@@kiyoshi9807 my favourite part as well. Block this is first what I do. Just when It Will end the Game I Will check but IS pretty clear is practically first line every move. I would give 95... 98.3 Oh. Very nice. EVERYTHING, Was a pleasure😂. However the no shame absolutely no shame honor shame foreign words nowadays is also great.
bro can do the procedure blindfolded. Opponent: aborts game before even playing a single move. Kramnik: I don't even have to see game review it is very obvious what is going on here.
@@my_name_is_giovanni_giorgio Same here. Whenever i lose,there is already a little Kramnik voice in my head saying: ''ok, its very clear to me... lets do the procedure' ... xD
The comments section from this channel for the past few weeks: "You may be right about that guy. You most likely are. You should move on though. Online cheating is a fact of modern chess. You're approaching Kramnick-level obsession and that's not healthy." This channel's response-- look at my hero: V Kramnick. Legend.
Jonas Prado and Vladimir Kramnik fighting for fair chess (in their own ways). Tho I disagree with GM Kramnik's method, as he is not as conservative as IM Prado, since Kramnik looks at individual moves rather than the entire game, I support the overall goal of what Kramnik is doing.
Also keep in mind that he is live on stream while I have time to calm myself and record the videos. Anyways I am sure he is not right 100% of the times but for sure more than 50% However I would stop this topic for a while, I should focus on my duties. Anyways I thought that vlad deserved a tribute!
@@IMJonasPrado Good point. I will say one thing: watching your videos actually saved me money. I *used* to donate to LiChess but when they put some pressure on you, when you pointed out an obvious cheater, that was it for me. No more money for them. When they back off and they are good with you, I will donate again. It's small beer for them, but I won't give a peso to a org that does not take a hard line on cheaters. One reason BTW I don't use PayPal much either (they almost always side on the side of scammers, not scam victims, is what the internet says).
@@raylopez99I used to be a donor too. However they dissapointed me. Even when they guy was banned I didn't received a single message from any of them. Anyways it's better to focus on the good things about them. They help you to get students, the lichess studies are great and the playing zone is very fast. Yeah I agree that PayPal have their issues especially huge fees if you receive money from abroad. I hope I can be back speaking about the cheating issue soon. I suspect that a lot of people are cheating however I am not 100% of any, only 85% or so so if I ever make a video again about the topic it would be about someome that is 100% cheater like the ziromonody Guy:)
@@IMJonasPrado Agree. I like competition since having only one site is not good. But with the rise of popularity of chess I also feel they don't need my money. From what I understand LiChess has one or more very rich patrons so I doubt they will go bankrupt even if a lot of small fry like myself stop donating. As for students, FYI i went from 1800 or so on LiChess to 2100 (peak) by hiring a chess master (outside the USA) and taking lessons live (I lived outside the US for a number of years). It was very helpful and not too expensive either. Studying books and playing your PC is great but even better for me is a human. Bye and best of luck.
Kramnik: “I want to file a complaint” FIDE: “Why?” Kramnik: “My opponent’s friend is bald. He is using his shiny head to send Morse code messages to my opponent. That is the only reason I could possibly lose!”
The D4 one is the one that gets me. It’s not even that crazy a move - just to destroy the pawn structure, it would be something lower rated players would go for.
Actually, the d4 one is definitely the one that smells like cheating the most. It is simply not a human blitz move - normal way of playing is to try Ne6 or Nh5 and reroute the knight somehow while attacking f3. The most ridiculous accusation for me is the "no shame" one - Kramnik kept repeating no honor no shame obvious cheating while the opponent blundered first an extra pawn, then another pawn, then a piece :)
@@andro99991 That’s WILD. I’m probably about 1500, and I’d played D4 - it either ruins the pawn structure, or it pushes out the Queen and allows for some checks. I actually didn’t even see the knight COULD take, but obviously that also opens up a check. When I first watched a replay of this, that move was the one I immediately “saw”. So it’s funny that it’s so unnatural…? And yes, he clearly didn’t play too great in the beginning with the blunders…
@@numberonedad So what? you can have a best move that look logical and human, while other best moves look irrational that only a computer will know it.
@@archangelz558 attacking with a pawn in this position is entirely logical and you and kramnik acting like it's impossible to see is hilarious. it's also exactly *not* what he claimed, which is an impossible-to-see best move. it's not the best move nor impossible to see. it occurred to me immediately. git gud!
Nah, it is far less than that. Not more than twenty percent if being generous. He especially lost it in the segment Everyone plays +90. An IM is definitely capable of playing those moves and at that level.
@@Tideman11You have to consider the fact that it’s against a super grandmaster former world champion. The accuracy will be much lower normally, although it’s not impossible to have a good game. I’d say the 30-50% is on the money
Do you also get inner satisfaction of laughter by watching this type of shit. Whenever I feel sad my mind says let see these videos where Every thing is pretty clear, He will see every thing, Let's do procedure. Kramnik normal life looks like a comedy show. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂🎉😂😂😂
I LIKE SO MUCH KRAMNIK, AND THANKS TO HIM THERE ARE LOT OF CONTENT FOR CHESS FUNNY MOMENTS. HOPE HE DO NOT LOSE HIS MIND, for that he needs mindfulness practice.
I am w Kremik. I am pretty low and average player daily 1100elo. I played a guy like 30 times - call him a buddy. He is daily 850 - well i can tell you when he is cheating spot on ;) 😅
Please, do not disrespect 14th world champion Vladimir Kramnik. He has done more for chess than any of us, and his chess was always a great inspiration for me. I've studied his games myself since manila 1992, and it is a huge pleasure. I recommend you to do the same, more productive than disrespecting him.
@@IMJonasPradoBut he can't accuse anyone without any proof.There are many good players(beasts) at chess and whenever he losses to one of them he is doing a "procedure" and ban them🤡.This guy even accused hikaru of cheating 😂I mean ,yea
@IMJonasPrado Actions have consequences. When he is being a clown about it and is accusing everyone that beat him with little to no evidence. Potentially getting innocent players accounts banned. He deserves what's coming. My guy turned from a world chess champion to world chess charlatan.
@@IMJonasPrado well, that's an unfortunate take, because Kramnik is making unfounded accusations without evidence, which is hurting reputations of players who have worked their entire lives to gain this reputation. Supporting him and stating that he is right in almost everything strikes me as irresponsible.
@@gobbedy Thanks for your opinion but I think you are wrong. First of all his opinion is worth more than our opinion, he has studied the game of chess more than you and me combined so he knows what he is talking about. Secondly, I have experienced it myself, a lot of cheaters were not punished and when I tried to make things public they started to threatening me so I had to stop. And last. He is not accusing anyone he is ponting out FACTS about statistic anomalies and he is demanding explanations about why is that posible nothing more than that. He is not saying he is cheating or she is cheating however I am hundred percent that at least 50% of the people with anomalies are cheating but 0 bans. Please watch the last video of Kramnik and explain to me why that Indian is not banned. You are supporting cheating and cheaters with your opinion, and that says a lot about you. If I was overperforming like this people do, I wouldn't mind him to go open about it I'll explain my moves and ASK chess.com to provide as many evidence as posible that I am not cheating.
@@IMJonasPrado "his opinion is worth more than your opinion". Wrong. Please look up "Argument from authority" -- a logical fallacy you are employing here. You are suggesting that his arguments are more worthwhile merely because he is influential, not because his arguments have more merit at face value. Vladimir Kramnik's arguments are no less vacuous because he is Vladimir Kramnik. His inability to publish his so-called statistics are no less reprehensible because he is Vladimir Kramnik. His emotional response to losing a game is no less an emotional response because he is Vladimir Kramnik. And his inability to provide evidence to substantiate any of his accusations is no less troubling because he is Vladimir Kramnik. His arguments -- like those of anyone -- should be taken at face value, and assessed on their merit. If he presents hard evidence, it should be heard. If he presents only speculation, then that should be denounced. Unfortunately, he presents only speculation. "Secondly, I have experienced it myself, a lot of cheaters were not punished and when I tried to make things public they started to threatening me so I had to stop." The lack of punishment of cheaters is a real problem. The solution, however, is not wrecklessly accusing presumed cheating without evidence. "He is not accusing anyone" -- Wrong. He is, very literally, reporting people for cheating. Reporting a cheater is quite literally accusing someone of cheating. Surely you agree with this? Your entire video is literally a tribute to Vladimir Kramnik accusing very specific people of cheating. But asides from the reports, when he says "[Deeply sarcastic tone] Ok great move. No shame. We all know what is going on here.", do you mean to tell me that you do not believe his making a very clear accusation? If I were to say "Vladimir Kramnik walks weirdly around children. *writes visible report on camera accusing Vladimir Kramnik of being a pedophile* Pedophiles have no shame. Shameful behaviour from Vladimir Kramnik. It's clear what is going on here. Pedophiles need to be stopped." -- Are you really saying that I would not be accusing Kramnik of being a pedophile? If so, then you have a very different definition of "accusation" then that I do. And if you really don't think that is an accusation, then surely you can agree that it is slander? And should therefore be stopped? "You are supporting cheating and cheaters with your opinion." -- That is technically true. I am denouncing wreckless accusations which have countless false positives. When your test has too many false positives, it also has more correct positives. So yes, the side effect of asking Kramnik and others (like yourself) to stop wrecklessly accusing people, is that some cheaters will get away. It is doubtless that some of Kramnik's accusations (possibly a majority?) are real positives, but a large portion are false negatives. As a society we generally accept "innocent until proven guilty", and that is specifically because we demand zero rate of false accusations. In turn, this high bar for culpability inevitably means some guilty parties get away with their crime. That is the price we pay to make sure only truly guilty parties are found guilty. But anything else is highly irresponsible, because we do not tolerate wrongful convictions. So while you are technically correct that I am "supporting cheaters with my opinion", you are basically accusing me of being ethically responsible. You, on the other hand, are wreckless and irresponsible.
@@IMJonasPrado I thought I had replied already but I don't see my reply. Here it is again.. "his opinion is worth more than your opinion". Wrong. Please look up "Argument from authority" -- a logical fallacy you are employing here. You are suggesting that his arguments are more worthwhile merely because he is influential, not because his arguments have more merit at face value. Vladimir Kramnik's arguments are no less vacuous because he is Vladimir Kramnik. His inability to publish his so-called statistics are no less reprehensible because he is Vladimir Kramnik. His emotional response to losing a game is no less an emotional response because he is Vladimir Kramnik. And his inability to provide evidence to substantiate any of his accusations is no less troubling because he is Vladimir Kramnik. His arguments -- like those of anyone -- should be taken at face value, and assessed on their merit. If he presents hard evidence, it should be heard. If he presents only speculation, then that should be denounced. Unfortunately, he presents only speculation. "Secondly, I have experienced it myself, a lot of cheaters were not punished and when I tried to make things public they started to threatening me so I had to stop." The lack of punishment of cheaters is a real problem. The solution, however, is not wrecklessly accusing presumed cheating without evidence." He is not accusing anyone" -- Wrong. He is, very literally, reporting people for cheating. Reporting a cheater is quite literally accusing someone of cheating. Surely you agree with this? Your entire video is literally a tribute to Vladimir Kramnik accusing very specific people of cheating. But asides from the reports, when he says "[Deeply sarcastic tone] Ok great move. No shame. We all know what is going on here.", do you mean to tell me that you do not believe his making a very clear accusation? If I were to say "Vladimir Kramnik walks weirdly around children. *writes visible report on camera accusing Vladimir Kramnik of being a pedophile* Pedophiles have no shame. Shameful behaviour from Vladimir Kramnik. It's clear what is going on here. Pedophiles need to be stopped." -- Are you really saying that I would not be accusing Kramnik of being a pedophile? If so, then you have a very different definition of "accusation" then that I do. And if you really don't think that is an accusation, then surely you can agree that it is slander? And should therefore be stopped? "You are supporting cheating and cheaters with your opinion." -- That is technically true, though highly misleading. I am denouncing wreckless accusations which have countless false positives. When any test has too many false positives, it also has more correct positives. So yes, the side effect of Kramnik (and by extension, yourself), being wildly irresponsible in accusing anyone he is suspicious of, is that he will also accuse actual cheaters of cheating. A broken clock is right twice a day, as the saying goes. So by asking Kramnik to stop being wildly irresponsible, I am *technically* letting those actual cheaters he happens to have accused off the hook. As a society we generally accept "innocent until proven guilty", and that is specifically because we demand zero rate of false accusations. In turn, this high bar for culpability inevitably means some guilty parties get away with their crime. That is the price we pay to avoid wrongful convictions, because wrongful convictions are intolerable. Surely you can understand the impact of wrongfully accusing a chess player of cheating? It's common sense: someone who has build their entire career around their chess skill depends completely on their reputation, and so a wrongful accusation can destroy their lives. So while you are technically correct that I am "supporting cheaters with my opinion", you are conveniently ignoring that I am, more importantly, defending innocent players from wrongful accusations, and that I holding that as having the utmost importance. You, on the other hand, would prefer to cast a wide net, and catch cheaters at the expense of wrongfully accusing innocent people and destroying their lives. In other words, you are wreckless and irresponsible.
Nice troll at Kramnik, and nice nod to the Ukrainian flag in the thumbnail. It's sad to see Kramnik getting crazy and malicious in his old age, but some folks just can't accept that with old age they're just worse and less relevant. Nowadays they just have access to the Internet to spread their confusion around.
First game Kramnik made a stupid blunder and it was just winning with the Ka6 and then promote the b pawn. But because he hasnt found this move, he is losing his mind and thought, his opponent cheated. This happens often!
No that fork is easy his point is the clearance of the d5 square for the knight is "too hard to see" so that cxd4 is met by Nd5 winning the knight. (Nh3+ won't work due to Kg2 defending the knight) and Nxd4 leaves f2 weak after nh3+ rxf2+ (which I assume happened in the game). It's a nice move but hardly a "computer only move" K is just tilting.
