So, dialogue is the solution, and you think Kramnik appears open to dialogue, huh?
And chess.com are also open to dialogue? [regarding banning that 1. a4 ... 2. Ra2 ... guy?]
@RockDog99 said in #7:
> ChatGPT did a good job with this one.
Honestly, this is what I came to comment about.
The prevalence of Russian chess players does not mean that they cheat more often than others. The same can be said about Indians. Their growth in the number of chess players amazes me.
Ну и чушь, даже как-то тезисно разбирать это не хочу. Ладно, взять хотя бы то что Крамник не вещает на русскую аудиторию почти что полностью, разве что на каком-нибудь "ЛевитовЧесс" всплывет, посмотрите его Ютуб канал, его Твиттер, там английский язык, лол.
I was disappointed by the article. Whilst it repeatedly mentions differences in statistical approaches, and then cultural approaches, it gave no concrete examples of either. What is the difference in stats? give me an example of the sort of thing you mean.
Re Captcha. Keep thinking that missing the mate proves I am human.
This article is semantically void as if it was written by ChatGPT. You first say that there's a lot of Russian chess players, so they'll more likely be involved. Then you proceed to draw the conclusion that it's ultimately caused by cultural differences. By far the largest cheating allegation of recent years that arised around Hans Niemann (American) was started by Magnus Carlsen (Norwegian) and further fueled by Hikaru Nakamaru (Japanese American) and dozens of random youtubers from all around the world.
Don't forget to mention "working towards a more inclusive and understanding environment" and there you have it, your verbal diarrhea that conveys absolutely no meaningful message is finished.
@RockDog99 said in #7:
> ChatGPT did a good job with this one.
No. ChatGPT would have been more specific and detailed in how these cultural factors affect cheating.
This article is a waste of time as is.
@Cynac said in #46:
> I was disappointed by the article. Whilst it repeatedly mentions differences in statistical approaches, and then cultural approaches, it gave no concrete examples of either. What is the difference in stats? give me an example of the sort of thing you mean.
Well, the article does say that, "Chess holds a special place in Russian culture, often seen as a symbol of national pride and intellectual dominance." I guess that means if you aren't Russian, you shouldn't be a good chess player.
I don't find Kramnik convincing or appropriate in his accusations (It's a sad turn of events really as he has been an outstanding player and is still great), but I also don't think that the mistakes in his approach are particularly 'Russian'.
There are many non-Russian players as well who accuse others of cheating based on thin evidence and I don't think there is any fundamental difference in Russian probability to non-Russian probability as it's the same basic reality and math.
We're human beings, we don't like to lose and if we can find an explanation other than simply having been worse we often gladly take it.
I was disappointed in the article as well. It was a hollow observation with no point. How does that get written and posted on LiChess? Meaningless content.