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

Titled Tuesday Cheating

dorianquelle.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 131 posts

Re: Titled Tuesday Cheating

#21

Post by trollied »

hibikir wrote: post #16
trollied wrote: post #3

Hikaru talking about the cheating allegation against him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zm2R--_fBj0 I'll add that he live streamed the tournament he was accused of cheating in. If you've ever watched how fast he moves and quite often pre-moves & talks through his strategy as he goes, it'd be very surprising to see that he cheated (and I don't even know how he'd go about doing so - he's faster than the engines!).

I don't think he was cheating, if just because he was playing a series of players far, far lower than his standard level, and he proves that level in tournaments that have far superior anti-cheating requirements. However, could he be cheating, if he wanted to, in ways undetectable by the livestreaming? Absolutely! At the GM level, just having the evaluation visible somewhere is more than sufficient to gain 100 points…

> It's just that the lame browser engines aren't set up to remember the line from move to move, so they recompute.

I didn't realise this. Appreciate the correction.

Re: Titled Tuesday Cheating

#23

Post by scott_w »

Bootvis wrote: post #7
kookamamie wrote: post #6

[flagged]

What's wrong with it?

Hikaru has done multiple videos on why it’s total nonsense, pointing to statisticians from multiple universities that detail the problems in his thinking.

In short, he tries to pretend Elo doesn’t exist and there’s no way a top 10 GM could repeatedly defeat FMs and IMs rated 400 points lower.

Re: Titled Tuesday Cheating

#25

Post by teo_zero »

gwern wrote: post #20
teo_zero wrote: post #17

Why do so many chess experts, practitioners and commenters, with varying degrees of familiarity with the chess world, misspell Elo?

Because it is so often capitalized, lowercasing it looks like a mistake, it looks exactly like an acronym, Elo was not nearly as famous for anything else, 'ELO' exists as a real acronym for many other things (eg. Electric Light Orchestra), and you can even easily define pseudo-definitions for it as a backronym - 'expected logistic odds', just off the top of my head. I host a copy of his book and I still struggle ever…

Yeah, I think we've been flooded by three-letter acronyms for so long that we see them everywhere. It doesn't happen with four letters: you wouldn't write VOLT or WATT.

Re: Titled Tuesday Cheating

#26

Post by umvi »

Controversial opinion, but what is the point of becoming a pro chess player in a world of computers? Any novice can beat you when assisted by an engine. The same can't be said of other professions. A novice can't design a better bridge than a civil engineer just by using cots software.

Re: Titled Tuesday Cheating

#27

Post by [deleted] »

umvi wrote: post #26

Controversial opinion, but what is the point of becoming a pro chess player in a world of computers? Any novice can beat you when assisted by an engine. The same can't be said of other professions. A novice can't design a better bridge than a civil engineer just by using cots software.

[deleted]

Re: Titled Tuesday Cheating

#28

Post by michaelt »

umvi wrote: post #26

Controversial opinion, but what is the point of becoming a pro chess player in a world of computers? Any novice can beat you when assisted by an engine. The same can't be said of other professions. A novice can't design a better bridge than a civil engineer just by using cots software.

What's the point of being a professional runner, when motorbikes exist?

People can get enjoyment from doing (and watching) people doing things, even if machines can do it better.

Re: Titled Tuesday Cheating

#29

Post by paulsutter »

michaelt wrote: post #28
umvi wrote: post #26

Controversial opinion, but what is the point of becoming a pro chess player in a world of computers? Any novice can beat you when assisted by an engine. The same can't be said of other professions. A novice can't design a better bridge than a civil engineer just by using cots software.

What's the point of being a professional runner, when motorbikes exist? People can get enjoyment from doing (and watching) people doing things, even if machines can do it better.

Status-seeking is the reason folks focus on professional running, or professional chess, or any of these very hardcore, very difficult endeavors that have no practical purpose.

Someone once commented that men make extraordinary efforts to impress women, yet in general have very little understanding of what women actually like. This explains jacked-up trucks, professional chess, professional running, etc

EDIT: I'm talking about professional-level running or chess, not the hobbies of running or chess

Re: Titled Tuesday Cheating

#30

Post by throw_pm23 »

michaelt wrote: post #28
umvi wrote: post #26

Controversial opinion, but what is the point of becoming a pro chess player in a world of computers? Any novice can beat you when assisted by an engine. The same can't be said of other professions. A novice can't design a better bridge than a civil engineer just by using cots software.

What's the point of being a professional runner, when motorbikes exist? People can get enjoyment from doing (and watching) people doing things, even if machines can do it better.

Arguably nothing.

Amateur running seems to make more sense.

Post reply on HN