And when I see chess opinions, I argue with them. Ask rust, we argued about chess openings for days. No insults though. Just debate.
Kramnik Hates Chess.com
Sort:
Oct 29, 2024
0
#223
ibrust wrote:
Mrbonehead wrote:
ibrust wrote:
Mrbonehead wrote:
Busara wrote:
basketstorm wrote:
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?
Because Danyas response to your question was that his editor edited out 20 seconds of him setting up the board, and we have no proof of whether that happened. Hence I'm speaking to Danya's response to your question. Educate yourself on the facts of this case before commenting.
Educate myself? I was not asking about Danya response. I was asking a general question, nothing to do with that.
Which was:
Can a person make 25 moves with just 2.7 seconds to think about them? Is that possible?
You don't want to answer it fine.
AlekhineEnthusiast46 wrote:
And when I see chess opinions, I argue with them. Ask rust, we argued about chess openings for days. No insults though. Just debate.
True, from what I've read you seemed quite reasonable throughout this thread. I was mainly refering to the other pair of people arguing, bossybwudx and ibrust.
Oct 29, 2024
0
#225
Mrbonehead wrote:
ibrust wrote:
Mrbonehead wrote:
ibrust wrote:
Mrbonehead wrote:
Busara wrote:
basketstorm wrote:
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?
Because Danyas response to your question was that his editor edited out 20 seconds of him setting up the board, and we have no proof of whether that happened. Hence I'm speaking to Danya's response to your question. Educate yourself on the facts of this case before commenting.
Educate myself? I was not asking about Danya response. I was asking a general question, nothing to do with that.
Which was:
Can a person make 25 moves with just 2.7 seconds to think about them? Is that possible?
You don't want to answer it fine.
Misinterpreted your random off topic question due to assuming it was actually relevant, moving on.
Oct 29, 2024
0
#226
Mr Bonehead, it is impossible without premoves and with premoves they would have to guess your every move perfectly. That is a cheater.
Oct 29, 2024
0
#227
AlekhineEnthusiast46 wrote:
Mr Bonehead, it is impossible without premoves and with premoves they would have to guess your every move perfectly. That is a cheater.
That must mean there is software that allows you to cheat at bullet. I must admit that shocked me. I then looked into it to see if there is software out there and yep there is. Chess in my view is finished online. If you have a lichess account I will post you the link, just to show I am not lying.
It's entirely possible for a human to play 25 moves in 2.7 clock seconds. But they'd all be guesses and would not be accurate chess ...
But yes, there are auto-play engines that can interface directly with chess.com and with Lichess. I've encountered them on both sites. Those accounts are obvious, though, and tend to get caught quite fast ...
ibrust wrote:
3) The fact basket is 360 elo
I'm not 360 Elo.
Oct 29, 2024
0
#230
MaetsNori wrote:
It's entirely possible for a human to play 25 moves in 2.7 clock seconds. But they'd all be guesses and would not be accurate chess ...
But yes, there are auto-play engines that can interface directly with chess.com and with Lichess. I've encountered them on both sites. Those accounts are obvious, though, and tend to get caught quite fast ...
I am past caring whether they get banned or not now, I am not even going to bother reporting them.
Busara wrote:
basketstorm wrote:
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.
It's obvious to anyone that a good chess player knows more about chess. Simpe logic. Caruana isn't only good, he is one of the best in history. You can completely disregard whatever Danny, Erik and other people affiliated with chess.com are saying. Because of the conflict of interest in the first place. Cheating in chess and game of chess are not very different areas. And there's no such degree as "anti-cheating expert", you can't be born as an anti-cheating expert, you can't learn this craft. Do not make things up. It's enough to be a GM to understand where cheating happens. Like Caruana said, he knows some players, and he knows their style and capabilities OTB. And he notices difference. This is enough for him to make a conclusion. Anti-cheating expert can't do nothing here. And Caruana can't prove anything. Because of the nature of chess cheating. No way to prove with 100% certainty. But he is certain, he knows. Anti-cheating experts are basically useless. All we can do is to enforce very strict security measures. And of course, online chess must be banned forever.
basketstorm wrote:
Busara wrote:
basketstorm wrote:
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.
It's obvious to anyone that a good chess player knows more about chess. Simpe logic. Caruana isn't only good, he is one of the best in history. You can completely disregard whatever Danny, Erik and other people affiliated with chess.com are saying. Because of the conflict of interest in the first place. Cheating in chess and game of chess are not very different areas. And there's no such degree as "anti-cheating expert", you can't be born as an anti-cheating expert, you can't learn this craft. Do not make things up. It's enough to be a GM to understand where cheating happens. Like Caruana said, he knows some players, and he knows their style and capabilities OTB. And he notices difference. This is enough for him to make a conclusion. Anti-cheating expert can't do nothing here. And Caruana can't prove anything. Because of the nature of chess cheating. No way to prove with 100% certainty. But he is certain, he knows. Anti-cheating experts are basically useless. All we can do is to enforce very strict security measures. And of course, online chess must be banned forever.
"And of course, online chess must be banned forever." Seriously? If you don't want to play a potential cheater in online chess once every however many games, don't play chess online. People play chess online because it's convenient and accessible, they encounter a cheater, report them then move on. To say that online chess should be banned for everybody is frankly a ridiculous position.
@JadeCleanMaid, my friend, online chess harms people not only due to cheating. I mean yes you can encounter a cheater, it happens, you would think "who cares". But there are more points:
- - since it is so easy to cheat, no one can be trusted, everyone is under suspicion
- - YOU, if you play online chess, you are a suspect too. You have probably never thought about that. But when you win, people do suspect you. People report you. Chess.com WILL suspect you too if your performance is too good. Chess.com cannot catch all cheaters. If you cheat, chess.com might never catch you.
- - false accusations. This is the worst issue of online chess. It happened with OTB too but only online chess has made this possible in such great amount and frequency! False accusations harm reputation, they harm physical and emotional health of an honest player.
- - bad sportsmanship. Stalling, abandoning, cursing in chat.
- - inconsistent strength. Online, players can relax or do deliberate sandbagging
- - and also very important: only popular online chess formats are Blitz and Rapid. And Bullet. All 3 are useless for development of a chess player. While it is risky and pointless to invest time into a long classical game online because of the previous two points. It's more useful to play with bot and do takebacks when needed, why finish game if you know that next time you will play better? Bring this next time closer and save time. You will improve much faster.
As you can see, too many bad things, no benefits at all. Must be banned once and forever.
Oct 29, 2024
0
#234
It's not that Kramnik hates chess.com. He just hates everyone who disagrees with him, in any form or shape. The guy clearly has a narcissistic personality disorder. He is definitely not the best chess player who ever lived (although he was close), but he's certainly in the running for the title of the most toxic one. And given that we all remember Bobby Fischer and Viktor Korchnoi, it says a lot. It's a shame it's going to be part of his legacy.
anyone just wanna chat lmao, this is the only way I've found to talk to random people on a school Chromebook 🙏🙏🙏
basketstorm wrote:
Busara wrote:
basketstorm wrote:
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.
It's obvious to anyone that a good chess player knows more about chess. Simpe logic. Caruana isn't only good, he is one of the best in history. You can completely disregard whatever Danny, Erik and other people affiliated with chess.com are saying. Because of the conflict of interest in the first place. Cheating in chess and game of chess are not very different areas. And there's no such degree as "anti-cheating expert", you can't be born as an anti-cheating expert, you can't learn this craft. Do not make things up. It's enough to be a GM to understand where cheating happens. Like Caruana said, he knows some players, and he knows their style and capabilities OTB. And he notices difference. This is enough for him to make a conclusion. Anti-cheating expert can't do nothing here. And Caruana can't prove anything. Because of the nature of chess cheating. No way to prove with 100% certainty. But he is certain, he knows. Anti-cheating experts are basically useless. All we can do is to enforce very strict security measures. And of course, online chess must be banned forever.
It's clear you don't know anything about cheat detection, or what good and bad arguments are, either. I suggest a little study on critical thinking along with doing some homework on cheat detection, if you think you're capable of learning.
As I said in my first comment in this thread, there's an old saying that you can't win an argument with an ignorant man. Take this last reply as my resignation.
It's clear you don't know anything about cheat detection, or what good and bad arguments are, either. I suggest a little study on critical thinking along with doing some homework on cheat detection, if you think you're capable of learning.
I certainly know more than you. What do YOU know about cheat detection?
https://www.chess.com/article/view/chess-com-fair-play-and-cheat-detection
GM Hikaru Nakamura:
Having seen Chess.com's system in great detail, both the algorithms used and the 'team at work' (when I was on-site at the Chess.com Meetups), I can attest fully that Chess.com's approach is advanced and far ahead of what I know other websites use to catch cheaters.
I usually have a lot of free time I spend on here and play chess constanly