Page 1 of 17 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 253
  1. #1
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    273

    General computer cheating discussion

    A topical post from GM Ian Rogers on the emerging problem of computer cheating in chess.

    http://gardinerchess.com.au/gm-roger...ll-that-gaioz/

  2. #2
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,667
    Quote Originally Posted by ggardiner View Post
    A topical post from GM Ian Rogers on the emerging problem of computer cheating in chess.

    http://gardinerchess.com.au/gm-roger...ll-that-gaioz/
    I don't know that even statistical analysis could catch a clever and determined cheat: it is not necessary to choose the best computer move at every step: only at key moments. At other times, second third or fourth best moves may suffice. How can one possibly tell the difference between a very good player aided by computer and a great player?

  3. #3
    CC International Master Agent Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,466
    Yeah.
    but should the similarities persist over a tournament, the probabilities are similar to those in DNA matching.
    If the cheater is so obliging to use a single engines first choice, then maybe, but otherwise not.

    But Ian's blogs are great
    Last edited by Agent Smith; 21-04-2015 at 10:40 PM.

  4. #4
    CC Grandmaster Adamski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Penrith, NSW
    Posts
    8,714
    I like the end of GM Ian's latest blog: "However the Nigaladze case does mean that arbiters will have to learn new skills; identifying possible cheats through behaviour and move-matching, as well as mollifying paranoid players who believe that their opponent must be cheating because the opponent played three good moves in a row."
    Too many of my opponents have played 3 good moves in a row...
    God exists. Short and to the point.

    Secretary of, and regularly arbiter at, Rooty Hill RSL Chess Club. See www.rootyhillchessclub.org.

    Psephological insight. "Controversial will only lose you votes. Courageous will lose you the election." Sir Humphrey Appleby on Yes Minister.

    Favorite movie line: Girl friend Cathy to Jack Ryan in "Sum of all Fears". "What kind of emergency does an historian have?".

  5. #5
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,157
    Quote Originally Posted by pax View Post
    I don't know that even statistical analysis could catch a clever and determined cheat: it is not necessary to choose the best computer move at every step: only at key moments. At other times, second third or fourth best moves may suffice. How can one possibly tell the difference between a very good player aided by computer and a great player?
    You are obviously not familiar with the research by Associate Professor Kenneth Regan (http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/), who is also an international master. His methodology allows to identify who is cheating with a very good precision.

    Similar problems exist with firms cheating (for example, by fixing prices) and luck of factual proof - it is very hard to catch them talking to each other. The courts have adopted a policy that it is enough to prove beyond the doubt of reason.

    Quote Originally Posted by wiki
    Evidence that is beyond the doubt of reason is the standard of evidence required to validate a criminal conviction in most adversarial legal systems.

    Generally the prosecutor bears the burden of proof and is required to prove their version of events to this standard. This means that the proposition being presented by the prosecution must be proven to the extent that there could be no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a "reasonable person" that the defendant is guilty. There can still be a doubt, but only to the extent that it would not affect a reasonable person's belief regarding whether or not the defendant is guilty...

  6. #6
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Wynyard,Tas
    Posts
    2,224
    Quote Originally Posted by Vlad View Post
    You are obviously not familiar with the research by Associate Professor Kenneth Regan (http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/), who is also an international master. His methodology allows to identify who is cheating with a very good precision.
    As I understand it this will catch what you might call dumb cheating, as in having Stockfish in your earpiece or shoe and playing its moves all the time. I suspect more intelligent use of technology would be a lot harder to prove or even detect forensically.

    This one seems to have all gone a bit quiet recently. Does anybody know if there have been any developments recently, e.g. real world testing?

  7. #7
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    13,139
    Quote Originally Posted by Adamski View Post
    I like the end of GM Ian's latest blog: "However the Nigaladze case does mean that arbiters will have to learn new skills; identifying possible cheats through behaviour and move-matching, as well as mollifying paranoid players who believe that their opponent must be cheating because the opponent played three good moves in a row."
    Too many of my opponents have played 3 good moves in a row...
    depends on the position - some positions - strong players are more than capable of playing 3 or more computer moves in a row
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  8. #8
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,157
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Rout View Post
    As I understand it this will catch what you might call dumb cheating, as in having Stockfish in your earpiece or shoe and playing its moves all the time. I suspect more intelligent use of technology would be a lot harder to prove or even detect forensically.
    It would be harder but not impossible. You can specify, for example, to use the 5 best moves suggested by Stockfish. The power of the test will not be as good as when it is the best move suggested by Stockfish. However, if a player in question has played enough games (say a few tournaments), then it is still possible to see a noticeable difference from somebody else who has a similar rating and plays by himself.
    Last edited by Vlad; 25-04-2015 at 12:32 PM.

  9. #9
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,157
    I think at this stage everybody waits for FIDE to come up with a number, which is what probability that a particular player is cheating is enough to accuse him/her of cheating. 100% is just not good enough. If say FIDE agrees with 99%, then I think that it is feasible to introduce the system pretty quickly. Well, 1 person out of 100 will be incorrectly accused of cheating, but it is relatively small costs given how cheating is widespread nowdays.

  10. #10
    CC International Master Kerry Stead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,134
    Quote Originally Posted by Vlad View Post
    I think at this stage everybody waits for FIDE to come up with a number, which is what probability that a particular player is cheating is enough to accuse him/her of cheating. 100% is just not good enough. If say FIDE agrees with 99%, then I think that it is feasible to introduce the system pretty quickly. Well, 1 person out of 100 will be incorrectly accused of cheating, but it is relatively small costs given how cheating is widespread nowdays.
    The problem with this idea is that the 'standard' punishment for cheating is a ban of 2 years + ... Although you may get things right 99 times out of 100, its the 100th case that bans a player unfairly.

    Although cheating is obviously something to try to remove from the game, detection methods are not yet at the point of being 'foolproof', so there are dangers in introducing blanket rules that apply in all situations.

  11. #11
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,157
    Quote Originally Posted by Kerry Stead View Post
    The problem with this idea is that the 'standard' punishment for cheating is a ban of 2 years + ... Although you may get things right 99 times out of 100, its the 100th case that bans a player unfairly.

    Although cheating is obviously something to try to remove from the game, detection methods are not yet at the point of being 'foolproof', so there are dangers in introducing blanket rules that apply in all situations.
    Obviously, I was using 99% as an example. It is probably more likely to be something like 99.99%.

    If you pay attention to my first post, I was talking about the firms fixing price scenario. Courts in North America are using similar to Regan's econometric evidence. The punishment there is imprisonment (for many years) and multi-million fines.

  12. #12
    CC Grandmaster Desmond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The island
    Posts
    12,628
    2 years is nowhere near enough IMO.
    So what's your excuse? To run like the devil's chasing you.

    See you in another life, brotha.

  13. #13
    CC International Master Kaitlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Inventor of the Surströmming opening
    Posts
    1,416
    I think there should be more fr otb tourneys, so that people who have looked up the answers in a book beforehand have less chances of winning.
    .. this Caketin is full of little spiders and watermelon seeds.....

    ..Chess is all about fear and psychology

    ..Chess is like an exam..... you havent studied for

    ..If you're good at Chess it means you are very intelligent and could potentialy do great things
    ..... but that you might have wasted that playing way too much chess

  14. #14
    CC Grandmaster Adamski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Penrith, NSW
    Posts
    8,714
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaitlin View Post
    I think there should be more fr otb tourneys, so that people who have looked up the answers in a book beforehand have less chances of winning.
    I have played a bit of Fischer Random and enjoyed it, but it just doesn't seem to have taken off. It certainly makes cheating harder- until FR apps are built and become widely available.
    God exists. Short and to the point.

    Secretary of, and regularly arbiter at, Rooty Hill RSL Chess Club. See www.rootyhillchessclub.org.

    Psephological insight. "Controversial will only lose you votes. Courageous will lose you the election." Sir Humphrey Appleby on Yes Minister.

    Favorite movie line: Girl friend Cathy to Jack Ryan in "Sum of all Fears". "What kind of emergency does an historian have?".

  15. #15
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,958
    Quote Originally Posted by Adamski View Post
    I have played a bit of Fischer Random and enjoyed it, but it just doesn't seem to have taken off. It certainly makes cheating harder- until FR apps are built and become widely available.
    Most of the difficulty in cheating in FR would come from the castling rules. Once the opponent has castled a player could just manually enter a position, if allowed by the device, and use the engine to play normal chess.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. 46th Parliament General Discussion Thread
    By Kevin Bonham in forum Politics
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 06-11-2019, 07:31 PM
  2. FIDE general discussion thread
    By Kevin Bonham in forum General Chess Chat
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 06-10-2019, 01:11 PM
  3. Do we really have a lot of computer cheating in Australia?
    By MichaelBaron in forum Australian Chess
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 14-08-2019, 08:56 PM
  4. 44th Parliament General Discussion Thread
    By Kevin Bonham in forum Politics
    Replies: 693
    Last Post: 08-05-2016, 06:50 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •