@freaking_timer said in #8:
> I think with the tweet quoted in the blog he does not want to accuse you but instead the <2600 rated players whose rating he made red in the table
You are right, yet in the given context ("Cheating Tuesdays", GM Kramnik's other statemements on the topic) it looks offensive. Who knows, maybe I might have ended red as well if I were in poor form at my last rated blitz tournament or if I played some tournament with many underrated youngsters instead. I also find it strange when someone performs way better online than over the board in the long run, but it is also true that the FIDE ratings sometimes do not work so well, especially in more isolated countries where chess is booming, but few local events are rated (which is often the case with rapid and blitz), and for young players, who often face similarly underrated young opponents. (I do not think that switching to Glicko would improve the situation significantly and that FIDE ratings could be done much better.)
The metrics selected by GM Kramnik (average amount of blunders with 10 and more seconds left) might be related to cheating, yet it ignores many important aspects, including the percentage of blunders made with less than 10 seconds left. (A very important aspect in this context.) It would also be nice to have an explicit definition of a blunder. It is much easier to define a blunder than to define a great move, yet there is no unproblematic definition of a blunder, either.
Online cheating obviously exists, but it should be fought with very accurate analyses and with Zoom and cameras, in exceptional cases even with arbiters at the venues. Public accusations based on problematic statistics do not make the situation better.
P.S.: It turns out that some tweets can ruin one's sleep even more effectively than an evening online tournament.
> I think with the tweet quoted in the blog he does not want to accuse you but instead the <2600 rated players whose rating he made red in the table
You are right, yet in the given context ("Cheating Tuesdays", GM Kramnik's other statemements on the topic) it looks offensive. Who knows, maybe I might have ended red as well if I were in poor form at my last rated blitz tournament or if I played some tournament with many underrated youngsters instead. I also find it strange when someone performs way better online than over the board in the long run, but it is also true that the FIDE ratings sometimes do not work so well, especially in more isolated countries where chess is booming, but few local events are rated (which is often the case with rapid and blitz), and for young players, who often face similarly underrated young opponents. (I do not think that switching to Glicko would improve the situation significantly and that FIDE ratings could be done much better.)
The metrics selected by GM Kramnik (average amount of blunders with 10 and more seconds left) might be related to cheating, yet it ignores many important aspects, including the percentage of blunders made with less than 10 seconds left. (A very important aspect in this context.) It would also be nice to have an explicit definition of a blunder. It is much easier to define a blunder than to define a great move, yet there is no unproblematic definition of a blunder, either.
Online cheating obviously exists, but it should be fought with very accurate analyses and with Zoom and cameras, in exceptional cases even with arbiters at the venues. Public accusations based on problematic statistics do not make the situation better.
P.S.: It turns out that some tweets can ruin one's sleep even more effectively than an evening online tournament.
