The lure of money, where the risk of direct detection remains minimal makes cheating inevitable. Incentives are strongest with chess content creators, such as Hikaru.
Securing direct evidence is a near-impossible task. Direct evidence means, tracing through game statistics and behavioral cues. The evidence should be rock solid before starting to accuse any individual.
This is a systemic problem. While Kramnik and Carlsen might be right, their approach poisons the game deeper.
Perhaps a better tactic would be to abstain from naming culprits. Instead, they could have provided anonymized statistical evidence and explained their methodologies. Public consensus before naming the names could have been a plausible.
Systemic problem requires systemic solutions. Top players might have to play significant amount of their games in secure "SCIF" under observation, or something, to keep playing.
The lure of money, where the risk of direct detection remains minimal makes cheating inevitable. Incentives are strongest with chess content creators, such as Hikaru.
Securing direct evidence is a near-impossible task. Direct evidence means, tracing through game statistics and behavioral cues. The evidence should be rock solid before starting to accuse any individual.
This is a systemic problem. While Kramnik and Carlsen might be right, their approach poisons the game deeper.
Perhaps a better tactic would be to abstain from naming culprits. Instead, they could have provided anonymized statistical evidence and explained their methodologies. Public consensus before naming the names could have been a plausible.
Systemic problem requires systemic solutions. Top players might have to play significant amount of their games in secure "SCIF" under observation, or something, to keep playing.