[manvel_hn]

So Kramnik, being a chess player and not a statistician, invented various methods of "detecting" cheating which seemed convincing for for a layman but questionable mathematically.

Then he started attacking Daniel, Hikaru and some other players online. This all led to pretty tragic consequences.

Kramnik still believes that he's in the right.

The only good thing out of this is numerous funny videos by chess players trying to figure out intricacies of statistics and math.

[zug_zug]

Not as a defense of Kramnik's behavior, but Naroditsky's death was determined not likely to be suicide:

probable cardiac arrhythmia tied to systemic sarcoidosis, with methamphetamine/kratom as contributing factors.

[FreakLegion]

I'm generally skeptical of causal narratives like this, but Naroditsky talked openly and at length about the ongoing physical and mental health effects of Kramnik's nonsense. So in this particular case, I'm comfortable blaming Kramnik either way.

[alex1138]

Naroditsky played a match against Magnus that he streamed where it ended (this a 1+0 time control; yes you can cheat in bullet but it's clear he wasn't) in a 40-40 tie, this after he lost the first game from being distracted getting his stream set up properly

He was one of the world's best bullet and blitz players, it was obvious he was never cheating. Kramnik was apparently one of his heroes. It was despicable behavior

[seanhunter]

One of my favourite of these is the Professor of Mathematical Statistics from U. Waterloo who is a reasonably strong amateur chess player and was engaged by chess.com after Kramnik’s accusations about Hikaru and did a video with the chess.com “chief chess officer” (IM Danny Rensch) explaining how Kramnik’s theories about how unlikely various streak lengths were were completely wrong (based on the most basic beginner errors in misunderstanding probabilities of dependent vs independent events) and long streaks were highly likely to occur especially for players like Hikaru who play very large numbers of blitz and bullet matches.

Kramnik responded with “This guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about”. OK Vlad. You know more about stats than a professor of math stats at uw. Sure…

Kramnik’s behaviour throughout has been despicable. I’m pretty sure it’s grounded in the fact that he is bitter about how chess has changed and he has got older and more stuck in his ways and the modern generation of players (I’m thinking people like Danya, Jospem[1] and Lazavik[2]) play/played a brand of chess that is entirely based on deep engine analysis and is totally alien to guys like him with an old-school Russian chess background. So they must be cheating (as far as Kramnik is concerned). The way he hounded Daniel Naroditsky in particular really disgusted me and I say that as someone who used to be a fan of Kramnik’s chess.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Mart%C3%ADnez_Alc%C3...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Lazavik

[QuantumGood]

Causes create effects and eventually exist in a field of those effects. Kramnik was rapidly informed of statistical issues with his approaches in easy-to-understand ways (and also in technical detail). His "convincing for a layman" needs to be noted as "not convincing to himself after becoming more informed". So part of the issue is why he continued to pretend, either or both to himself or to others that his method was useful.

Chief chess.com officer IM Danny Rensch, among others, explained how Kramnik’s theories about how unlikely various streak lengths were were completely wrong with easy to understand detail.

Kramnik: “This guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about”.

[IncreasePosts]

A lot of people imagine chess players to he smart, but there's a video of asking grandmasters very simple (imho) general knowledge questions that they did absolutely abysmally at. It's probably safe to assume that someone who is really good at chess is actually bad at anything that isn't chess

[kelipso]

A big percentage of the top grandmasters skip high school and almost none of them have went to college. They are “smart” in that they have the potential intelligence to learn that stuff, as demonstrated by them having learned chess, but they have basically no knowledge of statistics, mathematics, plenty of other general knowledge topics.

From that point of view, you should really consider them to be as knowledgeable about these things as high school dropouts. It was hilarious following the whole cheating thing and seeing them try to interpret these statistical results and coming to really stupid conclusions.

You could say it’s difficult to see them this way due to the cultural and historical perspectives on chess but this is the reality of top grandmasters at this time.

[InterviewFrog]

This is just a Western cultural perception and baggage. That if you are good at chess, you are smart. If you can solve the Rubik's Cube quickly, you are a genius, etc.

Getting better at chess, the Rubik's Cube, etc. is a skill. The more you practice and the more passionate you are, the better you get at it. This is just like learning to play the piano or learning to swim. There is natural aptitude as well but its not as simple as being super smart and being able to strategize well using intelligence. That's just the narrative that seems to make sense. Being good at chess isn't evidence that someone is smart in general.

[randomNumber7]

A lot of people try to get good at chess. If someone manages to become world class he is likely very intelligent.

[assbuttbuttass]

If someone manages to become a world class chess player, they are likely very good at chess

[BoingBoomTschak]

Please don't devolve into reactionary nonsense. I'm pretty sure that if you measure the average IQ of good (whatever your definition of good) chess players, you won't get 100.

[justacrow]

Seems weird to dismiss stuff as "nonsense" just because you're "pretty sure". Hikaru Nakamura (who's been the world #2 in classical rating) did an IQ test on stream and ended up with 102. I've not seen any other results for top players.

The first study of it I found (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01602...) notes that, while there is some correlation, "Full-scale IQ explained < 1% of the variance in chess skill."

[IAmGraydon]

>A big percentage of the top grandmasters skip high school and almost none of them have went to college. They are “smart” in that they have the potential intelligence to learn that stuff, as demonstrated by them having learned chess, but they have basically no knowledge of statistics, mathematics, plenty of other general knowledge topics.

Source?

[traes]

Regarding general knowledge, it's a pretty well known phenomena within the community. Here's a video with the three players who spent the longest time at #2 in the world (see [0]) behind Magnus Carlsen answering basic trivia questions[1].

[0]: https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/1uk3wa3/world_no_2s_...

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXyLJaaLEpE

[codechicago277]

They mostly did very well, other than Levon Aronian not knowing some basic chemical formulas and Hikaru’s brain freezing on the cube side question.

[traes]

A lot of players actually do go to college, although likely a minority. I know that Maxime Vachier-Lagrave in particular has a math degree. Ding Liren has a law degree. Daniel Naroditsky himself, while not quite a top grandmaster by the typical definition, had a bachelors in history.

[wongarsu]

I would call chess players smart in the abstract sense. Playing chess requires both good "compute power", working memory, and long-term memorization.

But to become grandmaster you have to dedicate a lot of your life to chess. It's not that these people couldn't know general knowledge or do higher math, they are simply not exposed to it. They are not smart in the sense of a universal genius, because that would require immersing yourself in all the things - the opposite of what a chess grandmaster does

[largbae]

Kasparov seems to show that there is room for more than moves in a great chess mind.

[matheusmoreira]

> The ability to play chess is the sign of a gentleman.

> The ability to play chess well is the sign of a wasted life.

[alex1138]

- Paul Morphy, lawyer (I think). One of... well. Greatest of all time discussions are hard (times evolve) but he murdered his competition relative to his time

[IAmGraydon]

Morphy was certainly a freak of nature, sort of like Elizabeth in Queen's Gambit. Sadly, he lost his mind and died in his 40s.

[gwern]

(The quote is apocryphal and long after, so I'm pretty sure it's bunk.)

[roenxi]

Yes but ... knowing the answer to general knowledge questions isn't really an appropriate test of that. General knowledge sounds like it would be, by definition, things known to people of ordinary intelligence. So it could easily be that very intelligent people aren't up to speed about general knowledge topics because they spend their time on topics of interest to people of high intelligence. That is actually something of a trope.

The nature of the questions and why they are expected to know the answers matters a lot here.