Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chess’s Cheating Crisis

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 284 posts

Re: Chess’s Cheating Crisis

#231

Post by umvi »

ben509 wrote: post #21

> Perhaps thinking of Lance Armstrong, he added: “I was a big fan of a certain cyclist and a part of me understands the pressure to succeed at all costs. ..." Lance Armstrong didn't just cheat, he set up a whole doping ring.[1] The full report is at [2]. Section VI of the Reasoned Decision lays out his efforts to keep a lid on the whole thing. There are plenty of athletes who get caught up in doping due to the pressu…

"Doping" sounds bad like he's taking drugs, but isn't doping just putting your own blood back inside of you to get higher red blood cell counts? How is that much different from living on top of a mountain for a few months and then coming down on race day with elevated red blood cell counts? Is the latter cheating as well?

Why not just legalize doping in sports, that way everyone can do it and therefore not gain an advantage by doing it? It would also remove the advantage of people who live in high altitudes.

Re: Chess’s Cheating Crisis

#232

Post by bonzini »

sbierwagen wrote: post #209
busyant wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I cheated on Lichess--once. Story: I got paired with someone rated 400 points higher than me (no idea why). The dude was destroying me, but somewhere in the middlegame, he let his guard down and exposed himself to a mate-in-one. For once in my life, I saw the mate and I won. The dude was FURIOUS. He immediately asked for a rematch and I said I had to go. Then the insults came ("chicken shit", etc.). He even messaged…

>I got paired with someone rated 400 points higher than me (no idea why) If you haven't played in a while, then glicko will give you a wide ratings deviation, and pair you against much stronger or much weaker opponents: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glicko_rating_system

Or the guy was tilted and intentionally looked for weaker opponents.

Re: Chess’s Cheating Crisis

#233

Post by ALittleLight »

georgiecasey wrote: post #117

I used to cheat on chess.com. It started as a small bit of cheating here and there, just checking every now and then if the move I was going to make was the best. Of course, the computer always had a better move and then I examine the line and told myself I probably would have thought of that! Like a drug, it escalated and I was checking moves all the time. I was never caught but I was ashamed and just stopped playin…

My game of choice is Go rather than Chess, but this seems similar.

When I was young I hated playing games against the AI. It always felt unreal to me and there was no satisfaction in it. Now, I immensely prefer playing the computer - it goes at my pace, I can get up and leave, I can take all the time I want for my move, and if I do something dumb I just undo back to where I feel comfortable and play better. When I get legitimately stuck I ask the computer for advice.

In this way, I basically always win against a superior player. It may not be ideal for practice, but I just play for fun and find it satisfying to win.

Re: Chess’s Cheating Crisis

#234

Post by chegra »

hnaccy wrote: post #51
noneeeed wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen a lot of online conversations recently where the default assumption is that every Olympic sprinter, every cyclist or swimmet, basically every elite athlete is doping. It's pretty sad that we are in a world where you can work incredibly hard to make the most of natural talents and many people will assume you cheated.

When the top 30 100m times all belong to athletes that have been popped for doping with the exception of Usain Bolt you have to ask yourself is he just THAT amazing or is he amazing plus have the best doping team and protection. You have enormous money and prestige on the line and lots of powerful entities (FIFA, IOC, NFL, countries, athletic wear companies, etc) that don't have a huge incentive to catch their golden…

Or Bolt is an anomaly? We are talking about a third world country here. There isn't any money to have the best chemist etc. How bolt is different is that he is tall and has the same turn over as a small guy. Chemicals don't get you this, only genetics. It was the long held belief that tall people cannot run short distances. Now, every coach is looking for a tall runner with same turn over as a small guy. Bolt just changed the paradigm.

Re: Chess’s Cheating Crisis

#235

Post by nisuni »

torben-friis wrote: post #29
3np wrote: post #12

> Sarah Longson, a former British ladies’ champion Athletic sports aside, does anyone know the motivation between gender-segregated leagues in games like chess?

I vaguely remember some studies about women underperforming when they perceive their opponent as a man (even playing online). A quick google search might get you some articles on the matter, or the papers themselves.

Is this enough to explain not a single woman in the top 100?

Re: Chess’s Cheating Crisis

#236

Post by grecy »

bufferoverflow wrote: post #208
ritchiea wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lichess will flag your account as a cheater w/o notifying you so that your opponents see the flag and avoid games. I know this because a friend of mine who is an average player got flagged that way after a stretch of games he won handily, including one against me where I checked computer analysis and noticed he made zero incorrect moves. A red flag popped up next to his screenname, I asked if he was aware of it and h…

They should pair cheaters with cheaters.

Number of players: 0

Re: Chess’s Cheating Crisis

#237

Post by nradov »

trhway wrote: post #191
NikolaNovak wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of it from my layman's perspective is that today, even home exercising frequently involves protein shakes. As you go into even basic body building or training, you start taking more and more "Stuff". There's no clear obvious intuitive big line between "natural talent and hard work" and "illegal chemical cheating". Reading the details of the tests involved a few years ago made me believe the line we draw is thin,…

>As you go into even basic body building or training, you start taking more and more "Stuff". There's no clear obvious intuitive big line between "natural talent and hard work" and "illegal chemical cheating". yep, it is all individual. Some people have nice biology, some will get nowhere without "stuff". A recent blood test showed some anemia (that explained why i had such low level fatigue and tiredness threshold i…

There is a huge natural variance between individuals that goes far beyond testosterone and includes height, bone density, vision, other hormones, etc. No one realistically expects a level playing field. But everyone has to play by the same arbitrary rules. In practice those differences only matter at elite levels; at casual amateur levels you can overcome natural disadvantages by training harder and playing smarter. The best player on your company softball team probably doesn't have a super high testosterone level.

Testosterone supplementation can induce erythrocytosis, but you can accomplish that more directly with EPO. (I don't recommend doing that.)

Re: Chess’s Cheating Crisis

#238

Post by mjcohen »

SilasX wrote: post #228
busyant wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I cheated on Lichess--once. Story: I got paired with someone rated 400 points higher than me (no idea why). The dude was destroying me, but somewhere in the middlegame, he let his guard down and exposed himself to a mate-in-one. For once in my life, I saw the mate and I won. The dude was FURIOUS. He immediately asked for a rematch and I said I had to go. Then the insults came ("chicken shit", etc.). He even messaged…

>But yeah, regular cheating just kind of takes the joy out of the competition. Well, as the saying goes, "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em." Maybe we should just move over to computer-assisted human chess and compete that way?

As in Fritz Leiber's 1962 story "The 64-square Madhouse".

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/61213/61213-h/61213-h.htm

Re: Chess’s Cheating Crisis

#239

Post by dwohnitmok »

SilasX wrote: post #228
busyant wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I cheated on Lichess--once. Story: I got paired with someone rated 400 points higher than me (no idea why). The dude was destroying me, but somewhere in the middlegame, he let his guard down and exposed himself to a mate-in-one. For once in my life, I saw the mate and I won. The dude was FURIOUS. He immediately asked for a rematch and I said I had to go. Then the insults came ("chicken shit", etc.). He even messaged…

>But yeah, regular cheating just kind of takes the joy out of the competition. Well, as the saying goes, "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em." Maybe we should just move over to computer-assisted human chess and compete that way?

I thought computers playing by themselves are equal to or better than computer+human pairs now (i.e. centaur chess is dead and humans provide no help but are only a hinderance). Is that true (this is just a half-remembered hunch)?

Also even if that's not true, computer-assisted human chess for all but the highest levels of play would still be just "human accepts computer move."

Post reply on HN