I Totally Agreed, that cheating thing started just when I started reporting cheaters more often, trying to reveal the truth, then I was warned not to do that, while I do that too often, but The Truth is that that is what it is. I saw other Ppl confirming My theory of many cheaters too. And I respect also Krmanik rising this theme on High Level
@mkubecek said in #34:
> This is always a race betwen how sophisticated the detection techniques are and how sophisticated the cheater techniques are. ... Even "only" being able to peek quickly to check that the move I want to play isn't a blunder would be an immense help. I suspect most cheaters get caught because they become too greedy and try to use the assistance to "play" too high above their actual skill. (And then there are also those who are stupid and simply copy the engine's best moves.)
Making even a third less blunders would jump out like a sore thumb!
> This is always a race betwen how sophisticated the detection techniques are and how sophisticated the cheater techniques are. ... Even "only" being able to peek quickly to check that the move I want to play isn't a blunder would be an immense help. I suspect most cheaters get caught because they become too greedy and try to use the assistance to "play" too high above their actual skill. (And then there are also those who are stupid and simply copy the engine's best moves.)
Making even a third less blunders would jump out like a sore thumb!
@the_loving_boy said in #36:
> Learn you history and stop praising a modern-day Hitler, thank you very much.
Learn to read, I didn’t praise either, I said some of what they said is true.
> As it was said, they're both demagogues and thanks to Internet, they found an audience stupid enough to believe them.
Clever enough to listen, not stupid enough to believe.
>The ways in which Kramnik "tried" to get his point across is louder than the message he might have tried to send. Communication is important nowadays and any superstar know it - including Kramnik.
He has named people without providing evidence, same as chess.corn have. Not saying he’s good, I am saying that Kramnik pointing out chess.corn’s hypocrisy and biased reporting is not worth ignoring.
Don’t make up what you want me to have said so that you can argue with that, that’s what demagogues do!
> Learn you history and stop praising a modern-day Hitler, thank you very much.
Learn to read, I didn’t praise either, I said some of what they said is true.
> As it was said, they're both demagogues and thanks to Internet, they found an audience stupid enough to believe them.
Clever enough to listen, not stupid enough to believe.
>The ways in which Kramnik "tried" to get his point across is louder than the message he might have tried to send. Communication is important nowadays and any superstar know it - including Kramnik.
He has named people without providing evidence, same as chess.corn have. Not saying he’s good, I am saying that Kramnik pointing out chess.corn’s hypocrisy and biased reporting is not worth ignoring.
Don’t make up what you want me to have said so that you can argue with that, that’s what demagogues do!
<Comment deleted by user>
@Nomoreusernames said in #33:
> Making even a third less blunders would jump out like a sore thumb!
I hope not... I'm quite sure my rate of stupid blunders (like hanging a piece) improved by more than a third compared to, say, three months ago. But that's part thanks to more practice, part thanks to focusing on longer time controls instead of 30+0 (which I chose as a quick way to get established rating).
> Making even a third less blunders would jump out like a sore thumb!
I hope not... I'm quite sure my rate of stupid blunders (like hanging a piece) improved by more than a third compared to, say, three months ago. But that's part thanks to more practice, part thanks to focusing on longer time controls instead of 30+0 (which I chose as a quick way to get established rating).
@mkubecek said in #31:
>
Nobody said it's impossible. I doubt 97% of these 1300 and 1800 level cheaters are using software unless someone has made it readily available. There aren't millions of coders out there cheating in chess. If so that's sad.
The TTuesday cheaters playing for money yeah they probably find best assistance possible or use bots.
I suppose someone desperate enough to fake their way to 2000 could use bots also but they'd have to have random time usage added to the coding to look more normal. I know maybe 5 to 10 lines of extra code. TTuesday I get it money is involved.
The other million cheaters makes no sense to go that far. A 2200 rating never got anyone laid.
>
Nobody said it's impossible. I doubt 97% of these 1300 and 1800 level cheaters are using software unless someone has made it readily available. There aren't millions of coders out there cheating in chess. If so that's sad.
The TTuesday cheaters playing for money yeah they probably find best assistance possible or use bots.
I suppose someone desperate enough to fake their way to 2000 could use bots also but they'd have to have random time usage added to the coding to look more normal. I know maybe 5 to 10 lines of extra code. TTuesday I get it money is involved.
The other million cheaters makes no sense to go that far. A 2200 rating never got anyone laid.
@drSabrotna said in #37:
> There aren't millions of coders out there cheating in chess.
Neither are there millions of hackers able to find security vulnerabilities in common software. But there are lots of so-called script kiddies, people who cannot create an exploit themselves but get their hands on them and go and try them in the wild (and en mass). I'm not sure what their motivation is, it probably it makes them feel like big guys. It _is_ sad, no doubt, but it's how it works.
So no, I don't think there are millions of developers able to put together a software to assist online chess cheating. But there certainly are people capable of writing such systems. And once it exists, no special skills are needed to use it.
> The other million cheaters makes no sense to go that far. A 2200 rating never got anyone laid.
Neither makes sense (to me) to get a ready to use vulnerability exploit and use it on other people's system just for fun or to harm unknown victims. And yet, I know for sure that it's what happens all the time and all around the world.
That being said, I feel an obligation to point out that I do not take the claim that there are actually millions of online chess cheaters for granted. I assume it's likely that there are cheaters who don't get caught. But if those caught are 99% of the total number or 1%, I have absolutely no idea. (Neither have I an idea what is the percentage of false positives in the process - and probably noone really has.) But I'm pretty sure neither have all those people shouting in the forums how rotten everything is and how they know for sure how many cheaters there are because they can reliably identify a cheater from one game they lost.
> There aren't millions of coders out there cheating in chess.
Neither are there millions of hackers able to find security vulnerabilities in common software. But there are lots of so-called script kiddies, people who cannot create an exploit themselves but get their hands on them and go and try them in the wild (and en mass). I'm not sure what their motivation is, it probably it makes them feel like big guys. It _is_ sad, no doubt, but it's how it works.
So no, I don't think there are millions of developers able to put together a software to assist online chess cheating. But there certainly are people capable of writing such systems. And once it exists, no special skills are needed to use it.
> The other million cheaters makes no sense to go that far. A 2200 rating never got anyone laid.
Neither makes sense (to me) to get a ready to use vulnerability exploit and use it on other people's system just for fun or to harm unknown victims. And yet, I know for sure that it's what happens all the time and all around the world.
That being said, I feel an obligation to point out that I do not take the claim that there are actually millions of online chess cheaters for granted. I assume it's likely that there are cheaters who don't get caught. But if those caught are 99% of the total number or 1%, I have absolutely no idea. (Neither have I an idea what is the percentage of false positives in the process - and probably noone really has.) But I'm pretty sure neither have all those people shouting in the forums how rotten everything is and how they know for sure how many cheaters there are because they can reliably identify a cheater from one game they lost.
Fabiano Caruana: how do great chess players think?
https:// youtu.be/nE5XHrI2c9g
This interview is in English, but the voiceover is annoying, so please turn on the subtitles and English translation.
Since Russian grandmasters are all paranoid, I found one non-Russian. Although the podcast host is still Russian...
43:35 - about Kramnik's ban
https:// youtu.be/nE5XHrI2c9g
This interview is in English, but the voiceover is annoying, so please turn on the subtitles and English translation.
Since Russian grandmasters are all paranoid, I found one non-Russian. Although the podcast host is still Russian...
43:35 - about Kramnik's ban
We don't know, many people think he is wrong, and I myselves do, but he might be correct too. I mean, nobody really has looked into this topic and investigated for their own on whether he is posting correct analytics or not either. Maybe somone here is thinking of looking into it?
@AyaanshGaur12 said in #39:
> We don't know, many people think he is wrong, and I myselves do, but he might be correct too.
that is quite a stupid "might". As I said his accusations are random.
> I mean, nobody really has looked into this topic and investigated for their own on whether he is posting correct analytics or not either
somewhat wrong. Chesscom TRIED to take his accusations seriously, but of course nothing came from them due to basedlessness. Kramnik's "analytics" don't deserve to be called "analytics".
Imagine when chesscom published the report on Hans supposedly having cheated in over 100 games, people (especially Hans fanboys ofc) refused to believe them.
Now, when they reported that they have NOT found signs of cheating for Hikaru or whoever, some people don't want to believe them either!
> We don't know, many people think he is wrong, and I myselves do, but he might be correct too.
that is quite a stupid "might". As I said his accusations are random.
> I mean, nobody really has looked into this topic and investigated for their own on whether he is posting correct analytics or not either
somewhat wrong. Chesscom TRIED to take his accusations seriously, but of course nothing came from them due to basedlessness. Kramnik's "analytics" don't deserve to be called "analytics".
Imagine when chesscom published the report on Hans supposedly having cheated in over 100 games, people (especially Hans fanboys ofc) refused to believe them.
Now, when they reported that they have NOT found signs of cheating for Hikaru or whoever, some people don't want to believe them either!
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.