The Kramnik Files : Unveiling the Dark Side of Online Chess

[@unfixablegop]

Kramnik has a good point about cheating being contagious. Many of the cheaters don't even feel like cheaters. In their minds, what they are doing is punishing the other cheaters.

[@steelsteez6118]

lol didn't even think about it like that but that's such a good point 😂

[@johncombo]

Not just punishing cheaters. Also to punish scumy/trolling/rude etc. players.

[@jaccocornelisschutter8895]

Toilet player

[@guillaumelagueyte1019]

Reminds me of the discussions about doping in professional cycling (e.g. on the Tour de France). Because everyone knows the top guys do it, everybody does it to make sure they can keep up.

[@letsmakeit110]

@@guillaumelagueyte1019 and steroids in baseball. actually pretty much any sport. I remember when I first followed ultimate fighting and people were "getting popped" for performance enchancers. That diction is telling, because it shifts the focus to getting caught. Nobody says the cheater 'was popping'. That part isn't noteworthy. It's expected. The unusual event is getting caught.

[@fabiotrucco7969]

Cheating is a huge curse to online chess. I appreciate Vladimir commitment to give this issue the relevance it deserves, and it has to be very seriously addressed and punished. The curse is currently is almost impossible to prove anyone cheated if they do it the smart way.

[@power50001562]

This is a problem in OTB chess as well, old man just hates new tech

[@bjoernf73]

Totally agree. Unfortunately, the debate online is distorted by comments like the one uttered above.

[@ankeborg9122]

48 years is being old? What are you, 10?@@power50001562

[@jepulis6674]

​@@bjoernf73Lol. Prize money rises and people will inject stuff to their bodies. You need full body scans or faraday cages.

[@TheSwaghilist]

For us peasants at the the bottom, rating manipulation is the rampant problem. Players losing 6-12 games in a row by resignation to qualify for low rated tournaments.

[@rtt1961]

This topic needs much more attention than it commonly is getting; so it's important a top guy like VK is bringing this forward.

[@horacelidenbrock3905]

C-Squared always on point with the drama!

[@anonanon6764]

I didn't think Fabi was convinced by Kramnik's accusations but it's important to calmly listen to people and evaluate their evidence and logic.

[@dessertstorm7476]

It's probably more a case of with holding judgement until he sees all the information. As we all should.

[@azctw]

I think Kramnik's point is right. After all, he's not talking about specific games or even specific players. He's talking about all games over a period of time. In that regard, the accuracy is s relatively decent measure, and the numbers he's talking about are alarming.

[@lonestarst8]

@@azctw around minute 27 he mentions his data came from the most recent 100 games played. That calls into question the accuracy of his data not affirms it. In a recent stream, I know Hans mentioned he plays upwards of around or just over 900 games a month. An 11% statistical relevance, if there is one, is hardly accurate.

[@azctw]

But his data for major points are about 6 months of games. That's a lot of games.

[@lonestarst8]

@@azctw the selection of certain "major points" over all relevant data does not confirm anything other than a flawed method of analysis? were these games won, lost, resigned, or abandoned in the opening, mid-game, or end-game? If player xxxxx is the worlds leading authority on one specific opening, and most of his wins occur within the opening or just into the mid-game, it will wildly through off the results of the analysis.

[@robertfrydell703]

How strong are you guys to get Vlad, and for 2 hours. This says volumes about the podcast. You bring integrity and candor with keeping us up to date on whatever issue of the day is. 🙂

[@ImMarkiee]

Poor fabi 💀

[@robertfrydell703]

​@@ImMarkiee - huh?

[@vikramkrishnan6414]

Man is World #2. You guys are behaving as if Kramnik is giving an interview to some random patzer.

[@cwjalexx]

I had the same reaction, fabi has been at the top of chess for many years now. There’s literally no chess related guest they could have that would be surprising. These are all colleagues of fabi and have been for a long time.

[@robertfrydell703]

​@@cwjalexx - Absolutely. And guests know for a fact that they'll be handled professionally and respectfully.

[@bodhisatwachatterjee3238]

The first measurement point that Vlady explains is "the frequency of lower-rated players achieving 90% or more accuracy", while playing Magnus, Hikaru, Fabi, Sasha and him. One obvious aspect that is missing here is the opening choice of these players. Accuracy of players also vary according to the opening the are playing - for instance, a player's accuracy can be objectively higher if they're playing a theoretical line (book), compared to offbeat/non-book openings. Magnus usually deviates off the book while playing players who are lower rated, therefore it might be harder for lower-rated players to achieve 90% accuracy against him. Is it why this number is lowest against him? Is it possible that a large number of players are playing more accurately against Vlady simply because he plays less non-offbeat openings, where there's usually some mainstream theory? To eliminate this aspect, Vlady should consider the accuracy by game-phase (opening, middlegame, ending), and then check the frequency.

[@misterT-jg9ev]

The argument that it is normal that playing weaker against Carlsen and Nakamura is partly valid but can not give such a huge difference obviously. On top of that, I have checked a few other players who arent better or higher rated than me and the highest number was 14 against my 27. So hope this closes the subject and leaves us with only one adequate explanation of these statistics

[@yusouph2002]

Opening is just the first stage of the game. All the critical decisions come at the later stages on the game. You just can't play 90+ game only by playing a 100% accurate opening. You also should play mostly the best moves in the middlegame and endgame

[@bodhisatwachatterjee3238]

@@yusouph2002 Your overall accuracy can wildly vary depending on the opening - for instance, my own accuracy is frequently 85-95 in symmetrically and closed positions like Giuoco Piano, but in 60s for unbalanced positions resulting from openings like Gruinfield.

[@bodhisatwachatterjee3238]

@@misterT-jg9ev I agree with your point, it should not create such a huge number like 27 in your case. However, if you want to further validate this data, you can look for middlegame and endgame accuracy separately - these are the phases where a player is likely to cheat. Therefore, it might be easier to detect computer-like moves in those phases. Btw, a big fan and love your games, sir!

[@darktechno8321]

I think you guys wildly underestimate how good these top player are. They are professionals at making you bleed on the chessboard. Doesn't matter how great your opening is, against a monster like this you will eventually show weakness in some other stage of the game. Bad moves will weight more than good moves and they WILL expose your weaknesses at some point. So it is uncredibly unlikely for so many people in a row to never show any significant weakness playing a top level player like him.

[@boniface494]

Good discussion. Chess community should be more open to discussing and working to resolve this problem in the game

[@knighterrant5772]

And, the chess community could use more members like the three of these guys.

[@xxx333mmm]

what problem

[@le0nz]

@@knighterrant5772 but insted we have hikaru, neiman and alejandro ramirez :(

[@sdaiwepm]

I agree that cheating is a big problem, but I don't think that the anti-cheating initiative can credibly be led by a retired player who doesn't seem very adept with math, logic, or computers.

[@sy6550]

Thank you Kramnik. I really appreciate your work. Cheating is a serious treat for the validity and future of chess.

[@sayujraj]

What a podcast. Thank you guys, great job. Kramnik is a legend in chess but this is top notch analysis.

[@kamalakantanieves5371]

The joy of chess is in the creative challenge of problem-solving; the effort to find the best move, or to how to attack or how to refute an attack. The two main reasons people cheat are, in my opinion, the ego that gets pleasure from doing such things, and also the money you can earn by winning tournaments in this way.

[@Five-Star-General]

Agreed 100%

[@jagerin]

And how different the problem solving strategies are in various iterations like classical, rapid, blitz and bullet ranging from deep prepared strategic lines to intuitive hunches that may or may not work out.

[@lowblonickel]

Thank you captain obvious

[@NotTheMaestro]

+1

[@mschosting]

When I was younger if I would cheat it would be first to know how to do it and second to see how far I could go without getting caught. Cheating on chess for the prize money is really really silly come on you get much more money for much less work playing something like counterstrike or fifa, literally any other game.

[@agnivaroy3445]

Will Kramnik coach Hans though?

[@5HeadM]

💀

[@morapelimokokomali7907]

Some people just want to see the world burn 😂

[@TymexComputing]

hahaha

[@AdityaPal_sciencepal]

Kramnik has already shown his opinion on this - he did not play against Hans in one of the Titled Tuesdays

[@XerxesGammon200]

Imagine Hans sitting on Kramnik's lap. 😍

[@Kirmo13]

Why is there an inverse correlation between chess elo and mic quality?

[@jozews]

The higher the rating the higher the likelihood people will listen to them, so why spend on an expensive mic, economics...

[@zacharysherry2910]

Lol. Gothamchess always filming from some motel 😂

[@some______guy]

That's such a great comment. Magnus has the shittiest mics. I think he uses a Yeti.

[@laurentsaltoflife9267]

Kramnik makes a very rational and convincing case on online cheating

[@seheyt]

Does he? I snapped only a short segment, but repeatedly stating "I'm not lying you know" seemed neither rational nor convincing.

[@Gush27]

@@seheyt”I snapped only a short segment” opinion nullified lol

[@Entropy__]

​@@seheyttry watch all of it...

[@youtubecensoringcomments7427]

Also full of shit in some cases

[@youtubecensoringcomments7427]

​@@Gush27lol we can make emotional non rational statements in 5 minutes you know

[@gibbo104]

An interesting discussion, another great episode. I find it interesting that cheating is suggested to be more prevalent in casual games, which I think rings true. But it does raise the question as to why it would seem so many people are willing to just causally cheat. It even happens in our lowly 1200 level games. Crazy, lol. Thank you for the content as always, gentleman.

[@gangshivam]

@@edwardian23 Absolutely. The feeling of losing or winning a game has a direct consequence to feeling better about your cognitive abilities. The use of chess engine doesn't hinder that feeling so low level player and especially young people may cheat occasionally. Committing to a shortcut instead of relying on hard work, is attractive especially since they give the same result, even though it is wrong.

[@jgreen802]

A lot of people in online chess are paranoid and think everyone is cheating. This gives them justification to cheat themselves, they assume getting computer help for a move or two is just evening the playing field.

[@cuebj]

In cycling, there have been old veterans doping when racing against nobody else. Something about trying to maintain their own mythology about themselves. Perhaps like looking up a word in a crossword puzzle or peaking at next card when playing patience (solitaire in US speak). Even flipping to back of a book to see how a story ends (especially a whodunnit)

[@meeshermans297]

I feel like people are missing out on a very important point when it comes to casual cheating It's not unique to chess. This is something that happens in pretty much all games. There is a very good reason why modern first-person shooters come with professionally-developed dedicated anti-cheating software, and it's because without that an incredibly significant amount of players would be cheating. It's just something people do. And especially for casual chess, this should be a much better comparison than the sports doping people grab at as an analogy for people using engines in chess. This is exactly what is happening in chess right now. We are playing call of duty without any real anti-cheating measures.

[@sporegazm]

​@gangshivam "the use of a chess engine doesn't hinder this"....and you came to this conclusion how? Of course using an engine would hinder it. You would know it wasn't your cognitive abilities that won the game And this is why I don't and will never understand cheating. Makes no sense to me unless money is involved

[@joaobigfoot]

I'm puzzled about how he now accused Hikaru of cheating but here he says it's an example of someone who doesn't cheat

[@rampadmanabhan4258]

Lol yes, the discussion here is sensible and measured, but 2 months later he went on a rant about Hikaru and lost credibility.

[@simon.5]

Maybe people just try to flag Kramnik more or Kramnik himself declines draws and ends up in long endgames more. If the games drags out to an easy yet simple endgame, accuracy scores tend to be very high as they reflect accuracy per move. He talks about mathematics a lot, but it seems he does not even know (or care) how these scores come about.

[@misterT-jg9ev]

ahh should have asked you before stating my research, you seem to know such important details, incredible :)

[@AsthmaBreather]

The first few minutes fabi is like : 🙂

[@tom2314]

It seems to me that most of the negative comments here are from people who also cheat. Kramnik understands chess better than all but a few people alive, his motive is genuine and good. He’s fighting for the future of chess, not for him, but for the younger generations and ppl not even born yet. I have listened to this three times now. I stand with Kramnik.

[@youtubecensoringcomments7427]

You know people may disgaree with him and are strong players...

[@Crashawsome]

Kramnik is old and out of touch. Don't take it personally

[@shumbuk4383]

@@youtubecensoringcomments7427 ..but they're only strong online. wink wink

[@pulverapa1580]

Kramnik is not listening to Fabiano. Danya is a very good example of the differences in online/offline and increment.

[@SportsFan-h2g]

Can there be any better time to release this episode, well done CSQ

[@Say0cean]

This problem stems with Hans' history of cheating online multiple times, then couple that up with his claim of being a very high variance player. Even if he doesn't cheat anymore, all players he paired up from the present to future will always have that in the back of their minds, as evidence by this Kramnik vs Hans issue. Every move Hans played, every second he allocated to each move, Kramnik was very suspicious of it. This is why I have been always against giving cheaters a second chance, especially those who got caught cheating in money events.

[@Joe-og6br]

Hans is a great lesson for young chess players. Never cheat because if you do make it this is the likely outcome. Hans is tainted and so he should be. We cannot give cheaters an easy ride.

[@carlosguzmanmorales9999]

@@Joe-og6br meanwhile other admitted online cheaters are invited to events all the time.

[@derschutz4737]

Do u actually have any data that supports he is a higher variance player than other 2660-2750 players? I hear this constantly but never any actual data to support it.

[@rg7535]

@@derschutz4737Tons of it. There are statistical analysis videos right here on youtube. He plays most of the time at a 2350-2400 level, but then plays a few games at 2800+ level.

[@derschutz4737]

@@rg7535 thats funny because the actual statisticians who actually publish research, have not found any such evidence.... maybe the statistical analysis u found is faulty and that's why no statisticians take it seriously

[@unfixablegop]

Almost all cheaters have stopped foolishly playing the entire game with a top engine, so in individual games there is no real hope of catching them. But in a series, statistical suspicion quickly turns into statistical certainty. The best shot a chess site has at catching cheaters is to look at aggregate probabilities. Then you don't have to worry if there is a chance in a thousand that you have banned an honest player. You can put the cutoff at a billion to one and still be effective.

[@badigardsss]

That's why people play bullets more than blitz or rapid

[@johncombo]

Nowdays u can cheat in bullet without any issues whatsover. Its extremely easy. So those people are clueless i guess. It doesnt matter anymore.

[@case6189]

Everything Kramnik has said is exactly what I’ve been saying this whole time. A man of principle good to hear him speaking out!

[@AntActApp]

Kramnik is a legend and is actually helping protect this beautiful game

[@maximjussim1024]

Kramnik is a master of framing and foreshadowing his messages😅. 50% of the time he is talking about what he is going to say

[@ConsensusReality]

1. Tell them what you're going to tell them,. 2. Tell them. 3. Tell them what you just told them.

[@skaarphy5797]

I actually stopped watching the video because of his endless meandering. Get to the point, man ...

[@akawojo]

so you are a rhetorical genius then? Kramnik is a deep character and one needs to be patient to endure his elaborations.@@skaarphy5797

[@sdaiwepm]

@@skaarphy5797 It's "obvious"! I somehow made it all the way through, and I thought the last 10-15 minutes were the best, so maybe fast forward to the end if you have any energy left.

[@rahulsrinivas3224]

"I am not lying" x5 times

[@VonKirda]

Unfortunately over the board chess clubs are hard to find these days. It is the best solution for chess on amateur level.

[@oscarl.3563]

This should be fun. Yesterday Hans asked Kramnik for coaching, it would be good for him and also allow Kramnik the opportunity to understand his play style better since Kramnik found their recent game - as well as Hans' fluctuating stats - suspicious.

[@lukaswolek7294]

Kramnik and Hans are both weird guys. They are maybe not the best at analyzing games with other people

[@stopwritingthatreplyjohnat6638]

Hans games are all suspicious. He has one of the strangest styles in all of high level chess

[@dacianbonta2840]

didn't Fabi describe a game where Kramnik, in post game analysis, pulled a long variation straight outta his behind, with no relationship with reality.

[@vikramkrishnan6414]

@@dacianbonta2840 I think Magnus said something to that effect as well.

[@realmheart3751]

​@@vikramkrishnan6414it's common knowledge tbh

[@ForeverSunnyYoutube]

Accuracy scores mean very little without more active filters since they will vary wildly by what openings you prefer, your tendencies when it comes to trades/tension(these two are obviously related to the openings as well), and multiple other factors. certain position types lend themselves to high accuracy scores for both players and other position types lend themselves to low accuracy scores for both players. Make the same player play the london or something like that for 50 games and then 50 games with some wild complicated opening and you'll see the two samples average completely different accuracy scores.

[@joshrossi1268]

some of this makes sense, but Kramnik said the discrepancy in accuracy between players playing him VS. Carlsen / Hikaru was not present during events with cameras on both players -- if this is true, it is definitely suspicious. regardless -- it seems very probable that there is a lot more cheating online at all levels than most people think / realize. and for top players / money -- there definitely needs to be more anti-cheating measures.

[@andrefidalgo4363]

This is precisely true, Kramnik isnt taking into account that players like Magnus and Hikaru troll by playing tons of offbeat and even bad openings and complicate the game in a way only they can actually be that precise, Kramnik however is an oldschool classical player playing berlins and ruy lopez most of the games where is easier to get higher percentages if pieces are exchanged fast or the players know a lot of theory and plans on the opening

[@kpNov23]

That's why you have statistics dufuses.

[@jaswik2023]

@@joshrossi1268 while all this maybe true what Kramnik says seems like just an old mans rambling without the statistics he has be published, in 2 hours he talked about 10 minutes of statistics and barely went into how it was made/what parameters were used

[@jaswik2023]

@@andrefidalgo4363 yeah this is exactly what I was thinking

[@slickomode4054]

Kramnik is a humble legend of the sport, lets not forget he was Former world champion for 7 years, formerly world no. 1 (when Kasparov was playing) and formerly youngest player to achieve 2800+ rating. Kramniks suspicions are absolutely right. I am 1800 rated on lichess and face cheaters all the time. If I lose more than 100 points playing against cheaters, I toggle stockfish to bring myself up to 1800-1900 again even though I dont play for money. People are quick to say "oh why would he cheat just because theres no money involved". Its because chess is a brutal sport, and losing can really make you rage on a different level. The fact that Kramnik can still fight for a medal in World Rapid and Blitz championship, but are losing to these kids who are nowhere close to his level over the board makes zero sense. Where are this kids when it comes to real OTB tournaments? Niemann lost a game in last years rapid championship in the opening making a shocking 1500-level blunder. Yet he wiped the floor with Magnus with black pieces. It doesnt make sense, because there is no sense. Its blatant cheating. And for those wondering how you can cheat consistently without getting caught. You never copy every stockfish move. What cheaters do is that they use stockfish to get a winning position and then (at least if youre above 1800) everyone can close out the game even if you are playing innacurate moves. This is how people never get banned. They are simply using assistance until they have a +3 or +5 advantage and then they take over.

[@Thematic2177]

everyone faces cheaters from time to time, and we all know it's frustrating to lose rating points like this, but it's NOT an excuse to be a cheater yourself...

[@slickomode4054]

its no excuse, but it doesn´t stop people from doing it. There is nothing more frustrating than playing against an 1800 cheater who sees insane 2000+ level tactics in a blitz game. Even someone at my level can tell very quickly if im playing against a cheater just by this alone. Sometimes I will get a feeling right out of the opening when someone is playing all the "book" moves in a line which is not so obvious at 1800 level - i have experienced turning on stockfish sometimes when I get suspicious because i refuse to lose points to a cheater, and then we play a draw where both players have 90+ accuracy lmao (both using engine ofc). Cheating is certainly a very big issue in online chess...

[@shumbuk4383]

@@slickomode4054 I'm 2400+ on Lichess where I coach many kids...one bright young pupil has been having a lot of trouble getting passed 1800..he's stuck around 1750...been almost a year...but when we do our tactics session together he impresses me..the combinations he sees (!)..by that alone he's surpassed a 2200...and his endgames are excellent..just some strategy and and experience is needed but I'm surprised he's been stuck at 1750 so long...going up and down in a cycle..when by my estimation he ought to be 1950 already...at least..but then, he is a fastidious and honest player...he never cheats...and I can't guess how many games he has lost to you. But thank you for your admission...I will show this to him to remind him how unfair things are..and how imbeciles ruin things for others with inane theories that suit their ego. Thank you

[@shumbuk4383]

I think cheating in online chess is absolutely rampant especially when you get above 2000 but..when Kramnik was narrating his statistics and asked why Carlsen faced 3 people with 90% accuracy, Nakamura faced 7, and Kramnik faced 27..it kind of struck me very quickly that while Kramnik may play the same level of moves, according to the computer, is he setting as many little problems as Magnus does to test people's play? Simply speaking, 27 people can play a good game against Kramnik where only 3 can against Magnus, though the computer says there play is the same..only according to the computer's sensitivity..reminds me of Carlsen playing out an endgame with 0.00 ... and then winning it. He won his world championship title, the first one, by winning two drawn rook endgames after all! I mean, the computer accuracy will tell us Tal was doing utter nonsense at times but does it understand the level of problems he was setting people or the amount of time it took him to do it...the fact that he won the candidates, the world championship and the USSR championship back to back..and a record 6 times!..tell us that he was in fact hurling zingers at his opponents and the pathway through was indeed wide enough for only one...but computers do not yet comprehend what befuddles us and why we find chess so complex...it doesn't know which candidate move of 5 that maintain the draw will cause us to go astray...and therein the point about it being a 'reliable metric', by Caruana, is crucial..I can't imagine it is yet...I think rather than proving that there is cheating, the numbers Kramnik provided tell us some players are not just playing 90% chess but adding that extra drop of poison in it.

[@traplover6357]

Tldr; games having 0.0 equality =/= complexity of the position.

[@shumbuk4383]

@@traplover6357 Lol..thanks

[@outcast12345]

You still mentioned some good points. It can be a factor of simple nervousness too. Playing Magnus is intimidating. Many top players have said that... but either way, there are probably more cheaters than we think there are.

[@Phurngirathaana]

You are smart!

[@grigorigiannakoudakis7393]

I think the strength of Kramnik's analysis (and any cheating analysis) lies not in one statistic but rather in the combination of suspicious statistics. Your argument as to why the 27-7-3 statistic might not be suspicous does not counter the combination of other suspicous statistics that Kramnik mentions.

[@cherrycritmeu]

Morozevich warned years ago about cheating problem, saying it will be the biggest of problems with chess at all levels and in every kind of chess.

[@peterk960]

The death of a chess server is normally caused by too many cheaters and weak anti cheating measures. Some don't have any at all. Smh

[@sqttttt]

Well worth the wait!!! Now I just have to wait until I get back from work😂

[@gautam-narula]

I’d love for you guys to bring back Hikaru and, if possible, bring on Magnus to discuss their views on the topic of cheating as well

[@jorddy9209]

Hans was badly unfairly targeted only because he destroyed Magnus fairly OTB,

[@tatsuyaradheya3528]

​@@jorddy9209 The dude literally has a history of cheating, and then, the world champion who don't even knows Hans (since he mainly play against top super gms) accuses him of cheating.

[@felixjohnston3402]

Do you find it weird Magnus only accused him of cheating after he was handed a very public and very embarrassing defeat? Do you think it's possible Magnus had an injured ego after losing to someone he clearly didn't respect as a person and as a player?@@tatsuyaradheya3528

[@felixjohnston3402]

Why Hikaru? So he can hem and haw and add nothing but a few veiled accusations on the issue like he does already?

[@jorddy9209]

@@tatsuyaradheya3528 we’re literally talking hundreds of the top players online have cheated Hans was only made singled out because he destroyed Magnus fairly that’s the facts. If Magnus beat Hans none of this would’ve happened

[@misterT-jg9ev]

Another point, for this bright argument that ,,I myself perform 90plus in certain games with my 2000 rating there,, is not relevant because has nothing to do with managing it against 3000 opponents. Try to have 1 single game 90 plus against GM. Pitty must explain such an obvious point

[@ewallt]

Online cheating has killed online poker. Maybe chess will go the same route where you’ll have to play people in person. They’ll require smoking too.

[@misterT-jg9ev]

another statistic, is rapid tournament games with camera control, this year, players below 2900 performed above 90 against Nakamura and Kramnik, exactly 17 out of 65 both

[@mikem668]

Why isn't professional chess similar to casinos? They kick out people they suspect of cheating, but also card-counters who aren't cheating. They are just playing the probabilities and winning. AFAIK those kicked out have no legal recourse.

[@dark_magician_sdy]

Can you make anotheer podcast with Kramnik on how he came up wirh the berlin and defeated the goat kasparov

[@steelsteez6118]

would love this

[@bolletaf]

berlin already existed he improved upon it

[@bluemoon8773]

Vladimir "strange statiztics" Kramnik, but joking aside, first as many I thought he is a bit paranoid and grudge about losing couple of games online and disappointed that he is losing his level of play a bit because of how much he enjoys playing chess and was once unbeatable but when I saw this podcast I gotta say I'm on his side

[@PticaLetit]

Estimated playing accuracy extremely depends on how sharp and complicated the game was, or if the opponent makes a big mistake. If the game was dry, even a player of pretty moderate level can achieve the precision way above 90%

[@Eigen0121]

i know this is a lengthy podcast, but kramnik did cover that

[@sekisc]

I really appreciate the inniative by Kramnik. I am not totally convinced by the research, but I think it is evident that something needs to be done

[@meoceo]

To me, kramnik is trying to say that the distribution of almost perfect games in title tuesday depends on whom the opponent is. One explanation could be that kramnik plays common openings, so opponents know how to best respond. But it could be very well be that people choose deliberately when to cheat and decide to do when attention is probably not the highest. His rudimental analysts makes sense to me

[@FloydMaxwell]

Summary: Cheaters are choosing who they cheat against

[@SavantGardeEX]

Summary hans beat alireza and danya in a 20+ blitz match the other day 😂😂😂 lmao.

[@blantant]

This probably happens to some extent, but probably not to the degree that is implied by Vlad. It could be Kramnik is overestimating his own strength in the game sample and plays in a style that inflates his opponents accuracy compared to Magnus, Hikaru and whoever else was in the conparison cohort.

[@tommackling]

Alternatively, Russian man is not impressed by decadent Western society 🤣 ( former U.S. Champion mentions doping charges against Russian tennis players, Kramnik dismisses comment by saying that engine use virtually guarantees wins in a way that doping doesn't, then Fabiano basically questions the legitimacy of drawing conclusions from the online accuracy rating, then the Russian says he has mathematician friends ... , and while Fabiano suggests most online cheaters probably make away with relatively little, Kramnik says punishments are not severe enough ... lol ) Cheers

[@jozews]

​@@tommackling Romanian tennis player

[@tommackling]

@@jozews Oh, thank you. I stand corrected.

[@JensThomasNepper]

when a person like Kramnik, puts his mind to something, we better listen to what he has to say .

[@wilfredo2869]

the solution is use make the player broadcast the desktop screen. To see what they doing on the computer. And eliminate the pre-move system. If you touch a piece with your mouse you have to moved like a real chess tournament,

[@antonioalexandercastro3520]

For online matches with cash rewards , perhaps participants will have to agree that their games will be scrutinized for a reasonable period of time after the tournament is over, before they can receive their winnings.

[@zenflare]

Ban the headphones with online chess in more serious tournaments. It would be easy to use Bluetooth headphones to cheat and get Stockfish computer moves. It doesn't matter who is wearing them. It should just be a blanket ban because wearing the headphones creates the appearance of cheating.

[@misterT-jg9ev]

titled Tuesday without control Nakamura 7 Kramnik 27 out of a hundred ten such games each. Interesting how this might be explained,please, let me know

[@nono-zc1hs]

what is 'control' referring to here?

[@misterT-jg9ev]

@@nono-zc1hs There are cameras live and screen monitoring during those rapid tournaments on the platform but none in TT

[@misterT-jg9ev]

@@nono-zc1hs and it leads to completely different statistics

[@nono-zc1hs]

@@misterT-jg9ev can you explain where you got these statistics? I'm intrigued. A completely different time format might account for the discrepancy though...

[@PeteyPablo1]

God bless Krammnik willing to speak out against the institution like a hero in a movie usually we only see this, he's Snowden he's Assange, and the world needs more of him,

[@JTST1234]

Cheating online is super easy imo. Even in bullet you can cheat. My friend casually made a chess bot that took moves from Stockfish and automatically played it. He ended up beating Grandmasters(unrated games) on lichess in BULLET formet b4 being banned. In my opinion it is very easy to cheat in online games, even if there are a 100 cameras.

[@Cecil_Augus]

Yes. Even in bullet. With a little knowledge of software design you can easily program a highly adaptive, super fast little software to help you cheat and, as a GM, you can use it only qhen necessary and, let's say, beat someone like Firouzja.

[@immanitodeplomo]

you cant win price money in the bullet consistent in this way if you can nobody would work in the oficce any more. you can this only in some casual game and this is pointless. but you cant work or play professional chess in this way. you need a lot of time in the clock to cheat

[@Five-Star-General]

@@Cecil_AugusHans slaughtered Firouzja a few days ago; absolutely massacred him 13-8 or something like that, dude is a fawking cheater. Wesley so only beat Firoujza by only .5, it was 16/15.5, and yet Hans is slaughtering him by 40% ? Cmon now

[@JTST1234]

@@Cecil_Augus yes exactly 💯

[@johncombo]

@@Cecil_AugusYup

[@elonif4125]

Fabi trying not to be the most reasonable person in the conversation challenge (Level: impossible).

[@andrewhughes7642]

I don't cheat and I wouldn't even know how to go about it, but my performance goes up and down for long streaks continually. According to what Kramnik is saying these streaks seem to be a clear sign of cheating. But this is not the case at all, rather it is a clear sign that there are times when I shouldn't be playing chess that I do so anyway.

[@dereknichols4376]

yes but kramnik point is=in ur very best day,can u beat Hikaru/Magnus? thats his point Sometimes some players struggle vs 2000,but suddenly they can beat Super GM even though they struggle vs lower rated opponent

[@felixjohnston3402]

As strange as it sounds, that makes perfect sense. Super GMs have thousands of games an opponent can study, while a more obscure Master might not. Sometimes it's not even that complicated, as in the case of Magnus getting his ego crushed by losing to Hans. Magnus didn't play so well by his standards, and he was defeated. People don't always play exactly as they're rated. @@dereknichols4376

[@polarman1747]

These are not scrubs though these are 2500-2600 level gms who can be on a roll. Look at a play of nijat at the world cup it certainly did not reflect his rating.

[@saulsavelis575]

good and needed discussion...the solution is to go on 10x10 board with 4 additional pieces that are Princes that move like a King and a Queen only just by 2 squares like a Knight

[@u.a.8525]

Finally somebody has the courage to speak. Let's be honest like in every sport people are cheating on chess. Cheating is a threat that can Absolutely kill chess

[@u.a.8525]

@@edgardoMurnia? I said cheating is sth that can kill chess. This isn't true?

[@williamburdon6993]

Peoples views of cheating have changed, now winning is all that matters , there are "winners" and there are "losers" if they find a way to cheat, they justify it by saying , well, you can do it too. They have no shame or morals and it means nothing to them. People cheat to feel better about themselves , and if there are rewards, you can be assured there are lots of cheaters in the mix.

[@adescobarm]

I am surprised Fabi didn't bring up the fact that Magnus, and specially Hikaru, very often play dubious (or worse) openings, which actually seems to be an excellent strategy to catch players out of book quite early in fast time controls, as Fabi can confirm from his latest SCC match. This explains the relatively "low" accuracy of Hikaru, since that guy can play crap and still beat 2700+ GMs. I am a relatively weak player, but if I play a solid theoretician such as Kramnik, I might know the line quite deep and get a very high accuracy, even if I would always end up in a slightly worse endgame and lose. While I think Kramnik is right about being harder to cheat against Carlsen and Hikaru, since their games are more rigorously controlled, this only accounts for part of the statistical evidence he is defending. Players playing theory in Blitz will always have and face higher accuracies, as oppose to players trying to cheese the opponent, which in Blitz is also a very strong strategy if you know how to do it.

[@SeanMcGibbon]

This was my thought as well... Opening lines must be taken into consideration, as the meta for Blitz at the highest level involves immediately taking your opponent out of prep. If Kramnik is playing classical lines, most titled players would have these memorized.

[@edddo4314]

Ok, Magnus can be 3rd and Hikaru 21st, but why, for instance, "you will never ever guess nr 2"? The problem isnt Magnus being low, the problem is some nonames being too good.

[@Electronite1978]

Indeed had similar thoughts. If you play a mainline opening, which is a strategical or positional grind you are much more likely to have a high accuracy percentage. Then again players like Hikaru, Magnus, etc. are able to mix up things, which radically lowers the accuracy of their opponents. The more tactical and offbeat the opening is the lower the accuracy.

[@1001011011010]

I would hope his analysis discounts opening theory

[@MohamedMahmoud-ey9tj]

Was nice to include cheese in there

[@Shinykip]

There are two problems. 1) Obviously players who do actually cheat are a problem and it needs to be dealt with in some meaningful way. 2) Making ZERO proof accusations against players because you lost. This also needs to be dealt with. Sour grapes are not a legitimate reason to ruin someone's reputation.

[@canavanibus]

I'm impressed Kramnik could go so long without needing to use the restroom.

[@maniniescobar244]

Lol

[@sdaiwepm]

I guess he didn't need Stockfish to help him present his data analysis.

[@noncomplacent]

He's probably wearing a catheter.

[@JA_BRE]

There is a great preventive measure for titled Tuesday or any other priced tournament and that is that switching between browser tabs is permitted and doing so auto-resolves the game in the opponent's favor. This is 100% doable and will drastically decrease and discourage potential cheaters.

[@Macceee]

What about cheating with an engine, using your smartphone in your hand? Webcam, one in front, and one that shows the room, desk and computer screen, is better, at least is a good start. Some online tournaments already have this measure.

[@JA_BRE]

It's very difficult to cheat in blitz titled Tuesday by using phone in your hand... Cameras for titled Tuesday is not realistic tbh @@Macceee

[@calowned]

Thank you so much for this. And thank you Kramnik!

[@cluckycluck3053]

And thank you for thanking.

[@VijayNarala]

​@@cluckycluck3053😂

[@aryaldo]

On the evidence point - the criminal standard when interpreting evidence (be it a judge or jury) is “beyond reasonable doubt” and the civil standard is “on the balance of probabilities”. The former is a much higher hurdle and is often translated for modern tribunals as “sure” - however, it is not, and never will be “completely certain” even with DNA evidence; see the Andrew Malkinson case recently. However, given we are talking about banning people from a chess website there is an argument that the civil standard would apply (BOP) which is translated often as simply 51% i.e. more likely than not; bear in mind civil cases worth millions of pounds turn on that same standard.

[@CarlosSamuel-ms9ee]

No way you can set the bar that low. Especially considering that doing well would presumably correlate with cheat detection, you'd have a situation where players were afraid to have an especially good tournament. One thing you could do, is implement scaled punishments for the certainty and severity of the cheat detection.

[@jamesknapp64]

@@CarlosSamuel-ms9ee Yeah the standard needs to be much higher than 51%. And 99% is still still low, with cheating, I think the standard should be on the order of 1/1,000,000 or 99.9999%. Anyone who is below 2600 an playing better than Magnus's average over 100+ games is clearly meeting that criteria.

[@Zenith9132]

Do you think it would ever be possible to get Magnus on this podcast? It would be pretty crazy

[@zl7460]

Why sore losers like Kramnik and Carlsen and Hikaru can accuse people with ZERO evidence and get away with it??

[@austinjones1008]

Something I think worth mentioning is Magnus and Hikaru are constantly praised for their ability to cause other players to make mistakes, so people playing at a 90% accuracy would be unusual against them, where a lower strength player in those formats is probably not inducing mistakes at close to the same frequency. I'm not defending cheating, but I don't think statistically one can say that a weaker online player can expect people's accuracy to be the same as against Magnus.

[@lukaswolek7294]

He actually convinced me, that even many titled players might be cheating.

[@TheGrandmasterMan]

There is a list circulating of GMs allegedly on their 2nd and 3rd accounts with a leading chess website

[@Crazeyfor67]

Knowing human nature, especially when money is involved I think Kramnik is closer to the truth on the cheating issue than most. Great show guys!

[@dessertstorm7476]

I don't know if his stats prove anything on an individual level, but it would be naive to think cheating is not rampant, given how every sport is dirty and cheating in sports is more difficult and less effective.

[@TheGrandmasterMan]

it's amazing how many times you can be totally beating someone online and they suddenly find a lot of strength. Not saying they switch the engine on but....

[@Five-Star-General]

Right!

[@1001011011010]

If they have all these resources still in then game then maybe you weren't beating them as much as you may have been thinking But maybe they are cheating, in which case hopefully their cheating gets caught soon

[@hairychris444]

This whole topic has taken a weird turn since the interview!

[@kwhd559]

Does GM Nijat Abasov appear in any of these statistics? His name was recently mentioned in a ChessDojo stream, alluding to a chesscom cheating history.

[@ChessJourneyman]

And he had a suspicious overperformance at the world cup. Relaxed and not focused but playing top moves in critical moments after conveniently leaving the table. Just a random 2600 playing like 2850+ at times.

[@Five-Star-General]

Agreed! Finally some people who can see! I have like 30 screenshots of him frequently going to the bathroom without touching his water, and leaving in critical positions. Im pretty sure someone in the audience (since security was trash) fed him the moves, plus his glasses were very suspect but that could be a reach.

[@kevinmarchand4196]

Serious derangement here

[@trevorochmonek9024]

​@Five-Star-General He cheated in the World Cup. Obviously, not every move that would be too suspicious even for his fanboys

[@LukeLongboneOfficial]

All professional bodybuilders use steroids and performance enhancing drugs. It’s generally not discussed openly. It’s not advertised to the public. But everyone within the industry knows. I hope chess does not end up like this.

[@dalibor8397]

Shame there's no subtitles for us who don't hear...i really wanted to see what they were talking...

[@magikarp653]

Auto generated captions are good enough though?

[@dalibor8397]

@@magikarp653 that's what I meant..there are no captions.I ve tried to exit YT and try again but I don't have option to turn it on..I have on most videos that I watch captions,that's how I watch YT normally..I have a iPod that helps me to watch videos without titles,but first i have to download the video from YT or any other site and then I put it on my iPod..

[@brettmartin5047]

I feel like games where resignation occurs or where a long easy endgame occur screws these accuracy metrics

[@misterT-jg9ev]

sure,for everyone though

[@hosiahjones]

Vladimir Kramnnik. Living legend!

[@tristan7720]

Bro this is literally my favorite podcast

[@solidpython4964]

I remember seeing some evidence that 2 games with the exact same moves won’t necessarily have the same accuracy score, which to me is beyond puzzling.

[@zelandakhniteblade5436]

You are probably confusing the accuracy score with engine correlation percentage here. The former is fixed for a given version of an engine; the latter will change according to how many people have analysed the game and with which engines and engine settings. The flawed analysis of Hans scoring more 100% games than anyone else came from the engine correlation and was a direct product of his games receiving so much attention.

[@bughunter1766]

The analysis is done by the computer you're looking at the game on. Two different computers of different speeds will compute the accuracy at different depths and will show different numbers. That not unusual.

[@solidpython4964]

@@zelandakhniteblade5436 i'm not 100% sure if this is true but i will look into it, thanks for letting me know.

[@solidpython4964]

@@bughunter1766 the depth part I understand already.

[@dniendkdksmd27839]

Chesscom accuracy also depends on level of players. A 1200 player playing at 1400 level may get 95 accuracy. A 2400 player playing at 1400 may get 20% accuracy

[@yosefcohen483]

Thank you, GM Kramnik. Thank you, C-Squared.

[@kwhd559]

I will never forget the infamous cheater, French GM Sébastien Feller, and how vehemently he denied what he was doing, going so far as to threaten defamation lawsuits and the like while knowing full well he was guilty as sin!

[@steelsteez6118]

except that in this case this is actually completely made up by Kramnik. He needs to get over himself. Look at Hans recent performances against Alireza and Danya and also how Alireza and Danya commentate the games and how natural the play is. There was mistakes on both sides lile crazy. But overall Hans barely beat both Danya and Alireza. That should prove how its extremely possible for Hans to spank Kramnik.

[@Blitnock]

@@steelsteez6118 Are you so lacking in contextual awareness that you can't see that this comment is about a French cheater, Feller? This comment is not about that other confessed cheater Hans Niemann. Why bring up confessed cheater Hans Niemann's name? Are you trying to shame him? More significantly, the whole conversation was mainly about cheating online. Confessed cheater Hans Niemann's name didn't even come up. Yes, I'm aware of the recent game and Kramnik's antics toward the confessed cheater Hans Niemann. But there is a much larger issue with online cheating and that was the topic, not Kramnik's recent (likely fair) loss to the confessed cheater Hans Niemann.

[@youtubecensoringcomments7427]

​@@Blitnockhans is also a proven strong player able to spank kramnik with assistance.. lol

[@siddhantkumar6340]

Kramnik says he will no take names but he mentions Tabatahaei’s name so many times

[@shubhamgoyal1547]

accuracy depends on how good you play but it also depends on how bad your opponent plays. If your opponent plays really bad your moves become easy and naturally high accuracy. I am

[@anoukadel6397]

Exactly

[@luciangv3252]

That is why it is used as a reference, if Viktorr plays worse against Krammnik but much better against Carlsen, it means something strange is happening. Could it be that Carlsen is a worse player than Kramnnik or that Viktorr is cheating?

[@youtubecensoringcomments7427]

​@@luciangv3252oraybe your logic is flawed and it depends on openings and styles

[@dartplayer170]

He has many good points, still you cannot accuse someone based solely on statistics. He is saying that it is impossible for someone with a 2500 rating to improve. Your ELO always lags your actual performance. So, if you make some new changes to your game that improves your play you will be accused of cheating? That is ridiculous. In1968, Fischer took 1.5 years off while he wrote My 60 Memorable Games. When he returned to serious chess in 1970 his performance rating went through the roof. He was not using chess engines. But if Kramnik was analyzing his games, he would say Fischer was cheating???

[@akashsinha2880]

I agree with Vlad's theory of accuracy. I get higher accuracy 90-95 when I play 1700s but it drops significantly when I play 2100 or above. Also 2600 guy crushing fabi at world cup was suspicious.

[@Five-Star-General]

Yessss!!!!!!!!!!!

[@wellutopia2237]

Kramik is right. They ought to be charged with a stealing crime. Harsh penalties.

[@wellutopia2237]

Imagine how bad cheating is at my level when these fkin losers have nothing to lose aside from an ip ban. They do it all the damn time.

[@wellutopia2237]

Kramnik is 1 million percent correct pn all this.

[@jeanpaulkassdale]

Great points by Kramnik, to be taken seriously !

[@RyanHarris77]

I would like to suggest to Kramnik to not wait 30 minutes into the conversion to bring up the disparity between videoed matches vs regular online play. That should be mentioned at the beginning because it adds validity to his observations.

[@peterdee2761]

Would be good to get Topalov on the show and get his cheating opinions from 2006.

[@petardiranirafali]

that only way you can save a chess game is do not play it online.

[@labor.law.]

One can listen to Kramink's mumbling for 1 hour only out of respect for his chess accomplishments. Everything he said can be said in exactly 3 minutes without missing even a tiny piece of information.

[@elvarg991]

Yes, he seems to have a habit of repeating himself a little 🥴🥶

[@teegees]

So when a GM past his prime is schooled by a rising GM, they throw a fit.

[@tom2314]

We need to make the cheaters public. Public shame seems like a major deterrent that isn’t currently being employed.

[@Five-Star-General]

Right! Can’t believe Hans and Franz is such an arrogant prick that he has zillions of apologist bots.

[@jurebergant4776]

worked very well in case of Hans...wait

[@chess_poemschess]

look at Hans' pinned tweet

[@jozews]

Still do not understand why they are afraid of dropping names, including Kramnik. After all, he is presumably presenting statistics that could be replicated and validated from public records. That would also give him more credibility because people could validate his statistics on a player's basis, as opposed to making calculations on hundreds of players until finding those outliers.

[@jorddy9209]

Hans was only made an example of due to him destroying Magnus fairly how ironic

[@some______guy]

I used to mock him like everyone else. I think he's right. Cheating is crazy in chess.

[@zeimarunescape]

Please expose Hans Nieman once a cheater always a cheater

[@toodle361]

The boys are back. Long time guys

[@guillaumecouture8729]

Could it be that the weaker you play, the easier it is for your opponent to play accurately and vice versa?

[@clementmukuka8317]

I think this is true for completely winning or almost completely winning positions where your opponent made a very serious blunder...most positions however even when evaluated as winning by the engine require very high level moves to capitalise on your opponents inaccuracy or mistake and usually hard for players rated say below 2000 or even 2200 to spot,but it does get easier the higher rated you are as it may only require 1 or 2 moves for you to see the idea.

[@MohamedMElbadwihi]

It's easier for your opponent to play a good move just because there are many more good moves. There's a big difference between just playing a good/winning move, and achieving such a high accuracy.

[@GooglyBear1969]

over such large samples of games? no. not a chance.

[@vicasmadi]

The first chess cheating accusation I remember was Kasparov claiming the IBM team was manipulating Deep Blue’s outputs.

[@MisterrLi]

Sure, cheating in online chess is obvious today. What will happen though when you try to limit it is that it will become more and more sophisticated. Some people cheats just because they can, it has become a culture. They will use advanced chess apps, programmed to cheat the system whatever that system currently is. But if nothing is done (against more people than the obvious cheaters like H.) there will be impossible to win online if you are a non-cheater very very soon.

[@fabiotrucco7969]

1:21:24 A cheater is a cheater, no need to cheat only on prized tournaments. Also, it is important for them to keep an inflated and rather stable rating to raise less alarms

[@AliMohammadi-sp1mw]

my close friend is 2700 online and he cheat constantly near 6 months and never get caught! he is 2200 real