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

Dear Chess World

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

621–630 of 1001 posts

Re: Dear Chess World

#621

Post by philsquared_ »

pdpi wrote: post #615
swyx wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

is there any thinking on how many bits of information do you need to cheat, and how many can be communicated via thumper? e.g. is the bit of information "move the knight" aka theres only about 4 bits of info, or is it "move the knight to E6" which is a good deal more bits, that could be lossy/error prone. just on the surface of it, i dont see how this thing could give enough info but i suppose with a loooot of traini…

One move is 12 bits at most. 3 bits each X/Y, two XY pairs for source and destination.

You would only need one set of coordinates. The destination coordinates. Any high level chess players would only need that information to dominate.

Re: Dear Chess World

#622

Post by MichaelCollins »

philwelch wrote: post #616
xboxnolifes wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Machines can throw objects faster, further, and more accurate than humans, but field sports are still popular. It's interesting not because the object goes far, but because it's being done by a human.

There isn't yet a humanoid robot that can autonomously play those sports, though.

I don't know, Voight-Kampff tests don't seem reliable.

Re: Dear Chess World

#623

Post by mellosouls »

not_kurt_godel wrote: post #375
erdevs wrote: post #97

A key fact to understand in thinking about cheating in over the board chess: a strong player can defeat a much stronger opponent with just 1-3 hints per game indicating the strongest move. For example, most chess experts agree that a ~2600 rated player with 2-3 hints at key moments per game would be expected to beat a ~2800 rated player. Many people might assume that a cheater needs guidance every move, thereby requi…

> Also, clever cheating devices have been found in over the board chess competitions The most convincing candidate for such a device I've seen is an Illuminati Thumper Pro hidden in Hans's shoe: https://illuminati-magic.com/products/thumper . If you watch the footage of him getting scanned before his match with Alireza (and, crucially, before Magnus announced he was dropping), there are a couple of subtle things that…

You miss the vitally important point: they weren't needed in the game in question, so we don't even get to the point where fanciful theorising is relevant.

Magnus didn't play particularly well and Hans played ok. This was not an example of a superhuman intelligence passing hints to overcome Magnus at his best.

Re: Dear Chess World

#624

Post by roflyear »

bombcar wrote: post #152
bergenty wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So give him a carte blanche to say whatever he wants and ruin his reputation- warranted or not? Why would someone do this? It’s akin to talking to the cops without a lawyer.

It's pretty obvious to me that Carlsen has evidence of Hans cheating after the 16-year old incident that we know of. And so he's trying to maneuver Hans into a bad place; so that would be reason for Hans to not say anything (which also looks bad; it's the horns of a dilemma).

No post body was provided.

Re: Dear Chess World

#625

Post by rowanG077 »

asimpletune wrote: post #561
psychphysic wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hot take, but chess is a zombie sport. Software running in a smartphone can play deep games against each other. Chess engines aren't like car engines are to sprinting. They are more akin to text-to-image AIs but as though every single picture they produce is better than what any artist ever could produce. Part of that is because Chess is easily defined (the win conditions are comparatively simple). I'm rambling now a…

Yeah I know what you mean but human chess is much more exciting because you can see themes appear in a player's strategy. You can sort of follow what they're thinking. Computer chess is next level precisely because the computer has decided that is the best move, but it's not part of some kind of narrative, it's just based on the engine's analysis.

Isn't that way more beautiful? Pure brilliance and perfection. There is no emotion in the machine making dumb mistakes. There is no fear in the machine questioning his move. Is there some kind of video of a GM analyzing an engines moves step by step? Can they even understand every move without seeing the whole picture?

Re: Dear Chess World

#626

Post by ComplexSystems »

MichaelCollins wrote: post #210
edmcnulty101 wrote: post #75

We need a TSA body detector before a match between Magnus and Niemann.

You'd need a full blown X-ray to catch implants. I don't think technical countermeasures are the solution; even this is technically and logistically feasible highest levels of play, it wouldn't be something you could practically apply to the mid/low levels of play. Inexpensive technical countermeasures like the metal detecting wands are reasonable enough, but probably not enough to stop the reputational harm that che…

An X ray seems very reasonable.

Re: Dear Chess World

#627

Post by roflyear »

armchairhacker wrote: post #591
kjerkegor wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If he did cheat it should be really obvious because his performance will suddenly drop I mean, Magnus is so much more better player than Hans that even if Hans didn't cheat he would probably be worse in rematch. But in all sports sometimes underdogs win. In couple yt videos i watched it was said that Magnus played bad game and that Hans already gained an advantage in opening. Hans said that he prepared opening play…

Maybe he will get away with it if he only cheated against Magnus, and only in that one match. Because it's perfectly reasonable for him to play against Magnus many more times and lost. But if he cheated a lot more (as Magnus seems to allege) then he'll also lose to others he used to beat easily. EDIT: I think a big issue with chess is this "perfection" mentality. Magnus cannot make a single mistake or lose a single g…

The guy has beating top-50 players in short time controls. In all kinds of settings (casual, tournaments, online). You don't do that if you're not a strong player.

Re: Dear Chess World

#628

Post by drexlspivey »

mikenew wrote: post #304
roflyear wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's hardly evidence. Me, as a 1600 player, have played some 0-0-0 games on Lichess. I didn't cheat. I just play a lot of chess games and during those games, my opponent was really bad, so I had a perfect game (according to the engine).

You're conflating accuracy with engine correlation. Having a perfectly accurate game means you didn't make any moves that caused a centipawn loss. Having 100% engine correlation means you're making the exact moves the engine would make.

The engine scores centipawn loss against the perfect move (according to the engine). The engine plays the move with the lowest centipawn loss itself. How are those two different?

Re: Dear Chess World

#629

Post by rowanG077 »

lisper wrote: post #576
abdullahkhalids wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the possibility of a dental implant as a cheating device?

As an electrical engineer currently in the process of getting a dental implant, I would say it's definitely doable. But it would present a pretty serious packaging challenge, particularly the power supply. [UPDATE] Turns out you can get dental implant hardware on eBay: https://www.ebay.com/itm/272267166511

Considering it only needs to be powered for a single match it seems very possible to me with over the counter components.

Re: Dear Chess World

#630

Post by zarzavat »

dak1 wrote: post #380
mikenew wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're conflating accuracy with engine correlation. Having a perfectly accurate game means you didn't make any moves that caused a centipawn loss. Having 100% engine correlation means you're making the exact moves the engine would make.

I think I have on 3-4 occasions played a game where, after evaluating on chess.com, got a 100% accuracy (which is engine correlation). A couple times were all theory and then blundering a mate in 1, but... I did have one game where I didn't know the theory except a very vague recollection in the beginning. I actually thought I had blundered in that game and was trying to figure out what I'd do if my opponent made a c…

To repeat what was said above, accuracy is not the same as engine correlation.

Engines often play moves that are counterintuitive and weird, but nonetheless good. This is because they can evaluate large trees of tactics in a way that humans cannot.

If a human finds a natural move that is just as good as the engine move (in terms of evaluation), they are still playing accurately, but they are uncorrelated with the engine. Playing accurately is not a sign of cheating. Playing many engine moves is a sign of cheating.

Post reply on HN