As we’ve discussed in the last couple of posts, Vladimir Kramnik accused, or at least suggested/hinted/wink-wink-nudge-nudged that Hikaru Nakamura’s online performance during a run where he scored something like 45.5/46 may have been due to something other than Nakamura’s considerable skill. Investigations by Chess.com, Ken Regan, and others haven’t confirmed Kramnik’s claims, and frankly (though less rigorously) those of us who have watched Nakamura in action - especially online action - for the last quarter of a century aren’t inclined to give much credence to Kramnik’s doubts.
To his credit, Nakamura has addressed all of the accusations without evasion or defensiveness, and seems almost amused by them. That’s the right attitude, IMO, both for dealing with it on a psychological level and, as an added bonus, for P.R. reasons as well. Better still, he’s having some fun with it.
Case in point: this video, posted yesterday, titled “When Hikaru Ended Kramnik’s STREAK!!” Someday, years from now, when this kerfuffle has faded into memory, someone coming across this video will think it’s just Nakamura showing a notable win from the 2012 Olympiad. But we today know exactly what this is: a bit of high-quality trolling. The title is an obvious hint, and in case there was any doubt it disappears shortly after the 1:30 mark of the video: “Vladimir going into this game is on a 64-game unbeaten streak in the Olympiad - this is over many different Olympiads…so Kramnik [has been] undefeated - very interesting…” [emphasis mine].
(Remember, kids, he’s not accusing Kramnik of cheating. He’s just saying that it’s very interesting that he managed to go undefeated for 64 games.)
It seems to me that Kramnik deserves this mild ribbing, and should count his blessings that that’s all it is. Hopefully this will blow over soon, Kramnik will realize that he had jumped to inappropriate conclusions (or was too quick to find Nakamura’s streak “interesting”) and will apologize, and the chess world can move on. Cheating in chess is a problem, but it’s not helped by publicly-aired suspicions that lack rigorous statistical and/or physical evidence.
********************************************
To the chess. In the last post I presented the king and pawn ending from the 1909 game between Cohn and Rubinstein, challenging you to figure out how Black can win it. Here’s the answer.
There seems to be a bit of personal animus between Nakamura and Kramnik for whatever reason. I agree that Kramnik should not have made the accusation in the first place (and neither Nakamura nor Carlsen should have made a similar claim against Niemann last year). Cheating accusations by one player against another simply should not made or implied. If a player suspects his opponent is cheating, he should report those suspicions to tournament officials, and it is they who should investigate and, if cheating is verified, make it public.