Slashdot Mirror
Detecting Chess Cheats Taxes Computers
First time accepted submitter jeffrlamb writes "Cheating in live chess matches — fueled by powerful computer programs that play better than people do, as well as sophisticated communication technologies — is becoming a big problem for world championship chess. Kenneth W. Regan is attempting to construct a mathematical proof to see if someone cheated; the trouble is that so many variables and outliers must be taken into account. Modeling and factoring human behavior in competition turns out to be very difficult."
I'd just use the CoD system for cheat detection. If they beat me, they cheated. Simple enough.
RTFA, you can use a computer to come up with a better move than you would have on your own.
...was hard to read.
None of us know everything. Therefore we're all naïve.
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.
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.
Then shortly after, the other player leaves.
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.
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.
I, for one, welcome having an Aided Olympics where sprinters are allowed to use motorcycles and lasers.
just use captchas to make sure the content is generated by a person
I really don't want to click on that link.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
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
Then the referee, who takes the chess set with him.
It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
If that's the case, just have the computer play Computer vs Computer.
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.
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
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.
Naked chess!
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
So check the players for technology, and block outside communications. No algorithm needed.
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.
Or the same...
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
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.
When machines can beat Humans at the triathlon then we should worry.
Pshhh.... qzjkh is a perfectly cromulent word.
Soon Slashdot will have a computer that finds and posts Oblig XKCD comics.
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
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.
Football is obsolete then. Better to pick a game where people can still beat fully armored Tanks.
Sanity has convinced most of us to give up lifestyles that might include triathlons.
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
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,.
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]
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.
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.
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.
"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).
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.