<Comment deleted by user>
@jamesagadir I am NOT talking about when chesscom don't ban ppl.
I am talking about this case, that caused considerable stir, where they banned GM Brandon Jacobson, and refused to discuss it. Their arrogance, is what I am talking about.
https://youtu.be/bA19Rmapj7M
> Note: this was replying to the above, now deleted, post
@MillenniumBug I know, which is why I deleted my post 10 minutes before your reply. It's just that your description was so vague it took me some time to realize who you were talking about.
With all due respect I assumed it was relevant to the subject of the article The comment is kind of unrelated whataboutism, like yeah chess.com isn't great with how silent they are (probably to avoid giving a reason to be accused of defamation) but that doesn't really have any impact on the Kramnik situation
@jamesagadir OK Cool.
Both my examples were, disputing the OP's "dialogue is the solution". My Kramnik example was much better. I can agree that I could have kept it at that one example.
An interesting essay, but it wasn't quite clear to me whether it was about online chess or face to face chess. The references to the cold war or the soviet union seem out of date. However, I assume you were aware that you were speaking to 70% cavemen who would not appreciate such a sophisticated, history-based and witty approach.
@MillenniumBug said in #52:
> I am talking about this case, that caused considerable stir, where they banned GM Brandon Jacobson, and refused to discuss it. Their arrogance, is what I am talking about.
I suppose what I find distasteful about online controversy (and the internet is an echo chamber) is that commentators always seem to pick the worst options among:
a) Say nothing
b) Have a serious discussion with well-supported ideas
c) Have a tepid discussion with abstract theoretical concepts and no accusations or bias
d) Misdirect by saying "we spend so much money and we coerced so many confessions and consultants can't disprove our methods and we are prepared to spend money in court" etc. (although admittedly it's difficult to prove you are competent)
e) Make wild accusations and insinuations then pretend you aren't part of the problem
> I am talking about this case, that caused considerable stir, where they banned GM Brandon Jacobson, and refused to discuss it. Their arrogance, is what I am talking about.
why should they even discuss it? Most people won't understand the reasons anyway, especially those who like him ...
This is definitely interesting. I think that a lot can be learned from discussing and collaborating regarding statistical analysis. I do think however that often those accusing refuse to acknowledge not only clear statistical analysis but also other attempts to prove ones innocence.
I think of Hikaru for example. He had multiple people coming forward as mathmaticians and statistics professors explaining their full proofing systems and Kramnik flat out refused to acknowledge the data and said no part of it can be correct because there was no identity of the persons behind the data.
Naroditsky is another unfortunate example. As he explains his whole setup, even streams with four cameras at one point the whole goal posts are shifted so that Naroditsky can never really prove anything.
While I do think theres a lot of common ground I think both sides need to be reasonable and allow for good communication.
such a bad article
I think people are overreacting to Kramnik's procedure. As far as I know, all he does is that when he is suspicious of a player's performance, he sends in a report so that the platform's cheat detection system can analyze the player. That's a good thing.