Live data from Hacker News

Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes

incoherency.co.uk

211–220 of 262 posts

Re: Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes

#211
Cheating seems easy to deal with. The players should go into a dressing room with supervision. They take off all of their clothes and don new clothing for the event. They then go out and play. They also probably need to be accompanied to the bathroom with an observer.

Of course, this all sounds crazy. But it's not that different than what athletes have to do (if you've ever had to stand around naked waiting to pee into a bottle after a race you know what I'm talking about).

Yes, they still could have some kind of in-body thing (tiny earpiece, or weirder thing in some other part of their body), so they probably have to also be scanned for electronics (or, the game has to take place in a location where there is no way to electronically communicate).

Re: Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes

#212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, a…

So how did he make it to +3 position against #4 player in the world if he is so terrible? If he cheated and used a computer, what is your suggestion, that his cheating method had failed mid-game? As for his 'blundering' in a live Q&A talk, that's not indicative at all, I have posted my reasoning in a sibling comment.

>As for his 'blundering' in a live Q&A talk, that's not indicative at all, I have posted my reasoning in a sibling comment.

Specifically on this, I agree with you. Who knows if he's just nervous at giving interviews.

Re: Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes

#213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> 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?

Yes and No.

Yes but in the long term. ELO is a self-fulfilling prophecy so if your ELO states you should win say 30% of the games vs a different ELO but you win 50% your ELO rises until you have an ELO that states you should win 50% of the games vs that ELO (at which point you lose the same amount of points in a loss as your wins so it stops rising. Previously you gained more points for a win than a loss so you gradually increased in rating).

No because not every sport starts ELO at the same baseline and not every sport league (i.e. Chess website) starts the base ELO at the same (i.e. Lichess starts everybody with 1500, Chess.com starts everybody with 1000). It's also a relative metrics amoungst active players (who indirectly/directly play each other) so if a GM 500 years ago reached an ELO of 2100 that doesn't mean they're the same strength of a current player with an ELO of 2100.

Re: Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes

#214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For most of the sites, the software was reading the text-based "hand history" to collect data. When hands were mucked at showdown, the contents of the mucked hands generally appeared in the plain-text hand history (and most UIs provided a way to view them or to replay the hand action-by-action). There were a couple of sites where this wasn't the case, or where the hand history wasn't provided in a simple text format…

That is interesting… I don’t play a ton of poker at casinos, but I haVe played in probably a dozen or so tournaments at Hollywood Park and a few in Vegas… I have never once seen anyone see or request to see a mucked hand, although I have seen someone get yelled at by the dealer for trying to turn over another player’s mucked hand after the showdown.

Years ago I played live games quite often (Vegas), and I do still play a few times a year (also Vegas). I've seen players make the request maybe 20 times total, and probably had the request granted ~50% of the time. When denied, it's usually because the cards were already intermingled in the muck, but on a few occasions it was due to the requestor exhibiting some level of 'menacing/antagonizing intent' to begin with.

You will definitely get yelled at if you attempt to flip someone's cards yourself, 100% of the time. At higher limits, it may get you removed from the game or worse. You can ask/request the dealer to show the mucked hand, though. I'd still suggest that you not request to do so -- it will almost assuredly piss someone (or multiple people) off. There are some rare occasions where it may be worth it and/or warranted, but they are few and far between.

Most common is when someone shows their hand to "half" the table immediately before mucking (at showdown), which often will cause the other half of the table to want to see too. Most dealers handle it well and just move on to the next hand while the players 'disseminate' the (usually useless) information.

Re: Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes

#215

Neat. Reminds me of the hidden shoe computers developed by Claude Shannon and Ed Thorp in 1960 for cheating at roulette. https://nautil.us/claude-shannon-the-las-vegas-cheat-6397 J. Doyne Farmer and Norman Packard from UC Santa Cruz also developed one in the late 70s as part of a group called The Eudaemons. http://physics.ucsc.edu/people/eudaemons/layout.html

I've also read anecdotes of shoe computers for poker, IIRC.

Worth mentioning the book, entitled "The Eudaemonic Pie: The Bizarre True Story of How a Band of Physicists and Computer Wizards Took On Las Vegas".

Re: Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes

#217

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 don't understand why a GM would need to explain some of his moves precisely and with a deep understanding of the position as some commentators here point out. Why is that so indicative of cheating? It's known that classical chess has a lot of theory, and Hans himself admits that he checked an engine line the evening before the game. So what? Here's the quote:

" I didn’t guess it, but by some miracle I checked this today, and it’s such a ridiculous miracle that I don’t even remember why I checked it. I just remembered 12…h6 and everything after this, and I’ve no idea why I would check such a ridiculous thing, but I checked it, and I even knew that 13…Be6! is just very good. It’s so ridiculous that I checked it. " https://chess24.com/en/read/news/sinquefield-cup-3-niemann-b...

Re: Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes

#218

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?

I don't know about his game yesterday with Firouzja, but the rumor is that Magnus thinks Niemann got hold of his opening preparation before the game, which would put him at a huge advantage.

Re: Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes

#220

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…

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…

This article [0] from 1999 on Texas Hold'em shows how bad some developers have fouled up card shuffling algorithms.

> In a real deck of cards, there are 52! (approximately 2^226) possible unique shuffles. When a computer shuffles a virtual deck of cards, it selects one of these possible combinations. There are many algorithms that can be used to shuffle a deck of cards, some of which are better than others (and some of which are just plain wrong).

> The shuffling algorithm used in the ASF software always starts with an ordered deck of cards, and then generates a sequence of random numbers used to re-order the deck. Recall that in a real deck of cards, there are 52! (approximately 2^226) possible unique shuffles. Also recall that the seed for a 32-bit random number generator must be a 32-bit number, meaning that there are just over 4 billion possible seeds. Since the deck is reinitialized and the generator re-seeded before each shuffle, only 4 billion possible shuffles can result from this algorithm. Four billion possible shuffles is alarmingly less than 52!.

> The RST exploit itself requires five cards from the deck to be known. Based on the five known cards, our program searches through the few hundred thousand possible shuffles and deduces which one is a perfect match. In the case of Texas Hold'em poker, this means our program takes as input the two cards that the cheating player is dealt, plus the first three community cards that are dealt face up (the flop). These five cards are known after the first of four rounds of betting and are enough for us to determine (in real time, during play) the exact shuffle. Figure 5 shows the GUI we slapped on our exploit. The "Site Parameters" box in the upper left is used to synchronize the clocks. The "Game Parameters" box in the upper right is used to enter the five cards and initiate the search. Figure 5 is a screen shot taken after all cards have been determined by our program. We know who holds what cards, what the rest of the flop looks, and who is going to win in advance.

> Once it knows the five cards, our program generates shuffles until it discovers the shuffle that contains the five cards in the proper order. Since the Randomize() function is based on the server's system time, it is not very difficult to guess a starting seed with a reasonable degree of accuracy. (The closer you get, the fewer possible shuffles you have to look through.) Here's the kicker though; after finding a correct seed once, it is possible to synchronize our exploit program with the server to within a few seconds. This post facto synchronization allows our program to determine the seed being used by the random number generator, and to identify the shuffle being used during all future games in less than one second!

From the NY Times article [1]:

> The ASF vulnerability lies in a faulty implementation of what is known as a pseudo-random number generator to produce a shuffled deck of cards before each round of play. The order of each shuffled deck is completely determined by one number, known as the seed. In this case, the program chose a seed based on the time, measured in milliseconds since midnight. By synchronizing their program with the system clock on the server generating the seed, Mr. McGraw and his associates were able to narrow the number of possible decks to about 200,000. Then, given the cards dealt and the community cards in the center, they could quickly compute which deck was being used.

Your friend's strategy of only playing poor players is a lot safer than breaking the casino's wallet. I'm reminded of the scene in the movie Casino [2] where casino staff drag the cheaters into the basement and threaten to cut off their hands with a power saw.

[0] - https://web.archive.org/web/20060205100630/http://www.develo...

[1] - https://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/13/business/compressed-data-...

[2] - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112641/

Post reply on HN