Online chess is nonsense. One can beat all detection of using engines. Use 10 different engines and take their moves in random order. To avoid getting same move from all engines, make them to have varying strength.
A recent chess controversy
121–127 of 127 posts
Re: A recent chess controversy
#122Kramnik has proven himself a troll and did a lot of damage to the reputation of honest and otherwise wholesome people and this without credible proof at all. That those allegations persist under the form of news article is very unfortunate to those victims of his smearing.
Being a "troll" connotes bad faith, i.e. not believing one's own accusations. From the footage I've seen of Kramnik, I think he does believe himself, and is just generally very "salty" about losing (as the kids say).
I don't believe the strength of ones convictions factors into whether they are a troll or not. Take patent trolls for example.
Re: A recent chess controversy
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can and you should. If you flipped a coin 100 times and all you got are heads you really should assume it didn't happen by chance.
Nope. A previous flip has no bearing on the next flip.
The odds of that happening by chance is so astronomical it involves a number you've probably never even heard of.
Re: A recent chess controversy
#124This is basically an article describing why you can’t just look at an event after it occurs, see that it has some extremely rare characteristics, and then determine it was unlikely to happen by chance. It is like asking someone to pick a random number between 1 and 1 million and then saying, “oh my god, it must not actually be random… the chances of choosing the exact number 729,619 is 1 in a million! That is too rar…
I had a math teacher in college that told a funny joke:
"For safety, I always bring a bomb with me when I fly"
"Why?"
"Because the odds of two people bringing a bomb on the same plane are so low"
Re: A recent chess controversy
#125It is well known that Kramnik baselessly accuses everyone. The article seems to be more about statistics than chess, and doesn’t make any accusations. Kind of a click bait title IMO.
Vlad the Implier
Re: A recent chess controversy
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I don’t understand is that Hikaru can visualise in his head 30+ moves ahead from both plays, and yet he’s not better than Magnus?
?? I'm all for having a Hikaru/Magnus discussion--one of my favourite topics--but this just doesn't make sense
What I was trying to say was that Hikaru can essentially predict the future given he has stockfish running in his head, while I don’t think Magnus has that ability, yet Hikaru is ranked lower
Re: A recent chess controversy
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
?? I'm all for having a Hikaru/Magnus discussion--one of my favourite topics--but this just doesn't make sense
What I was trying to say was that Hikaru can essentially predict the future given he has stockfish running in his head, while I don’t think Magnus has that ability, yet Hikaru is ranked lower
Magnus is widely regarded, including by Hikaru, as having the best chess intuition (i.e. subconscious understanding) of any player alive, by some distance. the times he's beaten are almost always when he's out-calculated on a very deep line that he had intuitively disregarded. at the same time though, Hikaru himself is also far better known for his intuition than his conscious calculation, explaining his much stronger performances in faster time controls. if you want a player that's more calculative and, ergo, more like stockfish or another traditional engine, perhaps look at Gukesh, who almost exclusively plays classical for that reason