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

161–170 of 262 posts

Re: Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes

#161

Post by _Algernon_ »

Tenoke wrote: post #44
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.

>Could you hide a bone-conducting bluetooth speaker in your big hair? You don't really even need that. You only need to communicate a handful of bits. Morse code using small zaps/pressure anywhere on/in your body is sufficent.

>in your body

Only a question of time before someone gets caught cheating with a vibrating buttplug.

Re: Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes

#162

Post by mda »

sgjohnson wrote: post #124

> I told him that I was planning to recruit a "plausibly-good" chess player to use the shoes to win the world championship, Would one be able to clear a metal detector with this? I doubt it.

With enough miniaturization, maybe? There are computers small as a grain of sand, sure they don't run stockfish yet, but not impossible.

e.g. on 3nm node it s possible to fit 300million transistors per mm2.

Re: Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes

#163

Post by rvba »

YetAnotherNick wrote: post #47
Victerius wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I was the tournament organizer, all games would be held inside windowless, sound proof rooms doubling as Faraday cages with thick concrete walls, electronic jammers outside to prevent any radio communications, and no one but cleared staff members inside. The players would also be subjected to multiple rounds of metal detectors.

Can metal detector detect a gram of Silicon(except transistor I think there are non metallic replacement for everything)? Also, many players bring their own beverage in their container. Seems pretty steep to ban everything for a small minority of cheater.

For me it is unbelievable that it is not done that way already.

It is like hearing about ambassadors who dont implement strict rules to defend the embassy against spies.

Re: Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes

#164

Post by systemvoltage »

FreakLegion wrote: post #99
systemvoltage wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still complete speculation, you need far more than bits of an interview analyzed by a popular GM for viewership to accuse someone in a professional OTB game in the legendary Sinquefield Cup. You need real evidence of cheating. What concerns me is that we won't know the truth as GothamChess said. I am onboard with condemning Hans in the strongest terms if he was caught cheating in OTB game, this just seems like the Bo…

I'm not accusing him of cheating. Hans' interviews have been off. This isn't speculation. The positions are right there in the interviews, analyze them and see. Hans says zig and the analysis shows zag. That's it. That's the whole conversation. Someone said the interviews were bad, you disagreed citing Levy and King, I explained what they (and I!) liked about the interviews and pointed out that the actual chess analy…

Alright, fair enough. So far, the best take was Gotham's it was the most reasonable but also discussing Hikaru's video. We need to give the guy benefit of the doubt, he is a little autistic and has all the signs of aggressive/unstable personality. People like him are often the first ones to get lynched so to speak by the mob on Twitter.

Re: Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes

#165

Post by Andrew_nenakhov »

underdeserver wrote: post #155
Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is false. If there's a longer mate where every move from your opponent is forced (that is, only one more is legal or doesn't immediately lose) a human player will play that, as opposed to a shorter mate, in say 5 moves, where you have all sorts of different cases to calculate depending on what your opponent plays.

You should be more careful with such statements. Boldly claiming that something is 'false' and backing it up with a rather vague hypotheticals does not make your statement look good, considering that said hypotheticals are not supported by my own chess playing experience. Of course, I don't claim to be a really strong player or something, and my lichess rapid rating is only ~2580, so maybe your expertize in these matters exceeds mine.

Re: Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes

#166

Post by Andrew_nenakhov »

searealist wrote: post #151
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?

This is not the point. The point was that he good enough to nearly beat the #4 in the world if he wasn't cheating.

Everyone has their good days and bad days. Elo rating estimates a probability of an outcome, and even with 2880/2680 it is far from zero.

Re: Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes

#167

Post by FreakLegion »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #143
FreakLegion wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Starting from this position in the game against Alireza today, which was even: https://lichess.org/editor/r2q1rk1/1pbn1pp1/2p1b2p/p2pP3/P1N...

The interviewer (Alejandro Ramirez, also a GM) asks Hans what happens if black takes the knight on c4, which didn't happen in the game but is the engine's best move. Hans says Bh6, starts down one line with g6, Bg5 (good moves) but backtracks the latter and blunders with f4, and says "At this point my pieces are literally perfect, his pieces are terrible" (Hans is -2). The position in the video is two moves later. By then white is completely lost, but Hans says black has no chance.

Re: Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes

#168

Post by seanhunter »

fasthands9 wrote: post #18
sharedfrog wrote: post #3

This is relevant to today's events because Magnus Carlsen just withdrew from a tournament[1] after yesterday's loss to a significantly lower rated opponent who had previously been suspended for cheating on chess.com. The tournament organizers have also implemented additional anti-cheating protocols starting today. Whatever comes out of these accusations, the chess world will sure enjoy its new infusion of drama. [1]…

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 certain moves that players will absolutely call "engine moves". These are usually moves with no discernable purpose (even when calculating deeply) that later on turn out to have been crucial dispite the fact that they don't seem to progress any conventional goal or deal with any current concrete threat. If you analyse a game with Stockfish you'll often see it suggest (say) a calm-looking king move that no human would ever play in the middle of a massive attack but that turns out to resolve some deep positional issue later on.

The clearest example in modern play is a4 and h4 as white (eg early h4 vs the King's Indian Defense) or a5/h5 as black. These are now frequently played in various positions because since they were discovered a few years back by alphazero, they have been extensively examined and found to be good, but prior to that, no strong human would play them.

Re: Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes

#169

Post by planede »

sgjohnson wrote: post #136
_the_inflator wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If that's the only rule, it can quickly become "who can spend more on compute on a single game" championship. Not very interesting.

Re: Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes

#170

Post by Cthulhu_ »

ManWith2Plans wrote: post #97
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.

Do you have a source of Magnus accusations? He seems to have withdrawn relatively quietly, perhaps consciously trying to refrain from cheating accusations. Hikaru was less reserved on the other hand. He called Hans's post-game interview analysis sub-2700 level after Hans Neiman badly mis-evaluated several positions.

Yeah I think he's being very professional instead of just throwing out accusations; let the arbitrators call that.

I'm not at all into chess (only through the odd HN post where I get out-nerded left, right and center), but I can imagine it ends up being a very analytical thing, where the experts or analysts can spot whether someone is playing like a human or a computer. And I also think they can't add "noise" (e.g. human mistakes) to it either, that'll either throw the computer off, OR it'll look "uncharacteristic".

Post reply on HN