~
What can you say about the next wave of cheating scandals, which this time was started by Kramnik? He raises a very important topic, but unfortunately not always in the format of dialogue but rather categorical statements, so unfortunately many of his important thoughts remained in the shadow of the personal squabbles that he began with Nakamura. Unfortunately, we have absurd realities: everyone understands that there is a problem, but no one wants any solutions, and some (for example, chess.com) are not at all interested in getting rid of cheaters, since then their business will suffer. Some grandmasters have already announced that online chess is dead and it is difficult to disagree with them.
~
Do you have more details on this new weave of cheating scandals? haven't heard of it
In case you need a lot of details.
As you can see, the topic is very hype and Nakamura made almost every second video about it. In short, former world champion Vladimir Kramnik conducted his own mathematical studies of the results of chess players (on Title Tuesday) and came to the conclusion that some results were anomalous (suspicion of cheating).
His first idea was very interesting: he analyzed the decisive games of chess players (the result of which directly affected whether they would receive prize money or not) and found that some chess players in such games showed a much better level of play than in others (in the same tournament). He compared everyone under the same conditions, so it is difficult to suspect him of bias. At the moment there is no explanation for such “anomalies”.
His second idea is more debatable: he began to look for long winning streaks and tried to calculate the probability of their occurrence from a mathematical point of view. Well, it seems like when Nakamura plays against a player 300 rating points lower, then the probability of Nakamura winning is 80-85%, which means a streak of 55 wins in a row is very, very unlikely. The nuance here is that Nakamura was famous for his entire career for rating farming (he selected convenient opponents whom he could beat in at least 40 games out of 40, and used other legal tricks), so this accusation led to the fact that everyone began to criticize Kramnik himself and accuse him of paranoia.
Yes, his second idea was very dubious and, unfortunately, its discussion overshadowed the completely rational idea number 1. Now everyone continues to insist on their point of view, but the scandal has subsided a little, the only bad thing is that nothing useful (in terms of fighting cheaters) has been done.
Poll
