Kramnik Hates Chess.com

You will have to wait. This is for your online safety. Besides, after the ban, chesskid will be full of talented kids like you, so it wouldn't be a problem to find an opponent. But I recommend bots. Bob-monkey is always ready to challenge you and it's making very funny noises.

Do not worry about their finances, paying members have smartphones and they are PAYING therefore likely can afford a webcam or two. 100 million registered doesn't mean those 100 million are still active. Many of them have simply left the Earth. There are only 3 million paying members if that's not a lie of course. Payment should be mandatory if you wish to participate in rated games. FIDE did that with Arena. Can't pay - enjoy unrated-only play.

By enforcing anti-cheating measures chess.com will only gain reputation of a clean serious chess platform. And then one will wish to go to lichess, to that free-as-in-freedom ugly swamp infested with cheaters and bots.

Ultimately this site is for-profit, they have absolutely no reason to implement the draconian measures you describe, harming their business by alienating or banning large numbers of random people / annoying almost everyone in order to appease a small minority of whiners who are bad at chess and go on deluded witchhunts. Why would the site not worry about its finances? You say this casually, but what it proves is your ideas aren't operating in the real world, they're hovering above it in some hypothetical dreamworld where money isn't what keeps a private company alive, where companies can just do away with giant chunks of their customer base casually in expensive, comprehensive personal audits of 100 million random people. If you want secure games then go play in a FIDE tournament. Before doing that I recommend you study the game a bit more, though.

I have calculated that to ID 3 million members you will need roughly 1000 people working 1 month. Non-paying members can continue playing unrated.

From subscriptions only, chess.com can easily cover monthly salary of 10 thousand such workers. Easy math: your monthly subscription is much greater than 5 minute or less work to verify your identity.

As for fair play and re-identification calls, they would be randomized. For a cheater it is enough to know that some day maybe not this month maybe next but he will receive this call and he wouldn't be able to refuse. And of course the better the performance the more chances player would be selected for that call.

This is all doable from every perspective: time, finances, organizational etc

I'm not bad at chess. Finances would be ok, just calculate and you will see.

And this is just to set things up, then you don't get too much new registrations of paying members. Would be very easy to handle even with less workers. And whenever there's no new users to ID, you just ping old users to re-ID and suspend if they refuse.

basketstorm has proved himself a troll...DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS!!

Himself? What's wrong with you?

A professor of statistics analyzed Hikaru's record and concluded that his amazing streak, which Kramnik said is proof of cheating, fell within statistical expectations. Like he always does, no matter how expert the person contradicting him, Kramnik dismissively said the professor was wrong.

There's an old saying. You can't win an argument with an ignorant man.

Shame on you. Stop lying. Kramnik never said that the streak was "a proof of cheating".

That's true, he never says it outright, he just makes sure we all know what he means. He said Hikaru cheats every which way other than using the words. It's called insinuation, and in his case it's blatant. Shame on you for leaning on a technicality so you can say someone is lying. It's intellectually dishonest.

Wow, you really have drunk the Kramnik koolaid haven't you?

Kramnik confusedly suggests suspicion and accusation are mutually exclusive concepts... they are not... An accusation is a claim of wrong doing. The claim can be unsubstantiated, proof is not a prerequisite for making a claim. There is also such a thing as a hypothetical claim. Kramniks argument is essentially that unless he's claimed there is positive proof of cheating he hasn't actually leveled an accusation, this is simply false. As for his notion that he must explicitly verbally say something in order to be communicating it; that no amount of hinting at it actually counts as communicating it - that too is just patently absurd and stupid. When you make 10 videos on someone cheating and fill them with insinuating remarks, where you are just constantly implying wrongdoing, it is nonsense to claim you aren't accusing anyone of wrongdoing.

Just another example of the obfuscating nonsense Kramnik / his acolytes constantly engage in.

Read carefully:

And now tell how is it different from chess.com saying in their report "we discuss what we believe are apparent anomalies in Hans’ rise in OTB rating"?

All Kramnik is asking for is an examination and public answers. This is completely normal.

You've cited one single statement Kramnik made out of probably a thousand regarding Hikaru. He has at least a dozen full videos on Hikaru.

Btw - Hikaru doesn't cheat either. And that too was obvious.. There aren't any noteworthy anomalies in Hikarus streak, just 10 different holes in Kramniks swiss-cheese logic. Hikaru plays bullet OTB and rivals Magnus at it, there's no way of cheating that. Yet again your thought-leader was just a fool. Like in this case and in dozens of other cases.

All Kramnik's statements were consistent and he repeats every time that this is not an accusation. No one was saying that Hikaru is cheating except for silly youtubers who titled their videos with something like "Kramnik said Hikaru is CHEATING".

He can insist all he likes he's not accusing anyone, If he's not making an accusation then what is the claim he's trying to prove? He simply doesn't understand the definition of the word accusation as I just explained above. What he's doing is making a hypothetical claim or an unsubstantiated claim, it is not correct that suspicion and accusation are mutually exclusive concepts, an accusation is simply a claim of illicit behavior - it doesn't have to be a proven claim.

It's like if I were to argue a case, but at the same time insist that the claim I'm making the case for... I'm not making. Complete nonsense.

Kramnik is going about the issue of cheating in a completely wrong way. He's just implying that any titled player who happens to be on a good week a cheater, which causes negative energy in the community. Kramnik needs to be stopped to get rid of the negative stigma in the community.

Cheating is a problem in online chess, but the cure is worse than the illness in this case. Have you noticed you many people have been fighting or accusing people of cheating since Kramnik basically accused Hikaru of cheating? Kramnik is not contributing any benefits to the chess community. He needs to either stop or be stopped.

What? He is not trying to prove, he is just asking questions. Reasonable questions, because there's some very interesting data, you can't deny that. It's like denying reality just because you like Hikaru or idk

Along with high susceptibility to confirmation bias, Kramnik clearly knows little to nothing of critical thinking principles. If he did, he'd accept uncertainty, critically examine his own ideas, and give others the benefit of the doubt. Instead he has the overconfidence and lack of self-awareness typical of Dunning-Kruger syndrome. He's also remorseless and only concerned with maintaining his convictions, despite the harm he does. Not much to admire.