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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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. 🙂

Are chess players becoming younger? : kzfaq.info/get/bejne/o9SHd7t13p3VqJc.html

C-Squared always on point with the drama!

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

Tuning back after a while, this episode caught my eye. You have a unique format, different from the lesson videos I also watch. Really great guest, I've seen him before but never heard him speak. Great Episode!

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

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.

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

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

Is Vlad trying to accuse someone like Hans again? kzfaq.info/get/bejne/fr-XiNNqpq3TZZ8.html a comment said' "So funny to hear Kramnik say „I just made this move to confuse him…“ and then using all the „why is he playing this?“-moves as indicators for cheating… maybe he didn`t only use the match but also the side challenge ^^

The first few minutes fabi is like : 🙂

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.

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

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.

Will Kramnik coach Hans though?

Kramnik makes a very rational and convincing case on online cheating

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Great episode, was hoping to get Fabi's thoughts on the world cup and qualifying for candidates though!

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Summary: Cheaters are choosing who they cheat against

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

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

This is so exciting! my favorite podcast fr

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

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.

he's absolutely right, you can't allow headset usage.

Great conversation! Thoroughly enjoyed it.

It's easy to cheat if your opponent is close in rating. Because you only use help 1 or 2 times and ai wont get you.

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.

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

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

Please figure out how to raise the volume on this podcast, boost gain. Always too quiet for smart phone while driving

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.

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

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

Christian, please can you tell us what brand that shirt is and where to get it! 🙏

Excellent content and great efforts done there guys

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.

Thank you guys, this is a gold mine😍

Excellent Show! CSQ podcast 🎉

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

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.

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

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,

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

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.

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

I was worried the channel had stopped. 🙏

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

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.

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.

Very interesting podcast. Thank you for this.

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.

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%

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.

If someone is using an engine in a tournament it’s likely they are watching the evaluation bar and they only use the engine when they fall behind or in a critical situation when you need a critical move

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

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

The boys are back. Long time guys

Good discussion on the judge jury analog.

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.

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.

Bro this is literally my favorite podcast

Suggesting like Caruana does that Lichess does not have anticheating measures is blatantly absurd

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

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

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.

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!

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....

I'm pretty new to chess, so it's great to learn more about this old(er) champion.

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

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.

Great points by Kramnik, to be taken seriously !

The explanation: you are a worse player, therefore your opponents will play more accurately against you.

You can have a game changing blunder and still have a high accuracy if most of your moves before and after the blunder are correct.

no video for a month, and then you get Kramnik. Wow!

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

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.

the problem is certainly in otb there is no doubt it’s a logical necessity you don’t need to even look at any games.

36:55 "I don't want to damage anyone" said by the same person that restarted the rant against Niemann a few days earlier...

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

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

I’ve played many many games where I was smashing my opponent, then they pause for a long time. Most of the time they back out of the game and the auto resign pops up. Then they return to the game, and proceed to play, and its very accurate moves the rest of the way. I cant prove it, but sometimes it just feels off. One minute they cant play a single good move, then they proceed to play outstanding the rest of the way. It’s fishy to say the least.

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