Kramnik cheater?

Sort:
VLaurenT

Have people watched Kramnik's press conferences ?

It looks like it's hard to admit for some that he is simply a chess genius... (but still makes mistakes)

nameno1had
congofx wrote:

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?

There was some people who colluded to do this very thing and have gone on record as to how they did it but, by implication, it is suggested that they all do it, if one super gm is doing it.

I have in the past suggested that the participants get a cubical where the crowds can't see them and vice versa, the zone for the games would include an electronic interference to jam all phone or pager signals, with the players prechecked for electronics upon entry and having a seperate restroom facility from the crowd. It would be interesting to see if the numbers dropped in these games as compared to the recent past's tourneys.

MSC157

I must take a look at this press conference. Kramnik and Svidler - two game-analysis pearls!

McAlbion
congofx wrote:

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.

Keep in mind one or two recent libel cases in England over indiscreet tweets concerning public figures (Sally Bercow's injudicious comment about Lord McAlpine springs to mind). 

I suppose the fact that you completely undermine your own position by saying you don't actually have a shred of evidence might be a possible defence: after all, who in their right mind would take you seriously? But a determined litigant could just as easily argue that this was an aggravating factor. 

But as I said in my previous post, I think the fact that nobody who matters cares much what you say means you are unlikely to get a letter from Carter-Ruck. But that doesn't mean your comments are not libellous. The obvious question is: why make such allegations if you're not in a position to back them up?

3kush3

So did Anand cheat to beat Kramnik in 2007 and 2008 and others ?

3kush3

haha
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkmDPMSl2Gg 

IronSteintz

Kramnik has played in recent rapid and blitz tournaments. His blitz and rapid ratings are about the same as his slow rating: Rating - 2787  Rapid - 2773  Blitz - 2782 

Hmmm, all about the same. 

But rapid and blitz ratings can't be compared to slow ratings at the top. 

So let's compare his to other top players: 

Topalov: Rating - 2785  Rapid - 2772  Blitz - 2666

Hmmm, Topalov's blitz rating is lower than Topalov's other ratings, maybe Topalov is a cheater! That doesn't explain how Topalov manages to keep his rapid rating up though. 

Carlsen: Rating - 2881  Rapid - 2827, Blitz - 2837 

Hmmm, Carlsen's rapid AND blitz ratings are about 50 points lower than Carlsen's slow rating, maybe Carlsen is a cheater! 

The above indicates Kramnik is not a cheater (and neither are Topalov and Carlsen of course). 

congofx

Mc Albion, its true that in recent times things have got a lot worse in Britain. I think you're prolly referring to the arrest of that bloke who tweeted out of disappointment that tom Daley had let his dad down by not winning the gold medal...

In this day and age I guess you have a point.

Ubik42
ClippyP wrote:

So if Kramnik cheats then why didn't he just beat Aronian?? 

Aronian can beat Houdini.

clunney

If Kramnik cheats then surely he would have beaten Aronian!

yureesystem

Yes Kramnik is cheating, my cat said so and in fact my cat give Kramnik all the winning moves.

r4chess2

You would think if he cheats he would win more games -- all of them. And exactly how is he cheating? It's not like you can have a computer next to you, during a tournement, so you can plug in to a chess engine and look up your position to find the best move. Or is he wired? Is he being fed moves by someone sitting out of sight? During 2004 through 2005. he played some really bad games, one infamous game against Annand where he dropped his queen. No, his play hasn't improved all that much, if at all, and cheating during a chess match isn't all that easy.  

Ubik42
clunney wrote:

If Kramnik cheats then surely he would have beaten Aronian!

Aronian can beat Houdini.

Ubik42
r4chess2 wrote:

You would think if he cheats he would win more games -- all of them. And exactly how is he cheating? It's not like you can have a computer next to you, during a tournement, so you can plug in to a chess engine and look up your position to find the best move. Or is he wired? Is he being fed moves by someone sitting out of sight? During 2004 through 2005. he played some really bad games, one infamous game against Annand where he dropped his queen. No, his play hasn't improved all that much, if at all, and cheating during a chess match isn't all that easy.  

He doesnt have to use a computer. When his opponent is away from the board, maybe he just slides his knight or bishop onto a better square while no one is looking.

SmyslovFan

When Topalov played Anand in the world championship, just about every professional chess player went to the aid of... Anand. Ivanchuk explained why. He stated that Topalov, whom he suspected of cheating in the first half of San Luis, was losing against Kramnik and brought chess into disrepute by trying to suggest that Kramnik was cheating.

Kramnik wasn't the cheater, Topalov was. He used nefarious means to influence games that he couldn't win at the board. 

Even now, Kramnik has numerous friends among his peers, fellow competitive chess players. Topalov is isolated despite his beautiful attacking style. 

This thread, like so many chess.com threads, has the facts backwards. Kramnik was innocent. Topalov was the guilty party.

Ubik42
SmyslovFan wrote:

When Topalov played Anand in the world championship, just about every professional chess player went to the aid of... Anand. Ivanchuk explained why. He stated that Topalov, whom he suspected of cheating in the first half of San Luis, was losing against Kramnik and brought chess into disrepute by trying to suggest that Kramnik was cheating.

Kramnik wasn't the cheater, Topalov was. He used nefarious means to influence games that he couldn't win at the board. 

Even now, Kramnik has numerous friends among his peers, fellow competitive chess players. Topalov is isolated despite his beautiful attacking style. 

This thread, like so many chess.com threads, has the facts backwards. Kramnik was innocent. Topalov was the guilty party.

Smyslov was cheating. Fellow Soviets were throwing games to him. Well if you can believe Fischer. But who doesnt believe Fischer?

Doggy_Style
Ubik42 wrote:

 But who doesnt believe Fischer?

Keep it down fella, or trysts will be here in a couple of minutes.

nameno1had
Doggy_Style wrote:
Ubik42 wrote:

 But who doesnt believe Fischer?

Keep it down fella, or trysts will be here in a couple of minutes.

lol

pfren
Ubik42 wrote:

Smyslov was cheating. Fellow Soviets were throwing games to him. Well if you can believe Fischer. But who doesnt believe Fischer?

Smyslov wasn't exactly the darling of the system, since he wasn't a party member, and very religious.

Intrinsicbarbaro

replying to this thread is a crime in itself.