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

Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes

incoherency.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 262 posts

Re: Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes

#131

Post by icambron »

ivalm wrote: post #122
icambron wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 h…

I agree that he probably did not cheat vs firouzja. Even vs Carlson my money is at most the line magnus wanted to play somehow got leaked. It’s hard to imagine getting live engine support otb at a modern tournament.

Right. But the specific point in this thread is that his horrible analysis after the Firouzja game was suspicious, which doesn’t lend any weight to the accusation unless we’re also claiming he cheated in that one.

Re: Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes

#133

Post by sgjohnson »

Tenoke wrote: post #31
cortesoft wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

About 20 years ago (before the crackdown on online poker in the US), I had a friend who made a good living playing online poker. His cheating strategy was to use an engine to watch every single game being played on the server. Once he accumulated enough data on players, he would simply play at tables where there were really bad players. He would have insight into each players strategy, and could counter easily. He ma…

20 years ago online poker was extremely soft, and you could make a profit easily with a little bit of skill. At any rate, what you describe is usually not considered cheating - most sites (with some exceptions now, but likely none back then) explicitly allow software that tracks stats about players - by 2010 (when I was playing semi-professionally online) most regs used software like that (usually Poker Tracker or Ho…

> most sites (with some exceptions now, but likely none back then) explicitly allow software that tracks stats about players

Only from the tables you're playing at. To my knowledge most sites won't allow you to spectate other tables for the purpose of gathering data.

Re: Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes

#134

Post by sgjohnson »

pedrosorio wrote: post #115
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?

No, those are the make believe games that Dan Bilzerian loves to boast about.

Re: Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes

#135

Post by sgjohnson »

nebulousthree wrote: post #123

We need a tournament that allows for engines. That way the humans are merely avatars of NNs, and may the best engine win. This may also uncover lots of useful insight for the "all-natural" human tournaments.

> We need a tournament that allows for engines.

We do. It's called the World Computer Chess Championship

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Computer_Chess_Champions...

Re: Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes

#136

Post by sgjohnson »

_the_inflator wrote: post #128
nebulousthree wrote: post #123

We need a tournament that allows for engines. That way the humans are merely avatars of NNs, and may the best engine win. This may also uncover lots of useful insight for the "all-natural" human tournaments.

How would this solve the problem of cheating? What is "the best engine"? An Engine requires rules as well. Cheating is always involved when there are rules. That's why it is called cheating. The idea of professional cheating is not to tell anyone about it. That's why undetected case are usually higher.

> An Engine requires rules as well.

Yes, the basic rules of chess.

Re: Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes

#137

Post by FreakLegion »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #117
FreakLegion wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

There's an objective reality here. You can watch the interviews and evaluate the positions yourself to verify it. I checked, since the interview today left the engine off and I was curious if Hikaru's ad hoc analysis was right. It was[1].

Anyway, one small but important logical issue. When you say "the guy is just a few points below 2700", that's begging the question. Other people are arguing, in effect, that "Niemann's play can't be that good, his analysis is too bad", and your counter is "Niemann's analysis can't be that bad, his play is too good".

1. Example I gave elsewhere, now timestamped: https://youtu.be/ETzdxK7QUmg?t=145. Black is better than +3 here and Hans is saying it's completely lost.

Re: Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes

#138

Post by sgjohnson »

wombatcringe wrote: post #130

Quoted post unavailable.

You don't need to be born into wealth to pick up chess as a hobby. It only gets expensive for very high level players (having to attend international tournaments to progress, if you're from a small country where the player pool isn't big enough)

Re: Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes

#139

Post by ciphol »

sgjohnson wrote: post #127
bjourne wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, you could very easily do that. However, the theory is that cheaters would let the engine decide only 3-4 critical moves during a game and that would be enough to turn the tide in their favor. In chess small advantages compounds so this computer help would be enough for grand masters to beat the world champion. A cheater that understands cheating countermeasures could easily fly under the radar that way.

The problem with this approach is that you'd still need to be able to correctly identify those critical moments in the game, and a single move won't help you. You need the entire line. Which would still require a considerable skill. If you can't figure out why a single move is brilliant, you won't be able to find the entire line. If stockfish tells you the entire line, and the opponent plays something that wasn't inc…

If you're playing Magnus Carlsen, you're probably pretty skilled to begin with.

Re: Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes

#140

Post by Andrew_nenakhov »

searealist wrote: post #86
threatofrain wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the accusation is that the sum of signals doesn't look good.

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.

What is the reasoning of people accusing a player of the OTB cheating? That he somehow (with the help of a computer?) got up to +3 at some point against said #4 player, but then decided to stop cheating?

If he is that 'bad' to draw a +3 position, how did he achieve this position in the first place?

Post reply on HN