Kramnik Hates Chess.com

Agree, Basura. That's why I reported him

@MaetsNori

People think their subjective impressions of cheating are more reliable than the evaluations of chess.com's fair play team of 30 or so professionals with relevant expertise in areas like statistics, and who take into account every possible factor that correlates with cheating. It's ridiculous. I've been falsely accused, and to my regret I once accused someone I subsequently realized was honest. The people to listen to are the ones with the specific applicable knowledge, not self appointed experts who happen to be good at chess. Being good at chess doesn't mean being free of unwarranted suspicion and confirmation bias, as Kramnik has proven.

Very true. The chess.com officials probably know more about cheating then Kramnik

How?

Kramnik knows a little more because he is a chess player.

You can't deny that bias is what chess.com has to have. Because there are business interests. Let's not be naive.

Using their data they figured out a standard for overperformance, and those who meet it, in Titled Tuesday for example, are scrutinized. The overperforming TT cohorts are about 2%, and cheaters are a subset of them. Sitewide, cheating is less than that. Compared to false accusations and paranoia, actual cheating is a very small problem.

From what I've seen of Kramnik, he's pretty much clueless about cheat detection.

Is Caruana a paranoid too? Because his estimate for TT is not 2% but 50%+.

So basically everyone who claims that cheating is a big issue is just paranoid and we should only trust chess.com and their "less than 1%" estimations. And if you ask questions, you're an ACCUSER because HOW DARE YOU. Such a circus omg

Yeah let's not trust the owners of the site who actually see the cheating and instead grandmasters with a little hunch that cannot be confirmed. What kinda thinking is that?

Chess.com used their cheat detection system to examine Hans Niemann's OTB games and it found no evidence of cheating. With Magnus being an owner, you'd expect them to say their system found something, if they are as corrupt as you and others believe. Also, there would be no reason to hire so many people for their team if they weren't concerned about accuracy and believed they could b.s. their way through the issue. Further, Ken Regan has no stake in chess.com's finances, and his cheat detection method also found low levels of cheating on the site.

Chess.com is run by people who have personal values. Assuming all they care about is money is, to be kind, cynical,

Yes Basura, besides people being suspicious of everything, actual cheaters are low. Me personally I have almost never played cheaters at all. I can't even remember when I last played a cheater to be honest, which at 1800, cheating is higher than in really low elod.

Busara my bad

The reason you are 360 elo is you suck, it has nothing to do with cheating being a big issue. But if you put as much time into learning the game as you do into making cheating allegations you'd probably rise at least 200 elo, based on the amount of effort combined with the actual thinking ability you have. Probably would end up 560 elo if you could just buckle down and focus on the game for a while. And at that point you would be above where my sister is rated who has only played 3 games in her life, right now you aren't quite there, she's 400 elo.

Chess.com used their cheat detection system to examine Hans Niemann's OTB games and it found no evidence of cheating.

No evidence of online cheating either, only 2 cases Hans admitted himself, the rest is just fantasies. They only managed to say that he is "likely" cheated in some online games. For OTB they've found suspicions and anomalous rating growth, read the report. It's full of accusations without any proofs. Whatever Ken Regan said, chess.com still accused Hans.

From chessbase website (September 2022):

Dr. Regan analyzed all of Hans Niemann's games over the last two years, including online games, such as played on Chess.com and their events, and his conclusion is there is no reason whatsoever to suspect him of cheating.

Let's not forget that it's usually impossible to detect cheating with high degree of confidence. But Grandmasters that actually play against cheaters, not just analyze some random games (Regan couldn't possibly have analyzed all the games on chess.com), they understand when a cheating is happening but they also understand that it's impossible to prove.

I am not actually 360 Elo and stop your personal attack and insults. Reported.

You promise me?

You played 5 games on this account a month ago, you lost 3, drew 1, and won 1. Your average opponent rating was about 380. So yes, you are still somewhere around 360 elo. Which again puts you below my sister and she has only ever played 3 games. I'm not sure she remembers how to castle.

This is relevant because it shows you have absolutely zero understanding or intuition for the game, and are therefor completely unqualified for detecting cheating or even commenting on it.

I did not

Last I heard he lowered his estimate to 20%, and yes he's very likely wrong. His belief is as subjective as anyone else's. I'm really surprised that someone as smart as him doesn't understand the problem of confirmation bias. It's why an objective statistical measure is vastly more reliable than personal impressions.