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

911–920 of 1001 posts

Re: Dear Chess World

#911

Post by short_sells_poo »

whateveracct wrote: post #850
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…

Seriously - go play a fighting game. In fighting games, most AIs are discredited and stupid because they have no reaction time. I don't know of any that name in a nondeterministic 10-15f of reaction time. It really complicated things.

That's fairly counterintuitive to me. The easiest avenue for an AI to gain advantage over a human is reaction time and accuracy. E.g. an AI that reacts in microseconds will never be beaten on pure reaction by a human given that there's a floor of some 50-100msec for a human to be physically able to react to stimulus.

E.g. I remember early 3rd party Starcraft AIs would beat humans just by micromanaging certain nimble flying units.

Re: Dear Chess World

#912

Post by zouhair »

kryogen1c wrote: post #677
WastingMyTime89 wrote: post #660

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think you can call the opinion of the famous player who lost about how hard he thought his opponent was thinking during the game evidence without twisting the meaning of the word past the breaking point.

> the opinion of the famous player This is a hilariously inaccurate description of magnus. He is widely regarded as the greatest chess player to have ever lived. His opinion on what it takes to play high level chess is worth taking extremely seriously. It's not like he has a history of temper tantrums or petulant behavior; he's an upstanding custodian of the mantle of world champion.

Is he the Champion of all time in cheating. I doubt that.

I lost all respect I had for him. If you don't have foolproof evidence, you take your loss like a professional.

Re: Dear Chess World

#914

Post by t_mann »

markers wrote: post #72

In case you haven't seen it, some new evidence surfaced yesterday: https://youtu.be/jfPzUgzrOcQ

The key point (in the end) seems to be that the odds for a streak like Niemann had are about 1 in 80k. Statistically speaking, I'd say that's a long shot from a smoking gun. Here's a good rundown of a case where a cheater is considered to have been exposed by statistical evidence, but those odds were on a completely different scale, 10^22:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ko3TdPy0TU

Basically the mistake that is easy to make is that we shouldn't ask: "what is the probability that Hans plays five tournaments like that in a row?", but "what is the probability that someone will play five tournaments like that in a row?". Even if we correct for the fact that there are probably more Minecraft speedruns happening than GM tournaments, odds of 80k just seem a bit too low to call it evidence.

Re: Dear Chess World

#915

Post by whateveracct »

short_sells_poo wrote: post #911
whateveracct wrote: post #850

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously - go play a fighting game. In fighting games, most AIs are discredited and stupid because they have no reaction time. I don't know of any that name in a nondeterministic 10-15f of reaction time. It really complicated things.

That's fairly counterintuitive to me. The easiest avenue for an AI to gain advantage over a human is reaction time and accuracy. E.g. an AI that reacts in microseconds will never be beaten on pure reaction by a human given that there's a floor of some 50-100msec for a human to be physically able to react to stimulus. E.g. I remember early 3rd party Starcraft AIs would beat humans just by micromanaging certain nimble…

I typo'd a bit so maybe it didn't get across. I meant an AI with human reaction time.

Re: Dear Chess World

#916

Post by lisper »

InsomniacL wrote: post #879
lisper wrote: post #576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

In 1945 the Soviet Union gifted a wall hung artwork to the USA embassy which passively transmitted audio signal from the room with no power supply or active electronics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_(listening_device) in the last 77 years, I imagine this type and similar technology will be much more miniaturised and effective.

> no power supply

No internal power supply. Very important distinction.

"The device, a passive cavity resonator, became active only when a radio signal of the correct frequency was sent to the device from an external transmitter."

But the Thing was a transmitter. A receiver could be entirely passive and very small. It could easily fit in a dental implant. (There have been reports of people hearing AM radio broadcasts through their fillings.) But the risk of detection would be very high.

Re: Dear Chess World

#918

Post by afpx »

ilc wrote: post #55
perihelions wrote: post #15

It's very remarkable that Carlsen is suspicious of Niemann's game against him in Sinquefield, since there's a clear consensus among other top chess players that there was absolutely nothing unusual about it (or at least about the moves played).

Not really. If you think about it: Magnus, is Magnus. He has an aura about him. People make blunders playing against him they wouldn't against others. This is known. Magnus is ALSO very good. But that "aura"... doesn't hurt him. If for whatever reason, Hans saw far enough ahead, to not be worried... and Magnus hadn't, what does that say about Magnus? He mentioned Hans wasn't nervous, in comparison to Magnus he had no…

The curve of his wins and losses over time will differ from those of the other top players, if he's cheating.

Re: Dear Chess World

#919

Post by glumreaper »

__s wrote: post #535
boole1854 wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While interesting, this does not seem very convincing to me. They successfully show that Niemann was playing many games with a high percentage of "engine perfect" moves, but they do not do enough to show that this is inconsistent with what top players usually do. A whole distribution of scores is shown for Niemann but only limited summary statistics are shown for other top players. A proper comparison would involve s…

https://imgur.com/a/JpJsMyI

OMG look at the Y axis scale of the graphs. Everyone else is 0-1000+ (often 0-2000), Magnus Carlsen's graph scale is 0-200.

Re: Dear Chess World

#920

Post by avgcorrection »

chongli wrote: post #755
grouchomarx wrote: post #608

Earlier quoted context omitted.

of all the whacky theories I've heard so far this one stands out. Don't get too swept up in it

I love it. The idea that someone would undergo training as a magician in order to cheat at chess is just hilarious! It’s not totally absurd though, given the history of cheating (as well as espionage) in sport. The tricks people have pulled to cheat in baseball and (NFL) football are similarly amusing!

Doesn’t seem absurd at all to me. There might not be as much money in chess cheating as other scams but someone could be motivated to just become known as one of the best chess players.
Post reply on HN