BANNED For Cheating. 

True

Yikes!

8 mins dayum

....

Also hai levy

This explains a bunch

Levi is the whoopsie guy from mortal kombat only in my youtube and for chess

Or a Quantum Leap kinda thing.

He’s unlocked fast travel

He probably only spawns in when the camera starts rolling tbf

For the current state of CS2, 95% of his reports would be accurate.

Except CS:GO doesn't exist anymore, it had a rampant cheating problem, and its successor, CS2, also still has a rampant cheating problem. It's obvious to the eye test, like if you're playing against spinbots etc., but also at higher levels. Just last week, FPL banned their highest rated player for cheating.

​@@detrotsidnot FPL (free pro league) it was a faceit ban

He said he would have a better set up next trip, not next video

i just want to say thanks to germans for allowing him to still posting this video!❤

------ |

​@@sergiob8501Germans? 🧐

@@sergiob8501dude what

😂

Lol

Kramnuk, the Mad Giant. Know I got attached to the nickname

Kramnik automatically doesn’t like anything that was not authored by Kramnik

Right? There's no pleasing the dude. He wanted reports, they made a report, he won't even bother to look at it unless it means his own pedantic requirements. He thinks he's some sort of statistical authority just bc he's good at a board game. Maybe he should put his money where his mouth is and hire some independent statisticians to look at it.

Russians haven't had someone like this for 300 years.

It would be nicer if someone would say "I agree with point x that Kramnik made but disagree with point y". But as always, thinking is hard and hating is easier.

@@junaidahmad1492 ironic then that Kramnik did not do this either, he made his criticisms prior to reading the report and his blog posts this entire time have been extremely dismissive of other people’s work. If one does not engage in reasonable debate and discussion, why would you expect that from others?

Totally agree with this. Also factor in someone like me with 150 IQ and an attention deficit, who can go from scatterbrained to world beater and back in a very short amount of time. My rating is some kind of average between those two extremes and depending on when you play me, I might either be amazing or a moron.

Same thing happened to me even with less of a rating difference in a rapid game. I'm sometimes sharp with tactics and I was accused of cheating but I wasn't cheating nor I was banned. Conversely, last year I played 1 game at 98% and I wasn't accused of cheating nor was I cheating either, just played 1 brilliant Vienna game with white.

Yep. Elo rating is not an objective rating where 1 point means you never lose. It’s a way to determine who is more likely to win, and the more games they play the more likely the rating is to be accurate An 1800 can lose to a 1000 but it’s just incredibly unlikely, and as you showed sometimes that happens. If you played him 100 times it might only happen a few times but it will happen statistically

Yeah, there's a couple of other important factors as well. Even if cheating isn't widespread, the *perception* that it is affects players mentally. Not being in a good mental state can really affect performance, causing a player to perform below their potential. Whether it's Levy facing a GM or a GM facing someone they think is cheating (even if they're not), there's a real chance that they perform worse. Thinking that there's cheaters everywhere causes people to start seeing ghosts. But the other factor is that when playing online, it's possible to play a lot of games. Even if cheating isn't widespread, play enough games and you will encounter some. Then things like confirmation bias and availability heuristic will then make it seem like there's a lot more than there are. That sort of mentality is ingrained into the psyche. In the wild, it's better to see a hundred bears that aren't there than to not see one that is. I wonder if people who started out playing online are better able to just brush off games where their opponent cheated and just move on without getting tilted by it.

@@mikeanderson1722bro your iq is not 150 stop the cap😂😂😂

if you're talking about his own reputation, thats true

and thats your opnion after a few tweets ?

No such thing as bad publicity. More people know who he is now.

@@donkarnage6986 throwing accusations of cheating just because you feel like it is truly unpleasent. He accused Hikaru just because his rating is as near as the top engine althought he streams his games.

@@donkarnage6986 it hasn't been just a few tweets lol

Edward Scissorhands?

I have those problems also

😂 👌

I feel for the Jewish Kings out there that hair game is just wild

What are the origins of the never fails bit?

HMMMMM Nah what you on aboutttttt

But there are streamers you MUST watch, I mean basicaly it is absolutely nessesary to watch them, literally you must do it, watching some streamers, that is what I really mean, some of them are must watch. You just literatuly lost your mind if you dont watch them, I mean it is sad but means you are completely crazy and you dont know what are you talking about when streaming yourself, if you dont watch them. And, another thing,Anish, what all those insuniations like "I dont watch streamers" mean? Can you just come out and tell openly that you hate the most prominent one? Just cone out and say this directly, I know you mean it. Just say this, dont hide under "I dont watch it" bs 🙂

Yeah, that’s a mild understatement

Mildy is an interesting choice of word

Interesting....

It's so levy that he would just dismiss the page about scores then mischaracterise score for the rest of rhe video 😂 7 losses 3 draws from 10 games doesn't seem so wild. Or 15 losses, 1 win, 4 draws from 20.

Omg thank you. Had to scroll a lot for that.

I was looking for this, because that really bothered me too. Hopefully he sees this.

@@frikai8321 why?

​@@frikai8321No because the y-axis is still the lower rated player even if they're in the same rating bucket.

What do u mean?

@@LastSamurai21 so u don’t get the lore? Ull understand later

​@@LastSamurai21He is in a different place so they make a joke like he's "kidnapped"

Vacation?? He's being held hostage!!

This ☝️

BANNED For Cheating.

Just now?

“now”? It’s been a while.

It sneaks up on you if you live long enough. You start to see it around 50 years of age.

​@@penknight8532 Biden is over 80 years old, but he's not going crazy like Kramnik. it is unlikely that we will see a crazy Biden at all, since only unworthy people lose their entire reputation in two months

​@@penknight8532 Anand is doing just fine probably the highest rated player in his age, he is 54 btw and still is sane

Not, eventually...if you don't see that opportunity and play bad move too, you also can lose

You haven't watched Fabi vs Nepo yet I see...

@@bruce2953 ok, assuming that in one particular game there's drawish situation came after Nepo play ...very not ideal in mid game in important match. That's one game, and what about some genius,that after bad debut and average mid, starts playing like Magnus in endgame? Average probability of average 600, probably 🙂 And they even make strikes 40+ win. And that's just unrated play. Why? Is that Interesting, or not?

Look Magnus games he's always play crap openings in blitz and opponent has advantage but he still outplays not always

@@sHaterred-vh7cs just one little problem. This 600 is not Magnus, definitely ☺️ Maybe Hikaru 🙂🤷 He like strike's

Valid point. But by that standard you have to realize that a for example 2200 is going to only cheat against 2000 and not against higher rated players to make this make sense. That isnt the most logical conclusion so its a occams razor scenario and the most logical conclusion is cheating isnt as big of a problem as it is portrayed online.

If both people cheat, their score will be 50% on average. We don't see that here

@@alexisperron-brault6009that also isn’t really valid or do you think 100% of titled players are cheating?

@@clappedbyben5438 if everyone cheats, everyone will win about 50% of the time. This is not what we see. People might cheat only when it matters though (for one specific game)

@@clappedbyben5438 Dunno if you can call Occam's razor on this, there simply isn't enough information to draw any solid logical conclusions.

Other than the super GMs everyone is an underdog to someone. Unless cheaters were the majority it would still result in more upsets not less. Unless you think titled players would cheat more/only against players rated 150-200 pts below them?

“Technically” it means nothing. It’s a set of data. Your extrapolation of some conclusion does not make it “technical”, meaningful, or accurate. “We believe” in a potential interpretation, as this report correctly concludes, is the most you can state. Unless you can explain your technically supported methodology, the validated science behind it, and statistical data to support your conclusion.

I'm not actually making any claims or conclusions with this

I think your point is good. The majority of this report seems to be based on the assumption that players of lower rating will be more likely to cheat than people of higher rating. It doesn't find that correlation, but doesn't test the assumption to make sure it's valid, and instead just sort of assumes that it is when making their conclusion, right?

​@@Littlelongy1it literally highlights the possibility its the higher rated players being the ones cheating at the start.... Though it's a real leap to think someone would cheat but only against weaker opponents.... Regardless the whole thing is based on the perception of weaker players cheating to beat stronger players in titled Tuesday ... That is what it's about...

Just as you are

​@@Why_did_RU-vid_add_handles just as you are

@@ahmed.abdelaleem Just as you are

just as you are

just as you are

same with Naka after his Kick stream, tbh

​@@SindamscWhat happened?

@@Sindamsc signing to Kick in general or did he say or do something while streaming over there? I’ve never seen a kick stream so very much out of the loop if it’s the latter.

@@Sindamsc whatt stream?

@@shamrock73he had a stream where he was promoting gambling, whilst he was playing slots.

thanks, very helpful (still the same after 16 minutes)

There’s a period at the end

BANNED for Cheating.

Still the same

Exactly. Plus that the cheaters are all underdogs is a self defeating assumption. By definition, cheaters cheat to win and gain ratings. So how can they both cheat and stay with very low ratings?

@@_JeffJeff_ I'm a simple man, I see a simple man meme, I want to take part.

Roll*

@@Cage66666 ?

I never fail to be a simple man and see Gotham

Might as well Levy has Good Stuff dam we need another Candidates tournament or other for more recaps they were fun 😅

Strictly speaking, nothing rates players _very accurately_, all rating systems just look at your results and make some educated-ish guesses. Better sample sizes give better predictions.

Exactly

Levy: _"What are the P Values?"_ Magnus: _"You mean Probability?"_ Hikaru: _"I'm Pushing P!"_ Kramnik: _"It's P as in Psychosis . . ."_ - j q t -

🤡

True that. OTB is and always will be the heartbeat of chess.

Since chess is not a game of chance (except whether you play as white or black) I think it's not possible to determine what would happen by chance. You can only look at averages. Maybe the closest bit of information you could get to "what would happen by chance" would be seeing how often strong bots win against themselves as opposed to draw. Since the theory is that chess played perfectly should always end in a draw, so anything else that happens (when players are bots) will be by chance as it were.

My friend, you’re the only person who knows Statistics in the comments section. Everybody else is so uninformed with the basics of 2-sample hypothesis testing 😂. Good job. What is your background in Stats?

@@Odysseusf Haha, kind of. I majored in math so I have some stats. Mostly I got brushed up on it when going into more data science lately.

@@Odysseusf I actually posted a much longer response explaining in more detail, which seems to be taken down. Weird.

​@@jennymulholland4319 We say by chance when we mean the null hypothesis which is that no cheating occurred. So if you have a 2200 play a 2500, then they should win 10% of the time by chance (as opposed to skill you could think of it). This is based on rating. Of course rating has to be accurate to know this percentage, which it is admitted that the OTB ratings are not right. To do the p-test you have to stay within on group. So you look at the 2200s vs. 2500s in online only and see if it is more than 10%. The p-value tells you the likelihood that what we saw happen was described by cheating in our case as opposed to "chance." It takes into account how hard it is to achieve and how powerful your sample is. So if you only had one game of a 2200 vs. a 2500, and the 2200 won, you wouldn't claim cheating even though the 2200s won 100% of the games. That could happen by chance. It could be the 10% since it was only one game. But if you had thousands of games and the 2200s won even 30% of the time, that's huge, way bigger than expected if cheating wasn't occurring. Also think if 2200s only typically won 0.05% of the time, then even seeing a single win would indicate cheating because it should be so rare. Anyway, that's what's meant by chance, not that the game has a random element to it. The other problem with this approach is that we are running too many tests. Every comparison is another test, so comparing 2500s to 2400s, 2500s to 2300s, 2500s to 2200s, etc. By chance, one of them is going to indicate cheating has occurred. If you flip a coin a million times, your going to see 100 heads in a row at some point just by chance. When you go digging for results, you're bound to find them even if they aren't there.

He was trying to be polite methinks.

what has Kramnik been doing and where can I read or watch about it?

@@chunklum3636 Gotham has actually covered it quite extensively on this channel, although i know he doesn't title his videos too accurately so it might be hard to find. "Cheating" / "kramnik" should be in the titles though

@@flookaraz thanks for the help

Plus these highly rated players contain more cheaters and engines don’t blunder

highest performance rating this year

Not a chance with Carlsen and Kasparov around... Not to mention Firouzja

@@nuwandalton maybe stupidest take i've ever read

@@JosharooIs that so? Don't be so harsh with yourself. You're stupid, granted, but not THAT stupid. Now run along, fanboy

It used to be hikaru after that I literally don’t care thing. Looks like that keeps changing with time.

Why do you comment so much

@@Hiiigh_Yoshihe probably likes the notification pop up

Kiddo

(First)²

(First)³

Fool watch the video

There are no clickbaits on this channel 😀 There is no war in Ba Sing Se 😐

Even though they are the same people? They cheat when they are higher rated and stop cheating when rhey are lower rated?

@@DoddyIshamel wut?

@@Prometheus4096 literally what I said. Do you mean they cheat against weaker opponents but not stronger?

@@DoddyIshamel No. I meant literally what I said. You think that higher rated players are just 1 person? And that lower rated people are also just one person? And that these are both the same person?

@Prometheus4096 Every "higher rated person" is the "lower rated person" in other games.... Unless they are Magnus.

NPC comment, no one cares

What a tool, finish the video first.

What a tool. Finish the video first.

@@Samurai24200 ok

What a tool. Finish the video first.

It's the only one there us ..

@@DoddyIshamel could check only players with enough recent fide blitz games to have confidence that their rating is accurate

@Flamingcloud083 then the sample size would be much smaller. In any case as pointed out the lack of games for players gives them lower rating which should create more underdog results online. So it would only make the results even more stark.

The addendum said they only used games where players' FIDE blitz ratings were based on at least 50 games and at least one game in the last year. I do wonder how many games this excluded then.