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

Chess’s Cheating Crisis

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 284 posts

Re: Chess’s Cheating Crisis

#241

Post by junar »

unnouinceput wrote: post #199
dalbasal wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a "no news" zone between a discovery and proliferation. In 1997, deep blue become superhuman.. proving the point. The average consumer engine was still like average tournament player with really weird moves. It took another decade before superhuman engines became widely available to normal people. That decade gap is where we often mispredict the future. Once a point is proven, we expect instant impact. Realit…

Friendly reminder your GTX 1080 is more powerful than "Deeper blue" (not deep blue beat Kasparov, but deeper blue, which was a heavy upgrade) so unless you're better then Kasparov any kid could beat you through cheating.

A more realistic setup is Stockfish on a 4+ core CPU desktop, or maybe on a modern smartphone. GPU chess engines aren't as useful to the majority of machines without a high-end card.

Re: Chess’s Cheating Crisis

#243

Post by WalterBright »

noneeeed wrote: post #83
hnaccy wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the top 30 100m times all belong to athletes that have been popped for doping with the exception of Usain Bolt you have to ask yourself is he just THAT amazing or is he amazing plus have the best doping team and protection. You have enormous money and prestige on the line and lots of powerful entities (FIFA, IOC, NFL, countries, athletic wear companies, etc) that don't have a huge incentive to catch their golden…

Yep, sprinting is the prime example. If an honest but genetically lucky and hard working sprinter came along today, there would be no way they could convince everyone that they were clean. Not getting caught doping is assumed to mean you are just too good at hiding it. The dopers have basically ruined sprinting and a number of other sports for anyone who wanta to compete cleanly and does well. It's entirely possible…

> genetically lucky

Genetic modification will be the next frontier in cheating.

Re: Chess’s Cheating Crisis

#244

Post by thatguy0900 »

strbean wrote: post #192
vokep wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are protein shakes and such 'stuff' at all approaching performance enhancing chemicals? Performance enhancing chemicals make the body do things it wouldn't normally do, directly modifying behavior to be different than it could be without that substance. Protein shakes are just providing nutrients so the body can make full use of exercise. Giving the body a nutrient rich liquid food is very different from a drug.…

First it is protein shakes. Then creatine and other supplements. Then pre-workout stuff. Then the better pre-workout stuff someone at the gym recommended. Then you find out that pre-workout stuff was banned by the FDA for containing amphetamine analogues. Whoops, you were cheating!

For anyone who thinks this is exaggerating they even sell "research product- not for human consumption" fda banned stuff at Walmart https://www.walmart.com/ip/Magnitude-Life-Sciences-Dark-Ener...

Re: Chess’s Cheating Crisis

#245

Post by modzu »

as someone who's made videogame cheats, ive always got a bit of a chuckle from the enthusiasm of users who defend players accused of cheating. sentiments such as, "it's not a hack, they are just good and you're a sore loser!". how to tell can be extremely difficult. but certainly anything digital that is competitive will have cheats. i regard digital games/sports as more like hybrid/centaur games -- you should assume your competitors are using technologies to their advantage. in a classic game like chess it's pretty lame, but that's why you go to your local club.

Re: Chess’s Cheating Crisis

#246

Post by [deleted] »

gnulinux wrote: post #216
lapetitejort wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For some classes, especially as you get higher in fields, no amount of open books will help you in an exam. If you're able to figure out the material using a book then and there while not knowing it before, you deserve the grade.

When I was an undergrad (UC Berkeley) all Math and CS classes beyond basics (like Calculus etc) allowed "cheat sheets" in exams and some were "open book" (i.e. bring whatever the fuck you want (nothing digital of course, just paper, no calculator)). I don't remember an incident when bringing a cheat sheet was useful during the exam, maybe 1 time for a minor thing. Writing out the cheat sheet before the exam definitel…

[deleted]

Re: Chess’s Cheating Crisis

#247

Post by WalterBright »

gnulinux wrote: post #216
lapetitejort wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For some classes, especially as you get higher in fields, no amount of open books will help you in an exam. If you're able to figure out the material using a book then and there while not knowing it before, you deserve the grade.

When I was an undergrad (UC Berkeley) all Math and CS classes beyond basics (like Calculus etc) allowed "cheat sheets" in exams and some were "open book" (i.e. bring whatever the fuck you want (nothing digital of course, just paper, no calculator)). I don't remember an incident when bringing a cheat sheet was useful during the exam, maybe 1 time for a minor thing. Writing out the cheat sheet before the exam definitel…

At Caltech the exams were nearly always open book, open note. Furthermore, they were not proctored (by institute policy), and you could take them home and do them, and you were trusted to adhere to the time limit.

I.e. it was so easy to cheat there was no purpose to cheating. In many colleges, students brag to their peers about getting away with cheating. At Caltech, I never heard anyone brag about cheating. If you were caught cheating, the other students would ostracize you.

Re: Chess’s Cheating Crisis

#248

Post by trhway »

nradov wrote: post #237
trhway wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>As you go into even basic body building or training, you start taking more and more "Stuff". There's no clear obvious intuitive big line between "natural talent and hard work" and "illegal chemical cheating". yep, it is all individual. Some people have nice biology, some will get nowhere without "stuff". A recent blood test showed some anemia (that explained why i had such low level fatigue and tiredness threshold i…

There is a huge natural variance between individuals that goes far beyond testosterone and includes height, bone density, vision, other hormones, etc. No one realistically expects a level playing field. But everyone has to play by the same arbitrary rules. In practice those differences only matter at elite levels; at casual amateur levels you can overcome natural disadvantages by training harder and playing smarter.…

>at casual amateur levels you can overcome natural disadvantages by training harder and playing smarter.

no, it is just a feel good fairy tale. You're missing the point - amount of oxygen defines your speed/endurance/etc that you can reach. It is basic law of physics. Put a gas mask on and narrow the pipe half or even just a quarter - no amount of training will help you overcome that. I was an amateur boxer - 4th at University 30 years ago - so i'm not just armchair talking.

For the last decade i've been running and hiking regularly and there recently was a deep in my performance - pushing harder didn't work, it was just like hitting glass ceiling - which got corrected once i saw the anemia and corrected it with supplements. Did i instead have to accept the low level of performance, accompanied by easily setting fatigue, etc. just for sake of "naturalcy"? And if I to run some competition should I stop the supplements and try to run with anemia?

>No one realistically expects a level playing field.

exactly. So why wouldn't we try to to level it as much as possible. Wouldn't it make the competition more honest as it would allow to win the ones who train harder and play smarter than the ones who just accidentally got better DNA?

Re: Chess’s Cheating Crisis

#249

Post by sudosysgen »

reidmcy wrote: post #156
sudosysgen wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. There are chess engines that are indistinguishable and made to imitate the play style of a top tier human player.

Can you give an example? I haven't seen any that are indistinguishable from humans

HIARCS or Lucas Chess are engines that have been made explicitly to play like a human. You won't be able to distinguish them, with some human play in conjunction, from a very strong human player.

Re: Chess’s Cheating Crisis

#250

Post by nradov »

mlavin wrote: post #222
Yizahi wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do realize that transfusion of your own blood, even with zero 3rd party chemicals, is also doping? But it only provides nutrients too, or to be more precise concentrated result of those nutrients.

Blood doping increases red blood cell count and compensates for physiological changes which happen during an event like the Tour de France, it's disingenuous to call it nutrients.

Lance Armstrong and his Postal teammates routinely did blood doping during the Tour de France. They smuggled frozen blood in a hidden compartment and arranged secret transfusions in hotel rooms. All the sordid details are in "The Secret Race" by Tyler Hamilton.

https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/212873/the-secret-r...

Post reply on HN