Kramnik didn't calculate the win streaks, he calculated the "overperformance streaks" (i'm not sure what exactly it is). the opposite of tilting -- the "hot hand" , is probably a myth. and Kramnik says that neither tilting nor the hot-hand affect the result noticeably🤔. do you think it's possible at all to use statistics to detect cheating?
Yes, statistics in chess can help with detecting cheaters but it's much more useful to look at other factors such as: how long they take to move, are they premoving, is their rating consistent or do they have huge swings, win rate, decisions in critical moments, do they make perfect moves and then obvious blunder, do they make obscure moves that are extremely hard to find, new accounts... Checking these factors is in my opinion better than looking at statistics when detecting cheaters.
Interesting.... I'm gonna go ahead with the procedure.
Everytin is clear to me, 1 muv is enouf indikator.
Interesting.
Yea something tells me he was a little too strong for his levl but okay.
u could adjust the formula to account for the amount of game lost. When we know that tilted players play worse the question becomes how much worse.
Jobava london cures this
Kramnik didn't calculate the win streaks, he calculated the "overperformance streaks" (i'm not sure what exactly it is). the opposite of tilting -- the "hot hand" , is probably a myth. and Kramnik says that neither tilting nor the hot-hand affect the result noticeably🤔.
do you think it's possible at all to use statistics to detect cheating?
Yes, statistics in chess can help with detecting cheaters but it's much more useful to look at other factors such as: how long they take to move, are they premoving, is their rating consistent or do they have huge swings, win rate, decisions in critical moments, do they make perfect moves and then obvious blunder, do they make obscure moves that are extremely hard to find, new accounts... Checking these factors is in my opinion better than looking at statistics when detecting cheaters.