Detecting Chess Cheats Taxes Computers

so? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 05:31 · Score: -1

and not a fuck was given - ffs, it's chess. Does anyone actual, um, care?

Huh? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 05:32 · Score: -1

Either someone made an illegal move, or they didn't. Chess has no behavioral rules; you can't insider-trade a rook and then illegally short an enemy knight.

Re:Huh? by Fourier404 · 2012-03-20 05:33 · Score: 5, Informative

RTFA, you can use a computer to come up with a better move than you would have on your own.
Re:Huh? by SJHillman · 2012-03-20 05:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

It's cheating in the same sense that using a dictionary in Scrabble is considered cheating if you agreed to no dictionaries before hand - not trying to use qzjkh as a word. In this case, rather than consulting a dictionary, they're consulting a computer to come up with a better solution than they could come up with on their own.
Re:Huh? by Anrego · 2012-03-20 05:41 · Score: 1

Sure, but some moves are characteristically human (very unlikely for a computer).
If you want to read some detailed thoughts on this, see anything written about whole Deep Blue vs. Kasparov thing (especially game 2).
Re:Huh? by Flyerman · 2012-03-20 05:43 · Score: 0, Redundant

RTFA?
THIS! IS! SLASHDOT!!!!!
Re:Huh? by AK+Marc · 2012-03-20 05:52 · Score: 3, Interesting

Are they aiming the computer to detect only if they had outside help from a computer, so that outside help from a human chess player would not be detected?

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Huh? by unixisc · 2012-03-20 05:55 · Score: 3, Funny

If that's the case, just have the computer play Computer vs Computer.
Re:Huh? by mcavic · 2012-03-20 05:59 · Score: 3, Interesting

So check the players for technology, and block outside communications. No algorithm needed.
Re:Huh? by thehickcoder · 2012-03-20 06:07 · Score: 4, Funny

Pshhh.... qzjkh is a perfectly cromulent word.
Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 07:03 · Score: 1

Then read the summary. It's clear enough to suggest humans cheating by having a computer make their move.
Re:Huh? by sexconker · 2012-03-20 07:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

RTFS, they intend to "construct a mathematical proof" to show that a given move, or number of moves, indicates cheating.
This is impossible to prove because it's always possible that the human made those moves on his own. By the same logic that you can assume a human player can only go so deep in the search tree, you can't assume a human player to arrive at a move solely by use of an optimal or deterministic process. A meatbag can see any valid move and decide to play it for any reason. You can't mathematically prove cheating unless you see them cheating. For all you know the player is just lucky,.
Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 07:16 · Score: 1

So check the players for technology, and block outside communications. No algorithm needed.
What if the "outside communication" is scratching your left ear when you want to know whether to pincer or castle? And an observer responds by touching their tie after they've run the simulation? It's harder to detect than simply checking for electronics on the body.
Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 07:24 · Score: 1

There are tournaments for that. The best chess programs are at a much higher rating than the best human players. They rate chess programs by playing against eachother.
Re:Huh? by newcastlejon · 2012-03-20 07:35 · Score: 2

What if the "outside communication" is scratching your left ear when you want to know whether to pincer or castle?
That doesn't matter if the venue itself is sealed against outside communication, which would prevent anyone in the audience communicating with a computer system outside and relaying moves to the contestant. Deep Blue and its descendants aren't exactly something a spectator could hide in their coat.
If cheating occurs in a sealed room, the judges can be sure that it's collusion between two people and I'm sure they have a great deal of experience with that.

--
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
Re:Huh? by newcastlejon · 2012-03-20 07:38 · Score: 1

not trying to use qzjkh as a word
You appear to have spelled jozxyqk incorrectly.
It's easy to do, since finding it in the dictionary is usually such a pain.

--
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
Re:Huh? by broomer · 2012-03-20 08:33 · Score: 2

When I was young... (yes keep off the lawn please!)
I participated a school-chess evening, and drove my contenders mad... just searching for reasonable valid options, not having a strategy, end-play ect., they were thinking "why the f**k does he do that? he has to have some meaning for that stupid move".
Eventually I got 7th in the pool. (of 7) so my strategy did not work. but had a good evening.
Re:Huh? by Ihmhi · 2012-03-20 09:18 · Score: 1

Indeed. Klingon's allowed in Scrabble, right?

--
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 10:08 · Score: 0

RTFS, they intend to "construct a mathematical proof" to show that a given move, or number of moves, indicates cheating.
This is impossible to prove because it's always possible that the human made those moves on his own. By the same logic that you can assume a human player can only go so deep in the search tree, you can't assume a human player to arrive at a move solely by use of an optimal or deterministic process. A meatbag can see any valid move and decide to play it for any reason. You can't mathematically prove cheating unless you see them cheating. For all you know the player is just lucky,.
And it is possible that the player frequently plays a computer that happens to play the same moves as his opponent and thus is familiar with the sequence of moves that the computer would make.
Re:Huh? by timeOday · 2012-03-20 10:20 · Score: 3, Informative

Deep Blue and its descendants aren't exactly something a spectator could hide in their coat.
Pocket Fritz 4 achieved a higher Elo rating than any human, and that was on a PocketPC in 2009. And mobile hardware has evolved at an amazing pace since then.
Re:Huh? by gmhowell · 2012-03-20 11:49 · Score: 1

Pshhh.... qzjkh is a perfectly cromulent word.
I think you mean "kwyjibo."

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 14:19 · Score: 0

That doesn't matter if the venue itself is sealed against outside communication
Which is of course a totally reasonable and practical suggestion for the real world. Just enclose an entire fucking exhibit hall or convention center in a Faraday cage. There's no logistical hurdles or downsides to that whatsoever. Typical fucking autistic Slashdot suggestion.
Re:Huh? by AdamWill · 2012-03-20 18:14 · Score: 1

I get that reference. Let us congratulate each other on our taste!
Re:Huh? by duhjim · 2012-03-21 08:11 · Score: 1

You've obviously never gone up against David Copperfield.
Re:Huh? by wwphx · 2012-03-22 18:19 · Score: 1

Here's my problem of Kasparov losing to IBM: the computer was totally programmed specifically with his games. Now, granted, it was programmed with lots of other games also. In a grandmaster tournament like the U.S. Open, the players (pretty much all Grand Masters and International Masters) are in a round-robin tournament. I want to see IBM's software playing a different GM every day from a field of 20 grandmasters and see how it scores.

--
When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-23 07:18 · Score: 0

the computer was totally programmed specifically with his games... I want to see IBM's software playing a different GM every day from a field of 20 grandmasters and see how it scores.
If it's upgraded to have 20x as much memory so it can be programmed with all of their games, and having the knowledge of which GM it is playing against at any given time, I don't see any reason that pitting it against 20 GMs would be any different.

Meh by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 05:33 · Score: 0

Let them cheat, then get assraped by Kasparov in the afterlife.

Re:Meh by MightyMartian · 2012-03-20 05:41 · Score: 2

How about assraped by Big Blue. Much more frightening concept. "I'm helium cooled, biatch!"

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.

Simple by demonbug · 2012-03-20 05:33 · Score: 5, Funny

I'd just use the CoD system for cheat detection. If they beat me, they cheated. Simple enough.

Re:Simple by rilian4 · 2012-03-20 08:16 · Score: 1

That was the excuse Al Gore used...

--

...quicker, easier, more seductive the darkside is...but more powerful, it is not.
Re:Simple by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 05:52 · Score: 0

Al Gore didn't invent the Internet, but he *did* makeup global warming!

Cage Matches! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 05:34 · Score: 1

Check their pockets and make them play in a giant Faraday cage! In a room with only them and an impartial referee. No outside influences, and nobody else to give signals or otherwise interfere.

Re:Cage Matches! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 05:38 · Score: 1

Two players enter, one player leaves!
Re:Cage Matches! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 05:41 · Score: 5, Funny

Then shortly after, the other player leaves.
Re:Cage Matches! by sourcerror · 2012-03-20 05:46 · Score: 1

Two men enter, one man leaves!
Re:Cage Matches! by NatasRevol · 2012-03-20 05:52 · Score: 2

I really don't want to click on that link.

--
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Re:Cage Matches! by Canazza · 2012-03-20 05:54 · Score: 4, Funny

Then the referee, who takes the chess set with him.

--
It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
Re:Cage Matches! by g0bshiTe · 2012-03-20 05:57 · Score: 4, Funny

Naked chess!

--
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Re:Cage Matches! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 06:02 · Score: 0

Seriously though, what's so hard about preventing players from having cheating devices or sight lines to possible cheating accomplices?
Re:Cage Matches! by Algae_94 · 2012-03-20 07:07 · Score: 1

It's a YouTube link. Not exactly going to be some graphically disgusting video. Unless you think Beyond Thunderdome is graphically disgusting.
Re:Cage Matches! by NatasRevol · 2012-03-20 07:12 · Score: 2, Funny

Shut up or I'll take your middle school sic fi books away from you!

--
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Re:Cage Matches! by steelfood · 2012-03-20 07:13 · Score: 1

Two players enter, three players leave!

--
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Re:Cage Matches! by sam_nead · 2012-03-20 09:57 · Score: 1

It's a YouTube link. Not exactly going to be some graphically disgusting video. Unless you think Beyond Thunderdome is graphically disgusting.
Yes.
Re:Cage Matches! by HTH+NE1 · 2012-03-20 10:10 · Score: 1

Check their pockets and make them play in a giant Faraday cage!
Neutrino subdermal communicators?
"The Klute offers a draw!"

--
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Re:Cage Matches! by turing_m · 2012-03-20 11:27 · Score: 1

Hmmm. The exclamation mark signifies a good move... what a strange game. The only winning move is not to play.

--
If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
Re:Cage Matches! by jamesh · 2012-03-20 13:43 · Score: 1

Check their pockets and make them play in a giant Faraday cage! In a room with only them and an impartial referee. No outside influences, and nobody else to give signals or otherwise interfere.
Two problems with that - what if someone needs to go the bathroom, and where are you going to find this impartial referee?
Re:Cage Matches! by eam · 2012-03-21 05:11 · Score: 1

> what if someone needs to go the bathroom
buckets.
Re:Cage Matches! by V.+P.+Winterbuttocks · 2012-03-22 03:29 · Score: 1

what if someone needs to go the bathroom
Go before the match starts. You need to go in the middle of a game? Sorry, you are now playing with a time limit: How long can you hold it? If you leave, you forfeit.
That would make chess much more interesting, IMHO.

--
I'm the real Vorokrytin P. Winterbuttocks.

Obsolete by Hatta · 2012-03-20 05:36 · Score: 1, Interesting

Chess is obsolete then. Better to pick a game where people can still beat computers.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!

Re:Obsolete by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 05:41 · Score: 0, Funny

Chess is obsolete then. Better to pick a game where people can still beat computers.
Oblig XKCD http://xkcd.com/1002/
Re:Obsolete by SJHillman · 2012-03-20 05:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

In that case, are the Olympics obsolete because the world's fastest sprinter can't even beat a moped, much less a Ferrari? Are painters obsolete because of photoshop? When the competition is man vs man, the abilities of machines shouldn't make it obsolete.
Re:Obsolete by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 05:55 · Score: 0

Har! Calvinball just made my day.
Re:Obsolete by Hentes · 2012-03-20 05:56 · Score: 2

And not just because of computers. Chess has been researched to the point where in most professional matches more than half of the moves is predetermined. Matches are not decided near the table, but in the research before that done by the players' teams. It's not about fighting each other on the board anymore, but finding a better variant before the match.
Re:Obsolete by Lumpy · 2012-03-20 05:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

Which is why I love chess boxing.
5 minutes of chess, 5 minutes of boxing, keep recycling.
Yes IT's hard to move pieces while wearing boxing gloves.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:Obsolete by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 06:02 · Score: 0

Like Knife-y Spoon-y?
Re:Obsolete by ooshna · 2012-03-20 06:03 · Score: 2

When machines can beat Humans at the triathlon then we should worry.
Re:Obsolete by ArsonSmith · 2012-03-20 06:06 · Score: 0

Yes, they are all obsolete. If you are doing it only for it's artistic value with no other purpose then yes it is obsolete. Not that art isn't a good thing it just isn't required. Running really fast is no longer needed to feed the hungry. Painting is no longer needed to capture historical likenesses.

--
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Re:Obsolete by Delarth799 · 2012-03-20 06:20 · Score: 4, Funny

Soon Slashdot will have a computer that finds and posts Oblig XKCD comics.
Re:Obsolete by Eponymous+Hero · 2012-03-20 06:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

in a way they have. the convenience they bring us has convinced most of us to give up lifestyles that might include triathlons.

--
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
Re:Obsolete by NeoMorphy · 2012-03-20 06:29 · Score: 1

There's a lot of book players who wonder how they lost when they reached a book position that was supposed to be in their favor! It's not that simple. Yes, they do try to find weaknesses in their opponent's opening repertoire, but both sides are doing the same thing, and are aware of the fact that the other side is looking for weaknesses. Sometimes they'll add something completely different to throw off their opponents work. Sometimes they'll get the advantage because of a novelty they worked out ahead of time, and their opponent still manages to get a draw, and now they can work out whether they can come up with an answer to the new move.
Their preparation doesn't negate their opponent's skill. It's still an over the board battle.
Re:Obsolete by PedroV100 · 2012-03-20 06:37 · Score: 2

Football is obsolete then. Better to pick a game where people can still beat fully armored Tanks.
Re:Obsolete by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 06:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

Sanity has convinced most of us to give up lifestyles that might include triathlons.
Re:Obsolete by Hentes · 2012-03-20 06:56 · Score: 1

Also, while the computer can beat me in chess I'm still the better at boxing.
Re:Obsolete by ifiwereasculptor · 2012-03-20 07:16 · Score: 1

I agree. Swimming is also much healthier.
Re:Obsolete by Maximum+Prophet · 2012-03-20 08:08 · Score: 1

In that case, are the Olympics obsolete because the world's fastest sprinter can't even beat a moped, much less a Ferrari? Are painters obsolete because of photoshop? When the competition is man vs man, the abilities of machines shouldn't make it obsolete.
When the first Olimpics were held in ancient Greece, the fastest sprinter couldn't beat a cheetah, most can't even beat a horse in the 1/4 mile.

It's the spectators and sponsors that determine if a game can succeed professionally. The players determine if a game can succeed on an amateur level. Once a game has lost all it's spectators and players, then it's obsolete.

--
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
Re:Obsolete by Fast+Thick+Pants · 2012-03-20 08:21 · Score: 1

Suddenly I'm picturing a Deep Blue Big Dog. It will probably return in my dreams tonight.
Re:Obsolete by antdude · 2012-03-20 10:02 · Score: 2

"The only way to win is not to play." --original WarGames movie. ;)

--
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Re:Obsolete by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 13:05 · Score: 0

Who says I'm not, err I mean, they don't.
Re:Obsolete by ooshna · 2012-03-20 16:32 · Score: 1

Most people aren't athletes as most computers aren't HPCs
Re:Obsolete by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 17:17 · Score: 0

I prefer Live Chess
Re:Obsolete by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 23:35 · Score: 0

damn, Calvinball. It has been ages since I played that!
but to be fair, not even people can defeat people at that.
Re:Obsolete by Eponymous+Hero · 2012-03-21 04:20 · Score: 1

heh, i'll drink to that.

--
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
Re:Obsolete by Eponymous+Hero · 2012-03-21 06:50 · Score: 1

no, but we are the kind of computers that are capable of changing our own hardware. if you want to be an athlete do something about it.

--
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
Re:Obsolete by ooshna · 2012-03-21 07:13 · Score: 1

there is a thing called genetics I'm 5'7 i could have trained my whole life and never make it to even the minor basketball leagues. I also have short legs which means a short stride which means sprinting is out as well.
Re:Obsolete by Eponymous+Hero · 2012-03-21 07:32 · Score: 1

i'm sorry? what?

http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/28/9070661-double-amputee-battles-triathlon-and-wins-silver

--
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
Re:Obsolete by ooshna · 2012-03-21 08:00 · Score: 1

Oh the dude that got silver in a para-triathlon made for amputees and paraplegics? Not actually winning against able-bodied athletes? While I am not bashing the fact that it is a tremendous accomplishment still doesn't mean anything for our conversation.
Re:Obsolete by Eponymous+Hero · 2012-03-21 10:23 · Score: 1

first of all, you couldn't get silver in a para-triathlon if they let you compete. just admit that to yourself. i'm in pretty good shape and i know i couldn't. second, this isn't a separate race. this is the ironman triathlon, and those in the para- category are expected to finish in the same cutoff times as able bodied competitors. that means this guy who got silver in the para- category beat the times of several able bodied competitors who didn't even rank high enough to mention. that would probably include both of us.

this other guy became a professional skateboarder despite having dwarfism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Acu%C3%B1a

this high school student born without arms was a formidable wrestling opponent: http://www.news-record.com/content/2011/12/22/article/photo_gallery_high_school_wrestler_with_no_arms_the_one_to_beat

these amputee archers are competing with non-amputees: http://blog.amsvans.com/53432-archers-with-disabilities-compete-against-able-bodied-athletes/

this other amputee (all limbs) wrestler fought for his right to compete in MMA against able bodied competitors: http://fatshapetofitshape.blogspot.com/2009/04/congenital-amputee-kyle-maynards-long.html

and this person fought for his right to compete in the Olympics (not Special Olympics or Paralympics) with prosthetic legs: http://thinklink.in/blade-runner-sprinter-with-no-legs-wins-right-to-compete-in-olympics/

fuck your genetics, and your excuses.

your assumptions aren't helping you much either: the winner of the 1986 NBA Slam Dunk Contest was Spud Webb, 5'7" tall. http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-shortest-nba-players.php

lawyered

--
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
Re:Obsolete by Eponymous+Hero · 2012-03-21 10:33 · Score: 1

got ahead of myself a bit... meant to mention Andre's other achievements and skipped ahead to his ironman performance. doesn't change anything, though.

http://www.triathlon.org/paratriathlon/

Triathlon is a rare sport in which able-bodied athletes compete, side-by-side, with disabled athletes at both the national and international levels.

--
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
Re:Obsolete by azhitsky · 2012-03-21 21:38 · Score: 1

In a sense that any compentition with clearly defined rules can unite a croud of otherwise self-minded people, the Olympics are not obsolete and will never be.

Headline... by krept · 2012-03-20 05:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

...was hard to read.

--
None of us know everything. Therefore we're all naïve.

Re:Headline... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 05:51 · Score: 0

Tax Computers Detect Cheating with Chess?!?
The IRS announced that their tax computers would detect cheaters by using chess playing algorithms. What's so hard about that?
Re:Headline... by Translation+Error · 2012-03-20 06:10 · Score: 1

You're right. The headline should have been:

Chasing Chess Cheats Challenges Comps!

--
When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
Re:Headline... by mooingyak · 2012-03-20 06:59 · Score: 1

You're right. The headline should have been:
Chasing Chess Cheats Challenges Comps!

Not bad, though when I read it I have to go over it twice to see that the last word isn't "Chomps".
I kind of like:
GIANT REPTILIAN MONSTER ATTACKS TOKYO!!!
and in other news, telling human generated chess moves from computer generated ones is bitchy.

--
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.

A Better Solution by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 05:38 · Score: 0

Faraday Cage. BOOM CHECKMATE!

Why is it 'cheating'? by Omnifarious · 2012-03-20 05:41 · Score: 0

IMHO, the solution is to create leagues. Aided players and unaided players. Allow people who have computer assistance to play. Why this 'pure human' garbage anyway? Do we really want to be at war with the technologies that we use to enhance our reach?

I would also like to see advances made in user interface design that enable computers to act more as extensions of ourselves. Creating a computer-aided chess league would do a great deal to push this forward. We should embrace the technological enhancements we've been learning to make for ourselves, not shunning them.

--
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop

Re:Why is it 'cheating'? by SJHillman · 2012-03-20 05:46 · Score: 3, Funny

I, for one, welcome having an Aided Olympics where sprinters are allowed to use motorcycles and lasers.
Re:Why is it 'cheating'? by baenpb · 2012-03-20 05:49 · Score: 1

Or a football league where the players are allowed steroid use? Sure would make things interesting.
Re:Why is it 'cheating'? by dreemernj · 2012-03-20 05:55 · Score: 1

If they created another league for computer-aided play, they would still be trying to eliminate cheating from the non-computer-aided play league. So that doesn't solve anything.

And, who exactly is shunning technological enhancements? How much press have human vs computer matches gotten? And how frequently do people play chess against computers?

Computers in chess is not really a new thing, and it certainly isn't shunned from chess in general. But, this is a league that is meant to test one player against another player, not one player's team and tech vs another player's team and tech. This league, and any other leagues that decide they don't want technology aiding players, have no reason to change that position if they don't want to. It's their league, they are playing a game, there is no right or wrong, there is simply what the people involved prefer. If a majority of players in the league wanted the technology, they would probably allow it.

--
1 (short ton / firkin) = 89.1432354 slugs / keg
Re:Why is it 'cheating'? by NatasRevol · 2012-03-20 06:00 · Score: 3, Funny

Or the same...

--
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Re:Why is it 'cheating'? by Lumpy · 2012-03-20 06:01 · Score: 2

Football would be far more entertaining if they mined the endzones...
"He's running! 30, 20, 10 KABOOOM!" Ohhh too bad, 2nd down.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:Why is it 'cheating'? by Overzeetop · 2012-03-20 06:03 · Score: 1

Not necessarily, but it does make it profitable!

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Re:Why is it 'cheating'? by Imrik · 2012-03-20 06:15 · Score: 1

Mining the endzone is silly, by that time it's too late. Much better to mine the last few yards instead.
Re:Why is it 'cheating'? by Omnifarious · 2012-03-20 06:22 · Score: 1

Whether it's 'allowed' now or not, it happens.

--
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Re:Why is it 'cheating'? by Omnifarious · 2012-03-20 06:24 · Score: 1

Computer vs. human is totally different from computer + human. One is adversarial and ends up with people being made to feel small as computers brute force their way into a win using techniques that would never ever work for a person. The other allows playing that's better than either a human or a machine could manage on their own.

--
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Re:Why is it 'cheating'? by Rotag_FU · 2012-03-20 06:25 · Score: 1

That would bring a new meaning to the "red zone."
Re:Why is it 'cheating'? by TheCarp · 2012-03-20 08:42 · Score: 1

well the thing is... if you want to play chess against a computer, you can. Why have a league where humans just act as move proxies for computers? If all I did was input my oponennets moves and make the moves I was told to make, then, am I even playing the game? Or am I just taking credit for the work of the people who created the chess program?
If you suggested an AI vs non-AI league, where competitors could pit their AIs against eachother, then yes, absolutely. Or even a league where people pit their AI players against real ones... but... to have a person stand as a proxy for an AI and then try to claim credit as a player....that seems absurd to me.

--
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Re:Why is it 'cheating'? by ffflala · 2012-03-20 09:42 · Score: 1

Oblig SNL reference: the All-Drug Olympics. http://www.hulu.com/watch/124975/saturday-night-live-update-all-drug-olympics
Re:Why is it 'cheating'? by Omnifarious · 2012-03-20 09:54 · Score: 1

I could see using the AI as an assist rather than a replacement for reasoning.
For example, pulling up a database of similar positions, the moves made and the results, and overlaying that on the board by color coding certain moves in certain ways. Or the part that computes whether a particular branch of the tree is more likely to lead to a win overlaying it's information on the board in a similar fashion. Or the player putting in a couple of test moves he or she thinks are particularly interesting and seeing what the possible outcomes are.
A player may have knowledge of his opponents algorithm or psychology that the computer lacks. The computer may point out that in a couple of moves there is likely to be huge pressure in a certain area that the human missed, but the human might figure out the move that breaks that up when the computer couldn't.
I want interfaces that augment human decision making, not supplant it. Computers are very good at certain kinds of reasoning. People are very good at other kinds of reasoning. Lets try to combine the two to make a greater whole instead of having one or the other.

--
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Re:Why is it 'cheating'? by jamesh · 2012-03-20 14:17 · Score: 1

Or the same...
Hardly. Right now it's a very delicate balance of taking enough performance enhancing drugs to give you the edge, but not enough that it's too obvious and trying to choose the right drugs to not get detected. If they removed all obstacles then things would be much more interesting!
Re:Why is it 'cheating'? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 14:53 · Score: 0

Yeah, like this isn't obvious?
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/664253-the-biggest-jackass-on-each-nfl-team/page/10
Re:Why is it 'cheating'? by jamesh · 2012-03-20 21:01 · Score: 1

You try pulling something like that at the olympic games and tell me how that works out for you...
Re:Why is it 'cheating'? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 23:32 · Score: 0

You just described cheating.
Re:Why is it 'cheating'? by rocket+rancher · 2012-03-21 02:12 · Score: 1

I want interfaces that augment human decision making, not supplant it. Computers are very good at certain kinds of reasoning. People are very good at other kinds of reasoning. Lets try to combine the two to make a greater whole instead of having one or the other.
Hmmm. And I want strong AI. Not sure that the distinction you are making between computers and humans is valid. I would hope that there is only one kind of reasoning in the universe, dude.
Re:Why is it 'cheating'? by Omnifarious · 2012-03-21 03:11 · Score: 1

Computers handle chess by projecting out the possibilities far into the future. Humans do this too, but there is a lot of evidence to show that humans also pattern match against previously seen positions in a very sophisticated way that computers don't do yet.
Currently, a lot of how Google is 'intelligent' is from slurping enormous quantities of data and doing vast statistical analysis of these sets and predicting likely outcomes.
Computers tend to do things this way. People tend to do things by a more sophisticated and detailed analysis of smaller sets of data as well as the ability to correlate ideas and concepts that seem totally unrelated and would never make it into the same dataset in a computer-run analysis.
So yes, I think there are two different approaches to reasoning. It may be that computers can be made just as good as what we do today. But they are not currently, so it makes a great deal of sense to find ways to intelligently combine the two kinds of intelligence. Have the computers provide us the results of there analysis in a way we can easily integrate into how we think about problems.

--
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop

It's finite. by baudilus · 2012-03-20 05:41 · Score: 1

Technically speaking, chess does have an enormous, yet finite amount of moves. Eventually computers will be able to calculate every possible outcome within a few seconds. Why not just give up on chess and play games that computer's can't play (or at least play like humans)?

Re:It's finite. by dreemernj · 2012-03-20 05:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

My guess is they don't want to give up because they enjoy playing chess against other people.

--
1 (short ton / firkin) = 89.1432354 slugs / keg
Re:It's finite. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 05:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

You don't really grasp the concept of exponential growth, do you? Computers are able to beat humans in chess, but chess will *never* be solved. The game tree complexity is, by some guesses, around 10^123, and yet there are only 10^81 atoms in the entire observable universe.
Re:It's finite. by TaoPhoenix · 2012-03-20 06:00 · Score: 1

Because in the bigger view, most games in these categories will eventually be playable by computers - it's only because chess was so famous that the proper programming theory developed in with advances in comp science. And we can't bear to let it go because it was the Grand Game of Kings - it symbolized a certain intelligence culturally like few other games did.
I am having trouble thinking of a game that a person could play better than computers for longer than say 20 years. I know, Go fans like to flaunt that their game hasn't received the same onslaught, but all it takes is a "paradigm change" in AI for suddenly that game to crack in half too.

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Re:It's finite. by AdamHaun · 2012-03-20 06:06 · Score: 1

Well, first of all, computers will never be able to calculate every possible outcome. The game tree complexity of chess is on the order of ~10^120, which is larger than the number of atoms in the observable universe. Even storing every position would take the matter content of a small galaxy.
Secondly, chess is a game first and a mathematical problem second. We're having fun, not calculating digits of pi. You can cheat at any game, but that doesn't mean games are pointless.

--
Visit the
Re:It's finite. by WalksOnDirt · 2012-03-20 06:23 · Score: 1

Even storing every position would take the matter content of a small galaxy.
Nah, the total number of positions is only 10 to the 43 to 47 power, which is fewer than the atoms in the Earth. I wouldn't hold my breath on when we'll get them all calculated, though.

--
a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
Re:It's finite. by MisterMidi · 2012-03-20 06:46 · Score: 1

Depends on your definition of "solved". If the solution is "beat any human at chess" I'd say it's pretty much solved.
Re:It's finite. by uigrad_2000 · 2012-03-20 06:58 · Score: 1

Because in the bigger view, most games in these categories will eventually be playable by computers - it's only because chess was so famous that the proper programming theory developed in with advances in comp science.

Arimaa is a game designed to take the place of chess. It can be played with a chess board and pieces, and there's been a $10,000 challenge to develop an AI that can beat a top human player. The challenge has been around for a long time, and is good through the year 2020.
Computers may overtake humans in Go, just because we've seen human ability has already pretty much peaked in the game. It was a hugely popular game 50 years ago, but kids aren't learning it and playing it today. So, we already know what mark AI has to meet.
Arimaa is still growing in popularity. The champions today are much better than those 10 years ago, and dominant strategies among top players are still being debated and changed. Even though the game can be brute-force searched easier than Go, I think humans will hold the edge in it considerably longer than Go.

--
Free unix account: freeshell.org
Re:It's finite. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 07:07 · Score: 0

Depends on your definition of "solved". If the solution is "beat any human at chess" I'd say it's pretty much solved.
I guess it does. Or I could define "solved" as playing by the rules, so chess was solved by computers many decades ago. Still, I think we'd both be better off using the definition of solved already used by others instead of making up our own.
Re:It's finite. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 07:21 · Score: 0

And you don't grasp the concept of alpha beta pruning.
Re:It's finite. by pclminion · 2012-03-20 08:31 · Score: 2

In adversarial game theory, to "solve" a game means that you've shown that the first player can always win (provided he makes the right moves), or whether it's just a tie, or even that the first player will always lose (if the opponent makes the right moves). Does anybody know whether the white player in chess can ALWAYS win, so long as he makes no mistakes? No, nobody knows that. The game's not solved.
Re:It's finite. by MisterMidi · 2012-03-20 09:38 · Score: 1

Thanks, didn't know about this. Interesting stuff :)
Re:It's finite. by randyleepublic · 2012-03-22 23:46 · Score: 1

Um, isn't possible that the "solution" might dictate that the player who plays second can always win?

--
Social Credit would solve everything...
Re:It's finite. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-23 07:20 · Score: 0

Um, isn't possible that the "solution" might dictate that the player who plays second can always win?
That would fall under the condition "that the first player will always lose (if the opponent makes the right moves)".

Stupid whiny taxes computers by Fallingcow · 2012-03-20 05:42 · Score: 5, Funny

I don't see how detecting chess can cheat the taxes computers. Our detecting chess should be none of the taxes computers business, IMO.

More of the usual bitching I've come to expect from taxes computers. Big complainers, them.

Re:Stupid whiny taxes computers by FooAtWFU · 2012-03-20 05:54 · Score: 4, Funny

More of the usual bitching I've come to expect from taxes computers. Big complainers, them.
Well, yeah. Everything's bigger in Taxes.

--
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
Re:Stupid whiny taxes computers by An+ominous+Cow+art · 2012-03-20 06:51 · Score: 1

I was thinking that I could fill my 1040-EZ with chess notation and bring down the IRS...
Re:Stupid whiny taxes computers by steelfood · 2012-03-20 08:10 · Score: 1

By watching chess, you are not doing your taxes. Duh!

--
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

disproof by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 05:44 · Score: 1

Assume I am a human who, before starting a game, has learnt and will apply the algorithm a computer uses to play chess.

I am then indistinguishable from someone who is cheating by consulting a computer executing this algorithm.

Therefore there is no mathematical proof to determine whether someone has cheated.

This is in the realms of computability 101.

Re:disproof by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 05:57 · Score: 0

I think this is a case of bad summary. The article itself doesn't seem to say mathmatically proven.. more "suspicious".
Re:disproof by NeoMorphy · 2012-03-20 06:05 · Score: 1

Assume I am a human who, before starting a game, has learnt and will apply the algorithm a computer uses to play chess.
Computer chess algorithms are extremely inefficient if not impossible for a human to use, not unless you have a lot of pen and paper to keep track of your billions of calculations, but using notes is cheating and besides, your clock would run out. Strong human players use algorithms that are not easily translated into computer code. Sometimes(maybe a lot of times) there might be flaws in their calculations, but unless they are playing against a high end chess program/system, nobody will notice the mistake.

Proof? Nope. by demonbug · 2012-03-20 05:44 · Score: 1

The article doesn't say anything about mathematical proof of whether someone cheated. At the moment he seems to simply be running the decision points (moves) of a game under suspicion against both historic games (to see if the player is playing significantly above their "normal" rating) and against a single computer chess program (to see if the competitor's moves have unusually high correlation with the moves the computer would make). All of this provides evidence of cheating (or lack thereof, as noted in the article where some grandmasters were found to just be playing unusually poorly rather than their competitor cheating), but in no way does it constitute mathematical proof of cheating. Mathematical proof would suggest that there is absolutely no uncertainty, which is clearly not the case.

Re:Aided players and unaided players by TaoPhoenix · 2012-03-20 05:46 · Score: 1

Already done. "Aided Playing" is called Advanced Chess.

"Unaided Playing" just gets back to the article. The sneaky part is that you don't need to be a moron playing GM moves for an event of Cheating. There was a couple of stories a while back in which GMs only needed one key decision such as "Go for the Win or Keep the Draw" and their own talent was the rest.

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine

So... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 05:49 · Score: 0

How do I use chess to cheat on my taxes?

How to test if a chess-AI is any good by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 05:50 · Score: 1

If you play as white, have a rook or a queen on line 7 threatening and keeping the black king locked on line 8. If the AI starts doing crazy shit then discard the whole thing as junk.

I have seen this pattern emerge in every chess-AI I have played. There is this one move where it seems it cannot comprehend anything anymore and starts pushing pieces at you to draw out time.

Re:How to test if a chess-AI is any good by PRMan · 2012-03-20 06:47 · Score: 1

I'm not good enough at chess to GET a rook or queen to line 7 safely against most AIs...

--
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Re:How to test if a chess-AI is any good by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 09:05 · Score: 0

Or play as white and open yourself to the Fool's mate.
1. f3 should get a computer response of e5.
2. g4 should result in the computer moving the queen so the white king is checkmated.
If the computer plays 1. ... d5 or any other move, well, you know.

capthas? by findoutmoretoday · 2012-03-20 05:52 · Score: 2

just use captchas to make sure the content is generated by a person

Re:capthas? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 06:09 · Score: 0

Are you an AI or a stupid human?
The humans doing the cheating would handle the captchas, the computers will handle most of the chess.

Not a "World Champion" chess problem... sorry! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 05:55 · Score: 1

In smallish events (say, under 16 players) at the most elite levels, cheating detection is not difficult. Danialov's Toiletgate accusations aside (translation: Grandstanding,) on a small scale it is easy to detect cheating:

1) All players are completely segregated and in a sterile environment during play.
2) All players can be metal-detected before play - absolutely no electronics not provided by the tournament allowed.
3) Any 'private' areas not under observation (toilet area,) hook up broadcast frequency counter(s) in the room, such that any elecronics usage in the room trips it.
4) Any live transmissions are broadcast delayed and spectators not allowed in the room. (Can't give advice if you can't see the board.)

Simple.

Now, something like the Olympiad, different story to police (or set up similar conditions.) But, then again, that's not "World Championship" chess - just elite.

(Or we can keep doing the best job we can and that is actually pretty good.)

Above Average Player by LeAzzholeChef · 2012-03-20 06:13 · Score: 1

Although I am not a Grand Master of Chess. I can still hold my own. Playing online these days is not like the real situation. Visualizing, anticipating, seeing the expressions on the opponents face, watching his eyes, and facial quirks. All these play a part in the strategy. ONLINE CHESS GAMES are a farce. Though fun, and challenging at times. It's nothing like the real situation.So quit griping about online chess games. MAKE an appointment and do it LIVE on a green and white map with ivory pieces.

Re:Above Average Player by Xiver · 2012-03-20 06:28 · Score: 1

They are not talking about online chess. They are talking about people cheating during tournaments and such with outside help.

--
10: PRINT "Everything old is new again."
20: GOTO 10

isolate the players is easier by RichMan · 2012-03-20 06:23 · Score: 1

put the players in an environment where outside input is impossible.

Each player goes into a separate black box faraday cage. They get a touch screen display of the board the opponent is looking at. There are 3 video cameras, wathing the board, player and reverse views. The only signals going through the faraday cage are the video feeds and the board control interface.

The video feeds are out only so no problem there. The control to update the opponents move is the only feed in and the only hole in the system that needs hard monitoring.

Re:isolate the players is easier by dkleinsc · 2012-03-20 06:32 · Score: 1

There's a very real problem though: One of the players may need to use the bathroom.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
Re:isolate the players is easier by pclminion · 2012-03-20 08:24 · Score: 1

At this point, one wonders why one would waste one's time with such contests. If the only reason I feel assured that my opponent is not cheating, is because he has been prevented from doing so, why should I play? Why would I want to match wits with somebody who obviously has no interest in participating in an actual competition? You can lock him in a room and force him to play fair, but why?

A reflection of progress in chess playing machines by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 06:23 · Score: 0

One of the best chess frauds involved a man pretending to be a chess playing computer.

I have to say it, now we have computers pretending to be a chess playing man...

No human can play a decent game of chess by Animats · 2012-03-20 06:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

The classic remark by Dreyfus, "No computer can play a decent game of chess", has been inverted. Today's commercial chess programs, running on ordinary desktop machines, or even laptops, can beat any human. No grandmaster has won a tournament against a chess program since 2005. Pocket Fritz 4 on a phone now plays at the grandmaster level.

Hence the cheating. About once a year, a major chess player is caught cheating.

It turns out that, even at the grandmaster level, about 1 human move in 10 is clearly suboptimal. So, one computers got close to the grandmaster level, they could beat humans just by not making mistakes.

Re:No human can play a decent game of chess by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 07:32 · Score: 0

Would Fischer Random Chess (defeat opening books) or adapting chess rules to a 16x16 fight off the AI dominance?
After all, AIs still struggle at Go, but not if Go is played on an 8x8 board as Chess is.
Re:No human can play a decent game of chess by Idbar · 2012-03-20 10:57 · Score: 1

You see, to me the issue is that you can now crunch a lot of data and have computer analyze all possible combinations of plays, possibly hash them and store them altogether with the probability of winning (which was calculated at the end of all possible combinations starting with a particular move).

Then for a game, it's very likely easy to go check a table with the higher winning probability (which may, by the way be 1), and use that move next.

Look up table
Repeat

The valid moves are not unlimited, and certainly you can focus only on high probability values and discard others to save some storage.
Re:No human can play a decent game of chess by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 11:28 · Score: 0

That is only possible for positions with six or less men on the board, including the kings.
Re:No human can play a decent game of chess by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 11:38 · Score: 0

You see, to me the issue is that you can now crunch a lot of data and have computer analyze all possible combinations of plays
This tells me you know very little about the problem. There are literally many order of mangitude more possible combinations of moves than there are atoms in the universe and even if you could store them it would take longer than the age of the universe to do so. If the problem were that simple it would have been solved the week someone thought of doing it. Algorithms to play at grandmaster level are many times more complex,
Re:No human can play a decent game of chess by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 12:38 · Score: 0

I'm pretty sure this is called "Opening book."
At a certain point, details of the play cause there to be too many branches to easily prune.
Already, if you have the tables constructed, you opponent will purposefully play into a pruned area to reduce you to a human player again. "Breaking" the opening.
Re:No human can play a decent game of chess by LittleImp · 2012-03-21 02:14 · Score: 1

I seriously doubt that Go is much of a challenge for a computer. A Go software that has been in development as long as fritz for example would probably also destroy any human opponent.
Re:No human can play a decent game of chess by mario_grgic · 2012-03-21 06:00 · Score: 1

There are more possible moves in chess, than there are atoms in the visible universe. You can't physically make large enough memory storage to store all the moves even if you had all the atoms in the universe at your disposal.

--
As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.

Chess... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 06:39 · Score: 0

There are only so many moves on the board, all can be calculated.

Just lock them in a room by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 06:40 · Score: 0

Two go in one goes out. If you can somehow manage to smuggle in a computer you are the smarter one and deserve to live. Simple effective and lessens the number of chess fanatics in the world.

Slippery elm tablets by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 06:55 · Score: 0

If one of the players is being handed a slippery elm tablet from a personal aide before each move, then there might be cheating going on.

I've met Ken Regan by Theovon · 2012-03-20 06:59 · Score: 1

I interviewed for a position at Buffalo, and I had dinner with Ken Regan there. Fascinating guy, with a lot of varied interests and a lot of depth. He had some interesting stories to tell about alledged cheating at chess.

So by M0j0_j0j0 · 2012-03-20 07:02 · Score: 1

Does that mean i cant play because of my cerebal implants?

How do we know by Grindalf · 2012-03-20 07:03 · Score: 0

How do we know that this program is not a cheat to allow stupid friends to win with a cut of the millions of USD prize money? Who can trust this?

--
The purpose of existence is to make money.

Parse Error by hhedeshian · 2012-03-20 07:22 · Score: 4, Funny

Parse error: Detecting Chess Cheats Taxes Computers
Parse error: (Detecting) Chess Cheats Taxes Computers
Parse error: (Detecting Chess) Cheats Taxes Computers
Parse error: Detecting (Chess Cheats) Taxes Computers
Parse error: Detecting Chess (Cheats Taxes) Computers
Parse possible: (Detecting Chess Cheats) Taxes Computers
Parse possible: (Detecting Chess Cheats) Taxes Democrats
Parse SUCCESSFUL: (Detecting Chess Cheats) [consumes] Computer [resources]

Re:Parse Error by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 02:57 · Score: 0

Parsing Slashdot Headlines Taxes Slashdot Readers

Re:Arimaa by TaoPhoenix · 2012-03-20 08:36 · Score: 1

Okay, that's a fair attempt!

I think it will also pose a challenge to computers since they can't just raw search it like chess, but to me that's that limitation on the programming side, heuristics.

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine

Previous research on evaluating chess players by Dr.+Gamera · 2012-03-20 09:23 · Score: 1

He tried to find articles on the subject, but turned up nothing. “It is one of those situations that it is hard to believe that this hasn’t already been covered in the literature,” he said.

I'm not criticizing Kenneth W. Regan for the way in which his work was reported in the popular press, but Matej Guid and Ivan Bratko have had a couple of articles published in which they evaluate past world champion chess players with computer programs. Their ICGA Journal articles aren't free to read, but ChessBase.com has articles (which I haven't read) based on those journal articles here and here.

My work isn't closely enough related to that of Regan and Guid/Bratko that I know the politics involved: sworn enemies? friends? never heard of each other? But if it's "never heard of each other", they should talk.

Re:Above Average Player... I 2nd that by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 10:36 · Score: 0

Although I am not a Grand Master of Chess. I can still hold my own. Playing online these days is not like the real situation. Visualizing, anticipating, seeing the expressions on the opponents face, watching his eyes, and facial quirks. All these play a part in the strategy. ONLINE CHESS GAMES are a farce. Though fun, and challenging at times. It's nothing like the real situation.So quit griping about online chess games. MAKE an appointment and do it LIVE on a green and white map with ivory pieces.

Social networking sites like Meetup.com allows you to seek others with the same interest. If you want to play chess in NYC check out the Chess Forum:
http://www.meetup.com/Play-Chess-and-Backgammon/

Or just do a search for Chess, there may be a club in your area.

Slashdot Mirror

Detecting Chess Cheats Taxes Computers

159 comments