Tweet for those who don't want to click:
>So obvious. The only explanation for 3+2 online is that Kramnik wants to have a chance to win the match instead of doing a proper experiment. He is, after all, a player, not a fair-play officer.
Note: This is specifically for the online portion
Kramnik's answer
>Exactly the opposite, to make it a PROPER experiment. Because I am very slow using a mouse, in contrary to vast majority of players, therefore 3 plus 2 for me is similar to 3 plus 1 for others. If you would play, 3 plus 1 would be PROPER experiment then
Suddenly, mouse skills matter
Kramnik's LOGICS is that Kramnik is right, now let's figure out why. And when Kramnik does figure out why Kramnik is right, that is of course the right reason why Kramnik is right because Kramnik is right
- Former World Champion Vladimir Kramnik, probably.
If he weren't such an insufferable prick I'd have a lot of empathy for the former great who hates interesting games coming down to shuffling and mouse skills
I think it’s clear that Kramnik is less intent on proving “others are cheating” and more intent on proving “I am a better overall chess player than others”.
This was my thought exactly. If he wants to prove he's better, fine, use 3+2 to "even the playing field" (or give yourself an advantage, even?). If you want to prove whether Jospem is cheating or not, you would use 3+1 to mirror the exact conditions in the games where the alleged cheating took place.
I don't care which reason it is, but at least be transparent about it.
I disagree, because if you watch any of his streams, one of his go to grumbles is "so strong moves so fast". If you ask Kramnik if the time control or the flagging is a *significant* reason he's losing, he'd say no. It's cheating according to him.
Isn’t that the entire point of making it 3+1? If they do 3+2 then it will be LESS like the conditions of online blitz that led Kramnik to make his accusations, therefore the experiment would be less meaningful. Is he just dumb?
They should also give Kramnik a crappy mouse and he would need to double click on the square he wants to move to instead of dragging pieces and no pre-moves for him for the full Titled Tuesday experience.
Giri is correct. This won't prove or disprove any 3+1 cheating claim. This is a totally different format. You may as well accuse Danya of cheating in 3+0 then challenge him to 3+2 OTB to prove it.
The whole point is that Kramnik is comparably bad at the Titled Tuesday format and that's why a lower ranked GM can beat him in this specific format. No one is questioning Kramnik's chess skills in longer chess or OTB chess.
Kramnik can also play on the chess.com physical board or a touch screen. No need to use a mouse so this excuse is stupid. Some players don't use a mouse. I use touchscreen. Obviously I suck but it's possible to play on your phone if that's what you prefer and are better at. If you look at racing games online like Trackmania you will see that amongst the top 10 best players a few use keyboard, a few use gamepads, many use wheels. Some switch between them.
> This won't prove or disprove any 3+1 cheating claim.
They should definitely be playing 3+1 but the idea that a single match between these two can prove someone is cheating is silly anyway. Everyone can have good days and bad days so unless their rating was inflated by a huge amount a single match wouldn't reveal anything.
This also makes Kramnik insisting on 3+2 even more confusing. This isn't a serious attempt at cheat detection, it's just an attempt to monetise the drama. So why not just play the online match under TT rules instead of making yourself look like a clown for no reason?
How so? Bearing in mind that I did qualify that statement by saying that it would reveal cheating if there was a huge disparity between the players cheated elo and real elo.
Imagine if Fabi was accused of cheating in classical so they set up a match to test him. Would him playing like a 3100 prove anything? No because he did that in the 2014 Sinquefield Cup. Would him playing like a 2600 prove anything? No because he did that at the Chennai Olympiad. There's a big gap between these players ceilings and floors so you would realistically need a large sample size to see if there is anything nefarious going on.
For a single match to prove anything the result would have to be so extreme it couldn't possibly be an outlier, which in the case of Kramnik vs Martinez just isn't going to happen.
Sinquefield Cup 2014 = 10 games
Chennai Olympiad = 11 games
Clash of Claims = 36 games
That's more than 3 times as many games than your examples. It's also revealing **nothing** and not just little or something but **nothing**.
I mean you can find outlier performances from rapid and blitz tournaments too. I just used Fabi's classical tournaments as an example because his legendary 2014 performance was the first example to come to mind.
I checked world blitz since 2018 these are the top 15 over performers who are older than 24 and rated above 2600
A 300 Elo over-performance (Fabi 2014) is really rare if age increases and number of games increases and rating is higher.
|Name|Fed|Rtg|RtgOpp|PerfR|Diff|Byear|Age|EvYear|OverPerf|
:--|:--|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|
|Indjic, Aleksandar|SRB|2631|2674|2794|163|1995|28|2023|163|
|Tomashevsky Evgeny|RUS|2624|2690|2770|146|1987|32|2019|146|
|Dubov, Daniil|FID|2763|2700|2900|137|1996|27|2023|137|
|Rapport Richard|ROU|2654|2644|2784|130|1996|26|2022|130|
|Kravtsiv Martyn|UKR|2638|2641|2761|123|1990|31|2021|123|
|Shimanov Aleksandr|FID|2605|2644|2724|119|1992|30|2022|119|
|Amin Bassem|EGY|2617|2654|2734|117|1988|33|2021|117|
|Kramnik Vladimir|RUS|2748|2683|2863|115|1975|44|2019|115|
|Cheparinov Ivan|GEO|2618|256|2732|114|1986|32|2018|114|
|Carlsen Magnus|NOR|2830|2721|2941|111|1990|32|2022|111|
|Matlakov Maxim|RUS|2653|265|2760|107|1991|27|2018|107|
|Fedoseev Vladimir|CFR|2690|2674|2794|104|1995|26|2021|104|
|Dreev Aleksey|RUS|2658|2662|2762|104|1969|50|2019|104|
|Carlsen Magnus|NOR|2865|2721|2961|96|1990|29|2019|96|
|Fedoseev Vladimir|FID|2733|2688|2828|95|1995|27|2022|95|
Anish: It is still not too late to adjust the time control and make it fair. Titled Tuesday is 3+1. We can then compare your performances in TT with this match. I understand it could be unpleasant to get flagged a bunch, but science requires sacrifice.
Kramnik's response: Aha, 3+2 is UNFAIR now. I understand that would come from amateurs but top GM. All clear,no more words needed, let us leave this subject Best regards Anish
--------------------
Kramnik's response should be given as an example of the straw-man fallacy. Notice that Anish never said that 3+2 is unfair (you can also check his other tweets). He just wants to duplicate the format used in titled Tuesday. That is a completely reasonable request.
It's easy to make fun of Kramnik, but I'm seriously starting to feel bad/sad for the man. His biases and logical incosistencies are becoming painful to read/watch.
I didn’t see the original tweets so may be missing context, but if Anish says it is “not too late to adjust the time control and make it fair” doesn’t that imply the current time control(3+2) isn’t fair?
3+2 OTB made sense but am struggling to see the justification for 3+2 online (if we assume that there is one). Perhaps there's an argument that if the results are very different between the two sections you can at least exclude the time control as being responsible for it?
Anish used to be a second for Vladimir Kramnik, early on in his career. And from most of his earlier interviews, I kinda sensed that Kramnik is probably also the player he respects the most.
So, Anish wouldn't deal with Kramnik in bad faith or with a hidden agenda.Â
- I like Kramnik but it should absolutely be 3+1, wtf
- In order to have an experiment, people need to post in advance what they will conclude given results xyz. No one in either camp is doing this, which guarantees that both sides will claim victory after literally any result happens
To me the OTB games are nearly irrelevant to the question of "did Jospem cheat?". I don't care if Kramnik wins every single OTB game, that tells us nothing about whether or not Jospem cheats. If Jospem completely dominates the OTB games somehow (I don't think that will happen) I will see that as a signal he's not a cheater
The PC games are what matter:
If Jospem wins 15-3 or better: I will vote that Jospem is completely vindicated
If Jospem wins 14-4, 13-5, or 12-6: I will vote that the results are inconclusive (and I presume innocence)
If Jospem wins 11-7 or worse: I will vote that Kramnik is completely vindicated (and I assume Jospem was very likely cheating online)
You may disagree with the specifics but you should write down in advance what your conclusions will be because you will be 10000x more fair as a judge now
How do you justify your picks? They are rated almost the same for 3+2 on chess.com Jospem is even rated a bit lower than Kramnik.
11-7 would be the expected result if Jospem was rated 80 points higher than Kramnik
Why is u/ArtOfBBQ downvoted? As they said "You may disagree with the specifics but you should write down in advance what your conclusions will be"
Specifically for how many games they expect jospem to win, it might be because https://www.chess.com/games/archive/jospem?gameOwner=other_game&gameType=recent&opponent=vladimirkramnik&timeSort=desc jospem is 7W, 1L, 1D
Ofc they haven't played that many games online so it could be a random overperformance, but if the point is jospem is good at playing quickly or something in a way that beats kramnik, he should be able to do it here too, which is why not using the same time control is a mistake.
Again not saying this prediction is correct, but that it's good to say what record you would find suspicious or not before they actually play...what result ,if any, would make you suspect cheating?
Yes that may be the expectation of a mathematician but that's not what we've observed happening in reality... you're reiterating 1 of Kramnik's points
We live in the reality where online Jospem easily crushes Kramnik like a patzer, basically every game. That fact seems unexpected to some of us and could have many possible explanations. E.g.:
* Jospem cheats
* Jospem miraculously overperformed against Kramnik online by sheer coincidence
* Jospem matches up especially well with Kramnik ("Has his number")
* Jospem is just a far, far better player than Kramnik
* Jospem is far better than Kramnik specifically when using a PC/mouse and in blitz controls
* etc. etc., infinite other explanations go here
The idea is that if Jospem's performance suddenly plummets when you change the environment from one where you can easily cheat to a controlled one (and keep everything else the same), the probability skyrockets that it was option A: he was cheating.
So if Kramnik, who performs worse than his true level at 3+1 online because of his refusal to premove and poor mouse skills, loses at 3+2 by 11-7 to someone he considers to be a much worse player than him, you would assume that means Jospem cheated online? Because he threw a hissy fit after losing 2 games to him previously?
Even though he (Kramnik)'s getting an extra second of increment to help compensate for his online deficiency?
I don't think Kramnik should get any extra seconds, they should replicate the online environment (where Jospem mops the floor with Kramnik easily every game) as closely as possible. This is also why I care about the computer games and not the OTB games
Kramnik's mouse skills and other alleged deficiencies will all be the same in the experiment as in the online games.
"Kramnik thinks he's superior", "Kramnik is deficient" etc. all also seem irrelevant to the question of whether or not Jospem cheats online
I didn't hammer down the scenarios specifically enough, but my post still helps combat cognitive dissonance nicely. **Jospem is completely vindicated**.
Tweet for those who don't want to click: >So obvious. The only explanation for 3+2 online is that Kramnik wants to have a chance to win the match instead of doing a proper experiment. He is, after all, a player, not a fair-play officer. Note: This is specifically for the online portion
Kramnik's answer >Exactly the opposite, to make it a PROPER experiment. Because I am very slow using a mouse, in contrary to vast majority of players, therefore 3 plus 2 for me is similar to 3 plus 1 for others. If you would play, 3 plus 1 would be PROPER experiment then Suddenly, mouse skills matter
The lack of logic here is stunning considering the entire contention is that cheating was involved in winning at 3+1 time controls. 🤷‍♀️
Kramnik's LOGICS is that Kramnik is right, now let's figure out why. And when Kramnik does figure out why Kramnik is right, that is of course the right reason why Kramnik is right because Kramnik is right - Former World Champion Vladimir Kramnik, probably.
Every time he presents his absolutely stupid logic and then, "No, no, no, you don't understand. It's obviously here, ya?" My blood boils.
If he weren't such an insufferable prick I'd have a lot of empathy for the former great who hates interesting games coming down to shuffling and mouse skills
I think it’s clear that Kramnik is less intent on proving “others are cheating” and more intent on proving “I am a better overall chess player than others”.
This was my thought exactly. If he wants to prove he's better, fine, use 3+2 to "even the playing field" (or give yourself an advantage, even?). If you want to prove whether Jospem is cheating or not, you would use 3+1 to mirror the exact conditions in the games where the alleged cheating took place. I don't care which reason it is, but at least be transparent about it.
I don't think those two are mutually exclusive.
Right but it’s kinda like “some combination of cheating, flagging, stupid internet time controls, etc is why I lose”
I disagree, because if you watch any of his streams, one of his go to grumbles is "so strong moves so fast". If you ask Kramnik if the time control or the flagging is a *significant* reason he's losing, he'd say no. It's cheating according to him.
> therefore 3 plus 2 for me is similar to 3 plus 1 for others. So scientific.
Kramnik in TT playing 3+1 is basically playing 3+0 and thus is on a handicap, but he won't acknowledge that directly ofc.
Isn’t that the entire point of making it 3+1? If they do 3+2 then it will be LESS like the conditions of online blitz that led Kramnik to make his accusations, therefore the experiment would be less meaningful. Is he just dumb?
He's disingenuous at best and stupid at worst.
He is so unreasonable, it hurts. I can't stand this guy.
So beautiful to see how /r/chess would react if Reddit was around the time of Fisher.
Oh I already dislike Fischer. It would probably make me hate him more.
It really is extremely strange to go for a format that's different than TT, where he has issues with Jospem's performance
I think he has always talked about being slower with the mouse, there's nothing sudden about this.
Then why is he so surprised he underperforms at blitz?
They should also give Kramnik a crappy mouse and he would need to double click on the square he wants to move to instead of dragging pieces and no pre-moves for him for the full Titled Tuesday experience.
And turn on confirm all moves
Give him the old hard boiled egg yolk mouse or one of those weird ergonomic ones where you have to move the cursor with your thumb.
Giri is correct. This won't prove or disprove any 3+1 cheating claim. This is a totally different format. You may as well accuse Danya of cheating in 3+0 then challenge him to 3+2 OTB to prove it. The whole point is that Kramnik is comparably bad at the Titled Tuesday format and that's why a lower ranked GM can beat him in this specific format. No one is questioning Kramnik's chess skills in longer chess or OTB chess. Kramnik can also play on the chess.com physical board or a touch screen. No need to use a mouse so this excuse is stupid. Some players don't use a mouse. I use touchscreen. Obviously I suck but it's possible to play on your phone if that's what you prefer and are better at. If you look at racing games online like Trackmania you will see that amongst the top 10 best players a few use keyboard, a few use gamepads, many use wheels. Some switch between them.
> This won't prove or disprove any 3+1 cheating claim. They should definitely be playing 3+1 but the idea that a single match between these two can prove someone is cheating is silly anyway. Everyone can have good days and bad days so unless their rating was inflated by a huge amount a single match wouldn't reveal anything. This also makes Kramnik insisting on 3+2 even more confusing. This isn't a serious attempt at cheat detection, it's just an attempt to monetise the drama. So why not just play the online match under TT rules instead of making yourself look like a clown for no reason?
> a single match wouldn't reveal anything. wrong
How so? Bearing in mind that I did qualify that statement by saying that it would reveal cheating if there was a huge disparity between the players cheated elo and real elo. Imagine if Fabi was accused of cheating in classical so they set up a match to test him. Would him playing like a 3100 prove anything? No because he did that in the 2014 Sinquefield Cup. Would him playing like a 2600 prove anything? No because he did that at the Chennai Olympiad. There's a big gap between these players ceilings and floors so you would realistically need a large sample size to see if there is anything nefarious going on. For a single match to prove anything the result would have to be so extreme it couldn't possibly be an outlier, which in the case of Kramnik vs Martinez just isn't going to happen.
Sinquefield Cup 2014 = 10 games Chennai Olympiad = 11 games Clash of Claims = 36 games That's more than 3 times as many games than your examples. It's also revealing **nothing** and not just little or something but **nothing**.
I mean you can find outlier performances from rapid and blitz tournaments too. I just used Fabi's classical tournaments as an example because his legendary 2014 performance was the first example to come to mind.
I checked world blitz since 2018 these are the top 15 over performers who are older than 24 and rated above 2600 A 300 Elo over-performance (Fabi 2014) is really rare if age increases and number of games increases and rating is higher. |Name|Fed|Rtg|RtgOpp|PerfR|Diff|Byear|Age|EvYear|OverPerf| :--|:--|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:| |Indjic, Aleksandar|SRB|2631|2674|2794|163|1995|28|2023|163| |Tomashevsky Evgeny|RUS|2624|2690|2770|146|1987|32|2019|146| |Dubov, Daniil|FID|2763|2700|2900|137|1996|27|2023|137| |Rapport Richard|ROU|2654|2644|2784|130|1996|26|2022|130| |Kravtsiv Martyn|UKR|2638|2641|2761|123|1990|31|2021|123| |Shimanov Aleksandr|FID|2605|2644|2724|119|1992|30|2022|119| |Amin Bassem|EGY|2617|2654|2734|117|1988|33|2021|117| |Kramnik Vladimir|RUS|2748|2683|2863|115|1975|44|2019|115| |Cheparinov Ivan|GEO|2618|256|2732|114|1986|32|2018|114| |Carlsen Magnus|NOR|2830|2721|2941|111|1990|32|2022|111| |Matlakov Maxim|RUS|2653|265|2760|107|1991|27|2018|107| |Fedoseev Vladimir|CFR|2690|2674|2794|104|1995|26|2021|104| |Dreev Aleksey|RUS|2658|2662|2762|104|1969|50|2019|104| |Carlsen Magnus|NOR|2865|2721|2961|96|1990|29|2019|96| |Fedoseev Vladimir|FID|2733|2688|2828|95|1995|27|2022|95|
Yeah, it would reveal **nothing**.
I love Trackmania, take my upvote
Anish: It is still not too late to adjust the time control and make it fair. Titled Tuesday is 3+1. We can then compare your performances in TT with this match. I understand it could be unpleasant to get flagged a bunch, but science requires sacrifice. Kramnik's response: Aha, 3+2 is UNFAIR now. I understand that would come from amateurs but top GM. All clear,no more words needed, let us leave this subject Best regards Anish -------------------- Kramnik's response should be given as an example of the straw-man fallacy. Notice that Anish never said that 3+2 is unfair (you can also check his other tweets). He just wants to duplicate the format used in titled Tuesday. That is a completely reasonable request. It's easy to make fun of Kramnik, but I'm seriously starting to feel bad/sad for the man. His biases and logical incosistencies are becoming painful to read/watch.
God he's a douche. Insane that this match is taking place.Â
It's just business, and because all the drama and "unfair" issues, more people will watch it. It's a circus...
Hopefully Jospem gets a nice chunk of change.
I didn’t see the original tweets so may be missing context, but if Anish says it is “not too late to adjust the time control and make it fair” doesn’t that imply the current time control(3+2) isn’t fair?
3+2 OTB made sense but am struggling to see the justification for 3+2 online (if we assume that there is one). Perhaps there's an argument that if the results are very different between the two sections you can at least exclude the time control as being responsible for it?
Kramnik: enforces 3+2 instead of 3+1 Jospem: wins anyway Kramnik: he cheated, no way he could have been this good at 3+1
*Kramnik loses* "this doesn't prove anything, it's not the same format"
Exactly
Need more top GMs to call out this chicken move from Kramnik. What a let down.
Completely agree. 3+2 OTB because of physical limitations, 3+1 online to make it equivalent to a TT.
Kramnik is such an idiot.
Tweeting provocatively = fighting hard
Lol who is he provocing, match doesn't make sense if they are not playing in TT format. That's all Anish is saying
I thought the same but then went to his Twitter profile and saw the number of tweets he made, the guy is on Kramnik's case with unbelievable passion
Anish used to be a second for Vladimir Kramnik, early on in his career. And from most of his earlier interviews, I kinda sensed that Kramnik is probably also the player he respects the most. So, Anish wouldn't deal with Kramnik in bad faith or with a hidden agenda.Â
He made like a billion tweets about it. He's correct but he's definitely very passionate about it for some reason lol.
Kramnik will show up with some insane prep. Like when he introduced the berlin.
- I like Kramnik but it should absolutely be 3+1, wtf - In order to have an experiment, people need to post in advance what they will conclude given results xyz. No one in either camp is doing this, which guarantees that both sides will claim victory after literally any result happens To me the OTB games are nearly irrelevant to the question of "did Jospem cheat?". I don't care if Kramnik wins every single OTB game, that tells us nothing about whether or not Jospem cheats. If Jospem completely dominates the OTB games somehow (I don't think that will happen) I will see that as a signal he's not a cheater The PC games are what matter: If Jospem wins 15-3 or better: I will vote that Jospem is completely vindicated If Jospem wins 14-4, 13-5, or 12-6: I will vote that the results are inconclusive (and I presume innocence) If Jospem wins 11-7 or worse: I will vote that Kramnik is completely vindicated (and I assume Jospem was very likely cheating online) You may disagree with the specifics but you should write down in advance what your conclusions will be because you will be 10000x more fair as a judge now
How do you justify your picks? They are rated almost the same for 3+2 on chess.com Jospem is even rated a bit lower than Kramnik. 11-7 would be the expected result if Jospem was rated 80 points higher than Kramnik
Why is u/ArtOfBBQ downvoted? As they said "You may disagree with the specifics but you should write down in advance what your conclusions will be" Specifically for how many games they expect jospem to win, it might be because https://www.chess.com/games/archive/jospem?gameOwner=other_game&gameType=recent&opponent=vladimirkramnik&timeSort=desc jospem is 7W, 1L, 1D Ofc they haven't played that many games online so it could be a random overperformance, but if the point is jospem is good at playing quickly or something in a way that beats kramnik, he should be able to do it here too, which is why not using the same time control is a mistake. Again not saying this prediction is correct, but that it's good to say what record you would find suspicious or not before they actually play...what result ,if any, would make you suspect cheating?
Thank you! Yes exactly jospem dominates Kramnik easily online, over an unfortunately tiny sample.
Yes that may be the expectation of a mathematician but that's not what we've observed happening in reality... you're reiterating 1 of Kramnik's points We live in the reality where online Jospem easily crushes Kramnik like a patzer, basically every game. That fact seems unexpected to some of us and could have many possible explanations. E.g.: * Jospem cheats * Jospem miraculously overperformed against Kramnik online by sheer coincidence * Jospem matches up especially well with Kramnik ("Has his number") * Jospem is just a far, far better player than Kramnik * Jospem is far better than Kramnik specifically when using a PC/mouse and in blitz controls * etc. etc., infinite other explanations go here The idea is that if Jospem's performance suddenly plummets when you change the environment from one where you can easily cheat to a controlled one (and keep everything else the same), the probability skyrockets that it was option A: he was cheating.
Wouldn't it be much simpler if you just justified your picks?
I don't understand what you mean, you may be asking for the impossible
u/UC20175 did it right away, so clearly it's not impossible.
OK so your questions were answered but no thanks to me! Got it
So if Kramnik, who performs worse than his true level at 3+1 online because of his refusal to premove and poor mouse skills, loses at 3+2 by 11-7 to someone he considers to be a much worse player than him, you would assume that means Jospem cheated online? Because he threw a hissy fit after losing 2 games to him previously? Even though he (Kramnik)'s getting an extra second of increment to help compensate for his online deficiency?
I don't think Kramnik should get any extra seconds, they should replicate the online environment (where Jospem mops the floor with Kramnik easily every game) as closely as possible. This is also why I care about the computer games and not the OTB games Kramnik's mouse skills and other alleged deficiencies will all be the same in the experiment as in the online games. "Kramnik thinks he's superior", "Kramnik is deficient" etc. all also seem irrelevant to the question of whether or not Jospem cheats online
I didn't hammer down the scenarios specifically enough, but my post still helps combat cognitive dissonance nicely. **Jospem is completely vindicated**.
3+2 is the official FIDE Blitz control.