You Think Poker Cheating Is Bad? Chess Cheating Is Worse!

Not really. The problem in chess when you try to cheat is you have a cards face up history of your previous play, and if you go from being a nice 2400 who plays decently to suddenly having a 20+ move command of theory and perfect tactics, it's kind of obvious and everyone is going to immediately suspect you and comb over everything until they either prove you cheated or just refuse to believe you didn't.

At a lower level (say like 1500ish or lower) you could probably do this just because in those games, there's often going to be a two or three move combo that leads to decisive advantage that you can then win even playing suboptimally. At the higher level, your 3000+ play might get you the edge of a better position, but it's still going to be hard to convert.

What you describe is basically Hans Niemann exactly. 2500 GM, suddenly took a big leap, and Carlsen with no proof basically just say "he's a cheater and I'm not playing him, full stop."

Fwiw, I never believed for one second that Hans cheated vs. Magnus. Magnus had a bad game and Hans didn't even play "that well" but "well enough" to beat him.

It's not the same ballpark, not the same league.

Just because Kramnik is being a bitch about it doesn't make cheating in chess a key issue that could destroy the game, like in poker.

Kramnik's main point is that everyone should be *checked*, and he's right. Chess.com is effectively a major accrediting body of online poker, and it's completely opaque in how it adjudicates cheating allegations. That's not healthy.

He accuses Nakamura. I have no idea if he's cheating or not, but some of the defenses of Nakamura are goofy. Claiming he has no incentive to cheat as a streamer is the OPPOSITE of true. Streamers cheat all the time in games, because the cheating creates good content. How many Twitch subs and Youtube videos has Nakamura booked off of his online blitz pool play?

When Chess.com has a business relationship with a bunch of streamers, they have a conflict of interest and need to be MORE transparent, not less.

In the most commonly played time control of 3/0 it would actually be really challenging to cheat effectively and escape detection. If you just had an engine running and copied all its moves that would be very easily detectable by the site. If you cheated only a few moves a game, you'd have to already be a strong player both:
a. to know in which positions to use the engine, and
b. to play well enough for the rest of the game to take full advantage of using the engine.

Also it's worth noting that in some positions, following up the engine's moves accurately would be challenging without going all the way down the variation. For instance if the main line of the computer starts with a sacrifice Rxf7+ and the computer thinks the best reply is Kh8, the cheater would have to either be strong enough to see the follow up against Kxf7, or keep following the engine's prompts until the position clarifies.

It would be interesting to see an experiment testing how much rating is gained by using a computer, for example for one minute out of a 3-minute game. For low-level players I'm sure it's a lot, but for someone at Hikaru's level I'm less convinced. Maybe someone could practice cheating for a few months and work out an effective system and add a few rating points, but it's questionable whether an average GM could improve to world-class level.

Blitz cheating wouldn't be about seeing lines. Just seeing the eval bar would be massive.

It would have an effect but how big?

Hikaru is already good enough to see when his opponent hangs a piece, seeing the evaluation go up because opponent allowed a 5-move combo won't help a 1600 player.

Also hard to implement in real time undetected.

It would be huge since it would tell you when to LOOK for a killer move. It would tell you when your opponent blundered.

I understand the principle, but just seeing the evaluation doesn't tell you if the opponent just hung a piece, or if you can generate a winning attack starting with a quiet move.

For instance in this position from Sarana - Erigaisi, played yesterday,

the computer might tell you there's a win for White but even with that prompt good luck finding the move in a 3-minute game.

Don't get me wrong, I agree it would give an unfair advantage, but probably on the order of 100-200 rating points, not more.

At least Nakamura and Caruana have said it'd be massive to have that info.

We're just debating the degree. I agree it would be massive in the sense of making Naka a big favorite vs. Carlsen, but not in the sense of making an average GM a favorite vs. Carlsen.

The only thing Kramnik is "right" about is that checking should be done for cheating. Likely more rigorously and more widespread.

However, he's done MUCH more harm than good - he's literally demonstrated the worst possible way to check for cheaters. He's gone after Nakamura and Naroditsky as a clear personal vendetta - it's subjective as hell. And with Jopsem, I don't think it was personal, but the way he tried to catch him out (HU for someone else's rollz) is also not an effective way to check for cheating. He is worse than chess.com - he won't even tell the people he's accused how to clear their name, just something like "he'll know if they are cheating or not" at some undecided time in the future after subjecting them to some circus of random ****.

I agree. In principle Kramnik is right. In the particulars he's unhinged.

Between Kramnik and Chess.com I'm rooting for injuries.

The GOAT is back in supreme form in India... he smoked EVERYBODY!

those end game domination's were stunning not only in their brutality, but also in their brilliance.

I guess Chess.com’s argument for not having any real transparency with how they monitor / catch cheating and cheaters is because it would allow those who cheat to adjust and cheat differently?

There's a term for that in the computing world: Security through obscurity.

If your security system depends on secrecy, then you have no security system.

I’m of the opinion that there’s a significant conflict of interest and there should be more transparency.

Another thing is that the professional chess scene doesn't consist of more than a few dozen players (who make a living out of it)

But yeah it makes little sense to disclose how your security works or else people will plan counter measures to it

If your security system falls apart the second someone knows how it works, then what do you do when it inevitably leaks?