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.
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.
Then the referee, who takes the chess set with him.
It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
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
Naked chess!
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Pshhh.... qzjkh is a perfectly cromulent word.
Soon Slashdot will have a computer that finds and posts Oblig XKCD comics.
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]