for FABIANO CARUANA on farming UPDATE

New recent post, trying to copy the text and leave it at the comment section of the above menfioned podcast, but it doesnt appear there. Could anyone copypaste this text in the post,without the link inside, and try to post it in the comment section,if you find it respectfull and logical.

https://youtu.be/AsU9wAiypk0?feature=shared

And inform me about the outcome here via email if cant manage

Because for now seems like another case of unreasonable sensorship. Hope to be wrong about that

 I have listened to Fabiano Caruana's podcast explaining the ratings on chess.com do not correspond to the real strength of players if they are farming because you can choose your opponents and players not farming don't. It is partly true but, sorry Fabiano ,bit superficial explanation, just stopped too early

  Let us continue the logical chain. First, before doing that, would like to mention that in some way ANYONE playing friendly games on chess com IS FARMING because it is his or her free choice to play or not against each opponent.

 Now the main point.  Let us imagine player A farming opponents and playing players B,C, D in matches, consistently gaining lots of ratings. Let's put aside ethical considerations and concentrate on pure math and logic

 There are four possible scenarios in any match played on the platform

1 Both players are cheating

    In such case, both should be banned after the examination

 2 Both players are playing fair and always were in the past

   In such a case why there is such an over and underperformance of each player involved? There must be an examination of the mathematical probability of such a scenario happening, based on correct parameters, and not those wrong as used, according to the latest statement of chess com. See my post explaining reasons why that research, if it was ever done, was not correct.

 https://www.chess.com/blog/VladimirKramnik/on-recent-chesscom-statement-again-part-2

After conducting such an examination correctly In case the math probability of this scenario is very low, we move to the two remaining options

  3 The winning side was cheating in that match (those matches) or

 4 The losing side has an artificially far too-high rating means HE WAS cheating before to get this rating and this time HE DIDNT which explains such a low probability underperformance

  In the case of variations 3 and 4 one of the participants of such a match must be banned

    In any case, BOTH player's games and performances must be carefully examined because in scenarios 1,3 and 4 there is no variation both are playing fair and can continie playing on the platform 

  Therefore, correct calculation of the probability of such over and underperformance put together is critical, and since, according to the latest chess com statement, it doesn't seem to me and, most importantly, other mathematicians I consult, that they perform it correctly (for whatever reason), my (and 2300plus other people, signing the petition) request to examine those several huge overperformances of GM Nakamura (and huge underperformances of his opponents in those matches) is COMPLETELY ADEQUATE.

The response of Eric and Danny which is extremely weak mathematically is another proof that it was adequate and timely, if we want to improve anti-cheating measures and clean this place from as many cheaters as we can.

If someone has opposite intentions, and against such examinations in such cases, whoever are the players involved, they should state it openly I suppose

  I expect your thoughts on answering those points, Fabiano, as well as (your choice) on the insults of the abovementioned chess streamer towards me.

       With great respect and sincere wishes to you to achieve what you are capable of achieving, the WC title

                              Vladimir Kramnik