30-50% I think.

@@IMJonasPrado Yikes. I guess to a degree we can say his paranoia isn't unfounded.

Thanks!

I am sorry you disliked it. I don't agree with you I think it is good useful content. Anyways if you don't like the videos you shouldn't watch them. They are posted by free they don't harm anyone and you are the one that decides if you watch them or not. All the best!

I think that wouldn't be enough :) Anyways I think the video is a very good guide of how to improve regardless of your level.

😂😂 thanks

what is really funny that you admit you are stupid to believe anyone can get 2200 elo and you are excited that youve been lied to and act like its cool. also ppl often say they made clickbait cause you all are stupid and wont watch it otherwise you just proove them right

Absolutely. I am Kramnik's fan N°1, I will always support him and he is right in almost everything he says.

@@IMJonasPrado well, that's an unfortunate take, because Kramnik is making unfounded accusations without evidence, which is hurting reputations of players who have worked their entire lives to gain this reputation. Supporting him and stating that he is right in almost everything strikes me as irresponsible.

@@gobbedy Thanks for your opinion but I think you are wrong. First of all his opinion is worth more than our opinion, he has studied the game of chess more than you and me combined so he knows what he is talking about. Secondly, I have experienced it myself, a lot of cheaters were not punished and when I tried to make things public they started to threatening me so I had to stop. And last. He is not accusing anyone he is ponting out FACTS about statistic anomalies and he is demanding explanations about why is that posible nothing more than that. He is not saying he is cheating or she is cheating however I am hundred percent that at least 50% of the people with anomalies are cheating but 0 bans. Please watch the last video of Kramnik and explain to me why that Indian is not banned. You are supporting cheating and cheaters with your opinion, and that says a lot about you. If I was overperforming like this people do, I wouldn't mind him to go open about it I'll explain my moves and ASK chess.com to provide as many evidence as posible that I am not cheating.

​@@IMJonasPrado "his opinion is worth more than your opinion". Wrong. Please look up "Argument from authority" -- a logical fallacy you are employing here. You are suggesting that his arguments are more worthwhile merely because he is influential, not because his arguments have more merit at face value. Vladimir Kramnik's arguments are no less vacuous because he is Vladimir Kramnik. His inability to publish his so-called statistics are no less reprehensible because he is Vladimir Kramnik. His emotional response to losing a game is no less an emotional response because he is Vladimir Kramnik. And his inability to provide evidence to substantiate any of his accusations is no less troubling because he is Vladimir Kramnik. His arguments -- like those of anyone -- should be taken at face value, and assessed on their merit. If he presents hard evidence, it should be heard. If he presents only speculation, then that should be denounced. Unfortunately, he presents only speculation. "Secondly, I have experienced it myself, a lot of cheaters were not punished and when I tried to make things public they started to threatening me so I had to stop." The lack of punishment of cheaters is a real problem. The solution, however, is not wrecklessly accusing presumed cheating without evidence. "He is not accusing anyone" -- Wrong. He is, very literally, reporting people for cheating. Reporting a cheater is quite literally accusing someone of cheating. Surely you agree with this? Your entire video is literally a tribute to Vladimir Kramnik accusing very specific people of cheating. But asides from the reports, when he says "[Deeply sarcastic tone] Ok great move. No shame. We all know what is going on here.", do you mean to tell me that you do not believe his making a very clear accusation? If I were to say "Vladimir Kramnik walks weirdly around children. *writes visible report on camera accusing Vladimir Kramnik of being a pedophile* Pedophiles have no shame. Shameful behaviour from Vladimir Kramnik. It's clear what is going on here. Pedophiles need to be stopped." -- Are you really saying that I would not be accusing Kramnik of being a pedophile? If so, then you have a very different definition of "accusation" then that I do. And if you really don't think that is an accusation, then surely you can agree that it is slander? And should therefore be stopped? "You are supporting cheating and cheaters with your opinion." -- That is technically true. I am denouncing wreckless accusations which have countless false positives. When your test has too many false positives, it also has more correct positives. So yes, the side effect of asking Kramnik and others (like yourself) to stop wrecklessly accusing people, is that some cheaters will get away. It is doubtless that some of Kramnik's accusations (possibly a majority?) are real positives, but a large portion are false negatives. As a society we generally accept "innocent until proven guilty", and that is specifically because we demand zero rate of false accusations. In turn, this high bar for culpability inevitably means some guilty parties get away with their crime. That is the price we pay to make sure only truly guilty parties are found guilty. But anything else is highly irresponsible, because we do not tolerate wrongful convictions. So while you are technically correct that I am "supporting cheaters with my opinion", you are basically accusing me of being ethically responsible. You, on the other hand, are wreckless and irresponsible.

​@@IMJonasPrado I thought I had replied already but I don't see my reply. Here it is again.. "his opinion is worth more than your opinion". Wrong. Please look up "Argument from authority" -- a logical fallacy you are employing here. You are suggesting that his arguments are more worthwhile merely because he is influential, not because his arguments have more merit at face value. Vladimir Kramnik's arguments are no less vacuous because he is Vladimir Kramnik. His inability to publish his so-called statistics are no less reprehensible because he is Vladimir Kramnik. His emotional response to losing a game is no less an emotional response because he is Vladimir Kramnik. And his inability to provide evidence to substantiate any of his accusations is no less troubling because he is Vladimir Kramnik. His arguments -- like those of anyone -- should be taken at face value, and assessed on their merit. If he presents hard evidence, it should be heard. If he presents only speculation, then that should be denounced. Unfortunately, he presents only speculation. "Secondly, I have experienced it myself, a lot of cheaters were not punished and when I tried to make things public they started to threatening me so I had to stop." The lack of punishment of cheaters is a real problem. The solution, however, is not wrecklessly accusing presumed cheating without evidence." He is not accusing anyone" -- Wrong. He is, very literally, reporting people for cheating. Reporting a cheater is quite literally accusing someone of cheating. Surely you agree with this? Your entire video is literally a tribute to Vladimir Kramnik accusing very specific people of cheating. But asides from the reports, when he says "[Deeply sarcastic tone] Ok great move. No shame. We all know what is going on here.", do you mean to tell me that you do not believe his making a very clear accusation? If I were to say "Vladimir Kramnik walks weirdly around children. *writes visible report on camera accusing Vladimir Kramnik of being a pedophile* Pedophiles have no shame. Shameful behaviour from Vladimir Kramnik. It's clear what is going on here. Pedophiles need to be stopped." -- Are you really saying that I would not be accusing Kramnik of being a pedophile? If so, then you have a very different definition of "accusation" then that I do. And if you really don't think that is an accusation, then surely you can agree that it is slander? And should therefore be stopped? "You are supporting cheating and cheaters with your opinion." -- That is technically true, though highly misleading. I am denouncing wreckless accusations which have countless false positives. When any test has too many false positives, it also has more correct positives. So yes, the side effect of Kramnik (and by extension, yourself), being wildly irresponsible in accusing anyone he is suspicious of, is that he will also accuse actual cheaters of cheating. A broken clock is right twice a day, as the saying goes. So by asking Kramnik to stop being wildly irresponsible, I am *technically* letting those actual cheaters he happens to have accused off the hook. As a society we generally accept "innocent until proven guilty", and that is specifically because we demand zero rate of false accusations. In turn, this high bar for culpability inevitably means some guilty parties get away with their crime. That is the price we pay to avoid wrongful convictions, because wrongful convictions are intolerable. Surely you can understand the impact of wrongfully accusing a chess player of cheating? It's common sense: someone who has build their entire career around their chess skill depends completely on their reputation, and so a wrongful accusation can destroy their lives. So while you are technically correct that I am "supporting cheaters with my opinion", you are conveniently ignoring that I am, more importantly, defending innocent players from wrongful accusations, and that I holding that as having the utmost importance. You, on the other hand, would prefer to cast a wide net, and catch cheaters at the expense of wrongfully accusing innocent people and destroying their lives. In other words, you are wreckless and irresponsible.

You are welcome!

Thanks for your support

Hello! Not really but I am sure the first 5 of them should be extremely easy for you, so it is a nice way of putting your head into chess in only 3 minutes. However in your case, I would probably focus more on reading the books and playing games. Good luck in your chess journey!

Go for it!

I am even less than that in my bad days.

And maybe the only!

Send any document that proves your identity

"The procedure" takes a whole different meaning now

Can you put examples so I know which positions you are refering to?

@@IMJonasPrado Bishop to F1 at the 29:39 timestamp. That move threatens a well-protected knight, so I don't see why black's position is so bad. I don't see any good attacks for black, but I also don't think white has any obvious advantages. I would have to perform calculations for a few minutes to evaluate the position. Are you just calculating faster than me or is there a different way of evaluating?

​ @dnnicoletti, it seems like this position relies heavily on instincts and understanding. The black position appears quite weak, allowing white the opportunity to gradually advance on the kingside. I'd suggest running the position through an engine to gain a deeper understanding of the ideas.

I am very glad it was useful. However I don't think the hippo is a very serious topic 😂

Thanks! Would try to be aware of that

Which sounds?

Thank you so much! Glad it was useful

No that fork is easy his point is the clearance of the d5 square for the knight is "too hard to see" so that cxd4 is met by Nd5 winning the knight. (Nh3+ won't work due to Kg2 defending the knight) and Nxd4 leaves f2 weak after nh3+ rxf2+ (which I assume happened in the game). It's a nice move but hardly a "computer only move" K is just tilting.

the opponent was a ukrainian kid not GM joker..