Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes • Hacker News Board

Re: Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes

#111

Post by kthejoker2 » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 4:45 AM UTC

Very interesting, lots of room for improved UX with more sensors to more efficiently communicate opponent moves - "long presses", double and triple taps, "shake your foot", rolls, heel lifts ... if you could get this down to Also for things like "captures-captures" or "only move" some shortcuts would be handy.

Maybe some hand and brain style options where you or it select the piece and the other suggests a move ...

Wiring up each toe and mapping to a piece type could expedite move suggestion inputs ...

Re: Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes

#112

Post by pedrosorio » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 4:50 AM UTC

systemvoltage wrote: post #54

squidbeak wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alireza was able to speak accurately and in depth in his post game interviews along the way. Niemann doesn't seem able to do this.

What are you talking about? He talked for 17 mins and according to GothamChess and PowerPlayChess, it was one of the best chess interviews ever . Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCeJrItfQqw I don't get it. HN seems to be always on the skeptical side when accusing anyone, here we're seeing people pile up on Hans without any evidence whatsoever. The fact of the matter is, no one knows why Magnus quit.

Is there any other player with similar rating trajectory [0] to Hans at his age (going from international master at 17.5 to super GM at 19 years old)?

I'm aware of an Indian player, Arjun Erigaisi [1], who made headlines for quickly climbing from 2600 to 2700+ over the last year (18-19 years of age), but he was a grandmaster before he turned 15, whereas Hans achieved everything (including the grandmaster title), in the past 2 years.

[0] https://ratings.fide.com/profile/2093596/chart

[1] https://ratings.fide.com/profile/35009192/chart

Re: Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes

#113

Post by kfrzcode » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 4:51 AM UTC

michaelwm wrote: post #5

Though I'm not much of a poker player myself, I am friends with many professionals who have found success both online and offline, in games from pot-limit omaha to no-limit hold-em. Cheating in online poker has been around for many years, with varying success by online gaming companies to implement anti-cheat measures in their software. With recent developments in AI, there is renewed discussion about cheating as the…

Which AI has beat humans at poker? I'm curious as I just heard a guest on Lex Fridman's podcast say differently... I'm not up to speed with that realm

Re: Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes

#114

Post by icambron » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 4:55 AM UTC

ivalm wrote: post #102

searealist wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's binary. Either he did cheat today or he did not. If he did not then who cares what his post analysis looks like after drawing the #4 player in the world and being +3 at some point. The only reasonable analysis is to declare him a cheater today or discard the interview. To say that the interview would point to him cheating vs Magnus but not today is nonsense.

You can always say 40% cheater, 60% non cheater in this one game, but this updates the priors for future game considerations. At some point the priors will be such that the belief in the risk of cheating (which needs not be more than 50%) will cause the player to not be invited.

I don’t think this is right. The idea seems to be that his post-game interview shows he didn’t understand the positions very well despite playing them accurately, so he may have cheated. But a) today there was a huge amount of extra security and specific scrutiny on him, b) he drew despite having a substantial advantage at one point, and c) a bad interview where he fumbled some stuff would be a nothing-burger if it hadn’t come after an accusation. It seems much more likely that this is a swirl of confirmation bias, not sound adjustments to priors. No one seemed to think his play was suspicious before the Magnus tweet and now everyone is reading tea leaves.

Re: Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes

#115

Post by pedrosorio » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 4:55 AM UTC

michaelwm wrote: post #5

Though I'm not much of a poker player myself, I am friends with many professionals who have found success both online and offline, in games from pot-limit omaha to no-limit hold-em. Cheating in online poker has been around for many years, with varying success by online gaming companies to implement anti-cheat measures in their software. With recent developments in AI, there is renewed discussion about cheating as the…

> private events with potentially billions of dollars at stake

What are these? Elon Musk - Jeff Bezos head to head?

Re: Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes

#116

Post by ycuser2 » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 4:56 AM UTC

pk2200 wrote: post #109

epigramx wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure why wasn't that blatantly obvious until today. Chess is an extremely unsuitable sport for online because you are 100% free to use the strongest computers on it without 100% no cheat protection at all. It should be ..100% restricted to person-to-person tournaments for keeping score.

The tournament Carlsen withdrew from today isn't an online event. All the games are played in person at the St. Louis Chess Club.

How was Hans able to cheat? Seriously curios.

Re: Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes

#117

Post by Andrew_nenakhov » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 5:00 AM UTC

FreakLegion wrote: post #67

systemvoltage wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you talking about? He talked for 17 mins and according to GothamChess and PowerPlayChess, it was one of the best chess interviews ever . Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCeJrItfQqw I don't get it. HN seems to be always on the skeptical side when accusing anyone, here we're seeing people pile up on Hans without any evidence whatsoever. The fact of the matter is, no one knows why Magnus quit.

> it was one of the best chess interviews ever It was, but for reasons having nothing to do with his analysis of the game. Stronger players like Hikaru have dismantled Hans' last two interviews pretty convincingly[1]. Those interviews and his history of being banned from chess.com seem to be driving the current speculation more than Hans' actual play. The interview after Magnus was great because Hans was saying thing…

Oh come on, "dismantling". The guy is just a few points below 2700, he is extremely good at playing chess and he is up there in the top 0.001% of chess players. Sure Hikaru might be a bit stronger in certain aspects of the game (and being just slightly less prone to small mistakes is enough at that level to have much higher rating), but it is unlikely that he possesses some kind of superior insight.

Re: Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes

#118

Post by Andrew_nenakhov » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 5:05 AM UTC

Animats wrote: post #10

Computer-assisted chess cheating has been going on for over a decade now.[1] It's getting to be embarrassing for humans, that small battery powered devices now win against strong players. At world championship level, at least you still need a laptop. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheating_in_chess#High-profile

> At world championship level, at least you still need a laptop.

No you don't. A very simple smartphone from 2016 will do.

Re: Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes

#119

Post by texasbigdata » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 5:09 AM UTC

ycuser2 wrote: post #116

pk2200 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tournament Carlsen withdrew from today isn't an online event. All the games are played in person at the St. Louis Chess Club.

How was Hans able to cheat? Seriously curios.

Hmmm I wonder what this thread is called

Re: Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes

#120

Post by texasbigdata » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 5:13 AM UTC

sharedfrog wrote: post #16

avip wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, it's ~1/25. So still should happen.

For sure. On its own, it's no more than a raised eyebrow. The next few days will show if there's any solid evidence. Btw. the 24% chance of "winning" against a 200 Elo higher rated opponent refers to "winning a point" - it includes draws as well.

Rookie question but don’t draws occur more than 20-25% of the time at this level? Or is that just a unique feature of chess versus say StarCraft.

Restated, are sports specific ELO scores real? Alternatively phrased, does an X ELO score in one competitive endeavor represent the same relative strength as the same ELO in another subject?