10 minutes of Kramnik reporting and blocking masters in Titled Tuesday
www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9qXo7R6FAs
one of the best players of all time.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9qXo7R6FAs
one of the best players of all time.
His thinking is skewed.
"I would never think of this move" to him means the opponent is cheating.
Rather he should be thinking "I would never think of this move, perhaps that is why people are now better than me?"
"I would never think of this move" to him means the opponent is cheating.
Rather he should be thinking "I would never think of this move, perhaps that is why people are now better than me?"
@williamxp said in #1:
> one of the best players of all time.
And also one of the crankiest.
Fischer should be a good enough example to make clear that former merits don't make a good character.
> one of the best players of all time.
And also one of the crankiest.
Fischer should be a good enough example to make clear that former merits don't make a good character.
He pretty much summarizes it into the motto of nowadays rated online play: "I block, and report".
Not sure how talking almost a year about 97%+ irresolvable issue helps to correct the situation, though.
It's just the framework of the game, which is what it is. To eliminate online cheating in the current form, the last move of the opposite side has always to be revealed one move later. But, that'd be another, chess-based game (in which engines are still likely to retain certain use).
Not sure how talking almost a year about 97%+ irresolvable issue helps to correct the situation, though.
It's just the framework of the game, which is what it is. To eliminate online cheating in the current form, the last move of the opposite side has always to be revealed one move later. But, that'd be another, chess-based game (in which engines are still likely to retain certain use).
Just letting his clock run down for over a minute in #3 is also pretty sportsmanlike; wonder if he got a warning?
But I think now that he must be behaving properly or something; Just see his account at www.chess.com/member/vladimirkramnik and see the number of matches he played against Wesley So and Anish Giri. He even lost some, but didn't block and report them this time. But why should all of u shower false accusations on him? Why should u care if he reports another player or not? If chess.com thinks a particular player IS cheating, they can take action against that player, and if there's no evidence that that player was cheating, then Kramnik's report should be considered as a sort of "superiority complex", i.e. not tolerating players better than him.
Kramnik is loudly poisoning the well for no reason. And you know that.
@Cedur216 said in #7:
> Kramnik is loudly poisoning the well for no reason. And you know that.
Or maybe the well is poisoned and he's trying to clean it ,opinions vary .
> Kramnik is loudly poisoning the well for no reason. And you know that.
Or maybe the well is poisoned and he's trying to clean it ,opinions vary .
@SimonBirch said in #8:
> Or maybe the well is poisoned and he's trying to clean it ,opinions vary .
Good point....
> Or maybe the well is poisoned and he's trying to clean it ,opinions vary .
Good point....
@SwApNeEl1 The problem is not the fact that GM Kramnik is persistently reporting a lot of players. The site can indeed simply ignore the reports when they have no merit, as you imply. The problem is that Kramnik is doing this openly on a public platform, with the names of the players he thinks are cheating viewable by everyone. This, especially coupled with the fact that as an ex-World Champion what he says has some considerable force in the chess world, is a big problem.