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

141–150 of 207 posts

Re: Stockfish 14

#141

Post by V-2 »

mewpmewp2 wrote: post #121
fridif wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

At the end of the day it's akin to the "true randomness" problem. How do you prove a random numbers generator isn't truly, or fully random? Or that chess moves are "truly human", and not computed by an engine. You can only approach this probabilistically.

I also think the cheating detection algorithms can be beated, and I believe I could do that. Why do they still serve their purpose, more often than not?

To me, it's inherently linked to the very nature of online cheating. It's essentially a futile, nonsensical activity. The only gratification is an illusion of intellectual superiority, whose worthlessness is so transparent that it can only attract people who don't get to experience the sense of intellectual superiority pretty much anywhere else. As harsh as it may sound, your average cheater is rather stupid. That's why it isn't really difficult to catch 90% of them.

I don't rule out there are some cheaters who do it out of intellectual curiosity, but that would be a statistical outlier.

Re: Stockfish 14

#142

Post by andrewchambers »

warent wrote: post #54
andrewchambers wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans can gain hundreds or thousands of points per year at the start, but then tend to plateau afaik, it's actually easy to check this out on peoples public lichess accounts. Here is the world champion: https://lichess.org/@/DrNykterstein If you browse some other people, especially young and new players you can see the improvement over time.

Nitpick, certainly not thousands. When you're first starting out even if your elo is like 400, you'll be lucky to break 1000 after a year unless you study very diligently. The gap from 1000-2000 then takes multiple years (probably like 4-5 of diligent study) Climbing chess elo is very hard and slow!

I started from beginner to about 1800 on lichess in about a year of casual play and watching some grandmasters on youtube. I am 30 years old, i think younger kids can do better and we know many prodigies do.

I guess this is different to official rankings and/or elo though, so that was my mistake.

Re: Stockfish 14

#143

Post by Liquid_Fire »

MaxBarraclough wrote: post #139
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…

> Sometimes they can have literally 1 legal move and still take 10 seconds to find it. Perhaps a nit-pick: they need to discover the legal move, and discover that no other moves are possible, right? As a rather basic chess player myself, I can imagine I might spend some time on this depending on the situation.

I think the idea is that an experienced player would recognise this situation immediately (usually there is only one legal move because you are in check, or there is only one move that doesn't put you in check), or even ahead of time (knowing that their opponent's move brings them in check) and just play the only possible move straight away.

Of course a beginner would take some time to spot this, but it's unlikely you would confuse a beginner for a cheater, since a beginner will likely make many sub-optimal moves and spend lots of time thinking in general.

Re: Stockfish 14

#144

Post by nl »

mlang23 wrote: post #88
nl wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not really. What they are describing is that feeling you get when you suddenly realize you are losing even though you are even in pieces, because you suddenly see your opposition has superior positioning and board control It's not a blunder, because there wasn't one particular move where the game slipped away. At high levels, blunders are rare.

If the evaluation of a position were only about the raw material count, the game would be rather dull.

Sure.

Hence why I talked about the feeling you get when you realise you have mis-evaluated rather than trying to define it precisely.

From the OP:

> But when AlphaZero plays, and you watch Stockfish's score, the reason it wins is that it makes moves Stockfish thinks is poor, so it rates AlphaZero's moves poorly, and then all of a sudden it has an oh shit! moment when it realises that AlphaZero is actually ahead, and its score jumps. It's really a look inside the computer's head while it's being beaten by a better player.

Sure - you get that feeling from blunders too. But take a look at the Stockfish vs Alpha Zero games - Stockfish doesn't blunder. It it just outplayed: https://www.chess.com/news/view/updated-alphazero-crushes-st...

If you watch from here in game one you can see the "oh shit" moment, as Stockfish's evaluation drops from +1 to even to -1: https://youtu.be/Q5EPqM8gS7k?t=255

Re: Stockfish 14

#145

Post by Gauge_Irrahphe »

V-2 wrote: post #140
chki wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At what rating do you play? Around 1200 on chess.com? I don't see cheating as a big problem online for two reasons but I only play on lichess, not on chess.com. First of all it's not that bad to play against a cheater once in a while. If you compare it with other games, playing against an engine is a huge disadvantage but will not fundamentally change the structure of the game. You are still playing chess, but agains…

> If you compare it with other games, playing against an engine is a huge disadvantage but will not fundamentally change the structure of the game. You are still playing chess, but against a superhuman opponent It wastes your time. Playing against a human is a different experience. If you actually wanted to practice against an engine, you would do so knowingly. With some possible benefits such as takebacks etc. (sinc…

Your rating is recalculated when a cheater is found.

Re: Stockfish 14

#146

Post by Gauge_Irrahphe »

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.

Why not just pair them with an engine? If they win they are cheating.

Re: Stockfish 14

#147

Post by [deleted] »

bluecalm wrote: post #94
vikingerik wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a game of perfect information and no randomness, there are ultimately only two kinds of moves: those that preserve your current best forcible outcome (win or draw in chess*), and those that blunder that into a worse result given continued perfect play by the opponent. Everything else like a positional score or centipawns or even classic material points is an abstraction, that we use to summarize because we don't h…

There is a way to objectively distinguish moves from the same category though (drawing ones or losing ones). It's similar to Kolmogorov complexity. Let's say moves A and B both draw but the shortest algorithm that draws vs A is much longer then one that draws against B. We can say A is objectively a better move. In practice instead of formal definition we could use a benchmark engine. What's minimum CPU time/RAM requ…

[deleted]

Re: Stockfish 14

#148

Post by jayjader »

MaxBarraclough wrote: post #139
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…

> Sometimes they can have literally 1 legal move and still take 10 seconds to find it. Perhaps a nit-pick: they need to discover the legal move, and discover that no other moves are possible, right? As a rather basic chess player myself, I can imagine I might spend some time on this depending on the situation.

Depending on the situation, the chess website/app might show you that there is only 1 left. Already, when in check, you can't play a move that doesn't stop or cancel that check.

Re: Stockfish 14

#149

Post by V-2 »

Gauge_Irrahphe wrote: post #145
V-2 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you compare it with other games, playing against an engine is a huge disadvantage but will not fundamentally change the structure of the game. You are still playing chess, but against a superhuman opponent It wastes your time. Playing against a human is a different experience. If you actually wanted to practice against an engine, you would do so knowingly. With some possible benefits such as takebacks etc. (sinc…

Your rating is recalculated when a cheater is found.

Eventually, sure - if they get caught (as opposed to eg. just get bored and leave the platform before it happens)

Re: Stockfish 14

#150

Post by FartyMcFarter »

muzani wrote: post #127
mlang23 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> A blunder is when someone makes a wrong move then and there that costs them the game.

Not quite, as that would imply that each game has at most one blunder. It's quite possible for two players to blunder back and forth multiple times.

Post reply on HN