Hungary already solved this, it's harder to cheat in a bath in swimsuit:
https://www.awl-images.com/cache/pcache2/00042940.jpg
Dear Chess World
831–840 of 1001 posts
Re: Dear Chess World
#832Here is a crazy idea. If you get caught cheating, even once, you should be banned for life. Otherwise we end up in a lose-lose situation. It’s almost impossible for Magnus to prove Niemann cheated on that game. It’s impossible for Niemann to prove he didn’t cheat. But shouldn’t matter. He was caught cheating before, he shouldn’t have been allowed to compete again. I don’t remember Ben Johnson or Lance Armstrong getti…
Playing Poker, if you are caught cheating, you are barred for life at least in the platform you were caught. And I agree with that.
Re: Dear Chess World
#833Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t understand your analogy. There’s no evidence that Hans didn’t cheat in the game against Magnus. This isn’t Hans’s fault, as it’s hard to imagine what such evidence could even be possible, but the fact remains that there’s nothing comparable to having the title, etc. to a car.
He has been caught of cheating online. Where you just open a new window and follow engine moves. Or you have a friend sitting beside you giving engine moves. In his over-the-board match, he didn't have a laptop. He didn't have a friend giving him moves. He didn't have any communication device. He was mostly looking at the board or into the distance while he was playing. He was scanned with a metal detector. So we kno…
There is a video explaining how Hans played ten 100% games (his moves matching 100% moves of what an engine would do) in the last three years and a lot of >90%:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfPzUgzrOcQ
For reference, Magnus at his best does a 70% match with engines, and between 70-75% is historically enough to earn you the World Championship. This guy is consistently over 80%, come on.
Reminds me of Lance Armstrong: a mediocre 90's cyclist that suddenly becomes the best in history, in such dominant fashion that I think everybody suspected something, but without proof you cannot do nothing about it.
Re: Dear Chess World
#834A 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…
> 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 source? sounds like bs to me
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJVzSXsZ10I among other places.
Re: Dear Chess World
#835Here is a crazy idea. If you get caught cheating, even once, you should be banned for life. Otherwise we end up in a lose-lose situation. It’s almost impossible for Magnus to prove Niemann cheated on that game. It’s impossible for Niemann to prove he didn’t cheat. But shouldn’t matter. He was caught cheating before, he shouldn’t have been allowed to compete again. I don’t remember Ben Johnson or Lance Armstrong getti…
Steroids aren't even the best analogy. If you get caught with those, you get punished, but eventually you're allowed to play again. Cheating with an engine is more like fixing the game, which is usually a life time ban in most sports.
The situation for steroids is worse though: former steroid users gain benefits today even if they've been clean for a decade, due to how muscle cells work. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyFfCVxGTIc
Re: Dear Chess World
#836In this thread, people who have no idea how chess engines work, hell, even just how the game of chess works, are taking centipawn analysis, engine correlation and various other metrics to support their claims. Anyone who has studied with engines for a decent amount of time knows those numbers themselves are often misleading as just statistics.
To be clear, I'm not supporting either side of the debate, I'm just stating that people are throwing in numbers in a confident and convincing tone without understanding what those numbers mean.
Re: Dear Chess World
#837Chess is, in a way, doomed. At this point cheating by a smart perpetrator is nearly impossible to detect. - Miniature devices can even be implanted. You can probably already have a chess engine onboard your body. - Accomplices of a cheater only need to transmit a few bits of information to be useful - making cheating cheap when audience is allowed. - Statistical methods will not be able to detect a player increasing…
This seems like an overreaction. We regularly use scanners to detect foreign or hidden objects on people, such as at airport security. It's not out of the question to use such approaches at high level chess where the cost/benefit is worth it.
Airport security is trying to find bombs and knives. Those are potentially orders of magnitudes bigger than the cheating devices we're talking about here.
Airport security won't find my 0.1mm knife, and it's not a problem if they don't.
Re: Dear Chess World
#838Earlier 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.
I don’t really think you can compare those though; robots are crap and easily beaten at most physical sports. I mean, as far as I can find, there is not even a bipedal robot that outruns humans (there is the cheetah robot but it has 4 legs ; that’s like having a dog or, you know, cheetah compete against Usain). But yes, people will continue to play chess, go and spear throwing because it doesn’t matter if something n…
[deleted]
Re: Dear Chess World
#839Earlier quoted context omitted.
The unnerving, unbalancing effect Fischer had in the 1971 Candidate's tournament was absolutely due to his play. He put up immense resistance against lines prepared by teams of Soviet GMs (example here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8-90cPf61M ), which was the sort of thing that broke their nerve. He was not intimidating or manipulating his opponents outside of the board; if there were any outside-chess forces at p…
> He was not intimidating or manipulating his opponents outside of the board They absolutely were blundering much more than they did vs other opponents, showing a far lower quality off play than usual. Also I believe you didn't read much about his championship match. Remember how the games were moved to a different room, and why?
Arjun blundered against Magnus far more than usual last weekend. That's what stronger players tend to do to you.
I thought you were talking about the Candidate's tournament. As for the championship match, it's not generally believed that Spassky severely underperformed anyway. He won several games and put up good fights in the draws and losses.
>I believe you didn't read much about his championship match
I am quite familiar with the surrounding circumstances, including the pre-match negotiations. I do not see how any of this "mentally unbalanced" or "broke" Spassky, unlike (arguably) Larsen and Taimonov. Furthermore, he's generally been commended for his behavior as a consummate professional and a "gentleman" in the circumstances.
I wonder if you are as familiar with chess (the game, professional play, and its history) as you lead on to be, posting all over this thread.
Re: Dear Chess World
#840Earlier 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.
> There isn't yet a humanoid robot that can autonomously play those sports, though.
Why does it have to be humanoid? The chess engine isn't.