481–486 of 486 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are. You can't play for fun when you have no idea if you're playing against another human or Stockfish (or whatever is in fashion this week).
You don't need to worry about that unless you're playing at GM level for fun. For most people they'll pretty much never run into cheating
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For shooters, bots or assists that only use vision and normal input (special mouse/keyboard) aren't hard to imagine and I'm positive already exist. I know specifically I read a while back about mice that do recoil correction to improve aim, and things like "click when something that looks like a head is in the crosshairs" would be a weekend project at most for a bored college student. Strategy games may be harder, bu…
I doubt that since a weekend project. You need to analyze a video stream of hundreds fps in real time with very low latency requirments. You'd probably need an FPGA to do that. Custom training an AI to only trigger on heads.
Latency _could_ make it a lot more difficult, but beating a human I don't expect would be hard.
You don't need to do hundreds of fps. Just grab the newest frame, process it, repeat. Missing frames at most increases effective latency or means your cheat isn't 100% effective if you miss a head. It's a sliding scale of improvements, not a deal breaker.
You also don't even necessarily have to process the whole frame. Just the bit actually _at_ the crosshairs is probably going to be enough for a crappy version.
And a fake mouse is just usb-hid, usb gadget whatever search terms, not like you'd have to break any new ground there.
I consider it a "weekend project" because it's just throwing together a couple of existing libraries in a fairly standard way. Like most things, cleaning it up enough to be perfect could/would take far longer.
Will chess.com provide an automated tool that uses the same methodology to analyse every player that uses it's platform? If not it seems unfair to other high profile players. But imagine they do, will those players get automatically banned from the website? Will tournaments require a proof of your online score and "non-cheater" certificate? A part of me seems to see this kind of automated analysis dangerously intrusi…
The most important metric is "Number of games flagged by our cheat detection system", and they don't show the baseline for that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't need to worry about that unless you're playing at GM level for fun. For most people they'll pretty much never run into cheating
You mean chess.com has the resources to police all casual players? :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He's just referring to the fact that after game is over you can let your program stew on any given move for a weekend or more before reporting back on how strong it was or wasn't.
But standard programs like Stockfish won’t tell you how strong a move was. They’ll just tell you how much it changes the evaluation. E.g. if you initiate a queen trade in a straightforward position, on the next move I have to take back my queen; any other move will show a gigantic evaluation drop by the engine. But that doesn’t mean it’s a particular strong move — even an absolute beginner will play it. Thus it’s of…