Kramnik Hates Chess.com

Chess.com pls help your staff Danya he has been bullied by kramnik and other Chess personally such as levitov chess.

New people to kramnick character only agree to what he says. Old customer to kramnick will just scroll down. The problem lies that there are lots of new people to chess who have experience cheating in their game and so get decepted by kramnick to believe what he chess because he is world champion. It is anology to commedy subcategories in cinema i saw in mubi.com

Just because kramnik is world champion does not mean he is smart

That's the trick, he want to devalue world championship title. He want to follow the step of some wise men like to lose all his belongings before his last days. I also watch in one interview where he said he want lose title belt once he got it.

Very, very, very, true.

Kramnik Hates Chess.com

Like it's something abnormal or what? Every chess player has all reasons to hate chess.com for what chess.com are doing.

What is Chess.com doing? What are all the reasons?

Oh, many things. Like gaslighting players telling them that cheating level is 1%. Downplaying cheating, censoring topics about cheating (that's the only case when moderation really works every time). Creating motivations to cheat (like all these online ratings, tournaments with virtual medals, weekly cash prize events). Doing public potentially false accusations at the same time failing to provide any serious punishment for cheaters: they get second chance, third chance (not to mention other cases of bad sportsmanship: players who stall/abandon, who do verbal abuse, who create offensive nicknames often do not get any punishment). This is a monopoly that tries to spread its influence all over the social media and take over the chess world and their impact is not that harmless. Just look up what they did to Hans Niemann. They claim to ban dozens of titled players, where are 75 page reports about every banned titled player? Plus it's clear from the user experience that their focus is to push their premium features and make you pay. At the same time user feedback is ignored (like with Reviews, most players didn't like the overhaul of Reviews). They do some shady collabs with streamers. What is the obligation for streamers, what is the agenda, what is the contract, the payment? Lot of secrets.

I don't want these forums filled with cheating accusations, I'm tired of listening to people a) make accusations without evidence, b) complain / find things to blame their losses on.

They said it's 1-3% in titled Tuesday, they didn't say it's 1% at your level of 360 elo. 
It is patently absurd to chastise the hosting of a cash prize tournament due to it "creating motivation to cheat", since the alternative of having no cash events is obviously not preferable. Try thinking on a basic level before you talk.

It makes very little sense for you to be outraged about Hans situation while defending Kramnik who makes a new false accusation every other day at this point.

Magnus is the one who accused Hans. And Magnus was partly basing that opinion on rumors spread by other top chess players. It's obvious there's alot of toxicity at the top of chess. Alot of accusations flying around that aren't justified by real evidence. This site actually takes an empirical approach before banning people - that's a good thing, that's what's needed - we do not need dunces like Kramnik appointing themselves to spearhead the effort... Kramnik does not even follow simple logic - when Danya is doing an educational speedrun, his 1100 opponent throws away a queen and the game is over, so Danya pulls up the engine to do retrospective game analysis for his audience - this is not cheating, and anyone who cannot tell the difference is mentally incapable of judging these situations.

"I know what I'm doing"

-Vladimir Kramnik

I do not know if I have ever heard a more delusional statement in my life.

On percentage, read below:

This response looks like a huge manipulation. How could they claim to know how often cheating occurs? Rating points return - I only got 1 return per dozen of cheaters or so. And I know for sure one cheater got a new account almost immediately, I didn't check the rest. And I saw how reports often don't work for obvious cases.

About cash events: if you can't prevent cheating you shouldn't conduct them, that's simple. And it's not chess.com fault that cheating is not preventable. It's just the nature of cheating, it's hard to track and prove in all cases. I understand that removing cash events is not "preferable". But there's no other choice. Caruana estimates that over 50% cheat there. I believe him more than chess.com reports which are inherently biased.

Kramnik has never accused anyone. Chess.com did. And chess.com ignore Kramnik, ban Kramnik for something others didn't get even a warning and lets affiliated streamers to insult Kramnik.

Magnus learned about rumours but how did the rumours started? That's right, everything tracks back to chess.com.

Nothing is good about approach of this site to cheating. I mean why cheater would afraid to cheat if he can just ask for a new account with same name (older banned account gets "-inactiv" suffix and that's it). And they believe he will not cheat anymore or what. He will be more careful and that's it.

By insulting Kramnik you're not showing any good level of ethics or big thought. I am reporting you now but I doubt mods will do anything because Kramnik isn't in their camp. That'd be just another proof of my words.

@basketstorm, what is there to report them for?

Cheating in chess may be a problem, I do think some people are more concerned and/or paranoid than others. Anti-cheating may need to be seriously developed. However, nobody does more harm to anti-cheating measures than using CAPS scores as definitive proof of cheating (when you get outplayed), asking people to prove the lack of another device, or asking them to justify random odd moves. Some of us are geniuses from time to time. Other times we are idiots.

I recently had a game where I had a 2500 performance rating. Do you think I cheated in that game? My opponent performed 2550, did he cheat? Did we both cheat?

What is there to report? For verbal abuse, you didn't see it?

Cheating not "may be a problem", it IS a major problem. And with online it is impossible to prevent, there's nothing to develop. (I agree that CAPS alone isn't enough. Yet chess.com uses CAPS related to avg CAPS of other games to make some conclusions.) Focus should be on OTB, there at least some chances to defeat cheating exist, I'm sorry but just add more security around toilets and it's already an improvement.

Performance rating on chess.com is a big lie. Because it changes depending on your chess.com rating, that's just nonsense. Plus on mobile, numbers are different.

I did miss the line where he insulted you. I was referring to his statements towards Kramnik. My apologies.

Kramnik has been seemingly solely focused on online cheating. I personally know of no helpful measures or checks he has run on OTB cheating issues. The Danya saga: online. Accusations of Hikaru (which are delusional): online. Jospem is a cheater: online. Then he went after Erdogmus: online rating was too high. Surprisingly, despite Hans' past history of cheating they are now allies. It does not follow logic.

I see you've edited your post removing that insult. It is not Kramnik's fault that that the speedrun video is so suspicious. 20 seconds were taken out by Danya's editor as Danya explained and original video is lost according to Danya. I don't think Danya is a cheater. But that video looks odd because of the way it is edited. And now Danya can't prove that he entered the moves manually with a mouse because he only has his words. I believe him but Kramnik has no reasons to believe in just words and that's his right. He has some data on Danya, it's not just that speedrun. And it's not like Kramnik's goal is to defeat Danya or something like that. Kramnik targets something larger. Danya is like a knight attacked by a pawn (Kramnik's questions). But Kramnik's ultimate goal is to checkmate the king (online cheating). He acts like a great chess player and he knows what he is doing.

He did not insult me, he insulted Kramnik, this should be unacceptable in a chess community. You don't have to report only when insult is directed towards you. No need to apologize.

No one can be trusted online (as FIDE president said), so Kramnik has legitimate reasonable suspicions especially when he gathers some very interesting data. Again he has never said "that player is a cheater". Just like when you are reporting someone, you're not saying that this player is a cheater, you're saying that this player has to be checked.

What is CAPS at Chess.com ?