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

Stockfish 14

stockfishchess.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 207 posts

Re: Stockfish 14

#121

Post by mewpmewp2 »

fridif wrote: post #117
eertami wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes yes, computers play a certain way and make moves that simply aren't intuitive to humans, especially not lower rated players. However the most obvious cheaters are more easily given away by time between moves. When they take the same time between every move whether it be a deep positional move or an obvious recapture, you can be quite sure something fishy is going on. Sometimes they can have literally 1 lega…

Sounds like bullet chess is the only answer

I don't want to advertise cheating or give any info about cheating, but a "good" cheater can also cheat in bullet and may be even go more undetected if they were to mix moves well.

Note: I have not cheated myself, but I can definitely see a way it can be done. I'm not sure if it would be good of me to describe the process of course... Just think what input you can have and what output you can get if you were to do this programmatically and you can very well imagine if it's possible, there are also existing tools for that. You don't have to open a chess engine in another window and manually do the movements, if you know how to script.

In bullet, I think may be, you could technically even use something to do "anti blundering", meaning you will blunder a lot less, because engine will just check whether it would be an obvious blunder, and block your move. May be you just allow few blunders, and I imagine it would be undetected. Sorry, again for brain storming about that. It is fascinating topic though. Engine could be running on a lower depth and it could be more sort of positional engine that does not do magical engine moves, but is trained on human players and using neural network mostly. Maybe it will just help you do theory openings. And you won't be able to charge anyone for cheating for following opening theory.

Re: Stockfish 14

#122

Post by muzani »

vfc1 wrote: post #107

I feel like I've been playing against it a lot in chess.com, with the tremendous amount of cheating that is going on online, every 1 out of 6 or 7 games is an engine user (I know because I report them, and they get banned). It's great to have a better engine, but I feel that would benefit the most the online chess community is not a better engine, but an open source cheat detection system, if that's even possible. I…

I thought something like lichess actually compares the player's moves against something like Stockfish and if it matches too closely, they flag that user.

Re: Stockfish 14

#123

Post by cout »

lionkor wrote: post #109
madflame991 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you figure out they're using an engine? Are there obvious human moves and AI moves?

I guess you could compare the outputs for different engines with that of a "suspicious" player - if their moves match exactly, flag them, if it happens too many times, ban them. Something like that.

Someone who plays a lot against a computer will often pick up the computer's style.

But sometimes a computer will make odd moves no human would ever make. I've been playing against an ios stockfish app to relearn how to play, and when it gets behind it starts throwing material away to delay the inevitable; a human would more likely keep the material and hope the opponent doesn't see the path to victory.

One way to detect use of an engine is to look for moves like this, though if it could be done algorithmicly then that same algorithm could be used to make the engine play more like a human.

Re: Stockfish 14

#124

Post by muzani »

tus89 wrote: post #25

Is it just me or is battle-of-the-AI chess more exciting than humans?

I like the AI-Augmented humans. Kasparov has said that the AI advances are exciting for training. I heard Magnus Carlsen would observe the AI more than humans and infer how to play the game from them, rather than use more traditional methods. The Play Magnus Group invests a lot in AI-backed training tools.

Re: Stockfish 14

#125

Post by Jarmsy »

fridif wrote: post #116
fsiefken wrote: post #113

What would be the added value of an average and aspiring chess player like me to play against Stockfish 14 instead of one of he previous versions? I feel I'll never challenge the maximum capacity of such an engine.

Probably most of the improvements in 14 are for arriving at a more accurate answer quickly for play against other machines When you play stockfish at a human level, it is purposely choosing an answer it knows is worse ^.^

My impression from playing against lower levels of the default stockfish on Lichess is that it's really bad at playing badly, so not much fun to play against. It seems like it plays at full power, interspersed with random bad moves.

Re: Stockfish 14

#126

Post by mewpmewp2 »

ddek wrote: post #112
JosephRedfern wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess a basic implementation might compare the moves performed by the player under evaluation against the move that an engine would suggest? Presumably an excellent player might often make the same moves as an engine, so this measure alone isn't going to be perfect. But it could be a starting point. You might also look at the player's historical performance and watch for suspicious changes, or perhaps look for patt…

It's hard because often cheaters will play 'clean' until they get behind or to a particularly ambiguous spot, when they will cheat for one or two moves. The really hard part of chess is what to do in the mid game, once you're off your scripted opening, there is still lots of material, and neither player has any significant vulnerabilities. A computer is useful here.

You could even just use computer to do near perfect theory openings and you can not charge any one for cheating here, and you can still gain more ELO there. There's so much variance you could do. One does not have to alt tab to input and mirror chess engine moves with Stockfish. You can use neural network only, which is trained on human players, and have a programmatic way for AI to have suggestions on where to move show up on your screen. Time delay being pretty much non-existant, and maybe even good script can pre-move very obvious things for you. Maybe the AI will give you 3 non blunder moves, and you can yourself choose which makes the most sense or just block you from obviously blundering, but maybe like only 90% of the time.

I don't like giving out ideas here, but I feel like these are obvious ways one could cheat and go undetected.

Re: Stockfish 14

#127

Post by muzani »

mlang23 wrote: post #81
SamBam wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Minor thought, but one of the things I love about high level AI chess, like Stockfish vs AlphaZero, is seeing how their ratings of positions change over the course of the game. I had realized a while ago that, as a human, the computer will give your position a score, and then you make a move, and your score can pretty much only stay the same (if you make a "perfect" move) or go down. Much of the time, it goes down. T…

The "technical" term for what you describe is blundering. The winner amongst two humans playing each other is mostly defined by who blunders first. Some of these are sometimes so obvious that we have a take-back rule amongst friends for obvious giveaways. Mind you, its not "can I take this move back", its "you want to make another move, this one is too stupid"

A blunder is when someone makes a wrong move then and there that costs them the game. At AI levels, there are very few, if any, blunders. I think parent commenter means a strategic mistake, where they made a mistake about 5 moves in advance.

Re: Stockfish 14

#128

Post by reader_mode »

mewpmewp2 wrote: post #119
vfc1 wrote: post #107

I feel like I've been playing against it a lot in chess.com, with the tremendous amount of cheating that is going on online, every 1 out of 6 or 7 games is an engine user (I know because I report them, and they get banned). It's great to have a better engine, but I feel that would benefit the most the online chess community is not a better engine, but an open source cheat detection system, if that's even possible. I…

It's odd that it would be 1 out of 6 or 7, because when high elo streamers like Hikaru or Chessbrah are doing speed runs, they very often go on a 100 win streak, which sounds exceedingly unlikely if the odds of facing an engine user would be 1 out of 6/7. An engine user would definitely beat them, unless they were using it sparingly of course, which can be, but I don't think it would be that obvious for you in this c…

>It's odd that it would be 1 out of 6 or 7, because when high elo streamers like Hikaru or Chessbrah are doing speed runs, they very often go on a 100 win streak, which sounds exceedingly unlikely if the odds of facing an engine user would be 1 out of 6/7.

I would guess that even with the engine you would take some games to rank up to that high so if chess.com is good at banning cheaters most of them would probably get caught sooner.

Re: Stockfish 14

#129

Post by mewpmewp2 »

reader_mode wrote: post #128
mewpmewp2 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's odd that it would be 1 out of 6 or 7, because when high elo streamers like Hikaru or Chessbrah are doing speed runs, they very often go on a 100 win streak, which sounds exceedingly unlikely if the odds of facing an engine user would be 1 out of 6/7. An engine user would definitely beat them, unless they were using it sparingly of course, which can be, but I don't think it would be that obvious for you in this c…

>It's odd that it would be 1 out of 6 or 7, because when high elo streamers like Hikaru or Chessbrah are doing speed runs, they very often go on a 100 win streak, which sounds exceedingly unlikely if the odds of facing an engine user would be 1 out of 6/7. I would guess that even with the engine you would take some games to rank up to that high so if chess.com is good at banning cheaters most of them would probably g…

Yes, but those streamers often start from 500-600. And often when they do actually face those cheaters, they have gone undetected for 100+ games, maybe at 2000 elo, and they seemingly only get banned because of the publicity they face against the streamer. Meaning chess.com cheating detection by itself hasn't managed to detect them for so long, and who knows how many are there wild in the open managing to do more than 100s of games, without facing any publicity and doing it a lot more intelligently than the obvious ones against the streamer.

Re: Stockfish 14

#130

Post by knuthsat »

mewpmewp2 wrote: post #119
vfc1 wrote: post #107

I feel like I've been playing against it a lot in chess.com, with the tremendous amount of cheating that is going on online, every 1 out of 6 or 7 games is an engine user (I know because I report them, and they get banned). It's great to have a better engine, but I feel that would benefit the most the online chess community is not a better engine, but an open source cheat detection system, if that's even possible. I…

It's odd that it would be 1 out of 6 or 7, because when high elo streamers like Hikaru or Chessbrah are doing speed runs, they very often go on a 100 win streak, which sounds exceedingly unlikely if the odds of facing an engine user would be 1 out of 6/7. An engine user would definitely beat them, unless they were using it sparingly of course, which can be, but I don't think it would be that obvious for you in this c…

I guess the problem is that most users that play with an engine don't play bullet/blitz.

I do meet a lot of engine players on 3 minute blitz but then I just do very fast bullet moves and all of a sudden I'm losing with a 90 second advantage that cannot be recovered if the user persists on playing with an engine.

Post reply on HN