Kramnick's Current Study Of Cheating In On-Line Chess

@AlexiHarvey said in #26:
> a number of interesting points there are aspects that make the analysis weak
Fair enough
The Dorian Quelle report includes some choices in the method and assumptions that can be objectively questioned.

What about the Kramnik report? Are there any objective assessments of its method and assumptions? How does this approach relate to current literature / best practice?

It is well beyond my personal skill set to objectively assess the statistical methods/ assumptions used in these reports. I have to rely on others.
Thanks for your analysis.

The smell of "egg-on-face" has not yet eluded the ambiance of the claims. I think it's best to wait until we see Kramnik's analysis, but until then we can't treat this as anything more than speculation. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (or at least some actual evidence). What we are hearing is the opinion of those who would be the most affected if there was such high prevalence of cheating. These opinions are compelling, but proscribing due to a trendy, star-studded narrative, too frequently leads to misunderstanding, ignorance and even outright deception.

@SaltWaterRabbit said in #31:
> Fair enough
> The Dorian Quelle report includes some choices in the method and assumptions that can be objectively questioned.
>
> What about the Kramnik report? Are there any objective assessments of its method and assumptions? How does this approach relate to current literature / best practice?
>
> It is well beyond my personal skill set to objectively assess the statistical methods/ assumptions used in these reports. I have to rely on others.
> Thanks for your analysis.

Whatever ...

@Nomoreusernames said in #32:
> The smell of "egg-on-face" has not yet eluded the ambiance of the claims. I think it's best to wait until we see Kramnik's analysis, but until then we can't treat this as anything more than speculation. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (or at least some actual evidence). What we are hearing is the opinion of those who would be the most affected if there was such high prevalence of cheating. These opinions are compelling, but proscribing due to a trendy, star-studded narrative, too frequently leads to misunderstanding, ignorance and even outright deception.

It is somewhat disingenuous to refer to the unanimous opinion of all the experts I've cited in this thread as 'speculation'. And it also seems most of the people posting in this thread are either deliberately trolling, or beginners without much knowledge.

@boilingFrog said in #34:
> It is somewhat disingenuous to refer to the unanimous opinion of all the experts I've cited in this thread as 'speculation'. It seems to me most of the people posting in this thread are either deliberately trolling, or beginners without much knowledge.
You haven't quoted a single expert, you have quoted a line-up of celebrities. They have each acquiesced to the knowledge of qualified analysts. They are the clique, not the unanimous experts.

Now back into your frying pan!

@Nomoreusernames said in #35:
> You haven't quoted a single expert, you have quoted a line-up of celebrities. They have each acquiesced to the knowledge of qualified analysts. They are the clique, not the unanimous experts.
>
> Now back into your frying pan!

OK, so the first troll has confessed ... and thanks for the comment ...

@boilingFrog said in #36:
> OK, so the first troll has confessed ... and thanks for the comment ...
An internet troll, or online bully, deliberately tries to offend, cause trouble or directly attack people by posting derogatory comments. Who have I bullied or what derogatory comments have I made? Is it because I joked about your user name, when you thought I was being disingenuous?
I have pointed out that Kramink's analysis has not been published, and that all of the sources of this agenda are celebrities and have proclaimed their own knowledge on the subject inferior to qualified experts (whose widely proclaimed opinions are almost unanimously counter to this narrative).

You are clearly mistaken!

ya so they cheated, you play online instead of OTB, you win stupid prizes, everybody fires up stockfish for a former WC

@boilingFrog said in #38:
> Dear @Nomoreusernames , 'OK, now your an asshole' ~ Mike Lindell
I had thought you quite humorous, but I'm beginning to suspect you actually believe the things which I previously thought you had said in jest.

@Nomoreusernames said in #40:
> I had thought you quite humorous, but I'm beginning to suspect you actually believe the things which I previously thought you had said in jest.

Go hijack somebody else's thread ...