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

A recent chess controversy

chicagobooth.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 127 posts

Re: A recent chess controversy

#71

Post by cortesoft »

siegecraft wrote: post #66

It's frustrating that their entire analysis is based on the claim that cheating occurs in maybe 1 out of 10,000 games; they got this from a quote in an interview with the deputy president of the World Chess Federation after he had been beaten in a charity match by someone who admitted cheating. To their credit they also ran the analysis assuming cheating is 1/500 and the odds rose to 7%. I suppose it makes sense that…

Part of Bayesian analysis is choosing your prior probabilities. Luckily, with enough data the priors become less and less important, but you do need to choose them.

Re: A recent chess controversy

#72

Post by kevinmchugh »

fsckboy wrote: post #50
tomku wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vast, overwhelming majority of chess games are not played in front of cameras or even in-person. The accusation in the article was about online play, and specifically blitz which is played online even more commonly than slower formats of chess because moving quickly is easier for many people with a mouse than a physical board. The way people cheat online is by running a chess engine that analyzes the state of the…

reading your description of the "invasiveness" of chess.com's surveillance of high level tournament play, I realized that chess.com could issue their own anal probe, a sonar listening device to check that there aren't any other anal probes in use. finally! we can be assured of a good clean game played fairly from both seats!

Well that's one hole plugged

Re: A recent chess controversy

#73

Post by zikduruqe »

gosub100 wrote: post #58
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Future chess games will have to be played as Faraday cage matches. Two men enter, one man leaves.

This makes me want to cheat just as a technical challenge. Could I hide a computer in my hair? Could I ingest a capsule computer and communicate with it using the resonance of my teeth chattering? (No, I would not insert one in an inappropriate place). I'm sure it would be a downer that I cheated but it would do them a favor by saying: "look, you cannot stop it. Time for something new".

You'd love NASCAR then.

It's not really cheating in NASCAR, but rather, "it wasn't in the rulebook".

Example - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnZ4nBrp6mo

Re: A recent chess controversy

#75

Post by tehlike »

cortesoft wrote: post #63
JDEW wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight. I was coming here, on the way to the lecture, and I came in through the parking lot. And you won’t believe what happened. I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing!” -Feynman, from Six Easy Pieces

Feynman is one of the best ever at explaining complicated concepts in ways almost everyone can understand. That is a very rare skill for the super intelligent to have.

Agreed on Feynman, but not necessarily on the generalization that it being a rare skill to simplify things. When you understand a thing so well, you can simplify it enough.

Re: A recent chess controversy

#76

Post by raincole »

cortesoft wrote: post #4

This is basically an article describing why you can’t just look at an event after it occurs, see that it has some extremely rare characteristics, and then determine it was unlikely to happen by chance. It is like asking someone to pick a random number between 1 and 1 million and then saying, “oh my god, it must not actually be random… the chances of choosing the exact number 729,619 is 1 in a million! That is too rar…

You can and you should.

If you flipped a coin 100 times and all you got are heads you really should assume it didn't happen by chance.

Re: A recent chess controversy

#77

Post by stack_framer »

raincole wrote: post #76
cortesoft wrote: post #4

This is basically an article describing why you can’t just look at an event after it occurs, see that it has some extremely rare characteristics, and then determine it was unlikely to happen by chance. It is like asking someone to pick a random number between 1 and 1 million and then saying, “oh my god, it must not actually be random… the chances of choosing the exact number 729,619 is 1 in a million! That is too rar…

You can and you should. If you flipped a coin 100 times and all you got are heads you really should assume it didn't happen by chance.

Nope. A previous flip has no bearing on the next flip.

Re: A recent chess controversy

#78

Post by ourmandave »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #13
5tk18 wrote: post #2

It is well known that Kramnik baselessly accuses everyone. The article seems to be more about statistics than chess, and doesn’t make any accusations. Kind of a click bait title IMO.

I'm just trying to figure out how you even cheat on chess, the only thing that comes to mind is moving pieces, and sneaking new ones on the board, but if there's enough cameras, how do you get away with it, eventually someone WILL notice, highlight it, point it out, and you will be shamed.

The chess hustlers in parks and beachside tables will take a pawn and the piece next to it with slight of hand. Or nudge it to a worse square.

Re: A recent chess controversy

#79

Post by nyeah »

ceejayoz wrote: post #69
thomasz wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, it's collusion.

No? It's a technique that could readily be done by one person, and teams are allowed to strategize. Bluffing/deception is kosher in chess, just harder as the key elements of the game are all public. Before computers put an end to the practice, long games used to adjourn overnight. https://www.chess.com/terms/chess-adjournment > During adjournments, players could count on the help of other strong masters, called secon…

Agreed, it's not collusion if it's only done by one person.

Re: A recent chess controversy

#80

Post by wesnerm2 »

rendall wrote: post #31
512 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hikaru is also notable for quickly accusing players baselessly

Whom did he accuse? Kramnik is known to accuse other players. I've never heard this about Nakamura.

Nakamura was sued for $100 million by Hans Niemann.

https://www.chess.com/news/view/hans-niemann-lawsuit-dismiss...

Post reply on HN