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

141–150 of 262 posts

Re: Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes

#141

Post by Andrew_nenakhov »

CSMastermind wrote: post #29
fasthands9 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know very little about chess. Do computers play like top humans? Or different stylistically? ie - if you were a top player and looking at the moves of an opponent, could you discern if the style was more similar to a top rated human or a top rated computer?

There are "computer moves" which stand out vs human players. These normally show up in lines where there are many options of roughly equal value and the computer picks a move that is infinitesimally better but out of 'theme' with the position. They can also show up when for instance there are multiple checkmates in a position. The computer will choose the one requiring the least number of moves even if it requires de…

This is a rather poor example. If there are multiple checkmates, humans are usually much more likely to see ones that require the least number of moves. Anyway if there are multiple checkmates, the game is irrecoverably lost by another player and it is easy to see on the board.

Re: Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes

#142

Post by avyjit »

sgjohnson wrote: post #135
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...

And also the Top Chess Engine Championship (TCEC)

Re: Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes

#143

Post by Andrew_nenakhov »

FreakLegion wrote: post #137
Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 "Nieman…

I did miss the exact context of this video, what is the position being discussed? It's that from a game Hans played with somebody which he then drew?

Re: Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes

#144

Post by fzliu »

squidbeak wrote: post #49
icelancer wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, somehow I missed this. Pretty wild accusations from Magnus and Hikaru on this. Hans just had a horrific tournament in his last attempt, which makes this whole thing pretty interesting. Hans didn't play engine perfect lines when beating Magnus in the Sinquefield Cup, though he obviously played extremely accurately.

Ignoring the lines (and any cheat at this level would be canny enough to avoid the top few engine moves), there's something seriously off about Niemann's analysis - shallowness and incoherence covered over with bluster. Even Ramirez seemed disdainful of his reasoning about his position against Firoujia tonight. It's pretty grim for him if he really didn't cheat. He won't be invited to a tournament involving Magnus ag…

Seconded re: Neimann's analysis. Specifically, he stated in a post-game interview that Carlsen had played the same Nimzo-Indian g3 line in a prior tournament, even though that never happened.

For the sake of the sport, I hope Neimann didn't cheat, but I doubt we'll ever know for sure.

Re: Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes

#145

Post by sdwr »

icambron wrote: post #114
ivalm wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 h…

I got "busted" in school for "cheating" in an assembly language lab. I fumbled explaining the code to the TA, and he thought I had copied code from someone else. Explaining and performing are two different skills, it's very possible to be able to do things that you can't describe.

Re: Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes

#146

Post by heydemo »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #140
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.

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?

Seems ironic to ask this on a post where a guy's cheating device malfunctions causing him to lose. There could be limitations which prevent him from cheating completely accurately

Re: Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes

#147

Post by Andrew_nenakhov »

heydemo wrote: post #146
Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Seems ironic to ask this on a post where a guy's cheating device malfunctions causing him to lose. There could be limitations which prevent him from cheating completely accurately

No, not ironic at all. Said device was extremely unreliable and failed to win even 2 games - while the person you accuse of cheating has improved from 2400 to 2700 in about 2 years. Pretty reliable cheating device he had, only to fail at the crucial moment.

Also, consider this: Nakamura knows that the position is good, but does he know it before he sees the evaluation, or after? Because it is a fact that when top player knows it is +3, he can explain why it is so good. But just looking at the board, without knowing the evaluation, he might have a very different conclusion.

Re: Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes

#148

Post by sireat »

323 wrote: post #41

Could you hide a bone-conducting bluetooth speaker in your big hair? This way the computer could speak the instructions and confirm the inputs. How about the controls being inside your mouth at the top. The tongue is very agile. But it might be difficult to tolerate. You could use a local anesthetic spray before.

1993 had the John von Neumann affair (I played in 1994 World Open so missed out on the fun) where the player had huge dreadlocks, presumably hiding headphones.

"At the World Open 1993 in Philadelphia a completely unknown player appeared, unsubtly calling himself John von Neumann. He played excellently, drawing against GM Helgi Olafsson in the second round. But in round four he suddenly stopped at move nine and lost on time."

"Von Neumann won a prize in the category of players without an Elo rating. Naturally people had become suspicious of this unknown and highly unorthodox player. Before the organisers handed over the $800 check they asked him to solve a simple chess puzzle. He refused, turned and left, and has never been seen again at chess tournaments"

Who was he and who was his assistant? Personal computers were not quite at the GM level in 1993.

https://en.chessbase.com/post/a-history-of-cheating-in-che-2

Re: Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes

#149

Post by okamiueru »

faeriechangling wrote: post #98
fasthands9 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know very little about chess. Do computers play like top humans? Or different stylistically? ie - if you were a top player and looking at the moves of an opponent, could you discern if the style was more similar to a top rated human or a top rated computer?

I can't find a citation but I recall that computers agreed with the moves of grandmasters from the pre-computer era about 60% of the time. Generally, the biggest heuristic for identifying cheating is identifying somebodies moves share statistical similarity to the top moves of common engines (Especially stockfish). This doesn't really work after a single game, but anybody playing the top move of stockfish 90% of the…

> 20 seconds to make their first move

At this level, players know all opening lines to some depth. The first move? I don't see how 20 seconds indicate anything other than a passage of time.

Re: Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes

#150

Post by randunel »

fzliu wrote: post #144
squidbeak wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ignoring the lines (and any cheat at this level would be canny enough to avoid the top few engine moves), there's something seriously off about Niemann's analysis - shallowness and incoherence covered over with bluster. Even Ramirez seemed disdainful of his reasoning about his position against Firoujia tonight. It's pretty grim for him if he really didn't cheat. He won't be invited to a tournament involving Magnus ag…

Seconded re: Neimann's analysis. Specifically, he stated in a post-game interview that Carlsen had played the same Nimzo-Indian g3 line in a prior tournament, even though that never happened. For the sake of the sport, I hope Neimann didn't cheat, but I doubt we'll ever know for sure.

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1981206 (a blitz to be compared against https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=2372960 from 2 days ago).
Post reply on HN