The reason you are 360 elo is you suck
I am not actually 360 Elo and stop your personal attack and insults. Reported.
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.
I did not
For anyone interested, Caruana is four-time United States Chess Champion (still reigning). With a peak rating of 2844, Caruana is the third-highest-rated player in history after Kasparov and Carlsen.
@ibrust, that was not me and stop spamming. Online ratings are nothing, they are not credible and often faked through cheating, I don't know why are you so obsessed about them.
@basketstorm
"No evidence of online cheating either, only 2 cases Hans admitted himself, the rest is just fantasies."
Irrelevant to my point. His online cheating, up to 100 games, is why I used his OTB play to illustrate that chess.com doesn't lie about what their cheat detection system detects.
It was very unfortunate that in their prosecutory zeal, chess.com included purely subjective opinions about Han's cheating OTB. This shows they had an anti Hans agenda, and underlines the fact that they don't misrepresent their cheat detection system findings. BTW, Ken Regan agreed with their findings about Hans's online play, but disagreed with their opinions about his OTB games, saying he was in the clear.
Han's fast ascent is misunderstood. First, Aronian did similar, so it wasn't unprecedented. Second, over time it was very quick, but over number of games it was about the same as other recently high performing juniors. He got suspected because he played a lot in a shorter time than others.
I find it interesting that you think it's difficult for chess.com to detect cheaters with a sufficeint degree of confidence using a sophisticated statistical model and scrutiny by their fair play team's GMs who are informed about all the relevent issues, but you think Kramnik and others can do it just by feel.
Edit: To be clear, chess.com found that Hans cheated in about 100 games online. That wasn't fantasy, Ken Regan's system found the same. Neither found anything OTB.
For anyone interested, Caruana is four-time United States Chess Champion (still reigning). With a peak rating of 2844, Caruana is the third-highest-rated player in history after Kasparov and Carlsen.
I don't know why you posted that in this thread, but maybe we can agree on something: Caruana is an amazing chess player, but also a wonderful human being.
Listen, who is Caruana and who are you to say that Caruana is wrong and how he doesn't understand something in chess? This is just ridiculous.
Who are you to say Caruana's or anyone's opinion is any good?
I spent many hours looking into cheat detection after Magnus accused Hans. The information I picked up from interviews with Danny Rensch, Erik Allebest and Ken Regan, as well as in online discussions, is a lot more valuable than any GM's opinion about cheating. GMs are experts in how to play chess, not recognizing cheaters. I'm also keenly aware of of how confirmation bias distorts people'd perceptions, and I've listened while Fabi and Cristian made a conclusion about a player using an analogy about athletic performance and chess performance that I know from personal experience is false. Being expert in one area doesn't make someone's opinion worthwhile in another area, even if the areas are related. That's something any adult should know.
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
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.
You're in no position to point out anyone's elo. I directly challenged you to a best of 3 and you ignored.
Your comments are that of an emotional coward.
The challenge still stands.
Are you ready now?
You challenged me to a bullet game and you said whoever wins is correct about Kramnik in this conversation, that is an asinine statement since the outcome of a bullet game has no bearing on the facts of the conversation - just as Kramniks challenge to Danya had nothing to do with the facts of that case - and so I ignored it, you're correct.
It seems you've drank the Kramnik koolaid so strongly that you're now adopting his strategy of challenging people who disagree with you to games to try to prove yourself correct, but you never can prove anything this way.
As for your proposal here, there are 3 issues with it. 1) You made it a bullet game, which is a game mode I think is a joke and do not take seriously. Bullet games reward memorization, not thinking. 2) I stand nothing to gain from this proposal since regardless of who wins it you will still be wrong, Kramnik still remains wrong and you remain a fool, 3) The fact basket is 360 elo is relevant since he does not understand chess enough to comment on cheating or rating farming. Whether you or I would win in a bullet game, or a rapid game, is irrelevant to the conversation. I play chess to enjoy myself, I don't play it to measure egos / bump egos with the gays on this site.
So my answer to your challenge is no, I don't care about you, I don't feel a strong need to measure the size of my appendage against yours, and you are simply wrong regardless.
Keep trying!
@basketstorm
BTW, on Danya's Bc8 idea, Artur's Neiksans dug up several of his own games where he played the same move in similar positions. Some top GMs finding it strange proves nothing. They think they know how other GMs, including lower ranked ones, play, but Neiksans has shown they don't.
Yo basketstorm I thought reporting people meant you ran out of ideas and I am right. Stop contradicting yourself
Please tell me how to cheat at bullet chess.
There is an app you can download (not free) it plays the moves for you, it has all kinds of modes, even set your ELO. I played someone in lichess, 25 moves and he took 2.7 sec to think about them, while I took all 60 seconds. I am guessing they were using that app, because no one can think 25 moves in 2.7 seconds.
I was told you can't cheat in bullet, but clearly you can. That plugins also works on here. You have to use chrome browser from what I read.
Look, even Magnus, the greatest chess player of all time, was wrong about cheating with Hans Nieman. If his suspicions are wrong, anyone's is.
Listen, who is Caruana and who are you to say that Caruana is wrong and how he doesn't understand something in chess? This is just ridiculous.
Who are you to say Caruana's or anyone's opinion is any good?
I spent many hours looking into cheat detection after Magnus accused Hans. The information I picked up from interviews with Danny Rensch, Erik Allebest and Ken Regan, as well as in online discussions, is a lot more valuable than any GM's opinion about cheating. GMs are experts in how to play chess, not recognizing cheaters. I'm also keenly aware of of how confirmation bias distorts people'd perceptions, and I've listened while Fabi and Cristian made a conclusion about a player using an analogy about athletic performance and chess performance that I know from personal experience is false. Being expert in one area doesn't make someone's opinion worthwhile in another area, even if the areas are related. That's something any adult should know.
Can a person make 25 moves with just 2.7 seconds to think about them? Is that possible?
Nobody is entitled to talk about cheating except for those who run the site and see the cheating occur. Chess.com is by far the most trustworthy source and I trust them more than a grandmaster.
Listen, who is Caruana and who are you to say that Caruana is wrong and how he doesn't understand something in chess? This is just ridiculous.
Who are you to say Caruana's or anyone's opinion is any good?
I spent many hours looking into cheat detection after Magnus accused Hans. The information I picked up from interviews with Danny Rensch, Erik Allebest and Ken Regan, as well as in online discussions, is a lot more valuable than any GM's opinion about cheating. GMs are experts in how to play chess, not recognizing cheaters. I'm also keenly aware of of how confirmation bias distorts people'd perceptions, and I've listened while Fabi and Cristian made a conclusion about a player using an analogy about athletic performance and chess performance that I know from personal experience is false. Being expert in one area doesn't make someone's opinion worthwhile in another area, even if the areas are related. That's something any adult should know.
Can a person make 25 moves with just 2.7 seconds to think about them? Is that possible?
Even if he were lying about his editor removing that down time, which we have no proof of, it would be completely irrelevant since he was a 3200 playing an 1100 in an educational speedrun, aiming at providing accurate commentary on an account where all rating points were to be refunded. This is completely and totally irrelevant.
Yo ibrust how has the Nimzi Silician been working out? :tup
Just spent ten minutes reading through this thread, do none of you guys have anything better to do than insulting each other? This thread is patently pointless.
In this gay world where we feel the strong need to prove ourselves emotionally to other males, where reason does not determine correctness, but instead truth is determined by power / random pissing contests, I'm sure you feel very strongly that you have proven something. But no, you have proven nothing at all, like Kramnik you are completely wrong, there is no grounds for suspicion of Danya in any shape or form, you remain a total moron.
Listen, who is Caruana and who are you to say that Caruana is wrong and how he doesn't understand something in chess? This is just ridiculous.
Who are you to say Caruana's or anyone's opinion is any good?
I spent many hours looking into cheat detection after Magnus accused Hans. The information I picked up from interviews with Danny Rensch, Erik Allebest and Ken Regan, as well as in online discussions, is a lot more valuable than any GM's opinion about cheating. GMs are experts in how to play chess, not recognizing cheaters. I'm also keenly aware of of how confirmation bias distorts people'd perceptions, and I've listened while Fabi and Cristian made a conclusion about a player using an analogy about athletic performance and chess performance that I know from personal experience is false. Being expert in one area doesn't make someone's opinion worthwhile in another area, even if the areas are related. That's something any adult should know.
Can a person make 25 moves with just 2.7 seconds to think about them? Is that possible?
Even if he were lying about his editor removing that down time, which we have no proof of, it would be completely irrelevant since he was a 3200 playing an 1100 in an educational speedrun, aiming at providing accurate commentary on an account where all rating points were to be refunded. This is completely and totally irrelevant.
?????????????
How does that answer my question?
Very true. The chess.com officials probably know more about cheating then Kramnik
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%+.
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.
Listen, who is Caruana and who are you to say that Caruana is wrong and how he doesn't understand something in chess? This is just ridiculous.