Forums

Kramnik cheater?

Sort:
nameno1had
nameno1had
Mar 16, 2014
0
#61
apostolis1 wrote:

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. 

exactly...someone would have noticed that his play was strange, many years ago...

SocialPanda
SocialPanda
Show your flair!
Mar 16, 2014
0
#62
rdecredico wrote:
socialista wrote:
rdecredico wrote:

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)

Yes I do remember that.

No empirical evidence weas produced.  It does however raise suspicion further.  

What about ceiling wires in toiletgate?

 

one question: what do you mean by "empirical evidence"?

nameno1had
nameno1had
Mar 16, 2014
0
#63
chessmicky wrote:

Of course the OP is a very weak player who couldn't tell a weak move from a strong one. It's impressive the way he is able to combine  total chess ignorance with a loud contempt for the concept of evidence. Instead, we are treated to product of this imbecile's "gut." Callingl that stinking stew of pig-ignorant malice an "opinion" is far too generous

lol

nameno1had
nameno1had
Mar 16, 2014
0
#64
congofx wrote:

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

Point taken but, by default, you are accusing all of the top players who either keep pace with Kramnik or exceed his play....

SocialPanda
SocialPanda
Show your flair!
Mar 16, 2014
0
#65
rdecredico wrote:

This is my point:

I am not accusing ANYONE of anything.

I am however maintaining a healthy skeptical perspective of everyone, regardless of playing strength.  

The larger concept for me is the idea that these people at the top would not cheat out of some ethical consideration is just fantasy and that some of them may be cheating as this type of advantage gaining is ENDEMIC to the human condition.

 

My point is:

There is a higher match up with engines with Ivanov than with Kramnik. Kramnik has never been suspected of having devices hidden in his clothes/shoes (as it was felt in Ivanov´s chess by the TD in Spain). Kramnik has not been losing to lower rated players and then to GMs as Ivanov was doing.

Then it´s not true that "there´s is the same amount of evidence against Ivanov as against Kramnik".

SocialPanda
SocialPanda
Show your flair!
Mar 16, 2014
0
#66
rdecredico wrote:
socialista wrote:
rdecredico wrote:
socialista wrote:
rdecredico wrote:

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)

Yes I do remember that.

No empirical evidence weas produced.  It does however raise suspicion further.  

What about ceiling wires in toiletgate?

 

one question: what do you mean by "empirical evidence"?

Coroborated and indisputable physical evidence that is testable and holds up to scrutiny regardless of who looks at it.

F'rinstance: With Ivanov, actually taking a device from him of even finding a device on him would be 'empirical evidence.'

Whether or not 'match rate' to another engine is empirical is open for debate.  I am on that side that believes it is not empirical evidence. 

This is indeed an area worthy of serious discussion ... what constitutes evidence of cheating in chess. 

So, just because there is greater suspicion around one person does not make them more likely to have cheated.  To think other wise would be to get trapped in a fallacy.

 

It´s impossible to take out the devices from Ivanov´s clothes since nobody can force him to take them out. TDs can´t do anything to "produce" the physical evidence.

And even in that case, some people will say: "It was a trap by the old GMs that didn´t want to be defeated by an unknown player, the device was planted" (as I have read before... everything was supposed to be about GMs protecting their weak egos).

Of course, I think that the match with the engines is evidence.

Anyway, this topic was discussed a lot in the Ivanov´s thread.

nameno1had
nameno1had
Mar 16, 2014
0
#67
pfren wrote:
rdecredico wrote:

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.

Furthermore, Kramnik and Topalov were getting reasonable top move match rates(65-70%) to Houdini for a top GM, in a WCC match, where as Ivanov was 90%....and this constitutes no more proof ? Are you serious ?

nameno1had
nameno1had
Mar 16, 2014
0
#68
rdecredico wrote:
nameno1had wrote:
congofx wrote:

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

Point taken but, by default, you are accusing all of the top players who either keep pace with Kramnik or exceed his play....

WRONG !~!    

No one is being accused.  

The point is the NO ONE IS ABOVE SUSPICION.  A person above made argument that Kramnik is one of the top players and that somehow places him above suspcion and I am claiming that argument is spurious and false.


Those are significantly different concepts. 

In my mind it is certainly plausible by your statement that, due to cheating being found in every human arena and competition in some way, even at the highest level, in order for other humans to keep up with computer generated moves, they must be doing it too...

It is implication, not direct accusation, those are two different concepts...

nameno1had
nameno1had
Mar 16, 2014
0
#69
rdecredico wrote:
socialista wrote:
rdecredico wrote:

This is my point:

I am not accusing ANYONE of anything.

I am however maintaining a healthy skeptical perspective of everyone, regardless of playing strength.  

The larger concept for me is the idea that these people at the top would not cheat out of some ethical consideration is just fantasy and that some of them may be cheating as this type of advantage gaining is ENDEMIC to the human condition.

 

My point is:

There is a higher match up with engines with Ivanov than with Kramnik. Kramnik has never been suspected of having devices hidden in his clothes/shoes (as it was felt in Ivanov´s chess by the TD in Spain). Kramnik has not been losing to lower rated players and then to GMs as Ivanov was doing.

Then it´s not true that "there´s is the same amount of evidence against Ivanov as against Kramnik".

FWIW:  Kramnik has higher match rate than did Ivanon in many games.

It all depends on what engine is being matched to!

hahahaha

This is why engine match rate is not considered empirical evidence by the most judicious people.

The point is that those who are looking for excuses continually miss is that, no human can out play any of the engines being used to check the games though...if any of the results exceed normal GM level play by comparison to the engine used, it is indicative of one thing and one thing only and it isn't luck...

heinzie
heinzie
Mar 16, 2014
0
#70
chessmicky wrote:

Of course the OP is a very weak player who couldn't tell a weak move from a strong one. It's impressive the way he is able to combine  total chess ignorance with a loud contempt for the concept of evidence. Instead, we are treated to product of this imbecile's "gut." Callingl that stinking stew of pig-ignorant malice an "opinion" is far too generous

Well this may be not so nice but this is the personal insult exchanging kind of direction this thread was heading for from the start, rather than just discussing the issue (as rdecredico has done very well). Why is this thread still here by the way? I thought cheating discussions were restricted to the official "Cheating forum" group?

nameno1had
nameno1had
Mar 16, 2014
0
#71
rdecredico wrote:
nameno1had wrote:
pfren wrote:
rdecredico wrote:

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.

Furthermore, Kramnik and Topalov were getting reasonable top move match rates(65-70%) to Houdini for a top GM, in a WCC match, where as Ivanov was 90%....and this constitutes no more proof ? Are you serious ?

You are talking past my points.

Kramnik match rate in this last game was close to 100% once he was in trouble.

It means zero here or with Ivanov. 

Take a lesson from how they are trying to solve the mystery of MH 370 and apply it here.  Think outside your box to get to reality, which is hardly ever what we wish it to be.



 

So you automatically accuse a player of playing best moves once the position is nearly lost, simply because those were his only possibilities of winning ? I know when I am losing it sometimes easier to find the best move simply because, everything else is so obviously bad of a choice. You seriously need to consider the difficulty in finding the move and not just what the move happen to be rated as a choice according to the engine analyzing the game.

BTW, that plane and the investigation have "0" to do with the matter at hand. If you really are interested in learning something about comparing the chess moves of different top GM's and the difficulty of finding the best moves, I recommend this article.

http://en.chessbase.com/news/2006/world_champions2006.pdf

I'd suggest that you take note of the pertinence of the article I presented, get your head out of outer space and remember that MH 370 is on the bottom of the ocean....

nameno1had
nameno1had
Mar 16, 2014
0
#72
rdecredico wrote:
nameno1had wrote:
rdecredico wrote:
socialista wrote:
rdecredico wrote:

This is my point:

I am not accusing ANYONE of anything.

I am however maintaining a healthy skeptical perspective of everyone, regardless of playing strength.  

The larger concept for me is the idea that these people at the top would not cheat out of some ethical consideration is just fantasy and that some of them may be cheating as this type of advantage gaining is ENDEMIC to the human condition.

 

My point is:

There is a higher match up with engines with Ivanov than with Kramnik. Kramnik has never been suspected of having devices hidden in his clothes/shoes (as it was felt in Ivanov´s chess by the TD in Spain). Kramnik has not been losing to lower rated players and then to GMs as Ivanov was doing.

Then it´s not true that "there´s is the same amount of evidence against Ivanov as against Kramnik".

FWIW:  Kramnik has higher match rate than did Ivanon in many games.

It all depends on what engine is being matched to!

hahahaha

This is why engine match rate is not considered empirical evidence by the most judicious people.

The point is that those who are looking for excuses continually miss is that, no human can out play any of the engines being used to check the games though...if any of the results exceed normal GM level play by comparison to the engine used, it is indicative of one thing and one thing only and it isn't luck...

I disagree slightly.  Engines are not (yet) the Delphic Oracle.

There are still too many examples of problem/study like position in which engines are unable to solve and that a human being can.  

This is why I believe engine match rate is still too nascent to be a reliable smoking gun at this time.

When international courts accept engine match rate as empirical evidence in a chess cheating case then I will as well.  Until then, it is akin to a lie-detector test, to me.  Very compelling, but ultimately, not fully conclusive.

An engine may have an error once in a while but, ask Gary Kasparov how waiting for an engine to do that worked out for him...

They have gotten quite a bit better at making engines these days also. If you really believe that a human can beat a top engine, you are dillusional. Also, if they are so fallible, should it matter if they are used ?

nameno1had
nameno1had
Mar 16, 2014
0
#73
rdecredico wrote:

My apologies for making a nuanced argument on a forum in which people can only speak in black and white terms.


 




 

I don't mind analogies but, when an example of greater relativity exists to the matter at hand, why go making comparisons to things things otherwise ?

nameno1had
nameno1had
Mar 16, 2014
0
#74

@ rdecredico

I never misrepresented any of your arguments. I merely pointed out their flaws, while at the same time put the focus on what mattered. Sending me a PM that accuses me of straw man tactics, when you yourself grasped at the accussation as a final straw, then blocked me before I had a chance to reply was a nice touch. It only further bolsters the idea that you have nothing left but, trollish behavior to gain some form of victory to hang your hat on...

...good luck with that in the future and do your homework next time...

nameno1had
nameno1had
Mar 16, 2014
0
#75
rdecredico wrote:
heinzie wrote:
chessmicky wrote:

Of course the OP is a very weak player who couldn't tell a weak move from a strong one. It's impressive the way he is able to combine  total chess ignorance with a loud contempt for the concept of evidence. Instead, we are treated to product of this imbecile's "gut." Callingl that stinking stew of pig-ignorant malice an "opinion" is far too generous

Well this may be not so nice but this is the personal insult exchanging kind of direction this thread was heading for from the start, rather than just discussing the issue (as rdecredico has done very well). Why is this thread still here by the way? I thought cheating discussions were restricted to the official "Cheating forum" group?

It is here because we are not discussing cheating on this site, but in high level chess.

This is a 100% appropriate discussion to be in public and is very topical.

 

When it involves accusing others who may secretly or in the future use the sight and see it, it certainly can matter...

RG1951
RG1951
Mar 16, 2014
0
#76
congofx wrote:

People said the same thing about Lance Armstrong, Carl lewis, Hanse cronje, Stephen Lee, et al. Cycling sycophants everywhere accused everyone who would suggest such a thing as paranoid or delusional in the case of armstrong....they don't want their little hero worship bubble burst....it turns out they were the ones who were paranoid

        What's Carl Lewis supposed to have done?

pfren
IM pfren
Show your flair!
Mar 16, 2014
0
#77

Well, the "cheater" had a much worse (probably losing) position after the simple 41.Qxb4. It seems that it's Kramnik's fault that Svidler opted for the inferior 41.Qc6 because he failed to calculate properly the consequences of 41...e4 (which BTW is the only move).

Admitted, 47...Qe4!! is a brilliant move, and the only saviour, but it seems to me that players of the Kramnik caliber are usually expected to find such moves. All the other moves he played are natural, factly a player rated at the low 1900's had no particular trouble finding them OTB.

nameno1had
nameno1had
Mar 16, 2014
0
#78
FirebrandX wrote:
nameno1had wrote:

They have gotten quite a bit better at making engines these days also. If you really believe that a human can beat a top engine, you are dillusional. Also, if they are so fallible, should it matter if they are used ?

A human "can" beat a top engine, but the odds are highly against it. Consider what Nakamura recently said of engine strength:

"...any laptop would be more than sufficient to trounce us pitiful humans into oblivion!" -Hikaru Nakamura

I didn't mean ever, I mean regularly...

TheRocketKing
TheRocketKing
Mar 16, 2014
0
#79
FirebrandX wrote:
nameno1had wrote:
FirebrandX wrote:
nameno1had wrote:

They have gotten quite a bit better at making engines these days also. If you really believe that a human can beat a top engine, you are dillusional. Also, if they are so fallible, should it matter if they are used ?

A human "can" beat a top engine, but the odds are highly against it. Consider what Nakamura recently said of engine strength:

"...any laptop would be more than sufficient to trounce us pitiful humans into oblivion!" -Hikaru Nakamura

I didn't mean ever, I mean regularly...

Oh I know, I was just posting that ahead of time before some troller decided to use it against you without understanding the context of your point.

troller is a cute word that you just invented, grats!

congofx
congofx
Mar 16, 2014
0
#80

Cheating these days would be so easy, I remember a story about the Karpov Korchnoi match when Korchnoi complained that Karpov received coded messages contained within the flavour of yoghurt he was having delivered to the board.. It was eventually decided that Karpov could only have blueberry,and only at seven o'clock.. I think it was the same match that Korchnoi employed 3 mind control guru's to fixed their gaze on Karpov and put him off with their incredible metaphysical powers...

But back then actual cheating would've required the collusion of (and as were talking about the world championship) presumably weaker GM's

These days anyone could stand at the back of the tournament hall with his hand in his left pocket, or his baseball cap tilted to the right. Super players like Kramnik are not gonna need to have every engine move after 1e4. Ofc not they are gonna be able to play the majority of the games themselves. Only in key critical positions would he need to run his right hand thru hi hair to call for a move. And there I am standing at the back of the hall with my hands behind my back signifying the knight is the piece to move and the player would know what this meant in the context of the game... How could this possibly be detected? It can be a lot more subtle than Danilov making phone calls and scratching himself profusely in front of topalovs board.

Match rate being a fledgling tech like a poster above mentioned is irrelevant, coz a player like K would only need to do it one or two times per game.....if their position was worse, and never if they had a favourable setup.

How could this possibly be detected? Is it time to lock them in a sealed room during games?