Slashdot Mirror
Top French Chess Players Suspended For Cheating
cf18 writes "The French chess federation has suspended three top players for violating sporting ethics at a chess olympiad in Siberia last September. The allegation claims while the first member was playing, a second member would watch the game via internet, use software to find the best move, and send it to the third member via SMS. The third member would then sit himself at a particular table in the competition hall. Each table represented an agreed square on the chess board."
Would have been much easier and less obvious than changing seats for every move.
That's what you get for putting money on the line. No one would do that for the glory of it because there would be no glory in it.
... if the agreed upon seat is already occupied?
We called that : "une victoire à la Française".
Surrender?
Be relentless!
Le stink.
So the French can't even pwn at Chess without cheating? What CAN they do without stooping to low ethical levels?
Shoot down Libyan jets after they have landed back at their home air bases? :)
"Curiouser and Curiouser...." -Alice
as a chess player myself I find this very insulting to the game. It's not about winning it's about the beauty of the game the thought and ideas that go into making a position work regardless of it being advantagous to you or not.
My first thought, how would steroids help in chess? Guess chess isn't like other sports.
Please tell me you are not from the USA...
This has been a public service announcement from your neighbourhood adult who's about to go nail his wife in three orifices. Try to focus on that, just for one second. Three orifices, in any order I feel like. How'd you like that, Grand Master k1ll54l0tZ?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Holy crap that's the nerdiest backhanded French thing I've ever heard, I think I threw up in my mouth...
It's like the mind going AWOL, it's there somewhere
My understanding was that Chess, while significantly less intractable than some games, was still something that you needed a fairly serious computer to play well fast enough to be tournament legal.
Has the state of the art in fact advanced more significantly than I thought, or were these guys sufficiently low-level players that some quite ordinary software was deemed sufficiently likely to be better? I'd assume that you wouldn't take the risk of being caught cheating unless you were fairly confident that it would boost your odds of winnning, which would imply a belief that you were substantially worse than whatever software they had access to.
What can the French win at... let me see. France is internationally competitive in:
* Having names for various minor variations in sexual acts.
* Baking bread.
* Making wine.
* Taking vacation (30 per year legal minimum vacation plus 10 holidays).
* Smoking.
* Organizing nation-paralyzing strikes.
* Intellectual bullshit sessions.
Of course on the negative side is there's their world class national chauvinism (they invented the word, after all). In that respect the French are pretty much like Americans, but without the overwhelming military power and a with a more appealing lifestyle.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I know specialist systems (big blue) can beat anyone, but are standard PC-based chess programs really better than players at this level?
(If so, maybe time for everyone to switch to Go?)
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
Accordingly, I'm supposed to lead with my King and be the first to summon Exodia.
While I despise such cheating in general, I still have to say that this is a nice stunt. I like the coding through seating step.
According to TFA, this cheat is discovered by their own federation, and disclosed so at least these cheaters can be considered as violator of their own ethics and the rest of the French chess players on that level won't have a bad reputation or leave a doubt in future events.
It's wise, and also fortunate, that they solved this problem in house.
Don't forget Parkour :)
which is totally what she said
Then Go is for the gods.
Your white would aways win "argument" is flaws. It is correct white always plays first and the setup is symmetric, however the fact that white is "forced" to make a move may very well mean that black would always win if both players had perfect knowlegde of all possible outcomes.
By eyenot's logic, any game that can be cheated upon exposes the weakness of those competing honestly. Applaud steroids, for they show how futile bicycling is, when cars run much faster. Boiling a soup to powder does not mean it would not have tasted good. Games are social, Beavis.
nous avons perdu encore une fois!
Chess IS solved. That is indisputable. Otherwise, having some experience of the game myself, I decided long ago that it's dull. Once you master basic tactical play, then the game typically falls to whoever has the most extensive opening book memorization. Once I reached the stage where I could compete with 2000-ranked players, beating them if they slipped up on their openings (which occurred when I reached only about 1450 myself), I realized quickly that the memorization factor was the primary differentiator and I lost interest in the game entirely. Try go - it's a much better game, in my opinion, and requires much more imagination (and probably a higher IQ to play successfully) than chess.
picpix image polls. create - share - vote. fun!
Your statement is true about standard Chess.
Your statement is untrue about the Fischer Random variant.
Of course, it's also true that the vast majority of chess players I've come across don't want to give up their precious hundreds of hours of time they've spent on rote memorization of opening theory, and thus are profoundly scared of playing Fischer-Random chess. Especially the "expert" players.
It's fun and it's a challenge. What else do you need?
hmm, me play white, loose too
Er, my mistake, chess is not yet solved. But in any case, I think the evidence strongly suggests that with perfect play, white wins, and certainly my experience indicates that memorizing opening play leads to a degree of advantage that means you can't really seriously play the game without bothering to spend significant amounts of time memorizing. If it's your thing, go ahead, but I just got bored.
picpix image polls. create - share - vote. fun!
Of course, parkour is just a fancy form of running away.
Out of every response ive garnered in tese fifteen minutes, yours is te most lucid and sees the most clearly theough the entire issue. But sadly, you are wrong. Even im random play there are board Configurations that cannot be rwached, and in the real set there are branches upon which one player sits already imminently defeated by any competitive opponent, and within the remaining competitive set there is a set we could say is noncompetitive or we could say is randomized. But it doeant break through its subset notation into anything more grand; rather , within what would be to a computer a narrow instance of plays closely following a line of entropy, there is an opportunity to destroy the hopes of a system based of memorization of openings and so-far-successful middle games, that opportunity being proporionate to one's own memory space versus the opponent's. We could add an optimization and it would still be about resources in an unknown. Which against a fellow computer is a procedure; only a human ho hasmt thought it through believes its achieving something outside the game or improving its life and not wasting its time playing.
I say this because I know fame theory and i know that if chess is a balanced game there is a theoretical point to always achieve stalemate. I searched for it for ten years and interviewed an amazing array of hobbyists and scholars and i can assure you, chess is not balanced.
Firat player wins, that is chess.
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
Ho / who
Firat / first, etc.
(ipod 2g)
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
You know nothing about chess and why it is good for your development. That's for sure. And about that God part? Bobby Fisher would tend to disagree if he got to play White ;)
How long has crap like this been going on? How do we know computers didn't surpass humans two decades ago and we just haven't noticed that a lot of people are cheating?
What a bunch of bull shit. A 2000 player will never, ever, ever loose from a 1450 rated guy. The only time that this happens is when that 1450 guy is heavily underrated, maybe due to a lack of games. Anyone playing chess on competition level will just know that either you are lying or you aren't telling the whole story.
Chess and its entire paradigm
Whreupon two "masters"
(differwnt from the rest of us)
Seat humched over one board
(which if you arent playing, dont touch)
Where what your autonomous thought aays to do with the board is denigrated beneath the rules created centuries ago
Yeah
Youre a real social poster child
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
For sale: WWII era French military rifle, never used, only dropped once.
You forgot "making movies nobody wants to watch or can understand". It's a bit like watching a dubbed black and white Kubrick movie with badly matched subtitles.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Most people think the game is a draw. Theoretically it can be any possibility. There are no proofs.
We're not talking about a "normal" game where cheating is indeed the equivalent of denying yourself the chance to win. If you win, you won because you cheated, if you lose, you really are a loser because you can't even win when cheating.
Here we're in professional sports where it's not about the person's self esteem and his achievement. It's just money, that's all.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Nothing worse the cheating and losing. And no the losing loser is not the winner in some twisted proverb of the world
I enjoy a good game of chess myself, on occasion. However, at the top level, chess is populated almost entirely by gigantic douchebags. I'm not surprised cheating went on. Look at some of Bobby Fischer's early matches. And hey, Kasparov isn't above cheating, either. His opponent didn't say anything because she knew he'd use his reputation to destroy her and anything she said.
"An interesting example of taking back moves at the highest level of OTB chess occurred recently at the elite 1994 Linares super tournament. It's claimed that there is video tape showing that PCA World Champion Garry Kasparov, while playing Judit Polgar, moved a knight to a square which would have cost him the exchange. Apparently, even though he had released the piece, he picked it up again and moved it to another square and went on to win the game." Link to more.
Bobby Fischer, the greatest American player ever, idolized Hitler and hated Jewish people, and cheered 9/11 on his radio show. Sample quote: "This is a wonderful day. Fuck the United States. Cry, you crybabies! Whine, you bastards! Now your time is coming." Don't think he was alone in the chess world, either, he had a lot of friends: as Gudmundur G. ThÃrarinsson, the man who arranged the famous "Cold War" match against Spassky in Iceland, said at Fischer's funeral, "In the fullness of time, history will judge the United States harshly for its treatment of Robert James Fischer."
I leave with this piece about chess, written in the 1500s.
"Chess is certainly a pleasing and ingenious amusement, but it seems to have one defect, which is that it is possible to have too much knowledge of it, so that whoever would excel in the game must give a great deal of time to it, as I believe, and as much study as if he would learn some noble science or perform well anything of importance; and yet in the end, for all his pains, he only knows how to play a game. Thus, I think a very unusual thing happens in this, namely that mediocrity is more to be praised than excellence."
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
haha ... while you were typing that i just fucked yo mama in the ass!
and here is that inevitable moment: when an inflammatory but somewhat interesting poster reveals himself to be a total kook.
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
"If two gods were to play, white would forever win. This we *do* know as indisputable fact."
Despite your trolling, what is a known fact is that no, we don't know that. We still really don't know if chess is a first-mover-wins or not (i.e.: it's like tic-tac-toe -or even it might be the case that chess is a second-mover-wins game).
giday, what youve asserted is that the standard AI algorithms such as variants of Alpha Beta pruning, rely on having heuristics, an opening book, and probably an endgame 'closing book' too.
to your knowledge are there any world class chess codes that only use heuristics that are completely generated using inductive/invariance methods together with transposition tables (for whole sub trees), cause there is apparent overlap between a human created opening book and a kind of transposition table which applies over an entire history of games not starting from scratch every single game, what would you say is the portion of opening books that are not part of this overlap??
Recently an improvement in computer Go was achieved by using monte carlo like methods. apparently it produced a significant improvement in the quality of the AI's play. has the monte carlo idea been applied to chess successfully too, perhaps it was even tried earlier than for go without showing much potential but should be revisited, perhaps the hybridisation of the monte carlo idea together with exact consequential analysis is more critical in chess and so the emphasis has remained on the latter.
I wonder if anyone has ever tried to apply galois theory to chess to find if there are questions that cannot be answered constructively? Also if any chess programs can use induction and invariance? as this would start to include aspects of what i would consider thinking about chess. also what about approaching the solution of chess (proving who wins given the first move) by considering a continuous model; eg the problem of finding the resistance between adjacent resistors in an infinite mesh is non trivial and one approach is by solving a continuous extension, eg the resistance between two points on an infinite plate which relates to the discrete problem.
finally what about a partial information approach specifically for AI vs Human where the information model of the human is modelled using monte carlo methods and information risk/arbitrage theory ideas are applied together with time limits, so as to address tactics such as making a 'complex' move intentionally to burden the opponent or making certain moves to intentionally probe the humans conceptual boundaries, and to infer what the human has read and so exploit any weakness.
surely nobody would say that the analysis of chess has been exhausted or that the question of computers given the above questions! XD
Actually, winning probabilities for the 1450 guy are still 4%, according to the official ELO math:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system#Mathematical_details
Once jets have landed, you can shoot them, but you can't shoot them down.
If it's in you sig, it's in your post.
Take 4chan over
So... you're saying that the French workers actually have backbones and balls and get to reap the benefits of both?
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
No mod points today, but this post deserves much better than 1 Funny it is currently at.