As a real math PHD from a top university, I am too busy to check something like this. Not sure how a professor has time go through all the data, stop lying to strengthen your claim, it is really pathetic And it is not painful to hear him abuse the term mathematics at all and when the premise of the analysis is wrong the conclusion you draw will be wrong , there is no reason to delve further once you realise the premise is wrong. This is elementary I wouldn't know whether Hikaru cheated or not nor do I care. But people like you are disgusting, lying through your teeth to defend your favourite streamer. While I am %99.999999 sure you have no idea about actual mathematics, it wouldn't even matter if you did because as I said the premise is wrong hence you cannot analyse anything based on that assumption. Who knows, maybe low-tier unis give academic titles to everyone who can take a simple integral

@@user-de8ku2uo1c it's not that complicated, here is a 5 line Python function that computes streak probabilities based on an absorbing Markov chain: def streak(N, K, p): A = p * np.eye(K+1, k=-1) A[0, :-1] = (1-p) A[-1, -1] = 1. P = matrix_power(A, N) return P[-1, 0] I can't post the experimemts here, but can you can do them yourself using probabilities from data scraped using the API. Or look up other, similar analyses, which are dismissed by Kramnik but are actually sound. Caruana also gives a good explanation of Hikaru's performance.

​@@user-de8ku2uo1c you are making assumpions and attacking me for no reason. For a start, I'm not invested in Hikaru and don't follow him. Secondly, you make assumptions about my credentials when you know nothing about them. Thirdly, it's not about making the most precise analysis but first determining whether there is anything suspicious about Hikaru farming players for the entertainment of his viewers (I'm not one of them btw). I'm purely interested in this because I grew up admiring Kramnik, I share his concerns, but he is damaging his cause and making a fool of himself Edit: the pathetic post I'm replying to was removed, but I will leave this reaponse

As a math professor, the increase of math professors in chess related comment sections is surprising.

​@@fundhund62some people might find this interesting

This.

It is important Jesse allows Kramnik to express himself in a way he wants even when fundamentally wrong. This is a sign of a great interviewer/podcaster. I couldn't force myself to watch it all, but many people could and they can make their own view about it, there are plenty rebuttals online. Top chess geniuses are generally not pleasant people, and being fundamentally wrong is a very unusual feeling for them. In a civilised legal system you have to point to a move and prove: "you cheated HERE. THIS is a computer move!" A company cannot make a legal case out of "Today you are winning too much according to your expected abilities" - all it can do is exclude such player from their space, and they are doing that already. Luckily we don't live in authoritarian regime where people are locked up on suspicions. Online cheating will be part of online chess for ever, on all levels. It's the combination of flawed human nature (evident wonderfully at both Kramnik and Nakamura), and engines being better than humans. Nobody owes it to people stuck in the offline past to ease their moral panic. Titled Tuesdays will continue to be a flawed imperfect competition, yet one that people love to watch and participate. English Premier League or NBA are at absolute top of sport entertainment, multi-billion dollar businesses - does anybody really thing they are fair? No, but they are a spectacle. Instead of virtuously demanding perfection from an online entertainment site, we must focus on improving FIDE rules and practices and anti-cheating measures. Maybe FIDE blitz/bullet ratings could be derived exclusively from on-site play in the same room, using a screen and mouse and arbiter present - just like slow play OTB rating (as playing no increment bullet on physical board is absolutely ridiculous). This is where Mr. Kramnik could actually contribute - he knows the people and has the influence - while he clearly has no clue about online chess entertainment business. We need to separate what is official chess sporting competition with a FIDE rating, and what is chess entertainment - which makes more money, just like Lil Wayne makes more money than university cello lecturer. Equating online rating farming with cheating in OTB tournament is a ridiculous position that benefits nothing.

Exactly the same with Hikaru's "Golly, I never said he cheated, I just kept saying 'this is sus' over and over for a month" rambles. Ans besides, without incredible assumptions and gaming the numbers towards Hikaru, a 45.5/46 is in fact very interesting according to statisticians.

You are feeling this way, because people you adore... streamers that like clicks... intentionally ridiculed his posts as preposterous. Have you actually read every blog post of his? Or watched his multiple 1 hour discussions? I'm guessing not because of what you just wrote. Kramnik NEVER named names. He never intended to accuse anyone of anything. His argument is as follows: (1) We know some people cheat that are titled players, especially when prizes are on the line. This is indisputable. Who was not a point he broached. In fact, he made it a point to present his argument without names, because he did not want to accuse anyone of cheating. (2) If any player has unusual performance, and he has said even if he were the one to do it, he thinks chessc should investigate it with vigor. That's it. That's his entire argument. He wants that, because it is reassuring if the largest chess website on the internet looks into players who outperform their ratings. [Side note: He made an error in what constitutes an unusual performance. He assumes that chessc rankings are perfectly accurate. Ratings are quite good predictors in official FIDE matches, because there is no horseplay. People prepare for each other, people do their routines to show up ready to play, and people play with the concrete goal of doing as well as they can. This is obviously not the case for 5-minute blitz matches on chessc. Despite this error in his judgment that some unnamed player had unusual statistics, the structure of his argument is sound. If any player has weird statistics, that is a good reason to investigate them. Are you claiming otherwise?] (3) OTHER PEOPLE dug into the claimed statistics, and they immaturely spread the word of which player had the statistics that Kramnik thought were unusual. By this point and with the context I have given you, you should understand that he truly never intended to accuse any player of anything. Otherwise, surprise surprise, he would have named the player right away. He continued his argument that there was a play with unusual statistics, meaning it would be good for chessc to validate nothing evil had happened. That's it. (4) Content creators kinda started looking into his blog posts around this point. People had it in their mind that he had accused someone by name of cheating. No. The entire time, he had named no one and merely used the statistics to justify a policy to protect the integrity of the game by investigating anyone who performs unusually. That's it, and that's why he keeps saying he accused no one of anything. Now, if you jumped into the blog posts at this point and heard what content creators were saying, it might sound like he kept accusing players while paradoxically saying he is accusing no one. With the context I've provided [points (1) and (2)], you should understand his perspective better now. He just wants assurance that chessc looks into unusual performance. Nothing more and nothing less. He has no aim to ruin a career, he has no aim for a ban to be issued, and he has nothing else in his sights. (5) A bunch of people started attacking him with their perception of the situation from point (4). He is a serious man, so he seriously couldn't understand what trolling is. And you know what? It is refreshing to see a person on this planet that doesn't look at trolling and think, "Man, this is routine internet behavior. It makes perfect sense a person would invest time into trying to upset a stranger for absolutely zero logical reason." This is where you heard him say things about how others had misrepresented his position, because they had... for clicks. This is also where you heard him say that perhaps bots were making those comments. The idea of wasting your time just to hurt a stranger was so foreign to him that that is the best explanation he could come up with. Kudos to him for not understanding weird internet culture. I kind of which I didn't myself. (6) The trolling got to him, so he wanted to make his point of unusual performance as clear as possible. Here, he did make a mistake -- he actually did start naming players. Since he made a real mistake, chessc muted his account. This is forgivable, because look at it from his view: He just wants solid anticheat measures in place to investigate unusual performances, and he was treated as if he were an insane person. When the entire world looks at you insane when you are sane, that itself can make you go a little insane. He went nuclear in response to the trolling and with the aim of helping chess. That's it. Nothing else happened. If a person believes that there are weird statistics that justify examination no matter the person (and he has repeatedly said to please analyze him if he scored unusual results -- this is not an accusation), this is just common sense. Please do that. There isn't any harm in it. In his ideal solution, he'd like a full report about any player that has a major performance atypical to their historical ability. This isn't going to happen for obvious reasons. However, I think every GM that enjoys chess on chessc wouldn't see this idea and think, "What is he talking about? Is this man insane? He would like reassurance that people playing extra well are not cheating. WHAT?" Your perspective is more like, "I don't even play chess that seriously, and I don't play in TT. Why is he accusing my streamer of cheating?!" Well, he isn't and never did. It's just an example of his of an exceptional performance. Yes, he misunderstands the accuracy of chessc rating are not as valid as FIDE ones. Yes, he might underestimate how good a prodigy kid can be at chess as kids weren't that good back in his era. Yes, people can be farmed. But no: He is not crazy, and his suggestion is understandable to the max. When he says "statistics" and "math," all he means is that people performing better than expected a bunch might indicate someone is cheating. That's it. Do you think it indicates they are not cheating? He is focusing on match results. That's all. If these kinds of measurements are done very carefully, it could be a valuable way to estimate how much cheating is going on. It's not a bad idea. Chessc instead uses other techniques to estimate if someone is cheating -- not performance but stuff like how many sound players report them, time between move, how many top engine moves are played, the subjective evaluation of a bunch of GMs as to whether a bunch of games have "engine" moves, etc. They are just two different ways of approaching the cheating problem, which exists to some extent no matter if you want to plug your ears. Here's an alternative ending that could have happened: No one said who had those statistics, people discuss how unusual performances can happen legit or illegit, people discussing the validity of chessc ratings, people agreeing that if someone is performing unusually then sure check them out because why not, chessc respecting this perspective as it's perfectly reasonable, etc. Instead, content creators wanted content, so they pretended a world champion has just lost his marbles.

he did, he consider the win streaks and lazavik's accuracy "statistics" which just to show how incompetent and little he knows about statistics

Statistically, after using Elo to understand the win%, a 45.5/46 is very unlikely even after 10,000 games. I wish Kramnik had shown what he started with because the stats works is relatively simple after setting parameters. The issue would be an understanding and agreement on win/loss/draw percentages based on the games played for the winning stretch. If we use known values, then we understand where Kramnik is coming from. There are always a lot of assumptions that follow like "Hikaru's blitz rating is undervalued" plus "his opponents Elos were overvalued" and some "we don't trust Elo stats" even though the stats are baked into Elo.

@@markwu5252 Where can you find that? I want to read it.

It is entertaining. It would be more entertaining if he varied a little ... each rant is basically a carbon copy. He hasn't added any substance since the 2-hour C-squared interview.

Who the f..c u r to judge world champion ??

I cannot listen anymore to Kramnik‘s repeating monologues anymore, since in the end he is only a extraordinary chess player. I hope he stops before ending like Fischer.

Yeah it's really sad to see him go down this path. He's fighting a losing battle. :(

KRAMNIK WILL SET US FREE, THE REAL STRONG CHESS PLAYERS AND NOT THE CHEAT HIKARU

The internet was charitable, they listened to his dumbass takes over and over. That's more than the majority of people could ask the internet.

juggernaut or not i dont care, questions are questions, if you have a good basis and logic to ask them , you shouldnt be afraid, the underlying subject is not calculaiton, or a line or a variation, are just basic logical, and statistical subjects, where Kramnik has no advantage over them, maybe even they have more education than him on certain subjects.. i think it was a really poor interview.

he then moves the goal posts and claims it was not about the streaks

He has a mathematics presentation ready, but they won't let him!!

The stunning thing is that if you look at that streak, Hikaru wins at times by flagging, or even by his opponent resigning from a much better (possibly winning) position. Like, what kind of cheating could he hypothetically be doing? Is it a bionic hand to improve mouse speed to flag better? Mind-rays to ruin his opponents' evaluations? If he's cheating, it's obviously not in such a way that he is objectively winning every game in terms of chess evaluation. Even if the math showed this streak to be very unlikely, I'd be very interested in hearing ideas about how Hikaru could even theoretically be cheating in that video. People are trashing Kramnik's understanding of stats and I'm sure it's bad (and he should obviously show his work if he thinks it's that damning), but seriously, statistics are almost irrelevant in evaluating that streak for cheating.

@@neutralrobot Very good point, and I hope one of the podcasters brings it up in the inevitable next interview(s).

@@neutralrobot simply having an eval bar would work. He would still have to rely on his instincts, resourcefulness and flaggimg skills, but here and there it could give him an indication that there is a tactic to look out for. Statistically it would make a difference. That being said, I see no reason to suspect that he is cheating, there is nothing unusual (or 'intteresting') about his streaks.

He’ll just call you a fake pHD and then say that some unnamed top researcher told him that you were dumb and had the wrong numbers

Ok Mr. Data Scientist, whatever you say. I happen to have TONS of evidence that Hikaru is cheating, compiled by the world's best mathematicians. However, I will not be sharing the evidence until the time is right, nor will I be sharing the names or credentials of these mathematicians. PS - this in no way means that I am accusing Hikaru of cheating.

Oh yeah. Well I have binders full of Polish mathematicians who disagree with you.

I'm pretty sure Kramnik hasn't directly accused anyone.

@irgendwerjoker Are you a Bayesian or a frequentist?

I don't think anybody disagrees with Kramnik on general terms. The shitstorm is because he specifically accused Hikaru and has nothing.

It's the only matter that's relevant and the reason he's being mocked at all.

Zzzzzzzzzzz

make sure in replies to refer to the chess site simply as "chess site" as other form is auto deleted because utube thinks u are advertising a website if u say its full name

Caruana explains the issues with the rating system nicely in his podcast. He mentions that the "true" difference between Hikaru and Alireza is not 300 points, and that he himself could easily work his ratimg up to 3200 or more by selectively "farming" lower rated players (to test it he went on a run of 11 wins against one but then stopped, but said it was getting easier with every game)

Kramnik is trying to do near impossible but he is dead right! I can point out 9/10 cheaters u2200 level that have not been banned for months and I have played against these guys and to discover what they did was dead simple. Why are they still allowed to play months later? At near top level to prove that someone is cheating must be extremely difficult to do because around 2200 you will see people in simpler position to deviate from top 5 engine moves perhaps only max 7 times out of 40 moves. And that is a very low number if you ask me. So to catch someone at the very top, who will on most occassion be within top 5 most of the time? Tough. To cheat in online chess on the other hand is extremely simple and to get undetected comes with it. If someone like me decided to cheat, you wouldnt even know it has happened. And I am far from GM level.

Trumpy... Ok blue hair simmer down lmao

This

@@rawbmar1166 OP is right. Don't get triggered, snowflake.

He's missing orange hair tho

more interesting than I thought it would be, this topic is getting very old but not going away any time soon unfortunately

They didn't even ignore it. They told him that his demands have no merit because they are based on a poor understanding of statistics. They don't owe Vladimir anything and he isn't the authority who gets to decide who should be investigated. He needs to let it go and save face

@@Ruedigerkackgans12 and their "report" is clearly wrong, understandable for anyone who knows math even a bit. But Hikaru fans dont, so good enough for them, I see

@@vlenkrus1809 I am not a 'Hikaru fan', and among those criticizing Vladimir are numerous actual mathematicians, so that's that

are you trolling?? I am so sick of people like you saying it's wrong without showing. Two named Math professors shared their views on this and Kramnik deleted one of their comments. If you and him want to be taken seriously refute the points brought up with actual math and stop this madness@@vlenkrus1809

CHESS IN PHILIPPINES IS THE WORST. ASK WESLEY SO

Bro you can't just go making random statements that defame people's character and reputation without definite proof that's FUCKING ILLEGAL and for good reason. You can't just go and fuck up people's ability to pay bills because you're old and want attention...

@@tannerhachey1525 What are you even talking about? He made a case and provided his reasoning. He may be wrong regarding Hikaru (again: nobody knows!), but cheating is a major problem in modern chess, and he is actually putting his reputation on the line to fight it.

Agreed!

What is the case he is making? I've heard him make it four times now - several hours wasted - and I still have no idea what "the case" is. Or what standing he has to make it - as someone no longer directly involved in the chess world.

​@@sdaiwepmthat cheating detection often fails and nobody should be beyond scrutiny. He even denied having called Nakamura a cheater but tries to show how statistical methods may not be considered by websites. Now Nakamura was the worst example and target for many reasons but that's another story.

It was a very interesting convo!

@@ChessDojo Very diplomatic response!

Not being diplomatic, he clarified a lot of things and a lot of his points make sense. And he is right in the bigger point that cheating is a very large issue. A lot of people have made up their minds already which is unfortunate though. -Kostya

@@ChessDojo the problem is that he mixes a lot of nonsense into an otherwise valid case that deserves attention. His "interesting" post was a borderline accusation based on what he subjective perceived as a statistical anomaly. Then refusing to engage with any explanation (whether statistical or based on the rating system, see the c2 podcast on the latter), moving the goalposts ("it's not about streaks") and constantly refering to mathematics and logic without presenting any, does not help his case. I appreciate that you tried to give him a chance to clarify this though.

Yes, cheating in chess is a problem. Kramnik is not and never will be mathematically as well as scientifically correct. He sees white mice everywhere, and then shuffles the numbers until it fits. Leave him alone… each stage you give him just makes it worse. Give a stage only to real experts in this regard.

Surely?

interesting

Kramnik answer "Yes deleting comments of presumably bots who left already hundreds of comments under my posts with always the same intention, to compromise my words. Since no one in his mind would spend hours writing all those things knowing it will be deleted, and they keep on doing it again and again, obviously there are bots or paid commentators nowadays you can find on the internet such people,50 usd per hour, and they keep writing anything you want. So will continue deleting those plus insults disrespectful comments disinformation conclusions based on wrong data Everything else stays"

I see my reply to you was also removed.

It can be difficult to detect cheating in a single game, but cheat detection methods work across multiple games and also detect when players are deliberately playing badly. Search for interviews with Ken Regan on YT if you want to understand how things really work.

Maybe, and it pains me to say this, Topalov was right.

The cheating is stunning at every level he has to roar

No one on this channel deletes or flags comments. That is done by YT's auto-filter

USS warship vs a lighthouse operator joke is hiding somewhere in here ;-)@@ChessDojo

Nonsensical points there. Hans is a proven cheater.the ethics committee said so already!

​@@Ran_Ttwhat about Supi,Erigasi and many others Hikaru directly accused of cheating in past? And they were found innocent by the platform

While that is true of Hans, I think at this point, everything that can be said about him and cheating has been said (often multiple times, by many people). Unless a new incident arises involving him, I'm not sure there's anything further that Kramnik or anyone else could add to the conversation.

@chesscomsupport8689 has everything been said though? I didn't hear a peep when Danny reiterated recently that the Chesscom Fairplay team 100% stands behind the findings in their "Hans Report." *If* that report is true, then Hans bold-face lied to the entire chess community at Sinquefield when he claimed he ~'never has and never would' cheat in monied tournaments. Several of the games in the Chesscom report were, in fact, monied tournaments. Has anyone reckoned with this point, that either Chesscom's Fairplay team is wrong about the report *OR* Hans basically lied to everyone in the chess world with a straight face about the severity of his cheating? I don't think this shoe has dropped and it should.

@@AnHonestDoubter Fair point - I suppose the lawsuit, coupled with people's fading interest in the story, got things to eventually peter out. For what it's worth, I think Hans probably cheated in more online games than he admits, but I've yet to see what I would consider satisfactory proof that he has cheated in OTB games. I'm as certain as I can be, without being able to read his mind, that he did not cheat in the Sinquefield game against Magnus, or in any of the subsequent games where Hikaru took issue with his post-game analysis.

"even the slightest implication of cheating can damage your reputation" I definitely agree about this and Hikaru's hypocrisy with his yellow journalism in covering the cheating allegations toward Hans.

@@synchronium24 yes

Probability is a pure mathematical term, learn math, men. And first would be interesting to see some proper math from the platform instead of this nonsense they published. If some doesnt have the basic knowledge of staristics, probabilities, it doesnt make this "report" less laughable

@@vlenkrus1809 Kramnik is the accuser, burden of evidence is on him. He promised his facts. Let him bring them.

Yes, typical Russian "strong leader" thinking, that leads to oppression.

Kramnik is right about this in principle. The problem is his method would return false positives for cheating far more than 2% of the time. Even with an incredibly demanding "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" standard for criminal cases, the frequency of innocent people in jail exceeds 2%.

You didnt hear the answer? Just listening to questions here?

@@vlenkrus1809 I literally mentioned his answer in my comment and addressed it. Get me some of what you're smoking.

Because there is no reason why non cheater cant win in such conditions from time to time

maybe time to go to school instead talking nonsense?

It might be KZfaq. I get comments deleted on multiple channels. It seems to have pegged me as a potential spammer or something, and my trouble started on this channel.

Unfortunately two of us had no Internet for the entire interview, so we weren't able to have a more dynamic conversation

​@@ChessDojo one thing you can do, is bring another opinionated Russian supergm.. . bring in Grischuk, because everyone on the Kraminik bandwagon keep referencing "Grishuk interview on cheating" which is in russian.. so no one can actually see it.. but Grishuk himself in those russian interviews has super recently talked about Hikaru chess strength.. and compared it to other super gms.. when levitov asked him if a Clutched Caruana will simply dominate The Candidates, because when he is clutched he is close to Magnus level.. GRischuk immediately shut that down and Specifically said " i dont have that impression.. on the contrary, if there are two TOP GMs that ive always felt totally on par with me, are Caruana and Kramnik.. on the other hand Nepo or Nakamura, are extremely difficult to play" .. meaning he feels Nakamura is way better than Fabiano and Kramnik himself.. and GRishuk is multiple times Blitz champ, so then this goes totally against the claims of kramnik.. who often cites his own underperformance or Fabis as proof of others cheating.. Let me very specific about what i mean.. One of the less obvious, and sneaky pushers of Kramnik Theoriues , has been actually Fabiano Caruana in his podcast with Chirila.. he has never really pushback against Kramnik contradictions.. why? because he is Slow in Blitz, and Specially slow in Online Blitz.. people have put him on this pedestal because of his monster level calculation, and vast opening knowledge.. but all these qualities lose ALL PURPOSE in Titled Tuesday.. and He himself has admitted he has been also losing his calculation strength even in classical.. so of course he performs badly in TT.. he cant cope with it.. similarly Ian performs badly online, he is a great Blitz OTB player, but online he just doesnt have it.. so these two guys are the main promotors of KRamnik bs.. because they are essentially salty, that they cannot perform usually at the same level than other great online players..

Moral values>IQ

if he is so smart, he's hiding it very well

It seems to me reading your ugly comment that it is you who is the "disrespectable jerk" if I may 😊