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

Titled Tuesday Cheating

dorianquelle.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 131 posts

Re: Titled Tuesday Cheating

#61

Post by paulddraper »

jaxr wrote: post #44
fairity wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The size of his streaming audience is largely predicated on his perceived skill though. So, he may hypothetically feel pressure to cheat in order to impress his audience.

I'm not sure that translates very linearly. Most of the chess YouTube "stars" are not even GMs. Most of the viewers are hardly good players, so what you can learn from an IM is astronomical. Charisma and good at teaching are much better skills than a 1000 ELO difference imo. To your point, beating Magnus might drag a lot of people to his stream.

> Most of the chess YouTube "stars" are not even GMs.

But they have tutorials, put tons of effort into entertaining content, etc.

Hikaru doesn't.

People watch Hiraku because they want to watch a top 5 player.

Re: Titled Tuesday Cheating

#62

Post by lupire »

soegaard wrote: post #45
hibikir wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think he was cheating, if just because he was playing a series of players far, far lower than his standard level, and he proves that level in tournaments that have far superior anti-cheating requirements. However, could he be cheating, if he wanted to, in ways undetectable by the livestreaming? Absolutely! At the GM level, just having the evaluation visible somewhere is more than sufficient to gain 100 points…

I agree with your analysis. > That can be setup trivially somewhere out of view. And that's the reason headphones are banned in tournaments. It's a problem for streamers though, since they need headphones to avoid audio feedback.

What audio feedback?

Do chess streamers need audio from the computer?

Re: Titled Tuesday Cheating

#63

Post by paulddraper »

ps256 wrote: post #52
marcyb5st wrote: post #47

Would it be possible to get some probability of cheating per player based on how often they play the best moves according to engines in online and live matches?

You need something more sophisticated, otherwise it's easy to confuse high skill and/or well memorised lines with cheating. And a good cheater will be smart enough to either use engine assistance only in difficult spots and/or frequently pick the second/third best moves from the engine.

I think the parent's idea is that over-the-board is harder to cheat; therefore you could look at the difference between OTB and online play.

Re: Titled Tuesday Cheating

#65

Post by paulddraper »

umvi wrote: post #26

Controversial opinion, but what is the point of becoming a pro chess player in a world of computers? Any novice can beat you when assisted by an engine. The same can't be said of other professions. A novice can't design a better bridge than a civil engineer just by using cots software.

What's the point of becoming a champion runner in a world of automobiles?

Any novice can beat you when in a car.

---

EDIT: With all due respect, your comments sounds exactly that silly.

Re: Titled Tuesday Cheating

#66

Post by Siecje »

lupire wrote: post #64
0cVlTeIATBs wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe not usually, but here's an example when he was faster than stockfish [0] [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWghHUcjPZU

What is happening there? Hikaru doesn't explain.

It said white had the better position and then later in the same position it said black had the better position.

Re: Titled Tuesday Cheating

#67

Post by lupire »

paulddraper wrote: post #61
jaxr wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure that translates very linearly. Most of the chess YouTube "stars" are not even GMs. Most of the viewers are hardly good players, so what you can learn from an IM is astronomical. Charisma and good at teaching are much better skills than a 1000 ELO difference imo. To your point, beating Magnus might drag a lot of people to his stream.

> Most of the chess YouTube "stars" are not even GMs. But they have tutorials, put tons of effort into entertaining content, etc. Hikaru doesn't. People watch Hiraku because they want to watch a top 5 player.

They watch Hikaru because he is fun while he plays and wins.

Offline, he is #4 is slow chess and #1 in Blitz.

He's not facing strong challenges on Titled Tuesday, and (like all top players) he is so good that there simply aren't enough players and data to make the empirical Elo scale work for assessing his win probabilities.

Re: Titled Tuesday Cheating

#68

Post by paulddraper »

paulsutter wrote: post #29
michaelt wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the point of being a professional runner, when motorbikes exist? People can get enjoyment from doing (and watching) people doing things, even if machines can do it better.

Status-seeking is the reason folks focus on professional running, or professional chess, or any of these very hardcore, very difficult endeavors that have no practical purpose. Someone once commented that men make extraordinary efforts to impress women, yet in general have very little understanding of what women actually like. This explains jacked-up trucks, professional chess, professional running, etc EDIT: I'm tal…

> Someone once commented that men make extraordinary efforts to impress women,

While that is undoubtedly true, I suspect no one becomes a professional chess player for the ladies.

They do it because they like, they're good at it, and they (if good enough) can make a living with it.

Re: Titled Tuesday Cheating

#69

Post by lupire »

teo_zero wrote: post #25
gwern wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it is so often capitalized, lowercasing it looks like a mistake, it looks exactly like an acronym, Elo was not nearly as famous for anything else, 'ELO' exists as a real acronym for many other things (eg. Electric Light Orchestra), and you can even easily define pseudo-definitions for it as a backronym - 'expected logistic odds', just off the top of my head. I host a copy of his book and I still struggle ever…

Yeah, I think we've been flooded by three-letter acronyms for so long that we see them everywhere. It doesn't happen with four letters: you wouldn't write VOLT or WATT.

Specifically a 2 syllable 3 letter word that doesn't fit a common English pattern (as it's not an English name).

Re: Titled Tuesday Cheating

#70

Post by lupire »

latency-guy2 wrote: post #58
teo_zero wrote: post #17

Why do so many chess experts, practitioners and commenters, with varying degrees of familiarity with the chess world, misspell Elo?

Most likely reason is because it doesn't matter, "Elo" stopped being a person long ago, similar to many named streets, cities, states, etc. throughout the world ELO is just as accurate as Elo when referring to the rating system.

How many of those cities and states became acronyms?
Post reply on HN