I feel Kramnik has crossed many ethical lines, with increasing seriousness, over the last year. It is reassuring in a small way to hear Danny’s overall opinion on this is so similar to my own. With Kramnik’s latest words toward Naroditsky, I believe an ethics complaint should be filed against him with FIDE.
not only, playing OTB is VERY different from online chess, furthermore TT is 3+1. which Kramnik did not accept, playing with 3+2, and the face to face OTB was 5+2, and in spite of that Jospem won the first match. You can only understand the prior considerations if you played both online chess and OTB with a rating roughly equal or aboveabove 2000
It become very clear (at least in my opinion) the reason for his online dominance was the time control.. it was very obvious kramnik couldn't survive a single game when low on time...
Playing against someone you think is cheating versus playing that same player in a setting you think he is not ALONE would explain the differing results. Every single GM agrees that you play differently against someone you think is cheating.
Everything I've ever heard Danny say about cheat detection makes perfect, logical sense to me. MOST of the time, Kramnik sounds like someone who is just FED UP; The PROBLEM with Kramnik is that exactly ZERO objective truth can be a guaranteed byproduct of this overflowing emotional wellspring.
What Kremnik does is ridiculous and I don't understand why people even pay attention to what he says. It is simple, If you accuse 100 people being thiefs and one of them turns out to be thief, at that point, you were NOT right, you were 99% wrong. It's confirmation bias at its best, counting hits and ignoring SEA of misses. Just wake up...
@@seppecena But not by much. The decisive game was the final one, which Jospem unfortunately lost. In case of victory, the result of the match would have been a draw. So Kramnik has nothing to be proud of here, considering that he has a lot of match experience and the knowledge to prepare properly. After all, it was this skill that helped him win against Kasparov, completely unexpectedly for everyone.
@@sanzharbekamatov1581no but that was kramnik's point all along, kramnik just said that if they played in a monitored environment then jospem can't crush him like he did in online chess and even if he wins head to head match then it won't be by much margin and to be honest he proved his point pretty much in both matches not just in second one in which he won
The cheating is not just the top players, at the lower levels it is absolutely rampant because it is trivially easy and many players just want to raise their rating, for whatever reason and via whatever method.
Kramnik is being very irresponsible. If it is a fide tournament then Kramnik should complain to them or whichever appropriate authority there is ,but doing detective work with eyeball movements and the like is just irresponsible. All of these allegations are followed by an invitation to play him - Why ? .He should start playing fide rated tournaments and then complain about cheating." to FIDE. I classify this as indirect bullying-If you beat me I will call you a cheater . If you don't play me -I will force you to play me otherwise you are a cheater. Alternatively he could devise an alternative rating system of his own named something like K-ELO 🤷
Who even is this Levitov guy? I tried to look up his past and he has none on Google indexed pages. Anyway, it's funny that he actually said that he trusts feeling more than statistics!
3+2, 3+1 and 3+0 are all completely different time controls. Kramnik would not do as well if he faces Josem with the same time controls as TT. Kramnik needs to be sanctioned by FIDE or sued.
30:20 - 30:35 How is it possible? It is the easiest thing in the world to explain by so many different things. Variance, Psycholog.. The fact he asks this question in a serious manner has me thinking he is almost as dense as Kramnik. Kramnik isnt an online grinder - he isnt as bothered when playing with a different set up. Who knows what the difference is for them playing iRL (they played iRL online too.. it is 100% different) ect.. Like Im not even waiting for how Dani Rensch to answers this.. but this proves nothing at all and whoever does not understand this.. is crazy.. to me
Danny, this is an awesome interview that exposes your insight into the commercial viability of Chess and how much you care about developing something consumable, marketable and enjoyable for the public. I'm not sure there are many people thinking about this as much as you are. It sounds like you have found your calling. Keep up the good work!
Levitov talks about how Jospem didn't dominate the match against Kramnik the way he had done on line but he seems to forget that those on line games were 3+1 and Kramnik demanded that the match would have only 3+2 games. This 1 extra second increment makes a difference, especially when the players have little time left. Kramnik can't even make premoves, for crying out loud. There was a 10+0 rapid game against Keymer in which Kramnik got flagged because of it. He had more time on the clock and still lost!
Kramnik is why at least 70 percent of chess players have the idea their heads that everyone cheats. He is why probably 20 percent of those cheaters cheat. It's really gross. Kramnik is what is wrong with the internet today, screaming about things without evidence. Just happy to ensconce himself in his own worldview and alternative facts.
Excellent. I always love hearing from Danny Rensch. There should also be no understating of what he & his team have done & continue to do, for the frustratingly beautiful game of chess.
Detecting online chess cheating is nearly impossible, in fact. A player can choose the third or fourth suggestion from the computer instead of the first one and still win the game because computers have become much better than humans. Unfortunately, I don't see a solution at this moment.
That should be possible to detect, with the right algorithm. what is difficult to detect is a really good player just cheating a single move in a game..
@@GaaikeEuwemaI don’t believe so. If you choose a software that isn’t as strong as Stockfish to assist you, even a version from 25 years ago, and avoid selecting the top suggestions, you will most likely win the game, and detection systems will report that the accuracy was far below what could be considered computer assistance. Computers from 1997 already started beating world champions, and today's software no longer considers those moves from 1997 as the best ones. In other words, detecting a skilled cheater through algorithms is impossible.
you can detect cheating easily at the higher levels. simply require anyone that plays on high level to submit an offline controlled test, where your actual chess ability gets tested for like an hour. you can check the playing strength and acquire a player profile from there. add to that games from offline events, which have strict security measures and you have a solid profile you can check against the online play of a player. it is not required to check anyone, just the top players. for titled tuesdays it is obvious that there is rampant cheating going on there. the reason: they let FMs play and other players with low rating that suddenly perform with 3000 elo. just make titled tuesdays a restricted event with a closed GM/IM section and you will get rid off 50% of the cheating off the bat. then focus on having multiple cams required during the games. forbid earphones during price tourneys - (this should have been forbidden much earlier) and generally investigate players for these price tourneys much closer. you need the offline profile to test their online performance against. if you have a suspect you need to actively monitor the suspect and make sure they are not using any assistance. the way you describe cheating as easy with an old chess program is just silly. you cant just make computer moves and have nobody detect them as unnatural. close examination vs your natural / offline playing profile will show immediately the difference in playing strength and patterns.
LOL Kramnik made up the whole comedy show. Levitov: "Statistics was wrong many times, I trust feelings more" LOL And how many times the feelings were wrong compared with stats? Rightfully Rensch said "We compare apples to feelings"👍
@@Crashawsome If a player takes a peek at the evaluation bar once or twice a game (without looking at any engine moves), there is no statistic that will catch him, and yet he would be cheating. If he gets some kind of signal that tells him his opponent just made a weak move, that would be almost as good as getting an engine move, especially for an already strong player, but there is no statistic that will reveal this. The cheater would still have to find the right plan on his own, but just knowing there IS a good plan available would improve his play measurably. The problem is that this improvement would be indistinguishable from the improvement he might get from studying more, or just having a good game more frequently. He would still lose or draw games, just not as frequently. It's the same reason you're able to find combinations in puzzles much more successfully than you can in games. You know it's there and you keep working at it until you find something. Of course, sometimes you're wrong and your puzzle solution is incorrect, and that would happen in games, too, even if you got a signal telling you that something is there. But you would find the solution often enough that it would make a difference in your results. The stronger you already are, the bigger the difference such an approach could make. For somebody like Magnus, he could become practically unbeatable with one eval bar hint per game. Such a cheater would still be playing his own moves. The statistical needle would barely jiggle, and yet he would still be cheating. He would forever be under the radar.
Kramnik is a washed up chess player who has no understanding of statistics... Hikaru has challenged Kramnik to a $1M chess challenge. Has Kramnik accepted, or is he scared?
It's amazing how Kramnik, who was caught violating the platform's rules while playing in a money tournament - which, by Kramnik's own words, amounts to a criminal offense - can discuss cheaters and give any sort of evaluations. The fact that he didn't end up in the prizes in those tournaments where he used another GM profile doesn't mean he didn't prevent another player from getting prizes, which means he affected the outcome of a TT tournament. Essentially, Kramnik is an exposed cheater who got offended when he was exposed by the player he himself called a cheater. This is surreal.
What exactly did he do? Your post makes it sound like he played normally but under another name so that his opponents didn't know who they were playing. Is that correct? If that's what he did, you're just a liar by calling him a cheater. That isn't cheating.
@@weevil601 Amazing logic. So call Kramnik an offender then. He broke the rules that he himself set up. Moreover, he participated in a prize tournament. LOL are you really that thick?
47:30 Statistics are never wrong because statistics don't claim anything. PEOPLE make claims based on statistical observations, but it has to go through some kind of reasoning, and this is the part where things can be "wrong". We aren't suggesting that Kramnik is providing wrong statistics, but rather that the way he uses these statistics to support his claims is deceptive because his reasoning is always biased and flawed.
Kramnik entered a tournament, he lost his first game and immediately complained “he’s definitely cheating!” The arbiter said “Vladimir, it's a simul and you were playing yourself!” Kramnik narrowed his eyes and muttered, “Even I don’t trust me these days…”
The chess Kom needs more competition on its own. Then they will work better to fight the cheaters. They can not admit that the cheating is so scandalous on their website. It is bad business for them to admit that. Example: a few minutes ago a played a game with 1200 on their website. He won convincing. Attacking me left and right, sacrificing pieces etc. I am 2150. Then I play a guy who is 1400 and he is giving away free pieces left and right, which is normal for their level of playing to give free pieces away. We need a new website to play chess. Maybe Kramnik or Kasparov or Anand can team up with some rich people to do a better job.
Hopeful fallacy! The problem is not within the platform, it is within the people using it. As long as you have humans competing there is gonna be cheating and other tries to get unfair advantages. Its like saying we should get some new rich people to control the drug problem. Well ive got bad news for you - we humans are (so far) imperfect and no matter what you do, there is gonna be evil and suffering out there! Also, forced restrictions arent the way, they usually achieve the opposite effect in the long run. The best way is education, teaching moral values at a young age and finding ways to keep them throughout.
How can somone arrive at a conclusion which immediately falls apart at the first hurdle? Of course big names draw eyeballs. If people 'watch chess because they like chess' then why do SLCC events get 200 viewers and tournaments with Magnus Hikaru Ian Fabi Alireza get 15k viewers?
Danny (and almost every American) should learn how to talk with non Americans. He uses many idioms or figurative speech or plain slang. I'm pretty sure a lot of what he said got lost to ESL viewers and the host himself because of that. For example he kept on saying "getting eyeballs" and similar expressions with friggin' eyeballs. Can't you say people who watch something or read something? I think that the ability to communicate within an international context is crucial in his position and for the goals he wants to achieve.
"Whenever you listen to him.... it sounds good... maybe he's right. Sorry, guy, you're deluded. That's what people say about Trump when he spreads lies
If a player is 12 years old and beats Magnus 10-0, Daniel Rensch says ah this is a chess prodigy so his DNA is fast improving. If same performance beating Magnus 10-0 and player is 32years old Kramnik says must be cheat. Both are deluded and wrong to assume those things. Chess future performances can't be predicted. Historic results can be used to provide rankings but these are not predictions of future performances.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
Levitov: "I don't care about statistics".. um, well then I guess you have nothing interesting to say about cheating then.
I feel Kramnik has crossed many ethical lines, with increasing seriousness, over the last year. It is reassuring in a small way to hear Danny’s overall opinion on this is so similar to my own. With Kramnik’s latest words toward Naroditsky, I believe an ethics complaint should be filed against him with FIDE.
Kramnik will find this interview very interesting.
Why is it that Israelis doesn't think that Mexicans can play chess? I count four now, Why?
Kramnik prepared against Jospem for his offline match. He wasn't prepared in his online games. This alone should make a massive difference in score.
1000%
??? you can say the same abaout any players, but BOTH have the same time to prepare for this match. not only kramink
not only, playing OTB is VERY different from online chess, furthermore TT is 3+1. which Kramnik did not accept, playing with 3+2, and the face to face OTB was 5+2, and in spite of that Jospem won the first match. You can only understand the prior considerations if you played both online chess and OTB with a rating roughly equal or aboveabove 2000
It become very clear (at least in my opinion) the reason for his online dominance was the time control.. it was very obvious kramnik couldn't survive a single game when low on time...
Playing against someone you think is cheating versus playing that same player in a setting you think he is not ALONE would explain the differing results. Every single GM agrees that you play differently against someone you think is cheating.
Everything I've ever heard Danny say about cheat detection makes perfect, logical sense to me. MOST of the time, Kramnik sounds like someone who is just FED UP; The PROBLEM with Kramnik is that exactly ZERO objective truth can be a guaranteed byproduct of this overflowing emotional wellspring.
True
What Kremnik does is ridiculous and I don't understand why people even pay attention to what he says. It is simple, If you accuse 100 people being thiefs and one of them turns out to be thief, at that point, you were NOT right, you were 99% wrong. It's confirmation bias at its best, counting hits and ignoring SEA of misses. Just wake up...
"I believe in feelings more than statistics." - Levitov
He is so dumb, nothing gets through his brainrot. He couldnt engage with anything. :D
Imagine that Guy running chesscom kkkkk😂😂😂
This interview was incredible, BTW. Both sides open and honest, no BS. I encourage people to listen to the entire thing.
Where does he keep looking? Kramnik please check. Your advice is needed.
"jospem barely survives offline" vs Kramnik. what is he talking about. Jospem won the offline match.
He lost the second
He lost the second. After they switched platforms btw
@@seppecena But not by much. The decisive game was the final one, which Jospem unfortunately lost. In case of victory, the result of the match would have been a draw. So Kramnik has nothing to be proud of here, considering that he has a lot of match experience and the knowledge to prepare properly. After all, it was this skill that helped him win against Kasparov, completely unexpectedly for everyone.
@@sanzharbekamatov1581no but that was kramnik's point all along, kramnik just said that if they played in a monitored environment then jospem can't crush him like he did in online chess and even if he wins head to head match then it won't be by much margin and to be honest he proved his point pretty much in both matches not just in second one in which he won
Also, OFFLINE VS ONLINE ARE DIFFERENT you dingus
Kramnik is just an internet bully.
Internet boomer*
The cheating is not just the top players, at the lower levels it is absolutely rampant because it is trivially easy and many players just want to raise their rating, for whatever reason and via whatever method.
Kramnik is being very irresponsible.
If it is a fide tournament then Kramnik should complain to them or whichever appropriate authority there is ,but doing detective work with eyeball movements and the like is just irresponsible.
All of these allegations are followed by an invitation to play him - Why ? .He should start playing fide rated tournaments and then complain about cheating." to FIDE.
I classify this as indirect bullying-If you beat me I will call you a cheater . If you don't play me -I will force you to play me otherwise you are a cheater.
Alternatively he could devise an alternative rating system of his own named something like K-ELO 🤷
Who even is this Levitov guy? I tried to look up his past and he has none on Google indexed pages. Anyway, it's funny that he actually said that he trusts feeling more than statistics!
"Strong feelings are almost always right" , yikes buddy
Add timestamps please
Это интервью имеет слишком мало просмотров для уровня контента. Спасибо каналу за такие классные выпуски!
3+2, 3+1 and 3+0 are all completely different time controls. Kramnik would not do as well if he faces Josem with the same time controls as TT.
Kramnik needs to be sanctioned by FIDE or sued.
Levitov is a fool - he uses a crystal ball to decide if someone is cheating.
30:20 - 30:35 How is it possible? It is the easiest thing in the world to explain by so many different things. Variance, Psycholog.. The fact he asks this question in a serious manner has me thinking he is almost as dense as Kramnik. Kramnik isnt an online grinder - he isnt as bothered when playing with a different set up. Who knows what the difference is for them playing iRL (they played iRL online too.. it is 100% different) ect.. Like Im not even waiting for how Dani Rensch to answers this.. but this proves nothing at all and whoever does not understand this.. is crazy.. to me
Danny, this is an awesome interview that exposes your insight into the commercial viability of Chess and how much you care about developing something consumable, marketable and enjoyable for the public. I'm not sure there are many people thinking about this as much as you are. It sounds like you have found your calling. Keep up the good work!
Some chapters will help!
"His figures sound right"??? Only to those untrained in statistics. Know what you don't know.
Levitov, prepare to be accused of cheating by kramnik after this interview. You looked to the sides pretty often. Danny even more so
Levitov talks about how Jospem didn't dominate the match against Kramnik the way he had done on line but he seems to forget that those on line games were 3+1 and Kramnik demanded that the match would have only 3+2 games. This 1 extra second increment makes a difference, especially when the players have little time left. Kramnik can't even make premoves, for crying out loud. There was a 10+0 rapid game against Keymer in which Kramnik got flagged because of it. He had more time on the clock and still lost!
The Rapid Chess Championship time controls were f'd. What other rapid tournament has a 10 minute time control?
Feeling better that stat lool. This guys is so bias for krammik
Ютуб, почему этого интервью нет в моих рекомендациях? Это что - заговор? Я звоню Владимиру..🎉
thanks igor for the magic in the background!
The feeling comment is kind of insane. What do you mean feelings are more important and believable?
"I think it's not personal"... so that makes it not personal? This guy is biased.
На 39:55 неправильные субтитры, гость сказал "circles (обводит) Danya's accuracy score against Aronyan"
Kramnik is why at least 70 percent of chess players have the idea their heads that everyone cheats. He is why probably 20 percent of those cheaters cheat. It's really gross. Kramnik is what is wrong with the internet today, screaming about things without evidence. Just happy to ensconce himself in his own worldview and alternative facts.
No, the reason is such people generally suck at chess and need a way to cope. Kramnik has made it worse but it's been there a long time.
That brown chair behind Danny looks REALLY COMFORTABLE! 🤓
Посмотрю в разборе Крамника 😃
Excellent.
I always love hearing from Danny Rensch.
There should also be no understating of what he & his team have done & continue to do, for the frustratingly beautiful game of chess.
That was an interesting listen but holy moly it was tedious.
Great interview! Danny is awesome and hope Kramnik will work in favor of chess instead of accusing everyone disrespectfully
Detecting online chess cheating is nearly impossible, in fact. A player can choose the third or fourth suggestion from the computer instead of the first one and still win the game because computers have become much better than humans. Unfortunately, I don't see a solution at this moment.
That should be possible to detect, with the right algorithm. what is difficult to detect is a really good player just cheating a single move in a game..
@@GaaikeEuwemaI don’t believe so. If you choose a software that isn’t as strong as Stockfish to assist you, even a version from 25 years ago, and avoid selecting the top suggestions, you will most likely win the game, and detection systems will report that the accuracy was far below what could be considered computer assistance. Computers from 1997 already started beating world champions, and today's software no longer considers those moves from 1997 as the best ones. In other words, detecting a skilled cheater through algorithms is impossible.
you can detect cheating easily at the higher levels. simply require anyone that plays on high level to submit an offline controlled test, where your actual chess ability gets tested for like an hour. you can check the playing strength and acquire a player profile from there. add to that games from offline events, which have strict security measures and you have a solid profile you can check against the online play of a player. it is not required to check anyone, just the top players. for titled tuesdays it is obvious that there is rampant cheating going on there. the reason: they let FMs play and other players with low rating that suddenly perform with 3000 elo. just make titled tuesdays a restricted event with a closed GM/IM section and you will get rid off 50% of the cheating off the bat. then focus on having multiple cams required during the games. forbid earphones during price tourneys - (this should have been forbidden much earlier) and generally investigate players for these price tourneys much closer. you need the offline profile to test their online performance against. if you have a suspect you need to actively monitor the suspect and make sure they are not using any assistance.
the way you describe cheating as easy with an old chess program is just silly. you cant just make computer moves and have nobody detect them as unnatural. close examination vs your natural / offline playing profile will show immediately the difference in playing strength and patterns.
1:16:00 a brainstorming meeting around this topic is a good idea
That looks like a 16 oz. cup which is 2 cups-
LOL Kramnik made up the whole comedy show.
Levitov: "Statistics was wrong many times, I trust feelings more" LOL And how many times the feelings were wrong compared with stats? Rightfully Rensch said "We compare apples to feelings"👍
Statistics are useless against smart cheaters. That's the problem.
This guy seemed fairly smart at the beginning, but he's just another apologist for Kramnik
@@weevil601 Some statistics are useless against smart cheaters. Do better.
This line had me dying. Oh you trust your feelings more than numbers? Yeah think we found the problem.
@@Crashawsome If a player takes a peek at the evaluation bar once or twice a game (without looking at any engine moves), there is no statistic that will catch him, and yet he would be cheating. If he gets some kind of signal that tells him his opponent just made a weak move, that would be almost as good as getting an engine move, especially for an already strong player, but there is no statistic that will reveal this. The cheater would still have to find the right plan on his own, but just knowing there IS a good plan available would improve his play measurably. The problem is that this improvement would be indistinguishable from the improvement he might get from studying more, or just having a good game more frequently. He would still lose or draw games, just not as frequently.
It's the same reason you're able to find combinations in puzzles much more successfully than you can in games. You know it's there and you keep working at it until you find something. Of course, sometimes you're wrong and your puzzle solution is incorrect, and that would happen in games, too, even if you got a signal telling you that something is there. But you would find the solution often enough that it would make a difference in your results. The stronger you already are, the bigger the difference such an approach could make. For somebody like Magnus, he could become practically unbeatable with one eval bar hint per game.
Such a cheater would still be playing his own moves. The statistical needle would barely jiggle, and yet he would still be cheating. He would forever be under the radar.
R.I.P to Danny's hairline, but it's still holding on....
No arguments - turn to personality?
RIP Rensch's credibility/trustworthiness
@@nomoreblitznonsense. RIP Kramnik's credibility. Liar and ignorant person.
@@mime4331 well, Kramnik is crazy. Rensch is dishonorable.
Why is Rensch dishonorable?
57:07 did danny just say that he and robert hess were in the closet in 2018?
Build your own website. Lets see
What's your ELO 😅
Kramnik is a washed up chess player who has no understanding of statistics... Hikaru has challenged Kramnik to a $1M chess challenge. Has Kramnik accepted, or is he scared?
Danny Rensch best man
It's amazing how Kramnik, who was caught violating the platform's rules while playing in a money tournament - which, by Kramnik's own words, amounts to a criminal offense - can discuss cheaters and give any sort of evaluations. The fact that he didn't end up in the prizes in those tournaments where he used another GM profile doesn't mean he didn't prevent another player from getting prizes, which means he affected the outcome of a TT tournament. Essentially, Kramnik is an exposed cheater who got offended when he was exposed by the player he himself called a cheater. This is surreal.
Kramnik has got super inflated Ego. He never admits being wrong and always applies double standards. All his proofs are "believe me, I know".
What exactly did he do? Your post makes it sound like he played normally but under another name so that his opponents didn't know who they were playing. Is that correct? If that's what he did, you're just a liar by calling him a cheater. That isn't cheating.
@@weevil601 Amazing logic. So call Kramnik an offender then. He broke the rules that he himself set up. Moreover, he participated in a prize tournament. LOL are you really that thick?
@@weevil601 He got caught then attacked the whistleblower., a Russian. Are you not aware of this event?
@@Crashawsome No, I'm not aware of it.
47:30 Statistics are never wrong because statistics don't claim anything. PEOPLE make claims based on statistical observations, but it has to go through some kind of reasoning, and this is the part where things can be "wrong". We aren't suggesting that Kramnik is providing wrong statistics, but rather that the way he uses these statistics to support his claims is deceptive because his reasoning is always biased and flawed.
Statistics= if I eat a whole chicken and you don't, then we had half a chicken each.
Kramnik entered a tournament, he lost his first game and immediately complained “he’s definitely cheating!”
The arbiter said “Vladimir, it's a simul and you were playing yourself!”
Kramnik narrowed his eyes and muttered, “Even I don’t trust me these days…”
"Statistics are wrong"..... What? . Either this guy is dumb, or arguing in bad faith
24:02 It's the chess mafia 😅
Don't look up is a great reference
I mean what is more likely Kramnik has an agenda or chess has an agenda
It’s like an intense fog of war where everything could be a admission of what is really going on
But we all know how corporations work
The chess Kom needs more competition on its own. Then they will work better to fight the cheaters.
They can not admit that the cheating is so scandalous on their website. It is bad business for them to admit that.
Example: a few minutes ago a played a game with 1200 on their website. He won convincing. Attacking me left and right, sacrificing pieces etc. I am 2150. Then I play a guy who is 1400 and
he is giving away free pieces left and right, which is normal for their level of playing to give free pieces away.
We need a new website to play chess.
Maybe Kramnik or Kasparov or Anand can team up with some rich people to do a better job.
Hopeful fallacy! The problem is not within the platform, it is within the people using it. As long as you have humans competing there is gonna be cheating and other tries to get unfair advantages. Its like saying we should get some new rich people to control the drug problem. Well ive got bad news for you - we humans are (so far) imperfect and no matter what you do, there is gonna be evil and suffering out there! Also, forced restrictions arent the way, they usually achieve the opposite effect in the long run. The best way is education, teaching moral values at a young age and finding ways to keep them throughout.
its a fine day to play game. OTB
OTB is poinlesst the money is to low. world blitz can be ok but 1 of the years ????? we want play all the week, OTB rip.
School Director
So many schills of Danny
Поставил кружку в кадр ради американца. Самим не стыдно?
Какой же … 🙈
Interviewer is terrible. Kramnik is an old man upset he got worse at chess. Rensch is too considerate of this nonsense
you can in fact be worse in chess. or in tenis being way young also. no reason to be upset about this.
@@immanitodeplomo tell Vlad and his friend. I am not the one upset, spewing nonsense statistics, spreading silly fears
story about divisions.. so long the answer.. bulls_ _ t
People watch chess because they like chess. Not just a few top players.
How can somone arrive at a conclusion which immediately falls apart at the first hurdle? Of course big names draw eyeballs. If people 'watch chess because they like chess' then why do SLCC events get 200 viewers and tournaments with Magnus Hikaru Ian Fabi Alireza get 15k viewers?
Danny (and almost every American) should learn how to talk with non Americans. He uses many idioms or figurative speech or plain slang. I'm pretty sure a lot of what he said got lost to ESL viewers and the host himself because of that. For example he kept on saying "getting eyeballs" and similar expressions with friggin' eyeballs. Can't you say people who watch something or read something? I think that the ability to communicate within an international context is crucial in his position and for the goals he wants to achieve.
Oh, they're 'centrists' and 1 clown's full-blown fascist; great. Otherways amusing conversation.
is there anything interesting said?
Kramnik is right.Cheating online is a joke by now, let's try it over the board.
Rensch needs to start with giving the real level of cheating....damn sight more than the 2% he claims in my opinion
You know what they say about opinions.....
2% over-performance in TT not cheating on the website, or among good player, amazing how people just dont listen...
How can you predict people's performances in chess? 😂
Based on hundreds or thousands of games they play. There is an expected deviation between games that is pretty much impossible to follow if cheating.
"Whenever you listen to him.... it sounds good... maybe he's right. Sorry, guy, you're deluded. That's what people say about Trump when he spreads lies
If a player is 12 years old and beats Magnus 10-0, Daniel Rensch says ah this is a chess prodigy so his DNA is fast improving. If same performance beating Magnus 10-0 and player is 32years old Kramnik says must be cheat. Both are deluded and wrong to assume those things. Chess future performances can't be predicted. Historic results can be used to provide rankings but these are not predictions of future performances.
he can says that because he is not the free person but puppet officer of chesscom
No one has ever or will ever beat magnus 10-0 in rapid or blitz, maybe hyperbullet stuff like 15" or 30" chess. Just bad example.
officer puppet
Chess fascism
Vlad's points are valid.
Valid's points are vlad.