs Pharisee
- Crime Vs war crime
- Lie Vs myth (JFK says enemy of the truth is often not the lie but the myth)
I believe the underlying principle is Bobby Fischer's concept of 'allies of evil' (2005) to counter George Bush's 'axis of evil' (2002).
Politics:
- In 2002-2005, Bush's 'axis of evil' was North Korea, Iran, Iraq while Bobby's 'allies of evil' was US, UK, Japan, Australia.
- Now in 2024, it appears axis of evil is Russia, Palestine, Pakistan, Cuba, Venezuela, Yemen, Serbia, South Africa, Qatar, China, Macau, etc + old axis
- while allies of evil is Ukraine, Israel, India, Germany, NATO, EU, the Philippines, Taiwan, Hong Kong, etc + old allies.
Chess (2022-2023) :
- main axis of evil: Bobby, Carissa x Wesley, Hans, you, Sergey, Nepo
- main allies of evil: Garry, Magnus, Atousa x Hikaru, Veselin, Daniil, Liren
- more axis of evil:
wesley so, hans niemann, bobby fischer, sergey karjakin, you, ian nepomniachtchi, alireza firouzja, nodirbek abdusattorov, andrii baryshpolets, vishy anand, jan-krzysztof duda, christopher yoo, gata kamsky, donald trump, tristan & andrew tate
- more allies of evil:
magnus carlsen, hikaru nakamura, garry kasparov, daniil dubov, veselin topalov, liren ding, aryan tari, vincent keymer, arkady dvorkovich, peter heine nielsen, richárd rapport, andrew tang, alejandro ramirez, george bush sr & jr, piers morgan
- axis of evil (female) :
tingjie lei (or paikidze), janelle frayna, dina belenkaya, sara khadem (or carissa yip), robbi jade lew
- allies of evil (female) :
wenjun ju, bella khotenashvili, andrea botez, atousa pourkashiyan - nakamura, nemo zhou
Explanations here:
p1w4Rr-nr
GOOD Idea to publish players' stats
from here 25:31 you can see his true nature.
"guilty until proven innocent" - Kramnik.
He was lucky there was no "statistician Kramnik" in his game against Topalov
28:27
Agree with Kramnik. Att the end he will be the only one that was talking the truth.
The objective fact is that he doesn't understand statistics at all. Many many mathematicians have time and time again said that he is CLUELESS on statistics.
He is 100% wrong about Nakamura I know that much. Hikaru is not a cheater
I think the obvious best option is to just start naming players you think are cheating. This would work best if the accuser sports a weak grasp on the nature of the evidences - just to keep the conversation going forever. Remember to never engage honestly with counter statistical arguments.
He's doing it on twitter and on his livestreams.
Merci pour la vidéo 🎉
people shit talk him for naka example but it is clear cheating is rampant
It is a cheating problem, but you also need to jutlstify your claims with proofs when you're going to make accusations.
We all know that cheating is a general problem since a gm like Hans admit doing it at some point of his life, but for Kramnik to make random accusations on Hikaru without having proofs only to mess up Hikaru's reputation, it's something that we shouldn't pardon from Kramnik.
Hikaru could've also verry well to use his platform with millions of followers to return the accusations back to Kramink and say that Kramink is the actual cheater with the same type of " proofs " that Kramink tried to use on Hikaru, than how would've that been to Kramink's reputation? .
26:25 "Let's say you think he is 97% cheater." How do you measure this "thinking" so precisely?
You can do statistics that shows that for example, he played 20 very good games and the likelywood of these 20 games showing up knowing his level thanks to his games offline is less than 3%. This is something statistics can do for sure
You can do this for quality of games and elo performance and if both shows something that is less than 3% maybe you can "think he is 97% cheater"
Un vrai chevalier comme on en voie plus .
Ok, c'était intéressant. La discussion avec contradiction a eu lieu et Mr Kramnik a pu s'exprimer, bravo à vous. Quid des preuves, statistiques et autres qui permettent à Mr Kramnik de prouver ses accusations ? Qui sont les membres de son équipes qui ont produit les stats ? Sont-elles publiques ? Peut-on les consulter ? de tout ça il n'en a jamais été question… C'est un peu léger tout ça. On est tous d'accord sur le fait qu'il y a un problème avec la triche, certes, mais Mr Kramnik semble accusé très spécifiquement certains joueurs, accusations appuyées par ses "stats". Seul problème : où sont ses analyses et stats ? Qu'il les publie et qu'il laisse les statisticiens/experts en la matière étudier ça.
dans une de ses vidéo hikaru les avait montrées concernant ses 50 ou 60 gains d'affilée
Imho: kramnik is taking religiously fide rating as if it was the only important measure of someone's chess level; i think that's not the case since there are many players who do almost not participate in fide events but they do play a lot online, which means that their fide rating might not be a fair reflection of their actual level of play.
i also think they underestimate just how big the gap can be for some people between their OTB and online play. kramnik pays lip service to mouse skills and pre-moving, but those are astronomically huge factors in blitz where flagging happens regularly. yeah, most player's OTB and online play are similar, but having a fast mouse hand and being good at pre moving is a huge advantage over someone who doesn't pre move and is slow with thier mouse.
After watching Kramnik play titled tuesday, I realize that most of the times he is suspicious, it`s because he got outplayed or missed a tactic and is now losing. Basically, if he feels like he`s losing, he gets suspicious
Ca c'est du contenu qualitatif !!!!
La traduction est ou pour les non voyants..
Someone should make a tournament where top players sit in the same room and play on a chess on computer that they do not own.
Then you can check if mouse skills and computer chess skills make a difference.
Kramnik est extremement intelligent et tres coherent et logique
Extraordinaire
Thank you for bringing our beloved legend kramnik Sir ❤
Why are we using hikaru as a baseline when you’ve labeled him as a cheater?
Hyper intéressant cet échange
i dont think that using the games those accused players won is the correct way to gather data (as krammnik mentioned) i think that u also have to use the lost games to see the difference in their moves (assuming that for the lost games they didnt use the engine, like krammnik said) if that is indeed true, and they didnt use the engine for their lost games then wont u be able to see a clear difference between their moves strength in won and lost games ?
Well, first of all, you always play different opening and it depends on which moves your opponent makes. So that's not the way to measure anything.
Dernier commentaire de fin de vidéo,
Je me demande si l'IA pourrait peut-être un jour être un outil plus efficace que ces modèles, en s'entraînant à analyser les cheaters, pour trouver des patterns beaucoup trop complexe pour nous humains à compiler
Par ex : un joueur qui joue systématiquement des coups très complexes après avoir regardé autre part... Un joueur avec des coups trop "rythmés"...
Après pour bien entrainer l'IA je vois pas trop comment faire sans une grosse base de données de tricheurs confirmés
the website is coming out with a program titled players will be running on their computer to make sure their pc is clean and so it can be monitored. as well as cameras in the rooms will be required. Although like MVL said, and actual arbiter in the room might also be necessary. But what was shocking to me was when Erik, the ceo, told levitov chessworld that he sees nothing wrong with players using headphones if there is a time delay. I couldn't believe he made such a comment because how do we know they don't have a hidden camera in their room watching their screen feeding it to someone remotely feeding the player moves into the headphones. Which even an arbiter in the room could not detect unless headphones are simply not allowed. I'm convinced its because they don't want to face the backlash from their streamers who want to wear headphones, and I think that is silly.
Also you must calculate the speed of internet conection. Somebody have speed 4,5 G (4500 MB) pro second, and on the other side some (like me) 7 MB pro second. In blitz games internet speed is most important to have 2700 and more rating points. and to have great tournament results in live internet games, to win players from top 100 !!!
Easy solution is to limit a players ELO online. So for example one cannot get online to let's say 1000 elo from 800 unless they have played OTB and have achieved 1000 elo from 800 otb. This is easy to confirm. Names tied to the account are registred to the email provided to OTB play at registration along with the name and address of the player or at least their hometown or ect. So set a ceiling of about 200 elo or so after 1000 to maintain this increment and promote live chess as well. So you have to have held 1000 otb to be able to reach 1200 elo from 1000 online, but only up until 1200. This should be true all the way to 3000 and above.
So you must get to 800 elo otb to be able to achieve 1000 elo online, hit 1000 otb to quailify playing 1200 elo online for example.
I see 2 reasons why this will never work :
-I think there are too many online players (me included) who never played OTB and are not interessted in booking a whole day/weekend to go to a city to play OTB.
-the elo system cannot be correctly calculated if there are people with a 1700 elo strength locked at 1000. That would force surfing and that would mean 1100 people would be on average worse players than 1000 people.
No freaking way, that's anything but an easy solution. Some people just want to have fun, not turn chess into some errand, and 1000 elo is pretty easy to reach
It will solve the issue. I feel this will just have to upset the cheaters because they have to prove it now.
@@GrowingFather as it is, there aren't enough cheaters to keep players from increasing their elo, the problem is not nearly as big as kramnik makes it out to be. These players are just surprised about how good modern chess players have become, and cheaters or not, TT winners are always top GMs, so it's not like cheaters are keeping them from winning
It is such a great way to solve the issue. I really love chess. Otb and online will be so much better now.
I did come up with such a good solution.
A.Cheat move(s) B.Book move(s) C.Brilliant move(s) what is the mathematical algorithm?
On peut facilement choper un 1500 elo qui joue bêtement les premières lignes d'ordi pour gagner contre des 2500 elo.
Mais pas quelqu'un qui se servirait de l'ordi pour vérifier que quelques coups critiques choisis humainement ne sont pas des blunders.
Et on ne pourra JAMAIS repérer un GM qui triche intelligemment et à petite dose pour hausser son niveau de 100 ou 200 elo, c'est impossible.
Le doute subsistera toujours, donc le mieux c'est d'arrêter de faire des tournois en ligne avec enjeu financier.
Pour ma part les tournois c'est en présentiel et je joue en ligne uniquement pour m'amuser ou m'entraîner à tester et mémoriser des ouvertures, par conséquent je me fout royalement de savoir si mon adversaire triche ou pas.
Finalement le sujet de la triche ne concerne que les joueurs professionnels qui vivent des échecs plus quelques streamers comme Gotham Chess qui font des vues en ridiculisant les tricheurs.
I think it concerns any truly competitive player who wants a fair and competitive match. Pro players like Kramnik and MVL care more about pro money games of course which is their focus and on engine users. But for the general playerbase, people using multiple accounts is a huge issue. And kids forming this habit because their favorite streamer "speedruns" for entertainment is part of the problem. I want to play a match where the mmr system isn't always pitting me up against players, way way above my level, or way way below it. That is not gratifying for people and gives the perception the ratings are completely undermined. That means less sponsorships and money in the sport as a result. I mean its to the point now that its pretty rare to even see someone with an account older than 1 year, or that actually has 100s of games played. Think about that. on a site that I think is over 15 years old.
Kramnik has a credibility problem, especially when he basically accused Hikaru (of all people) of cheating. It appears that everyone that beats Kramnik gets accused of cheating. By his standard, Kramnik obviously cheated to beat Kasparov. That is an extreme over-performance.
24:40 No offence Kramnik but if suspicion alone is enough for you to ban someone then you should have been banned after Topalov and his team expressed valid suspicion regarding your numerous bathroom breaks.
If this is where you're going then it's not cheating that will destroy chess it'll be the banning of innocent people that will ruin chess and its reputation.
Toiletgate, which doesn't get mentioned much these days, many chess fans only having joined since 2020.
Baseless accusations by Topalovs coach and zero evidence of any kind of cheating.
Statistics, statistics, statistics and he still have never publish these so called statistics.
He did actually. Though I don't agree with his "Baysean" analysis, he showed that the Peruvian GM JoSperm plays much better against "lesser known" GMs than against "well known" GMs (Kramnik apparently falls in the first camp) which suggestions cheating. However IMO the sample size is still too small to say that the Peruvian GM is cheating. But Kramnik did make his statistics clear on this point.
masterclass
Comme pour la sécurité en F1, que les joueurs du top 50 fasse un syndicat!.
J'en reviens à la même question : si Naka triche online, et que Magnus le bat online, Magnus triche-t-il ?
Ça ne marche absolument pas comme ça.
@@Blitzstream-live Ça marche comment alors, Kévin ? On triche pour perdre ? On triche contre contre les mecs qui ont 300 elos de moins et que tu es sûr de battre ?
Tu vas pas tricher tout le temps contre tout le monde. Mais simplement quelques coups sur tout un tournoi. Et ce au bon moment.
@@Blitzstream-live Dans ce cas là, la question 1 reste totalement valide !!
Naka n'oserait pas tricher contre Magnus ou MVL de peur d'être repéré ? Peut-être... mais Magnus a un meilleur elo que Naka et là ça pique d'autant que Magnus joue très peu online... Bref, de toute façon je laisse peu à peu tomber les échecs au profit du Go qui me met le cerveau 1million de x plus en feu !! Bonne continuation.
Maxime est très talentueux et ouvert d'esprit
Share this video with top online streamers maybe they will get some sense and stop going after Kramnik so hard.
One anti-cheating measure for chess could involve chess apps sending a database of played games, allowing AI to compare if two identical games were played with the same move sequence at the same time - an occurrence practically impossible due to the countless variations possible.
If the game was played entirely in the past I guess both players are cheaters so it doesn’t really matter.
@@V-ly2gkIn a hypothetical scenario, a chesscom player uses a chess app to replicate moves and determine the best options. If all apps were required to send data to a central database, artificial intelligence could detect that the player used an app to cheat, as they fed another device with the same game data played on chesscom on the same day and time. While this scenario is currently impossible, implementing such an idea would require all chess game developers to unite around an anti-cheating policy.
It's actually quite likely that the same game is played at the same time. Thé simple scholar mate is a good example
1 - sounds excessively expansive for little to no ROI
2 - Just cheat on an offline chess app or device
In a hypothetical scenario, a plataform player uses a chess app to replicate moves and determine the best options. If all apps were required to send data to a central database, artificial intelligence could detect that the player used an app to cheat, as they fed another device with the same game data played online the same day and time. While this scenario is currently unavailable, implementing such an idea would require all chess game developers to unite around an anti-cheating policy.
it would help Kramnik's cause if he stops randomly accusing players, who make a move he did not expect.
how to stop cheaters going to the bathroom 50 times when they play against Topalov and how to stop them from accusing others of what they do
J'ai failli arrêter la vidéo quand il a dis qu'il utilisais chessbase comme yosha.. Quand on sais qu'elle a utilisé plus de 20 logiciel différent donc quelques perso pour arriver a des corrélations de 100% pour hans..pas credible.
Edit : j'ai quand même tout regardé, la meilleure itv de kramnik sur le sujet (et je l'ai ai toutes vue/lues..)
? Comment ça, 20 logiciels ? Je ne comprends pas le sens de votre intervention. Une corrélation de 100% ? Une corrélation va de -1 à +1. Quel est le rapport entre le nombre de logiciels (quels logiciels ?) et l'amplitude de la corrélation ? J'ai vu cette vidéo ; elle dit que Niemann a joué plusieurs parties avec un taux de précision (caps) de 100%. Cela voudrait dire qu'il a joué EXACTEMENT comme l'ordinateur, le problème étant alors que deux pgrms différents auront nécessairement, au moins de temps en temps, des coups différents. Lorsque j'ai vu cette vidéo, ce qui m'a personnellement interpelé, c'est le fait que, Nieman étant un gars très loin d'être un imbécile, s'arrangerait forcément s'il trichait vraiment, pour dévier de temps en temps du meilleur coup, c'est une évidence, non ?
@@heremansmarcOula t'es pas au courant du tout on dirais..
La vidéos et les analyses de yosha ont été démontée en long et en large par plusieurs streamers/Gm.. Même ikaru a recinnu après qu'elle avait fait n'importe quoi.
Dans chessbase tu met genre stockfish et tu calcule les coups joué avec ceux de l'ordi .. A la fin tu arrive a genre 82%.
Ok mais elle utilisais plusieurs version de stockfish ( meme le 7!)Komodo Fritz Houdini et j'en passe. A chaque fois qu'elle rajoutait un nouveau logiciel, la corrélation montait de 82 a 85..88..92..95 etc.. Logique car chaque moteur d'echecs ( dont des tres vieux ) avait le coup en top move.
Comme ca suffisait pas, elle a rajouter des logiciel "maison" pour qu'un blunder soit mis en top move et augmente la correspondance.
Un exemple : ua-cam.com/video/GY0TfDtBbdY/v-deo.htmlsi=JgaILGXaSossUKxo
Et un autre pour comment monter la corrélation : ua-cam.com/video/GV28HO2Ea_s/v-deo.htmlsi=3p_dGUCVHwQapQDd
En gros elle s'est fait un paquet de pub sur le dos de hans.
@@ChristopheDepret , heu, je n'ai JAMAIS dit que j'approuvais sa vidéo... Il faut juste m'expliquer en quoi le fait d'utiliser plusieurs moteurs fait monter une corrélation Quelle corrélation, par ailleurs ? La seule raison imaginable pour que l'utilisation de plusieurs logiciels fasse monter le pourcentage de jeu correct (rien à voir avec une corrélation) serait qu'elle utilise des logiciels qui ne sont pas d'accord entre eux quant au meilleur coup. A la limite, avec une grande série de logiciels pointant des coups différents, le pourcentage d'exactitude pourrait monter à 100% QUEL QUE SOIT le coup joué. De plus, il me semble être clair en disant que 100% dans plusieurs parties de suite, signifierait que Niemann est débile, puisqu'il saurait qu'il ne peut être QUE débusqué avec de tels scores. J'aimerais avoir les liens de détracteurs de cette vidéo, si possible.
@@heremansmarc "la seule raison imaginable serait qu'elle utilise plusieurs moteurs qui sont pas d'accord entre eux.."
Bah oui ta trouvé la réponse tout seul vu qu'apparament ta pas regardé les videos que je t'ai mis en lien.. J'en ai mis 2 mais yen a bien plus.
Si ta du mal avec l'anglais, met les sous titres.
Elle a utilisé tellement de moteur different, même de 20 ans d'écart + si ca match pas, on upload un logiciel fait maison.. Facile d'arriver a 100%.
Leur corrélation sur chessbase est différent d'en math, ca match ou pas.. Il suffit juste d'analyser avec 20 ou 30 logiciel du meilleur au plus mauvais, voir un fait maison pour avoir un "match" sur le coup joué et augmenter le %.
La corrélation chessbase ne peut pas servir de detection de triche car si tu upload tous les logiciels du monde, yen a tjs un qui va finir par avoir le coup joué en "top move" et donc augmenter la corrélation chessbase (nombre de coups joué qui corresponde au meilleur coup de l'ordi).
Sur chesscom ta la precision mais stockfish 14.. Sur sue si tu rajoute a la pelle, ton score de precision va augmenter.
Ce qui est marrant cest que hans avait +20 logiciel mais il était comparé aux autres gars mais eux avait juste stockish..
Juste pour le mettre dedans et se faire de la pub (ca a marché)..
@@ChristopheDepretj'aurais pas dis mieux..ses videos était a vomir.. Elle a meme upload les logiciels de son pote pour monter la corrélation !
Ceux qui n'y connaise rien sonr tombé dans le panneau, même ikaru a jump.. Avant de se rétracter mais le mal était fait.
Elle s'est fait un paquet de pub, bien pour elle mais c vipère
Supposedly during fishers 20 game run he scored 72% and that was before engine's existed. No one has come even close to that since. I'm 37 years old and technology simply does not belong in chess. I'm with kramnick when it comes to old school. Read a book, throw the tablet in the trash. you want to be good at chess? Study the board. I've never played chess on a computer and never will.
1. I lose all vision of the board. I don't have notation memorized so I need a board.
2. Mouse slips makes me want to throw my screen. Now, (surprise) people cheat.
What krammik saying make sense, but when He went after nakamura based on easy game he was so wrong
Naka has won a lot more Online than over the board
Five 50 game win streaks in a single month with performance ratings that are historic even for online player should be a major red flag. And for the websites only response is to say that its not unusual because Nakamura played 55,000 games in 10 years, is simply not an answer. Neither is the fact he played two 2900 rated players 9 times in a row. The fact Nakamura's performance rating in online blitz doesn't even correlate with his OTB performance is another red flag. The mouse skills nor the lack of increments explain this, because this is not the case for the other top 10 players.
Otb naka never played lower rated players. Otb most of the time are higher rated players. Use ur Brain 🧠
@@astlinj and all the other top 10 players have? Use your brain. There's no difference in their performance ratings online versus OTB. Only Naka. Suspect
interesting......
Anyone outscoring the big guys over a bunch of games is sus.. but im only 1300 (1450 peak) and i sometimes get 93% on single games....
bro's accent is pleutre
What about people who play a lot of theory online quickly and without effort? They are probably cheating
You should let Kramnik say what he's got to say, don't interruput him so much.
People have their posts arbitrarily banned on social media all the time. If players accept at the beginning they might be unfairly dropped from the tournament, like ticking a box, then it can be more aggressively policed. They can also be shadowbanned where they are not seen online by as many players, or drop out of the tournament without being banned.
Que le joueur soit coupable de triche ou non dans tous les cas une sanction (pas extrême) sera profitable s'il est innocent c'est hyper flatteur et dans l'autre cas ça calmera un minimum leurs ardeurs
unfortunately, their accents are not clear enough. It's hard to follow what they are saying
Best way to fight cheating? Assume everyone cheats. Catches cheaters 100% of the time.
That would just encourage more cheating. If you think everyone else is cheating, you’re more likely to think it’s okay to cheat or even feel like you have to cheat.
Kramnik doesn't understand the game analysis and accuse everyone of cheating if he doesn't win.
In one video he overlooked two clear wins and after the game he said he had could not win and he implied that the player was cheating.
I don't agree with Kramnik on cheating, except Fide needs to do more to catch cheaters (like installing anti-cheat software on all PCs in Titled Tuesday), but it's well known that if a player thinks his opponent is cheating, that player will play worse, which could explain Kramnik's comment.
I think the having such a historical figure being a champion against cheating in chess is a great help to improving the integrity of the game, but Kramnik and MVL need to understand that because of the major rise in engines, the younger generations see the board differently than the great players who had to spend many hours to figure out the best practical solutions to problems. He should realize how much stronger a player like himself or Kasparov would be if they had the perfect solutions from the start to work with, or the ability to go through thousands of chess puzzles and compositions at the tip of a finger from the time they were starting chess. The moves they cannot see may be a product of human practicality and the kids learning from engines may have a different type of vision.
That doesn't explain the rating gaps between otb and online for these young players.
Precioso