so if the guy WAS once the greatest in chess I need to take everything he states in the areas he's not proficient including his recipe of a pie? he's totally a stranger to a math stats, so sorry Vlad.. as you love saying Nobody's Caesar's wife
@@AlRask-j3b He’s trying to use statistics to confirm his suspicions when playing someone. It’s like the Magnus/Hans situation. If a 2850 chess player is saying something about a chess game, I’m not going to assume he’s wrong, especially when it’s impossible to verify if someone is right or wrong about cheating.
Mr Kramnik, it would be interesting to put your parameters and analytic techniques to the test by hiring titled players to play a large number (say 1000) games, and cheat intentionally for research purposes, in a small number (10-50) games. Obviously they would record which games they "cheated" in, and could test and perform a statistical analysis on the efficacy of the detection algorithms.
On one of this interviews, Dubov said that he proposed something similar. He wanted permission to "cheat" at some point during the year, and see whether the existing anti-cheating tools will be able to find when he cheats. But obviously nobody wants such arrangement since it is clear that he will be found by any algorithm.
I posted something similar before but with an extra layer- you have guys like Kramnik try to catch the cheaters by guessing which players are cheating and when during games. And have players try to guess who was cheating and when after the games (by using computers). Kramnik has said he knows when people are cheating… so let’s test his cheating skills. And reward cheaters (who are known to be “cheating” and allowed to for the experiment) with $ for fooling other players. There’s a skill to cheating and not getting caught, and there’s a skill to catching cheaters. So let’s test for both and refine cheat detection by analyzing both.
I can tell you what the result will be: no algorithm will detect in which games they cheated, if they just use it for like 2 moves every 100th game it will be the search for the needle in the haybale
@@bobobububuI’m surprised you think it’s clear they would be caught. My first hunch is that almost all of them could avoid detection if they were truly careful.
I'd like to see this theory applied to all the offline blitz tournament played during the last five-six years where chances of cheating are significantly small (I'm guessing) to find out if it actually holds true or it shows this increasing elo trend towords the end.
A GM only needs to see one good move during the mid game to win the game. No system will be able to detect this, because a GM is expected to find high level moves. Most lower level players will need multiple moves, hence they will get caught.
@@PaulCezanne_ it’s not that I don’t understand, it’s that Kramnik rambles on and on and on is not providing the higher level statistical analysis that could be done. I’d rather an expert who speaks better and English and doesn’t ramble present the analysis. I had to fast forward again and again until he got to something interesting. He starts wasting time by explaining why people cheat. As if anybody doesn’t know why. That’s idiotic. If you like hearing him ramble, fine, I don’t. I wanted analysis.
@@figaro9333 I won't debate debate with you about his analysis because he didn't give us a lot of data to work with but I think the basic premise behind his method makes sense. What's really embarrassing is that the chess community refuses to take the problem of cheating seriously. In every other sport people cheat even when their is no money involved. The other sports I follow are Football, Tennis, Athletics, and eSports, and in everyone of those sports there have been top players who have been caught cheating even with anti-cheating measures in place. Chess has the weakest anti-cheating measures of all the sports I follow. Denying that there could be cheating in top level chess with all the money that's involved is just denying Human Nature and THAT'S EMBARRASSING. What's so special about chess players? The fact that none of the top players has been caught cheating proves nothing. Lance Armstrong was cheating for a decade became the greatest in his sport and was never caught. If he never came out and admitted that he had been cheating all along his fans would still be defending his record to this day despite all the circumstantial evidence that suggests that he was cheating.
In the ru version of this video he named two "losers" playing "much worse" in the last game for money. -143 - he named himself; -108 - Firouzja; -103 - have not told yet but also is very interesting. Important: minus 108 - worse results
@@NovelNovels-fe7kdI means their names. Ofc there a lot of noname FMs who are nothing to lose, I mean big GM names. I suspect Bortnyk and Andreikin among +200 players.
Players are going to have accounts tied to their real name and identity, similar to online poker, so if they get caught cheating, their real name is known and they can be banned across multiple participating sites. The actual best players who are concerned about cheating would play on these verified sites, the tournaments would be hosted there, etc.
I wouldn't call it temptation, but there is certainly an incentive. If we compare online chess to other sports like cycling, there is also a dilemma: If literally everyone is cheating, you have to cheat as well in order to compete.
Cheating in professional sport is rife - it’s far more widespread than reported amongst the top players, and that’s with doping controls. Online chess has hardly any controls! Hence with the amount of money involved, and no controls - of course it’s rife! The difficulty is proving it. No player, no matter how high profile and popular, should be automatically trusted. As he says - top players only need 3-5 glances at an engine to become unplayable against any human, unlike the rest of us who would need assistance for almost every move. Much stricter controls are needed, certainly where prize money is at stake.
I dont know about cheating in higher levels of chess(beyond 2000+ ELO) in online games, but in lover ratings it is obvious. Im rated 1800+ and atleast in 50% of games that I play against lower rating opponents than myself, in mid game the tone of game changes completely and I get crushed by a 10+ move stockfish line. It's extremely common when my opponent is in significantly worse position, or messes up in opening by losing a piece or pawn. Besides that, I think it is very unlikely that players of my level play 3 or 5 min blitz with accuracy over 90 with no blunders or inaccuraries, which seems to happens very often, especially with low rated opponents.
I’ve noticed a VERY unnatural steepening of the curve at ‘club’ levels too. It’s pretty obvious something huge is going on and it’s existential for the game.
I think it possible for players below 1800 to get an accuracy of over 90 once in a while. Thats because its possible to end up with a position out of the opening where one player has easy moves. Things get suspicious for me if i look at someone and they seem to consistently have games with an accuracy in the high 80s to 90s.
I agree fully. From 1800-2000 the amount of cheaters is ridiculous. I honestly found most 2000-2100 easier to beat when I was rated 2000-2040, than I did when I was rated 1800-2000 playing other people within this rating. I think this is because they don't focus too much on people rated lower than 2000 elo because maybe they're not as serious of a player. But, the amount of people I play and report is ridiculous, particularly if they have a high win streak, consistently play high accuracy like high 80s to 90+, how long their account has been open for, their win rate over different periods of time etc. Someone I played the other day had lost to numerous people rated 100-300 only two months ago, and is now beating people rated 2000+. Its not likely at all imo.
THE PROBLEM with this logic is some stats come from Blitz and Bullet games, and there are MANY chess players that UNDERPERFORME when pressured with time. Kramnik is ONE of them. Not always, but it happens.
Thanks for your efforts on this sir! You're defending the integrity of the game. If cheating continues it kills chess as a competitive game. You have the support of all sane chess fans!
You must do the same study on the same players and their performance in over the board results. These results are significant if and only if you don't see the same performance gap in the last round in over the board tournaments.
Hmm. Just wondering, if the reason the performance rating goes up in the last game(s) might simply be the fact that in the end always the strongest players compete against each other and only in those games the players know longer lines of theory (and don’t dare to deviate) which then in relation to the number of moves played increases the performance rating?
He goes over this at 52:00. You expect the opponent also to play better too if it’s the last or most important round. So there shouldn’t be a massive increase in performance
One strong grandmaster suggested an interesting idea of cheating. A weak player doesn't pick the 1st line, he doesn't pick the 5th line. He picks just something that is not loosing. He can even go to a worse position if it's not immediately loosing. Then, his opponent, who is a stronger player, can't realize his advantage, and gets nervous that he is playing with weaker opponent and he can't win. And that stronger blunders. Then, the weak players says, perfect, I got what needed. Nobody can now accuse me in cheating, because I won because of a natural blunder. I didn't make any extraordinary 1st line move.I just waited for a blunder.
Over the last year or so I have noticed a slight difference in the cheating meta. This is based on cheats I played, reported, and were banned. They now know the tell-tale signs of an obvious cheat; flat time use graph, first or second line every move, maybe toss in an inaccuracy here or there so they're not playing 100%. The new method: play a garbage dodgy opening and allow around a 2 point disadvantage THEN start cheating. If I'm playing very clean I take them in to an even endgame where they proceed to become Capablanca and Magnus powers combined, miss nothing, win no problem.
The problem with this is that a low rated player would not understand the moves. He could for example pick the 6th line and think he's not picking very strong moves, but that line could be counter-intuitive and might look losing to even super GMs. Then when the cheater would somehow keep that position afloat it becomes pretty clear something fishy is going on.
@@stoutlager6325if you are playing ‘very clean’? Don’t you either play clean or you cheat? Even if you use the engine for one move of a game you cheat, for one game out of a hundred, you cheat. How can it be about magnitude, you either cheat or you do not.
I read christie and i think you mean hes more like sherlock Holmes wannabe rather than Poirot because Poirot uses his genius reasoning and people's psychology rather than throwing bunch of data and call it a day
Wow! 12 (I see 11 in the table) out of 18... Wow, incredible, unbelievable. I knew there are guys who cheat, I did not expect so many. And, definitely, we should review what is the new "zero" for performance deviation in the last decisive round. Because fair players will often have lower performance, as they are facing 2/3 cheaters. That's why if their performance decreased, it means they are playing at the same level, just they are playing with cheaters. And if someone has performance grow by 200 points, it means the actual growth is 300, because he is playing with 2/3 cheaters too. If he still manages to win, it means he has to be 300 stronger in order to show 200 higher performance
It's garbage. Playing for a decisive result when you're fighting for a cash prize in the last round of a swiss event means your performance rating in the last round will be either high (+400) or low(-400). Take a bigger sample and you'll find the people playing for a decisive result and being on the losing end and I can guarantee this is a much more normal graph. All it proves is people take risks when there's money on the line, and much like in poker or other games where taking a higher risk is incentivized, you'll find people scoring like this on a normal distribution. I'm not buying it, when you cut the part of the population off that's on the losing end of these results you're just confirming your own bias.
I think to proof if hikaru is cheating or not Kramnik must play 45 games over the board against hikaru and taste him himself. Hikaru is extremely good at blitz or bullet. Even if you hate him it would be idiotic to think he is a cheater. Danya, chessbrah, magnus, levy, some top gm like wesley giri etc also said that hikaru is literally the best at online event because he already playing online chess before some of you can walk or read
New generation in chess is so much stronger than the old generation, especially Kramnik's generation and earlier ones. Being a World Champion during Kramnik's era is equivalent to being among the top-100 today. Kramnik fails to realize this and this makes him a sore loser.
@@NovelNovels-fe7kdit is definitely better buddy and yes kramnik sure has lost his marbles accusing hikaru for cheating without providing any stats lol
True i just dont understand why this guy is no longer top player even korchnoi played better than him overally in his old day. This guy just cant adapt and blame everyone for his weakness against modern player. His era is 2700-2800 rated even the best player kasparov barely 2880 or something. While in this era open game is also not played alot because its blunderable according to computer and game history. This guy is wannabe bobby fischer trying to be a hero and failed to see himself in a mirror. At least fischer played better open game even against modern counter-opening if you know some of his games. 😂😂😂
He is right, there is too many cheaters at all levels online... that's why I love the chess clubs... nothing like a face to face match with a real person.
Claim that using 3-5 times computer assistance in final game of TT's would increase your income 50% is (possibly) true only if your opponents are not cheaters. Against strong cheaters you would still lose
Hikaru could be cheating but a strong claim needs strong evidence. Kramnik should have investigated for a longer period of time. But anyways, big respect for Kramnik, the former world champion. Cheater or not, Hikaru is a jerk and he acts as if his father owns FIDE. The level of arrogance is intolerable 😡😡
Great work again. Anyone who watches this and still denies that this is worth investigating further just has their head in the sand (or they're the CCO of a certain chess website).
This is terrible math. Anyone that actually went to school for any science degree and took college level math will see straight through the garbage statistical analysis and confirmation bias. This is why you don't let amateurs do your math or propose math problems. How strange it might be to even think about game theory when you're playing for a decisive result in the last round of a swiss tournament vs not fighting for a cash prize, if you take a larger sample size you'll find your prize losers who turn that into a normal distribution. I'm sorry, I'm not buying it.
I started playing chess online and I have cheated. When I was like 1200 I wanted to cheat myself as high as possible, i got to 1900 and i was amazed how good players are and how perfect the engines play. Amazingly, today I am legitly way above 1900 and obv dont feel any excitement in cheating anymore, since Im literally better now than i was cheating back then. Also I never cheated in prize-events.
Mr Kramnik is right!Simple as.The question is why aren’t those people who have been PROVEN to cheat not banned permanently and made to reimburse whatever prize money they received??????Very strange.
Didn't kramnik get away with cheating against topalev??? Kramnik probably thinks everyone is cheating because he is a cheater himself. Your numbers do not make sense. So sad to see a chess legend like kramnik lose his mind.
Lmao, can we get to know your areas of expertise? Umm maybe you might be a super GM?? I guess you might be having a PhD in Maths?? Ooh or maybe you are a Data Scientist??
@@vineetpandey08 i just wish the best for kramnik. He's obviously struggling with his mind. He contradicts himself throughout the video and then accuses Hikaru of cheating. It's just so sad and I hope he pulls out of this ok without getting sued.
this statistic has many flaws but here are a few- wouldn't they cheat in rounds 7-10 do be able to win money with just a draw? Some humans focus better under pressure while others continually crumble Some humans buy time simply by having more skill with the mouse This entire analysis assumes they wouldn't cheat earlier, then they suddenly decide to cheat. It's also unclear how these rating numbers are calculated, without which the analysis is irreproduciple. A better analysis would detect cheaters the way human GMs sniff them out - cheaters take too long to play obvious moves and not enough time to play difficult moves.
i always thought that kramnik is kinda nuts. nobody believed me, thanks god he finally proofed my theory himself 4 me. btw i also believed that back then in the match vs topalov he was more likely to be a cheater then topalov. and if i continue, lets say it happened it also would be a reason why he is now so intereting :)))))
This is seriously a 1h 15min long video about forming an average and looking for outliers. This is not high math that's middle school statistics. And no one else has thought of that before ... cheat detection systems? That's the first thing i would think about. Next video should be about how you can spin statistics to your liking ... maybe 2h long.
This Vid kinda shows how much Kramnik loves chess. He is spending his time and effort and money in trying to tackle “Cheating in Chess”. My Huge respect to him
thanks for the presentation, I've followed the blog as well, but I think there is a miscomprehention, most people agreee that the is cheating, the discution arrises if there is 50%, 25%, 10%, 5% or 1%. and unfortanetly all the data that has been presented shows that anomalies exist but there are things to add asterisk on. First how the players that have been studied have been selected? the fact that nerves affect both players is acurate, but everyone is affected in different manner. so this might show which players don't choke the end. Also the point is that you might show some opening preparation or a new idea if you are playing for money. (so it is to be checked on each player the openings ) also some players risk it all for a win (Naka) others just play solid (Wesley). and that shows even in clasical OTB chess the candidats tournament last 2 championships, Giri colapsed the last rounds in 2021 and Caruana in 2022. si highlly non conclusive, maybe 1 of the 12 you studied cheated.
I also want to mention: 1. The posibility to draw arrows on the board during the game. 2. Premove basicly your whole game if you are lucky to "guess" all your opponents moves. This is has nothing to do anymore with chess. From the start of online chess this seemed weird to me.
For all the Kramnik bashing going on I wonder how many people have watched this in its entirety and what they think after that. Because this AT LEAST warrants scrutiny, surely. I would expect a slight drop (not a rise) in performance for important games, as nerves, adrenaline etc come into play. Such a substantial rise in the quality of play among so many players is very odd. I don’t think we can draw conclusions until more data is gathered but at first glance this is extremely unnatural! Food for thought, because it is clear that even among the casual player base something odd is going on, IMO.
Math can help in generalizating players performance but then again if the rating gap is so high to the point where it actually exceed 500+ i dont think math is that much of relevant again in chess game. Chess is a game and its played by human there are alot of factor of winning losing even drawing
I'd like to see these numbers juxtaposed with numbers for OTB tournaments of a similar structure. I appreciate all the time & effort you put into these videos and the research behind them 👍
Did kramnik ever publish a white paper (or something to that effect) on his mathematical methods/findings? I hear that he hired a mathematician to back up his claims of "statistical improbabilities", but rather infuriatingly, I cannot locate any such report anywhere.
I am surprised that there is no requirement to have a camera to overlook the entire room. What about sound? I mean the accomplice can shout from the next room is sound is not mandatory.
Kramnik was a student at the Humanities Institute of Novgorod State University, but was expelled due to systematic non-attendance and academic debt. Math and statistics are certainly not for Kramnik; they are are much hsrder comparing to moving pieces along a 64-square board.
Not harder, just more complex. Also education is not mathematical ability. Sure, he's not a mathematician, but he getting help from mathematicians you can look at the data yourself =)
Take a bathroom break, Vlad. They seen to help. And then study long run stat probabilities. To that end, deleting the posts of mathematians and statisticians won't help. So stop doing that.
Kramnik's thesis is that a very high "performance" of a player in a tournament, when it is clearly superior to that of other normally better players, (and also superior to that player's usual performance online without prizes) should raise suspicions of trap. This is nonsense. I am going to explain some reasons why it is not meaningful to make mechanical deductions about this gap in the usual parameter of “performance”. Let's start by pointing out that a professional player reserves his opening secrets for prize tournaments. He never uses them in “friendly” games. Therefore, it is evident that by applying this “cooking” in prize tournaments, your performance can be particularly high (if the cooking is effective). In every tournament with prizes there is always some player who takes advantage of a homemade find. Even more important is the fact that, when theoretical preparation works, the player who gains the advantage will have an easier game and it is then more plausible that he will either end the game early due to the opponent's surrender or continue with a very difficult game. comfortable, which will make it very easy to make many “module” plays. In both cases (surrender or easy play), the performance of the player who has effectively applied his opening preparation will be particularly high. Conversely, if a player does not bring effective opening preparations to the tournament, but is very skilled in the middle game and endgame, it is perfectly possible that his performance will be low (lower, for example, than in the case of the expert in opening preparation). , even though his results are very good and in the tournament in question he ends up above the opening expert. A very curious case is that of Carlsen, who, being perhaps the best player in History (with permission from Morphy and Kasparov) does not stand out in the opening (at least not in relation to his peers), but is great in the endings. This makes him win tournaments with lower performance than other players of much lower level (maybe on the bottom of the table). In reality, the “performance” of a player in a game must be weighted with the performance of the rival player. If that opponent plays very poorly, it is possible that the performance (P) of the winner is very high without this being any indication of the quality of their game. Let's call this R factor. Along with this, you also have to take into account the duration of the game. Let's call this L factor. A short game with a draw agreed on move 12 will produce very high performances for both players, without really deducing a high level of play from this. In general, a high performance in a long game has much more value than in a short one. For all this, it can be said that the true performance, which we will call P', is a function of P, R and L. So, as long as we consider P and not P' we will be making a major error, giving full significance to something. which only has a partial significance. Finally, looking at an isolated piece of performance data in a tournament and trying to deduce something from that isolated piece of data is statistical recklessness. At most, and with the conditions indicated above, it would be necessary to consider more or less long series of results, and analyze these series with the help of statistical tools that support the possible existence of an operating cause (the trap) and not just another result. less plausible that it varies for purely random reasons. And finally, beyond these logical considerations, it must be said that while it may be true that online cheating "dirties" our noble game, it is no less true that launching sadducean accusations, without statistical basis and on erroneous "theoretical" bases , is another way to corrupt the practice of chess and seriously harm certain players, without any right to do so. And I don't know what's worse.
@@NovelNovels-fe7kd I haven’t watched the video and I agree with kramniks journey with hunting cheaters of course! But in his recent status update referring to a player with 45 win streak or something against avg 2950 opponents it’s a clear hint at Hikaru. You can be all technical and whatever saying ‘he hAsNt MeNtIoNeD a NaMe’ and be a child about it or you can just accept the reality of the situation.
@@Pharmaceuticsuntil you watch the whole video and the reasoning behind it there’s not much point in bringing forth an opinion about it is there? Unless your argument is ‘because Hikaru’, which is nonsense as either an attack or a defence. Kramnik is pointing out something which by definition is unnatural, a rise in performance level of a magnitude greater than usual for important games almost across the board so to speak, which doesn’t add up to a natural state of affairs if you just stop to think about it. And as for Hikaru why should he be above suspicion, why should anybody be at this point when clearly the problem of engine use is growing and becoming pervasive? If anything the fact that Hikaru is getting better with age alone warrants scrutiny, nobody should be above question! But finally this isn’t about Hikaru, it’s about the state of the entire game at the top level. And I think anybody playing clean on line who claims that something VERY unnatural at all levels IS NOT happening, and rapidly, is being disingenuous!
Kramnik is a sad little child... i promise you that if you can stroke his ego while you explain it, you can convince him of flat earth theory. this is a poor, poor child LOL
I know very little about such things.. When encountered with subjects that I am not an expert in I lean on the views of experts in the field.. In regards to your accusations/concerns,the experts in the field disagree with you..
This seems like such a basic statistical mistake. If you fight for prizes you have a good day, if not, you don't. (These are all Titled Tuesday games). By lumping those together in 7-10, but separating in 11, you only show some difference between good days and bad.
@@NovelNovels-fe7kd I watched the part where he speaks about how the table was constructed several times very carefully. Do you have an argument? I am ready to listen.
Mr Krammik, I am a huge fan of yours and greatly respect your talent and your success throughout the years has been amazing. However, I believe that the way you have been handling this situation is not correct. Please provide proof up front before you accuse people of cheating. The way you’re doing it makes it seem that you’re only trying to ruin reputations rather than actually trying to protect this beautiful game. Just please be careful how you handle this.
!!! it would be interesting if some of the players now do worse in Title Tuseday in the last round, after they have seen this video. and they cheat in the rounds before to get a good chance with still losing the last round.
One camera is on your face and one is on screen, and if you are starring anywhere else like capturing signs from some third person ai will detect that you switch your focus somewhere that you are looking up something else sowhere outside of that center area of laptop screen. That's the idea why there are two cameras.
Just imagine how bad cheating is at the lower levels of chess lol I constantly deal with my 600 rated opponents playing like Magnus Carlsen for the first 10-15 moves... I almost never have an opponent blunder anything... It feels like very solid chess from start to finish and it's actually insane. Just hard stuck 600 rating because I'm so badly outplayed in the first 10 moves. No matter what I learn they just play the best engine move against it until they win a piece or get a huge advantage... then sometimes it suddenly feels like they try playing on their own and the person the wins the piece doesn't feel like the same person that throws the game completely. It's like people trying to learn how to cheat better and better... it's not just engine moves every move. It's like they play normal and then also never make a mistake. It's actually disgusting and I'm about to go play chess IRL at a club tomorrow for the first time to prove it to myself that my 500 opponents are just cheating online because I know I'm better than 600. If what people say holds true I should be like 200 otb rated and lose basically every game because they say ur otb rating is like 200-300 points less that ur online rating. yea, we'll see. I'm about to go beat the shit out of a bunch of kids... on the chess board.
I am also often surprised how people are making first moves very fast and not blundering anything, but I think everyone can learn 10 moves or just some pattern to follow and not be considered a cheater.
@@AndreyPutilov yea I agree, but that isn't really what is happening. It's like move orders. No matter what it just feels like you rarely come out ahead. Somehow all these 500s constantly out play people in the openings and it doesn't matter what opening you choose. They KNOW the right move order to come out ahead. I don't think the 500s should know the first 10-15 moves of every single opening. They like see the tactics and avoid them and stuff it's actually insane. I swear to god it just feels like ur playing against Magnus Carlsen sometimes. The move orders are so far beyond a 500s level and you can FEEL it. I think I can tell within the fist handful of moves if I'm playing against a normal person or someone using an engine suggestions. And then it gets confirmed later in the game when they are suddenly destroying you and ahead of you by 2-3 minutes in a 5 minutes game. They use basically no time thinking about their extremely advanced moves as they choke the life out of you on the chess board. I'm telling you that you can feel it and ur guts usually right about it. Plus I'll just tell you that I have cheated on alt accounts and have never been caught and I can make that %accuracy move thing at the end of the game say whatever I want it to. The idea that you HAVE to play the best move in the position to cheat is false. You can make any move at all that isn't a massive blunder and trust the engine will pull you out of any trouble. I don't know what % of people are cheating but I can say that for playing this game for 1 year that my rating just bounces between 600-650 and I've never gotten any better at all. I find that hard to believe. Especially with all the talk in the community about cheating... SO MANY low level players are just cheating their ass off man.
@@NovelNovels-fe7kd "There is no point in cheating with low non-competitive chess." This is a falsehood. Many players cheat in games (of all sorts) because they want to feel like winners but lack the ability & I'm sure the serotonin dump, along with a healthy dose of cognitive dissonance, keeps them coming back for more. @TheDedloc What's your CC username?
I've dealt with Cheaters online when I was invited into a Magic Online as a Beta Tester. In Beta you had every card available to build your decks and it also still tracker your rating. My Rating was very high and I had another player with a slightly lower rating completely beat all I had to do was attack and he was dead then the player asked me not to kill him because he wanted to test a mechanic on the new cards on the next turn and I saw now problem with that after all that's what where there for however after he tested the machinic the sob decided to go back on his word and kill me. Only thing to gain was Ratings points what a POS.
One motivation for people to cheat in friendly games online where nothing tangible is at stake, is to have an interesting game, interesting continuation, rather than just abruptly blunder something and have all the setup and time wasted. It is similar to old overboard situation when in friendlies you will take the move back, or your friend suggests a better move and you use it (perhaps to displeasure of your opponent, but usually taken lightheartedly). You kind of know that well, in reality you would have lost a real game at that moment, but you still can continue to see what could have transpired. It is a deficiency of online platforms, that they do not provide avenue for such friendly interactions, but rather focus people on (totally really useless) rating at any cost, as a result creating artificial stakes where there are, really, none.
@@GeometricStalemate after he accused hikaru of cheating, I know he has lost his mind. He's not onto something, he just wants attention and to cause a scandal to stay relevant, for clout. He might as well accuse Magnus of cheating because Magnus recognises Hikaru's immense talent and considers him his rival.
GMToilet cannot compete on the board anymore, so he is sh*tting on better players. btw, did he ever accuse a russian player of cheating? Is he on a "special operation"?
At 1:08:00 he shows that players have a higher accuracy, when they are close to ending in the money in titled Tuesday. This could be a sign of cheating, but it could also be a sign that they start concentrating when results are needed. A first step could be to plot the accuracy as a function of the rating of the opponent.
the problem with kramnik is that he puts numbers and try to make sens of it. He should contact a mathematician/stat/probability scientific and analyze his claim, otherwise it doesn't mean much
Kramnik has based most of his argument on "average accuracy", but accuracy is not a good measure of the ability to win. Low level games can have a high accuracy if they have a large number of forced moves. Both players in Magnus games will have low accuracy because he plays strange openings. If a player is prone to making blunders, them he can have a high "average accuracy" and still lose. You need proper data analyst to look at the data to understand it (See blog by Dorian Quelle)
me when i lose 2 games in a row
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
lmao
I think it is weird how many people dismiss a former world champion out of hand.
so if the guy WAS once the greatest in chess I need to take everything he states in the areas he's not proficient including his recipe of a pie? he's totally a stranger to a math stats, so sorry Vlad.. as you love saying Nobody's Caesar's wife
@@AlRask-j3b He’s trying to use statistics to confirm his suspicions when playing someone. It’s like the Magnus/Hans situation. If a 2850 chess player is saying something about a chess game, I’m not going to assume he’s wrong, especially when it’s impossible to verify if someone is right or wrong about cheating.
So Fischer was right about female chess players, Jews and the USA then?
@@pascalanonym6495 you said it not me.
Vladimir is absolutely right here, he's not here to protect his ego, he's here to protect chess.
I agree with the needed camera-showing-full-environment
Mr Kramnik, it would be interesting to put your parameters and analytic techniques to the test by hiring titled players to play a large number (say 1000) games, and cheat intentionally for research purposes, in a small number (10-50) games. Obviously they would record which games they "cheated" in, and could test and perform a statistical analysis on the efficacy of the detection algorithms.
On one of this interviews, Dubov said that he proposed something similar. He wanted permission to "cheat" at some point during the year, and see whether the existing anti-cheating tools will be able to find when he cheats. But obviously nobody wants such arrangement since it is clear that he will be found by any algorithm.
I posted something similar before but with an extra layer- you have guys like Kramnik try to catch the cheaters by guessing which players are cheating and when during games. And have players try to guess who was cheating and when after the games (by using computers). Kramnik has said he knows when people are cheating… so let’s test his cheating skills. And reward cheaters (who are known to be “cheating” and allowed to for the experiment) with $ for fooling other players. There’s a skill to cheating and not getting caught, and there’s a skill to catching cheaters. So let’s test for both and refine cheat detection by analyzing both.
I can tell you what the result will be: no algorithm will detect in which games they cheated, if they just use it for like 2 moves every 100th game it will be the search for the needle in the haybale
@@Pascal-md9osand then the conclusion is "cheat it's open season"
@@bobobububuI’m surprised you think it’s clear they would be caught. My first hunch is that almost all of them could avoid detection if they were truly careful.
I'd like to see this theory applied to all the offline blitz tournament played during the last five-six years where chances of cheating are significantly small (I'm guessing) to find out if it actually holds true or it shows this increasing elo trend towords the end.
A GM only needs to see one good move during the mid game to win the game. No system will be able to detect this, because a GM is expected to find high level moves. Most lower level players will need multiple moves, hence they will get caught.
I agree. Ultimately cheating is not 100% detectable, atleast online.
When it comes to top chess players, cheating can be subtle and very hard to prove without any physical evidence.
Kramnik should get the mathematician to explain. Or make it a dialogue or interview instead of just Kramnik rambling.
You can't understand basic statistic and arithmetic? Then Kramnik should get the elementary school teacher.
@@PaulCezanne_ it’s not that I don’t understand, it’s that Kramnik rambles on and on and on is not providing the higher level statistical analysis that could be done. I’d rather an expert who speaks better and English and doesn’t ramble present the analysis. I had to fast forward again and again until he got to something interesting. He starts wasting time by explaining why people cheat. As if anybody doesn’t know why. That’s idiotic. If you like hearing him ramble, fine, I don’t. I wanted analysis.
@@RC-qf3mp Then skip to the analysis
@@jessez8503 He didn't analyse anything. This video is embarrassing.
@@figaro9333 I won't debate debate with you about his analysis because he didn't give us a lot of data to work with but I think the basic premise behind his method makes sense. What's really embarrassing is that the chess community refuses to take the problem of cheating seriously. In every other sport people cheat even when their is no money involved. The other sports I follow are Football, Tennis, Athletics, and eSports, and in everyone of those sports there have been top players who have been caught cheating even with anti-cheating measures in place. Chess has the weakest anti-cheating measures of all the sports I follow. Denying that there could be cheating in top level chess with all the money that's involved is just denying Human Nature and THAT'S EMBARRASSING. What's so special about chess players?
The fact that none of the top players has been caught cheating proves nothing. Lance Armstrong was cheating for a decade became the greatest in his sport and was never caught. If he never came out and admitted that he had been cheating all along his fans would still be defending his record to this day despite all the circumstantial evidence that suggests that he was cheating.
Who are these players, who play much stronger in finals? 🤔
In the ru version of this video he named two "losers" playing "much worse" in the last game for money. -143 - he named himself; -108 - Firouzja; -103 - have not told yet but also is very interesting. Important: minus 108 - worse results
@@NovelNovels-fe7kdI means their names. Ofc there a lot of noname FMs who are nothing to lose, I mean big GM names. I suspect Bortnyk and Andreikin among +200 players.
@@uduehdjztyfjrdjciv2160don’t think Andreikin is among them, he was super gm quite a long time
Jospem,Bortnyk,Matthias Bluebaum,Denis Lazavik
@@drerskiare Andreikin and naroditsky on list? And all other online monsters who suck OTB?
Players are going to have accounts tied to their real name and identity, similar to online poker, so if they get caught cheating, their real name is known and they can be banned across multiple participating sites. The actual best players who are concerned about cheating would play on these verified sites, the tournaments would be hosted there, etc.
Arent they? Even FMs have real names. Its not like some random guys play on account registred week ago.
I wouldn't call it temptation, but there is certainly an incentive. If we compare online chess to other sports like cycling, there is also a dilemma: If literally everyone is cheating, you have to cheat as well in order to compete.
Even more diabolical because unlike cycling the cheating entirely removes any ‘competitive’ aspect, if that makes sense.
Cheating in professional sport is rife - it’s far more widespread than reported amongst the top players, and that’s with doping controls. Online chess has hardly any controls! Hence with the amount of money involved, and no controls - of course it’s rife! The difficulty is proving it.
No player, no matter how high profile and popular, should be automatically trusted. As he says - top players only need 3-5 glances at an engine to become unplayable against any human, unlike the rest of us who would need assistance for almost every move.
Much stricter controls are needed, certainly where prize money is at stake.
I dont know about cheating in higher levels of chess(beyond 2000+ ELO) in online games, but in lover ratings it is obvious. Im rated 1800+ and atleast in 50% of games that I play against lower rating opponents than myself, in mid game the tone of game changes completely and I get crushed by a 10+ move stockfish line. It's extremely common when my opponent is in significantly worse position, or messes up in opening by losing a piece or pawn. Besides that, I think it is very unlikely that players of my level play 3 or 5 min blitz with accuracy over 90 with no blunders or inaccuraries, which seems to happens very often, especially with low rated opponents.
I’ve noticed a VERY unnatural steepening of the curve at ‘club’ levels too. It’s pretty obvious something huge is going on and it’s existential for the game.
I think it possible for players below 1800 to get an accuracy of over 90 once in a while. Thats because its possible to end up with a position out of the opening where one player has easy moves. Things get suspicious for me if i look at someone and they seem to consistently have games with an accuracy in the high 80s to 90s.
I agree fully. From 1800-2000 the amount of cheaters is ridiculous. I honestly found most 2000-2100 easier to beat when I was rated 2000-2040, than I did when I was rated 1800-2000 playing other people within this rating. I think this is because they don't focus too much on people rated lower than 2000 elo because maybe they're not as serious of a player. But, the amount of people I play and report is ridiculous, particularly if they have a high win streak, consistently play high accuracy like high 80s to 90+, how long their account has been open for, their win rate over different periods of time etc. Someone I played the other day had lost to numerous people rated 100-300 only two months ago, and is now beating people rated 2000+. Its not likely at all imo.
no proof literally just a crying baby
THE PROBLEM with this logic is some stats come from Blitz and Bullet games, and there are MANY chess players that UNDERPERFORME when pressured with time. Kramnik is ONE of them. Not always, but it happens.
Yea but he’s not talking about underperforming, he’s clearly talking about players that suddenly over perform at a level which doesn’t make sense.
Thanks for your efforts on this sir! You're defending the integrity of the game. If cheating continues it kills chess as a competitive game. You have the support of all sane chess fans!
Exactly. Not to mention he has achieved levels of chess most of us can't even comprehend. When he speaks we should listen
You must do the same study on the same players and their performance in over the board results. These results are significant if and only if you don't see the same performance gap in the last round in over the board tournaments.
But some players have higher performance OTB and others online
I can follow the math, that is very sensible. Try to follow the method guys
Hmm. Just wondering, if the reason the performance rating goes up in the last game(s) might simply be the fact that in the end always the strongest players compete against each other and only in those games the players know longer lines of theory (and don’t dare to deviate) which then in relation to the number of moves played increases the performance rating?
He goes over this at 52:00. You expect the opponent also to play better too if it’s the last or most important round. So there shouldn’t be a massive increase in performance
One strong grandmaster suggested an interesting idea of cheating. A weak player doesn't pick the 1st line, he doesn't pick the 5th line. He picks just something that is not loosing. He can even go to a worse position if it's not immediately loosing. Then, his opponent, who is a stronger player, can't realize his advantage, and gets nervous that he is playing with weaker opponent and he can't win. And that stronger blunders. Then, the weak players says, perfect, I got what needed. Nobody can now accuse me in cheating, because I won because of a natural blunder. I didn't make any extraordinary 1st line move.I just waited for a blunder.
Over the last year or so I have noticed a slight difference in the cheating meta. This is based on cheats I played, reported, and were banned. They now know the tell-tale signs of an obvious cheat; flat time use graph, first or second line every move, maybe toss in an inaccuracy here or there so they're not playing 100%. The new method: play a garbage dodgy opening and allow around a 2 point disadvantage THEN start cheating. If I'm playing very clean I take them in to an even endgame where they proceed to become Capablanca and Magnus powers combined, miss nothing, win no problem.
The problem with this is that a low rated player would not understand the moves. He could for example pick the 6th line and think he's not picking very strong moves, but that line could be counter-intuitive and might look losing to even super GMs. Then when the cheater would somehow keep that position afloat it becomes pretty clear something fishy is going on.
Thats genius
@@stoutlager6325if you are playing ‘very clean’? Don’t you either play clean or you cheat? Even if you use the engine for one move of a game you cheat, for one game out of a hundred, you cheat. How can it be about magnitude, you either cheat or you do not.
If this a new ‘pro’ meta I can think of one very high profile player using it!
Players 16 to 18 should work on their excitement/agitation
it's like Detective Poirot who catches the suspect that nobody ever believed its the real killer
I read christie and i think you mean hes more like sherlock Holmes wannabe rather than Poirot because Poirot uses his genius reasoning and people's psychology rather than throwing bunch of data and call it a day
Vladimir, please, why the cubboard behind you is so empty, put some books inside, or cd, i don't know.?
Wow! 12 (I see 11 in the table) out of 18... Wow, incredible, unbelievable. I knew there are guys who cheat, I did not expect so many. And, definitely, we should review what is the new "zero" for performance deviation in the last decisive round. Because fair players will often have lower performance, as they are facing 2/3 cheaters. That's why if their performance decreased, it means they are playing at the same level, just they are playing with cheaters. And if someone has performance grow by 200 points, it means the actual growth is 300, because he is playing with 2/3 cheaters too. If he still manages to win, it means he has to be 300 stronger in order to show 200 higher performance
It's garbage. Playing for a decisive result when you're fighting for a cash prize in the last round of a swiss event means your performance rating in the last round will be either high (+400) or low(-400). Take a bigger sample and you'll find the people playing for a decisive result and being on the losing end and I can guarantee this is a much more normal graph. All it proves is people take risks when there's money on the line, and much like in poker or other games where taking a higher risk is incentivized, you'll find people scoring like this on a normal distribution. I'm not buying it, when you cut the part of the population off that's on the losing end of these results you're just confirming your own bias.
@@oyvey8520nope. BOTH sides are fighting. Not possible to have such deviation.
I think to proof if hikaru is cheating or not Kramnik must play 45 games over the board against hikaru and taste him himself. Hikaru is extremely good at blitz or bullet. Even if you hate him it would be idiotic to think he is a cheater. Danya, chessbrah, magnus, levy, some top gm like wesley giri etc also said that hikaru is literally the best at online event because he already playing online chess before some of you can walk or read
Dude, former world champion or not, you're off the rails !!
New generation in chess is so much stronger than the old generation, especially Kramnik's generation and earlier ones. Being a World Champion during Kramnik's era is equivalent to being among the top-100 today. Kramnik fails to realize this and this makes him a sore loser.
@@NovelNovels-fe7kdit is definitely better buddy and yes kramnik sure has lost his marbles accusing hikaru for cheating without providing any stats lol
True i just dont understand why this guy is no longer top player even korchnoi played better than him overally in his old day. This guy just cant adapt and blame everyone for his weakness against modern player. His era is 2700-2800 rated even the best player kasparov barely 2880 or something. While in this era open game is also not played alot because its blunderable according to computer and game history. This guy is wannabe bobby fischer trying to be a hero and failed to see himself in a mirror. At least fischer played better open game even against modern counter-opening if you know some of his games. 😂😂😂
...it's absurd...
I don’t believe that English speakers are so dumb, u proof it well
He is right, there is too many cheaters at all levels online... that's why I love the chess clubs... nothing like a face to face match with a real person.
Claim that using 3-5 times computer assistance in final game of TT's would increase your income 50% is (possibly) true only if your opponents are not cheaters. Against strong cheaters you would still lose
Hikaru could be cheating but a strong claim needs strong evidence. Kramnik should have investigated for a longer period of time.
But anyways, big respect for Kramnik, the former world champion.
Cheater or not, Hikaru is a jerk and he acts as if his father owns FIDE. The level of arrogance is intolerable 😡😡
I feel like a lot of chess players are very arrogant, fischer and kasparov were both incredibly arrogant
Great work again. Anyone who watches this and still denies that this is worth investigating further just has their head in the sand (or they're the CCO of a certain chess website).
This is terrible math. Anyone that actually went to school for any science degree and took college level math will see straight through the garbage statistical analysis and confirmation bias. This is why you don't let amateurs do your math or propose math problems. How strange it might be to even think about game theory when you're playing for a decisive result in the last round of a swiss tournament vs not fighting for a cash prize, if you take a larger sample size you'll find your prize losers who turn that into a normal distribution. I'm sorry, I'm not buying it.
I started playing chess online and I have cheated.
When I was like 1200 I wanted to cheat myself as high as possible, i got to 1900 and i was amazed how good players are and how perfect the engines play. Amazingly, today I am legitly way above 1900 and obv dont feel any excitement in cheating anymore, since Im literally better now than i was cheating back then.
Also I never cheated in prize-events.
Mr Kramnik is right!Simple as.The question is why aren’t those people who have been PROVEN to cheat not banned permanently and made to reimburse whatever prize money they received??????Very strange.
Didn't kramnik get away with cheating against topalev??? Kramnik probably thinks everyone is cheating because he is a cheater himself. Your numbers do not make sense. So sad to see a chess legend like kramnik lose his mind.
You keep silent and try first to understand his argument
@@j.f.8175 rofl
Lmao, can we get to know your areas of expertise? Umm maybe you might be a super GM?? I guess you might be having a PhD in Maths?? Ooh or maybe you are a Data Scientist??
@vineetpandey08 yes yes I am data scientist 🤓
@@vineetpandey08 i just wish the best for kramnik. He's obviously struggling with his mind. He contradicts himself throughout the video and then accuses Hikaru of cheating. It's just so sad and I hope he pulls out of this ok without getting sued.
this statistic has many flaws but here are a few- wouldn't they cheat in rounds 7-10 do be able to win money with just a draw?
Some humans focus better under pressure while others continually crumble
Some humans buy time simply by having more skill with the mouse
This entire analysis assumes they wouldn't cheat earlier, then they suddenly decide to cheat. It's also unclear how these rating numbers are calculated, without which the analysis is irreproduciple.
A better analysis would detect cheaters the way human GMs sniff them out - cheaters take too long to play obvious moves and not enough time to play difficult moves.
Go Kramnik!!!! 👏👏Cheating is happening too much! Even in 2000-2200 level online blitz!
Vladimir Kramnik and Ian Nepomniachtchi are completely correct. Cheating in online chess is out of hand.
real name in profile is 1 thing for fair play , kramnik has a big obviuos point in this
i always thought that kramnik is kinda nuts. nobody believed me, thanks god he finally proofed my theory himself 4 me. btw i also believed that back then in the match vs topalov he was more likely to be a cheater then topalov. and if i continue, lets say it happened it also would be a reason why he is now so intereting :)))))
This is seriously a 1h 15min long video about forming an average and looking for outliers. This is not high math that's middle school statistics. And no one else has thought of that before ... cheat detection systems? That's the first thing i would think about. Next video should be about how you can spin statistics to your liking ... maybe 2h long.
Agree 💯 with Vladimir!
This Vid kinda shows how much Kramnik loves chess. He is spending his time and effort and money in trying to tackle “Cheating in Chess”. My Huge respect to him
thanks for the presentation, I've followed the blog as well, but I think there is a miscomprehention, most people agreee that the is cheating, the discution arrises if there is 50%, 25%, 10%, 5% or 1%. and unfortanetly all the data that has been presented shows that anomalies exist but there are things to add asterisk on. First how the players that have been studied have been selected? the fact that nerves affect both players is acurate, but everyone is affected in different manner. so this might show which players don't choke the end. Also the point is that you might show some opening preparation or a new idea if you are playing for money. (so it is to be checked on each player the openings ) also some players risk it all for a win (Naka) others just play solid (Wesley). and that shows even in clasical OTB chess the candidats tournament last 2 championships, Giri colapsed the last rounds in 2021 and Caruana in 2022. si highlly non conclusive, maybe 1 of the 12 you studied cheated.
I also want to mention: 1. The posibility to draw arrows on the board during the game. 2. Premove basicly your whole game if you are lucky to "guess" all your opponents moves. This is has nothing to do anymore with chess. From the start of online chess this seemed weird to me.
Updated title: Kramnik accuses innocents with no proofs!
For all the Kramnik bashing going on I wonder how many people have watched this in its entirety and what they think after that. Because this AT LEAST warrants scrutiny, surely. I would expect a slight drop (not a rise) in performance for important games, as nerves, adrenaline etc come into play. Such a substantial rise in the quality of play among so many players is very odd. I don’t think we can draw conclusions until more data is gathered but at first glance this is extremely unnatural! Food for thought, because it is clear that even among the casual player base something odd is going on, IMO.
Hard to argue seeing the maths.. in among us terms.. Hikaru suss af
i feel like you just discovered a selection bias.
Bro just used among us term 😂
@@anakkecil-bq9vu as I stated genius
You can't fight against this if you don't say the names.
Math can help in generalizating players performance but then again if the rating gap is so high to the point where it actually exceed 500+ i dont think math is that much of relevant again in chess game. Chess is a game and its played by human there are alot of factor of winning losing even drawing
I'd like to see these numbers juxtaposed with numbers for OTB tournaments of a similar structure.
I appreciate all the time & effort you put into these videos and the research behind them 👍
I got a 5 year old acct banned. This needs to be taken very seriously.
It’s amazing people believe kramnik simply because he was world champion however multiple mathematicians say that the stats actually back Hikaru
Did kramnik ever publish a white paper (or something to that effect) on his mathematical methods/findings? I hear that he hired a mathematician to back up his claims of "statistical improbabilities", but rather infuriatingly, I cannot locate any such report anywhere.
I am surprised that there is no requirement to have a camera to overlook the entire room. What about sound? I mean the accomplice can shout from the next room is sound is not mandatory.
I propose to pay special attention to people who started to perform worse after this video dropped
Have you apologized yet to Topalov for cheating against him in 2006? They found cables in the bathroom you were running to after every single move.
No later on topalov was found cheating
Wow youre a genius
@@noamlevy-ok6si Your iq is remarkable
I see that only 11 out of 18 (and not 12 our of 18) have a difference larger than 100 points between 7-10 rounds and 11 round
Mr Kramnik please retire, I agree that we should strictly punish cheaters but your way of presenting research is absurd
My god, he rambles on and on and on so much! Go to 44:09 and even then he rambles a lot while describing his method...
I couldn't take the ramblings.
1:10:19
typical hikaru low iq fan
briliant job MR.Kramnik! Early TT 21.11.2023....Jospem 66.place,Nakamura 32.place,Lazavik 27.place,Bortnyk 16.place...no more cheating??
Cheat when the player is not former ussr or russia
So sad to see kramnik lose his mind...
lol being stupid is big problem, you can’t understand the mathematics
Kramnik was a student at the Humanities Institute of Novgorod State University, but was expelled due to systematic non-attendance and academic debt. Math and statistics are certainly not for Kramnik; they are are much hsrder comparing to moving pieces along a 64-square board.
Not harder, just more complex. Also education is not mathematical ability.
Sure, he's not a mathematician, but he getting help from mathematicians you can look at the data yourself =)
Wow! Thanks for this important work. Without adequate anti-cheating rules, online chess will just implode.
Now you have to see the change in this measurements due to video of this research, this will be another test, about change of players behavior
You should show some graph, do it on paper if you are not comfortable with a computer. It is easier to understand...
If there is a financial incentive to cheat and little risk of being caught there will be a lot of cheating.
Great Video!
Take a bathroom break, Vlad. They seen to help. And then study long run stat probabilities. To that end, deleting the posts of mathematians and statisticians won't help. So stop doing that.
What proof? He's providing nothing but rants that make no sense.
You just won't want to listen
@@stanislavbrusnikin4885you just "wont want" to use your brain 😂
@@stanislavbrusnikin4885Russians are mid at chess now nepo😂chokes
@@dwaynekeenum1916 study history of chess, then take the country
@@stanislavbrusnikin4885what’s to listen? Anyone with a decent knowledge in statistics knows he’s just ranting nonsense.
Kramnik's thesis is that a very high "performance" of a player in a tournament, when it is clearly superior to that of other normally better players, (and also superior to that player's usual performance online without prizes) should raise suspicions of trap.
This is nonsense. I am going to explain some reasons why it is not meaningful to make mechanical deductions about this gap in the usual parameter of “performance”.
Let's start by pointing out that a professional player reserves his opening secrets for prize tournaments. He never uses them in “friendly” games. Therefore, it is evident that by applying this “cooking” in prize tournaments, your performance can be particularly high (if the cooking is effective). In every tournament with prizes there is always some player who takes advantage of a homemade find.
Even more important is the fact that, when theoretical preparation works, the player who gains the advantage will have an easier game and it is then more plausible that he will either end the game early due to the opponent's surrender or continue with a very difficult game. comfortable, which will make it very easy to make many “module” plays. In both cases (surrender or easy play), the performance of the player who has effectively applied his opening preparation will be particularly high.
Conversely, if a player does not bring effective opening preparations to the tournament, but is very skilled in the middle game and endgame, it is perfectly possible that his performance will be low (lower, for example, than in the case of the expert in opening preparation). , even though his results are very good and in the tournament in question he ends up above the opening expert. A very curious case is that of Carlsen, who, being perhaps the best player in History (with permission from Morphy and Kasparov) does not stand out in the opening (at least not in relation to his peers), but is great in the endings. This makes him win tournaments with lower performance than other players of much lower level (maybe on the bottom of the table).
In reality, the “performance” of a player in a game must be weighted with the performance of the rival player. If that opponent plays very poorly, it is possible that the performance (P) of the winner is very high without this being any indication of the quality of their game. Let's call this R factor. Along with this, you also have to take into account the duration of the game. Let's call this L factor. A short game with a draw agreed on move 12 will produce very high performances for both players, without really deducing a high level of play from this. In general, a high performance in a long game has much more value than in a short one. For all this, it can be said that the true performance, which we will call P', is a function of P, R and L. So, as long as we consider P and not P' we will be making a major error, giving full significance to something. which only has a partial significance.
Finally, looking at an isolated piece of performance data in a tournament and trying to deduce something from that isolated piece of data is statistical recklessness. At most, and with the conditions indicated above, it would be necessary to consider more or less long series of results, and analyze these series with the help of statistical tools that support the possible existence of an operating cause (the trap) and not just another result. less plausible that it varies for purely random reasons.
And finally, beyond these logical considerations, it must be said that while it may be true that online cheating "dirties" our noble game, it is no less true that launching sadducean accusations, without statistical basis and on erroneous "theoretical" bases , is another way to corrupt the practice of chess and seriously harm certain players, without any right to do so.
And I don't know what's worse.
Here after he falsely accused Hikaru of all people of cheating!
@@NovelNovels-fe7kd great answer from someone who actually watched the video and understand problem
@@NovelNovels-fe7kd I haven’t watched the video and I agree with kramniks journey with hunting cheaters of course! But in his recent status update referring to a player with 45 win streak or something against avg 2950 opponents it’s a clear hint at Hikaru. You can be all technical and whatever saying ‘he hAsNt MeNtIoNeD a NaMe’ and be a child about it or you can just accept the reality of the situation.
@@Pharmaceuticsuntil you watch the whole video and the reasoning behind it there’s not much point in bringing forth an opinion about it is there? Unless your argument is ‘because Hikaru’, which is nonsense as either an attack or a defence. Kramnik is pointing out something which by definition is unnatural, a rise in performance level of a magnitude greater than usual for important games almost across the board so to speak, which doesn’t add up to a natural state of affairs if you just stop to think about it. And as for Hikaru why should he be above suspicion, why should anybody be at this point when clearly the problem of engine use is growing and becoming pervasive? If anything the fact that Hikaru is getting better with age alone warrants scrutiny, nobody should be above question! But finally this isn’t about Hikaru, it’s about the state of the entire game at the top level. And I think anybody playing clean on line who claims that something VERY unnatural at all levels IS NOT happening, and rapidly, is being disingenuous!
@@NovelNovels-fe7kd Please stop smoking meth.
Sole "pressure" on these players will reduce and suppress cheating so this is very practical what Mr. Kramink is doing.
Great work from a legend!
Kramnik is a sad little child... i promise you that if you can stroke his ego while you explain it, you can convince him of flat earth theory. this is a poor, poor child LOL
First test cavity search
This is going to be huge. Are we going to call it Chessgate, the Kramnik files or something else?
I know very little about such things..
When encountered with subjects that I am not an expert in I lean on the views of experts in the field..
In regards to your accusations/concerns,the experts in the field disagree with you..
"Record something", huh. "Crucial question", huh. Dude, u'r so young and yet, u'r out of your mind completely.
This seems like such a basic statistical mistake. If you fight for prizes you have a good day, if not, you don't. (These are all Titled Tuesday games). By lumping those together in 7-10, but separating in 11, you only show some difference between good days and bad.
@@NovelNovels-fe7kd I watched the part where he speaks about how the table was constructed several times very carefully. Do you have an argument? I am ready to listen.
Mr Krammik,
I am a huge fan of yours and greatly respect your talent and your success throughout the years has been amazing. However, I believe that the way you have been handling this situation is not correct. Please provide proof up front before you accuse people of cheating. The way you’re doing it makes it seem that you’re only trying to ruin reputations rather than actually trying to protect this beautiful game. Just please be careful how you handle this.
!!!
it would be interesting if some of the players now do worse in Title Tuseday in the last round, after they have seen this video.
and they cheat in the rounds before to get a good chance with still losing the last round.
Kramnik is just a old man who is loosing his head!
Go to school
And, you can not expect a normal distribution, people give an extra effort in decisive situations. So you cannot use a simple statistical analysis.
One camera is on your face and one is on screen, and if you are starring anywhere else like capturing signs from some third person ai will detect that you switch your focus somewhere that you are looking up something else sowhere outside of that center area of laptop screen. That's the idea why there are two cameras.
Just imagine how bad cheating is at the lower levels of chess lol I constantly deal with my 600 rated opponents playing like Magnus Carlsen for the first 10-15 moves... I almost never have an opponent blunder anything... It feels like very solid chess from start to finish and it's actually insane. Just hard stuck 600 rating because I'm so badly outplayed in the first 10 moves. No matter what I learn they just play the best engine move against it until they win a piece or get a huge advantage... then sometimes it suddenly feels like they try playing on their own and the person the wins the piece doesn't feel like the same person that throws the game completely. It's like people trying to learn how to cheat better and better... it's not just engine moves every move. It's like they play normal and then also never make a mistake. It's actually disgusting and I'm about to go play chess IRL at a club tomorrow for the first time to prove it to myself that my 500 opponents are just cheating online because I know I'm better than 600. If what people say holds true I should be like 200 otb rated and lose basically every game because they say ur otb rating is like 200-300 points less that ur online rating. yea, we'll see. I'm about to go beat the shit out of a bunch of kids... on the chess board.
Its probably opening theory. Cheaters are rare at 600 elo.
I am also often surprised how people are making first moves very fast and not blundering anything, but I think everyone can learn 10 moves or just some pattern to follow and not be considered a cheater.
@@AndreyPutilov yea I agree, but that isn't really what is happening. It's like move orders. No matter what it just feels like you rarely come out ahead. Somehow all these 500s constantly out play people in the openings and it doesn't matter what opening you choose. They KNOW the right move order to come out ahead. I don't think the 500s should know the first 10-15 moves of every single opening. They like see the tactics and avoid them and stuff it's actually insane. I swear to god it just feels like ur playing against Magnus Carlsen sometimes. The move orders are so far beyond a 500s level and you can FEEL it. I think I can tell within the fist handful of moves if I'm playing against a normal person or someone using an engine suggestions. And then it gets confirmed later in the game when they are suddenly destroying you and ahead of you by 2-3 minutes in a 5 minutes game. They use basically no time thinking about their extremely advanced moves as they choke the life out of you on the chess board. I'm telling you that you can feel it and ur guts usually right about it. Plus I'll just tell you that I have cheated on alt accounts and have never been caught and I can make that %accuracy move thing at the end of the game say whatever I want it to. The idea that you HAVE to play the best move in the position to cheat is false. You can make any move at all that isn't a massive blunder and trust the engine will pull you out of any trouble. I don't know what % of people are cheating but I can say that for playing this game for 1 year that my rating just bounces between 600-650 and I've never gotten any better at all. I find that hard to believe. Especially with all the talk in the community about cheating... SO MANY low level players are just cheating their ass off man.
keep coping bro
@@NovelNovels-fe7kd "There is no point in cheating with low non-competitive chess." This is a falsehood.
Many players cheat in games (of all sorts) because they want to feel like winners but lack the ability & I'm sure the serotonin dump, along with a healthy dose of cognitive dissonance, keeps them coming back for more.
@TheDedloc What's your CC username?
Браво ВБ, на английском даже интереснее )
Согласен
Great work!
Keep up the fight 💪
I've dealt with Cheaters online when I was invited into a Magic Online as a Beta Tester. In Beta you had every card available to build your decks and it also still tracker your rating. My Rating was very high and I had another player with a slightly lower rating completely beat all I had to do was attack and he was dead then the player asked me not to kill him because he wanted to test a mechanic on the new cards on the next turn and I saw now problem with that after all that's what where there for however after he tested the machinic the sob decided to go back on his word and kill me. Only thing to gain was Ratings points what a POS.
One motivation for people to cheat in friendly games online where nothing tangible is at stake, is to have an interesting game, interesting continuation, rather than just abruptly blunder something and have all the setup and time wasted. It is similar to old overboard situation when in friendlies you will take the move back, or your friend suggests a better move and you use it (perhaps to displeasure of your opponent, but usually taken lightheartedly). You kind of know that well, in reality you would have lost a real game at that moment, but you still can continue to see what could have transpired. It is a deficiency of online platforms, that they do not provide avenue for such friendly interactions, but rather focus people on (totally really useless) rating at any cost, as a result creating artificial stakes where there are, really, none.
Very thorough work, thank you Vladimir for your efforts to clean the game of chess 🙏
idk as of now Kramnik appears like a 🤡 due to lack of conclusive evidence
@@lOmaine777 It seems like he's putting a lot of effort into this... He wouldn't have gone on with it if he didn't believe he's onto something
@@GeometricStalemate after he accused hikaru of cheating, I know he has lost his mind. He's not onto something, he just wants attention and to cause a scandal to stay relevant, for clout. He might as well accuse Magnus of cheating because Magnus recognises Hikaru's immense talent and considers him his rival.
Even if inconclusive, calling a former world champion a clown is clownary in itself @@lOmaine777
GMToilet cannot compete on the board anymore, so he is sh*tting on better players. btw, did he ever accuse a russian player of cheating? Is he on a "special operation"?
Bro just retire this is no longer 2700-2800 era. Your open game is being crushed left and right by modern player😂😂😂
At 1:08:00 he shows that players have a higher accuracy, when they are close to ending in the money in titled Tuesday.
This could be a sign of cheating, but it could also be a sign that they start concentrating when results are needed.
A first step could be to plot the accuracy as a function of the rating of the opponent.
the problem with kramnik is that he puts numbers and try to make sens of it. He should contact a mathematician/stat/probability scientific and analyze his claim, otherwise it doesn't mean much
Nobody is going to listen to a mathematician.
Only water, withiut prooofes
Karmnik can sit 1.5 hours to record a video, but he can't make it through a 30 minute chess game without going to the bathroom 6 times ;)
Kramnik has based most of his argument on "average accuracy", but accuracy is not a good measure of the ability to win.
Low level games can have a high accuracy if they have a large number of forced moves.
Both players in Magnus games will have low accuracy because he plays strange openings.
If a player is prone to making blunders, them he can have a high "average accuracy" and still lose.
You need proper data analyst to look at the data to understand it (See blog by Dorian Quelle)
Kramnik has lost it. His wig is loose.
Here is some statistical proof from 2 years of Hikaru's games: ua-cam.com/channels/FkJqTAgoVa09ZmtS9BN1Vg.html