I'm sorry to formulate this type of argument if someone else has brought it up before me. It is legitimate to suspect cheating when someone, anyone, does not lose in 46 "matched" games in a row on chess.com. What is really surprising is that there is no official statement from the "organizers," i.e. chess.com on how good their online matching algorithm is, how often someone matched has historically lined up 46 games without losing, how an engine would have averaged on that sequence compared to how Hikaru did, how likely the moves are from a human perspective as surely chess. com must have a ratio of human moves vs. bot moves... In real life I'm a data scientist, I'm not that good at chess 1300, even though I could cheat with Python, I don't see the point of cheating, and , if you gave me the raw data it would take me about 3 hours to determine if Kramnik needs a rest. Since no official statement has been released to my knowledge from chess.com, I assume Kramnik is hitting on a nail that disturbs statistics...
Hikaru cheating allegations is the last thing his peers need
I'm sorry to formulate this type of argument if someone else has brought it up before me. It is legitimate to suspect cheating when someone, anyone, does not lose in 46 "matched" games in a row on chess.com. What is really surprising is that there is no official statement from the "organizers," i.e. chess.com on how good their online matching algorithm is, how often someone matched has historically lined up 46 games without losing, how an engine would have averaged on that sequence compared to how Hikaru did, how likely the moves are from a human perspective as surely chess. com must have a ratio of human moves vs. bot moves... In real life I'm a data scientist, I'm not that good at chess 1300, even though I could cheat with Python, I don't see the point of cheating, and , if you gave me the raw data it would take me about 3 hours to determine if Kramnik needs a rest. Since no official statement has been released to my knowledge from chess.com, I assume Kramnik is hitting on a nail that disturbs statistics...
This in't about the matching algorithm, Hikaru specifically challenged and rematched players he thought he could beat. That's typically how it done at the top level.
It is legitimate to suspect cheating when someone, anyone, does not lose in 46 "matched" games in a row on chess.com. What is really surprising is that there is no official statement from the "organizers," i.e. chess.com on how good their online matching algorithm is, how often someone matched has historically lined up 46 games without losing ...
That's an interesting point.
Though, I'd say Hikaru is an exception to the rule, as he's so high up on the leaderboard (#2 in blitz) that there are almost no players on the site who are close enough to his rating for him to be fairly matched with.
So most of his matches will essentially be lopsided - weighted toward him, being pitted against weaker players (as there's often nobody else to play). As a result, long win streaks should be expected.
It would be like if I (a 2300 player) logged in and there were only 1900s and 1800s available to play against. I'd rack up long winning streaks, as a result ... Not because of cheating, but because of the strength difference between the players.
Check out this thread to see how Kramnik is censoring everything arbitrarily: https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/vladimir-kramniks-hypocrisy
It is legitimate to suspect cheating when someone, anyone, does not lose in 46 "matched" games in a row on chess.com. What is really surprising is that there is no official statement from the "organizers," i.e. chess.com on how good their online matching algorithm is, how often someone matched has historically lined up 46 games without losing ...
That's an interesting point.
Though, I'd say Hikaru is an exception to the rule, as he's so high up on the leaderboard (#2 in blitz) that there are almost no players on the site who are close enough to his rating for him to be fairly matched with.
So most of his matches will essentially be lopsided - weighted toward him, being pitted against weaker players (as there's often nobody else to play). As a result, long win streaks should be expected.
It would be like if I (a 2300 player) logged in and there were only 1900s and 1800s available to play against. I'd rack up long winning streaks, as a result ... Not because of cheating, but because of the strength difference between the players.
For sure I understand your point, you are missing mine. I need raw data. I need a proof from chess.com that everything aligns on their side. I know Hikaru is out of this world, so it should be easy to demonstrate mathematically. If I'm asking for the moon, lend me the raw data for 3 hours and I will come up with statistical evidence once and for all. Luckily chess is equational, statistically supported from previous games and predictable! Therefore there is hard core evidence ready to be brought forth that has nothing to do with reputation, grades, titles, ELO and emotional responses. What is troubling is the silence on the server side.
I'm sorry to formulate this type of argument if someone else has brought it up before me. It is legitimate to suspect cheating when someone, anyone, does not lose in 46 "matched" games in a row on chess.com. What is really surprising is that there is no official statement from the "organizers," i.e. chess.com on how good their online matching algorithm is, how often someone matched has historically lined up 46 games without losing, how an engine would have averaged on that sequence compared to how Hikaru did, how likely the moves are from a human perspective as surely chess. com must have a ratio of human moves vs. bot moves... In real life I'm a data scientist, I'm not that good at chess 1300, even though I could cheat with Python, I don't see the point of cheating, and , if you gave me the raw data it would take me about 3 hours to determine if Kramnik needs a rest. Since no official statement has been released to my knowledge from chess.com, I assume Kramnik is hitting on a nail that disturbs statistics...
This in't about the matching algorithm, Hikaru specifically challenged and rematched players he thought he could beat. That's typically how it done at the top level.
You understand that if there is cheating involved, this will prove nothing. I am just looking for a server side assessment of those games. Thanks for telling me how it is done at that level, I have been following chess since I'm 15, so it is close to 50 years now...
@zen4attitude
I'm aware that elo farming doesn't disprove allegations of cheating, though it certainly contextualizes them. I was responding to your question about whether or not Hikaru being matched against all these lower rated players signifies a problem with the algorithm when it isn't whatsoever tied Chess.Com's pairing system.
... Luckily chess is equational, statistically supported from previous games and predictable! Therefore there is hard core evidence ready to be brought forth that has nothing to do with reputation, grades, titles, ELO and emotional responses. What is troubling is the silence on the server side.
I see what you're saying.
Though, I'm not sure this issue has become large enough for Chess.com to feel the need to get involved. Maybe it will in the future though, if Kramnik persists (especially with his constant jabs at Chess.com about their supposed reluctance to do anything about cheating).
Currently, the drama seems to be contained to the player's themselves ...
I hope Kramnik finds these threads. I started a thread about it in the cheating forum cause I don't know if its technically allowed here, but he obviously has no knowledge of statistics and is acting like a fool.
I hope Kramnik finds these threads. I started a thread about it in the cheating forum cause I don't know if its technically allowed here, but he obviously has no knowledge of statistics and is acting like a fool.
Well, I gave him a link to my thread in the comments on his blog and he deleted it.
My turn lol
Where's his original blog on this? Link maybe, having trouble finding it.
@IronSteam1 That was just one of my points, but I understand that the chess world is looking for drama in a way so now they can have their cake and eat it too. It makes views. What a strange world. If we stuck to facts we would be much better off. What chess.com might not realize is how damaging these accusations are to chess. They should never remain open-ended.
Is there a lag in the comment becoming visible? I posted and it isn't there.
hi
want to play chess! RED VS BIUE VS YELLOW VS GREEN PLZ ANYONE
Is there a lag in the comment becoming visible? I posted and it isn't there.
I don't think so, though sometimes he deletes things quickly. There might be a lag though if your connection is bad, and sometimes you might have to reload to see if it came through then.
Oh it arranges them newest first, that's why. It's at the top nevermind.
A Couple of things need to done to nip this issue in the bud.:
1) Chess.com needs to reply clearly and state that these games are monitored and that there is no evidence of cheating. The longer they wait the worse it gets.
2) If Kramnik continue he should be open to law suits for defamation of character. Chess players do not make much money relative to other public arts or sports. If a persons livelihood is directly impacted by an unsubstantiated claim than courts can award damage. Now technically Kramnik's claim is that Chess.com should be investigating any anomalies not that Hikaru is cheating. However now the word battle has begun and Kramnik is getting fired up he is now basically claiming cheating but no evidence has been proven. Its FIDE and Chess.com responsibility to take firm stand and Chess.com has a great record of trying to stop cheaters.
If left unresolved, this will open a pandora's box of players accusing others of cheating even out of spite or to lower future competition.
There has to be clear criteria and chess.com is in position to lead this policy!
The Ian response to the drama (the hero Gotham needs, etc) was simply Ian saying Vlad is right to point out cheating, it's quite deserved in some cases, but Ian thinks Vlad is bringing up cheating where it's not needed in this situation. I think Ian was sticking up for Naka in a joking way telling Vlad he's seeing too much cheating everywhere.
That's how I understood his jokingly delivered response. Playfully snarky maybe.
Yes, I interpreted it the same. He was applauding Kramnik's campaign against cheating, but saying that it's not needed in this case.
Hikaru, though, is notoriously bad at deciphering the meaning of things (see his Reddit reactions, for example) - so he of course would've assumed that Nepo was supporting Kramnik.
I'm also surprised how many people thought that the Gotham mention was about Levy. Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy was record-breaking. I'd assumed that everyone on planet Earth had seen it ...