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

121–130 of 131 posts

Re: Titled Tuesday Cheating

#121

Post by sesm »

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!).

He was wearing headphones during the stream, right? At his level, it's enough to get a 'BEEP' sound 1-2 times during the game to increase your performance by 200 ELO.

Re: Titled Tuesday Cheating

#122

Post by ThomasCM »

islewis wrote: post #50
ThomasCM wrote: post #10

Shameless plug: f you're looking for a similar way to compare your online rating with the FIDE rating, take a look at my project: https://www.chessmonitor.com/ Like the author, I also use regression, but extended to non-title players. More information: https://www.chessmonitor.com/blog/2023-elo-calculation

Having a quick look at ChessMonitor, it looks like much of the analysis tools mirror what can be found on Lichess (unsure about Chess.com). Is the value providing the aggregate analysis between Lichess and Chess.com? Or is there functionality past what can be found on the respective sites?

Chess.com Insights are similar to what my project is doing. However, Lichess has nothing similar. They do have something called "Chess Insights" but it's not really comparable IMHO.

That said, there are also some unique features like "Openings" which allows you to quickly identify your best/worst openings.

Re: Titled Tuesday Cheating

#123

Post by scott_w »

sebzim4500 wrote: post #57
scott_w wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ok but that's not what was posted. The OP looks reasonable to me.

Fair enough, I think I've been confusing the content of this post with the discourse that led to it.

Re: Titled Tuesday Cheating

#124

Post by busyant »

lysp wrote: post #101
busyant wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> based on how often they play the best moves according to engines in online and live matches One thing that Magnus mentioned about a year ago (I think in relation to his oblique insinuation that Hans Niemann cheated) is that you don't have to cheat throughout the game. He posited that if he checked an engine only once per game (at some critical juncture), he would be unbeatable (by any other non-cheating super GM).…

> He posited that if he checked an engine only once per game (at some critical juncture), he would be unbeatable (by any other non-cheating super GM). Not even to that extent. They just need to be told which single move mid-game to think harder on, and they'll often find it. So all they need is a metaphoric tap on the shoulder.

> They just need to be told which single move mid-game to think harder on, and they'll often find it.

That's right! I think Carlsen even said something to that effect.

"This is a critical move." is all he might need to know....

Re: Titled Tuesday Cheating

#125

Post by marcyb5st »

paulddraper wrote: post #63
ps256 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need something more sophisticated, otherwise it's easy to confuse high skill and/or well memorised lines with cheating. And a good cheater will be smart enough to either use engine assistance only in difficult spots and/or frequently pick the second/third best moves from the engine.

I think the parent's idea is that over-the-board is harder to cheat; therefore you could look at the difference between OTB and online play.

Correct. My idea is actually that with some grace number of moves that players can play by the book (i.e. openings). After that, run the analysis I mentioned. I agree that playing OTB is more stressful and that is difficult to model in such an approach. I was hoping to at least get some signal to filter out the mostly obvious cheaters and so focus on the remainder that should be less obvious.

Re: Titled Tuesday Cheating

#126

Post by hilux »

mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote: post #43
progbits wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kramnik has gone off the deep end. The "statistics" he is using make zero sense and whenever someone tried to counter him with actual mathematics he would just delete the comments.

I respect Kramnik a lot both as a player and as a commenter on current top chess. I thought his research on chess with the castling rules removed was fascinating, for instance. I honestly watched his entire Youtube rant, and by the time it got to his actual data, I was so mentally drained from trying to understand the long, poorly structured 45 minute rant that preceded it, I was unable to even parse his figures and…

Your second paragraph made me LOL - thanks! Similar experience here, listening to the C-Squared interview.

> I think his focus on games that can vs can't lead to higher earnings is interesting.

The root problem, or least one of them, is that he is cherry-picking his results. He may not even understand that he is doing it. (Caruana also pointed this out in the C-Squared interview.)

Rather than defining some search universe with reasonable parameters, and applying some standard filter across all of that space, Kramnik first notices some "interesting" result and expands out from there. This is a recipe for self-delusion and/or fraud.

Re: Titled Tuesday Cheating

#127

Post by stas_sl »

I'm not sure I fully understand why MAE is that big there (~0.35). Is it a difference between theoretical (based on rating difference of players) expected score and actual score averaged over many games? If score is in range 0-1, then MAE=0.35 seems a huge to me. I get it, that there is some deviation from theoretical prediction, but if I understood correctly it happens for larger ratings difference, but I guess more games should be played between players of similar strength.

Re: Titled Tuesday Cheating

#128

Post by alasdair_ »

importantbrian wrote: post #93
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.

When AGI finally comes around are you going to just stop doing anything? After all, what's the point when a machine can do it better?

This is my fear. That everything becomes pointless.

I think the solution is human augmentation to stay relevant.

Or we just have silly things like weight classes for each achievement.

Re: Titled Tuesday Cheating

#129

Post by alasdair_ »

recursive wrote: post #78
lupire wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't carry the car everywhere in my pocket though. Running ability is useful in real life outside of races. Very high chess skill is never useful in any environment outside of the artificially restricted game environment.

The analogy holds. Deep thinking is useful in real life. "Very high" running skill is not useful in any environment outside of artificially restricted controlled races.

Chess moves won’t let you get out of a building on fire quivkly.

Re: Titled Tuesday Cheating

#130

Post by recursive »

alasdair_ wrote: post #129
recursive wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The analogy holds. Deep thinking is useful in real life. "Very high" running skill is not useful in any environment outside of artificially restricted controlled races.

Chess moves won’t let you get out of a building on fire quivkly.

Nor will the difference between being decently fit and a world class runner.
Post reply on HN