>>527142914
I think Kramnik "works" in the sense of saying uncomfortable things that nobody else has the balls to say, so I think he is useful. On the other hand, weren't those experts like noobs at chess or completely clueless about the game and tried to explain certain anomalys with retardation? Like you have to play chess and have experience to feel that something is wrong, time usage, etc... Many have that "feeling" and knowledge/suspicions (sometimes right or sometimes wrong) to catch cheaters. Look up "Borislav Ivanov " and how FIDE and others tried to defend this obvious cheater, and people kept putting pressure until they took action