Mc Albion yes I do live in England and I do have a leg to stand on...thank you for correcting that intelligent chap who used slander instead of libel.
But ofc there is no possible libel case here because people are still allowed in police state Britain to have an opinion.. As It has been stated throughout....hunch...I think....no evidence.....
Now, if I were to claim that I knew someone who shone a laser dot thru the toilet window giving him the moves....that would be libel.
Kramnik is one of the best players of our time. If he cheated (how many times? Maybe at every game?)....
Well, c'mon, not every game.
I was watching a stream commentated by 2 GM's, GM niellsen who is, or used to be quite strong and a female GM who is reasonably attractive, so together I felt they made a pretty decent broadcast pair.
On occasion they mentioned cheating at the top level, whilst Krmnik was on screen and looking for his f5 move in round 3. GM neillsen was saying, cheats would not have to have access to the exact move but just somebody in the crowd could make a gesture or something to let him know simply that there is a solution to the current position... To GM neillsen this would be a tremendous help, somebody of the strength of these guys wouldn't need a Houdini readout to look at. Just a simple message there was a solution would be help enough..
!
Cheating at the top level of any sport is rife, the reason being is off that it represents their livelihood, they have so much invested in it....with an audience of patzers each with a smartphone in their pocket cheating at top level would be one of the easiest things to get away. Compare it to all the Olympians who get caught each event, and yet know they have to submit to drug tests...in chess, there are practically no possible ways to get caught or to not get away with it, whilst games are played on a stage in front of a crowd.
I can absolutely understand how and why these guys would cheat. Money...people moan about online cheating at chess.com, that's the cheating I can't understand....all for the increase of an arbitrary four figure number, it doesn't make sense...
But super gm out of form resorting to cheating...its not so paranoid or outlandish as other posters make out
I was watching a stream commentated by 2 GM's, GM niellsen who is, or used to be quite strong and a female GM who is reasonably attractive, so together I felt they made a pretty decent broadcast pair.
On occasion they mentioned cheating at the top level, whilst Krmnik was on screen and looking for his f5 move in round 3. GM neillsen was saying, cheats would not have to have access to the exact move but just somebody in the crowd could make a gesture or something to let him know simply that there is a solution to the current position... To GM neillsen this would be a tremendous help, somebody of the strength of these guys wouldn't need a Houdini readout to look at. Just a simple message there was a solution would be help enough..
This works for everybody.
That´s why you can solve tactic´s puzzles. If you are told "white to move and win" you will find the answer (in most cases).
I was watching him today, every time he's in a crux, he comes back from the toilet sits down and seems at pains to demonstrate how hard he's thinking. Much gurning and holding head in hands, 20 mins later he finds the miraculous, non intuitive move that the gm commentators always say is extremely difficult to find for human players..
And that´s the reason why those GMs are commenting the games and not playing in the candidates.
But super gm out of form resorting to cheating...its not so paranoid or outlandish as other posters make out
Do you suggest that top GMs have no honour and do anything for money? They might be arrogant (like Kasparov) but decent guys.
What is more, they are good at logic. What if they get caught and banned from playing any subsequent tournaments? They are professionals and such a ban would mean they cannot continue to practice their professsion. Is a prize from one tournament worth losing the possibility of winning any more money in other tournaments?
You can say they all have some non-chess education. That is true but they devote all their time to chess and do not improve in educated areas. Who wants to hire a guy who had studied many years ago and did not follow advancements in that area for that time? The more that the guy was proved to be a chess cheater...
But what is the gain when you win a single tournament and loose the right to play anymore? The prizes (excluding the WC match) are not that high - it is like a 1-year income in a "normal" position or 1-month salary of a director/president.
Would a logically thinking person risk gaining any more money from chess for such a relatively small amount of money??
No, I'm suggesting that top GMs are no different from anyone else. Subject to the same temptations as other top sportsmen ...I don't see why a player of chess would have more honour than any other sportsman..
We see cheating at practically every other top sport, why should chess players be any different?
I'm just suspicious of kramnik, I watched him all day,and when he came in from that back room or whatever and needed to find f5 to avoid a loss, he was so animated in his chess concentration, I got the impression he was acting, and knew what he was to play..
I'm just suspicious of kramnik, I watched him all day,and when he came in from that back room or whatever and needed to find f5 to avoid a loss, he was so animated in his chess concentration, I got the impression he was acting, and knew what he was to play..
In that case I can safely declare you being either blind, or dumb, or finally a chess illiterate- but none of these is necessarily a bad thing.
Congfox = Topalov ?
Interesting quote from Caruana:
45...f5 46gf5 Rf6 is unbelievable... Times like this I wonder what my thoughts would be playing over the board.
Who knows about Caruana, he couldn´t qualify. Maybe in the next cycle he will be able to see that kind of moves.
"[...] no evidence to support my claim, but I've had a gut feeling about him [...]
[...]
I [have] no proof ..."
No proof, no evidence, and a gut feeling about someone you have never met. You are for sure the guy I want on a jury.
obviously if he's finding moves that are "very difficult for humans", the more "intutive" explanation is that probably he's an alien. XD
wat
I find it interesting that there is actually NO MORE PROOF that the Shoedini cheater (Boris Ivanov) actually cheated than there is with Kramnik but just by din of having LOWER RATING it is ok to keep making that accusation.
The amount of empirical evidence against Boris Ivanov is exactly equal to that against Kramnik! Yet, that does not stop some of you from extolling your very strong belief that Ivanov is a cheat.
Don't be a Stan.
Kramnik was never asked (and refused to comply) about taking his shoes off, or any relevant anti-cheating action. If this is NO MORE PROOF for you, then you are NO LESS CLUELESS than the O.P.
I find it interesting that there is actually NO MORE PROOF that the Shoedini cheater (Boris Ivanov) actually cheated than there is with Kramnik but just by din of having LOWER RATING it is ok to keep making that accusation.
The amount of empirical evidence against Boris Ivanov is exactly equal to that against Kramnik! Yet, that does not stop some of you from extolling your very strong belief that Ivanov is a cheat.
Don't be a Stan.
Do you remember when the organizers felt a device in Ivanov´s chest and he refused to remove his t-shirt? (In Caceres, Spain)
For your knowledge:
Kramnik has been diagnosed with ankylosing spondylitis, an uncommon form of arthritis. It causes him great physical discomfort while playing.
I find it interesting that there is actually NO MORE PROOF that the Shoedini cheater (Boris Ivanov) actually cheated than there is with Kramnik but just by din of having LOWER RATING it is ok to keep making that accusation.
The amount of empirical evidence against Boris Ivanov is exactly equal to that against Kramnik! Yet, that does not stop some of you from extolling your very strong belief that Ivanov is a cheat.
Don't be a Stan.
Well, there is one major difference between B.I. and Kramnik: he beat GMs in one tournament only to draw or lose 2000-rated players in another ones.
If an FM really improves to a level where he can beat GMs than he would never lose to a 2000
Also, his match with Houdini first lines was higher - every move after the opening was H3's first choice so B.I. never got positions where he would have to survive by playing the only moves.
Actually Steve212000, it's libel: slander is for the spoken word. But your point is well taken -- he wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
If 'Congofx' actually lives in England (as well as flying the flag) he should be aware that it has some of the most punitive libel laws in any of the western democracies.
Fortunately for him -- and for chess.com -- Kramnik's lawyers are not likely to be calling as nobody who mattters cares much what he says.
It might be a different story if a titled player started making similar baseless accusations, at which point chess.com would have to lawyer up.
I'm curious to know what chess.com's policy is in this area.
They typically don't wanting cheating discussed in this forum and no naming and shaming. While Kramnik doesn't play here that we know of and may never see these things, if Kramnik did and complained to chess.com, this would all be deleted and I am sure the individual would be sternly chided. I find this site is so vast in some ways that unless complaints are made, some unsavory things continue.
Kramnik is one of the best players of our time. If he cheated (how many times? Maybe at every game?) don't you think he would have been banned from tournaments for cheating? And that those commentators didn't find that move means nothing... When they have to comment on all those boards, I don't think they can pay close attention to each one and find ALWAYS the BEST move.