[HN Gopher] Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes
___________________________________________________________________
Cheating at chess with a computer for my shoes
Author : badindentation
Score : 101 points
Date : 2022-09-05 20:34 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (incoherency.co.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (incoherency.co.uk)
| michaelwm wrote:
| Though I'm not much of a poker player myself, I am friends with
| many professionals who have found success both online and
| offline, in games from pot-limit omaha to no-limit hold-em.
|
| Cheating in online poker has been around for many years, with
| varying success by online gaming companies to implement anti-
| cheat measures in their software. With recent developments in AI,
| there is renewed discussion about cheating as the best AIs have
| no trouble beating anything from PLO to NLHE.
|
| It was only a matter of time before this started to spread
| offline, and just a few weeks ago, I heard a story from a friend
| of a friend who caught a player using a device similar to this
| during a private game he was hosting. It's only a matter of time
| before these sorts of devices continue to spread, and I'm not
| sure how the world will respond.
|
| It would be a huge deal to cheat at events like the World Chess
| Tournament, but the consequences of getting caught will likely
| stop at complete disgrace. Cheating at events like the World
| Series of Poker, with tens of millions of dollars on the line, or
| even worse, private events with potentially billions of dollars
| at stake, could lead to a hell of a lot worse.
| icelancer wrote:
| Oh yeah. Mike Postle was 100% cheating and getting fed moves
| from a confederate. But even if he wasn't, this type of setup
| with communication could simply maximize imperfect information,
| run it through a "solver" (which is what poker players call
| their game engines), and return the best plays.
|
| More on the Mike Postle thing in this twoplustwo thread, or of
| course, Google:
|
| https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29/news-views-gossip/mike...
| eganist wrote:
| I wonder if fraud laws anywhere are written in a way where
| cheating in tournaments with prize pools can catch charges that
| are already on the books.
| bravura wrote:
| How did your friend catch the cheater at their private game?
| cortesoft wrote:
| About 20 years ago (before the crackdown on online poker in the
| US), I had a friend who made a good living playing online
| poker. His cheating strategy was to use an engine to watch
| every single game being played on the server. Once he
| accumulated enough data on players, he would simply play at
| tables where there were really bad players. He would have
| insight into each players strategy, and could counter easily.
| He made quite a bit.
| sharedfrog wrote:
| This is relevant to today's events because Magnus Carlsen just
| withdrew from a tournament[1] after yesterday's loss to a
| significantly lower rated opponent who had previously been
| suspended for cheating on chess.com. The tournament organizers
| have also implemented additional anti-cheating protocols starting
| today.
|
| Whatever comes out of these accusations, the chess world will
| sure enjoy its new infusion of drama.
|
| [1] https://twitter.com/MagnusCarlsen/status/1566848734616555523
| avip wrote:
| This makes little sense no? With 200 ELO diff Hans should beat
| Magnus ~1/4 games.
| icelancer wrote:
| Only by K factor; those calculations don't hold at the
| highest levels, the distribution is skewed. Magnus also
| rarely loses with the white pieces in classical; his last
| loss was in 2018 at Biel vs. a much better player than Hans.
| avip wrote:
| You're right, it's ~1/25. So still should happen.
| sharedfrog wrote:
| For sure. On its own, it's no more than a raised eyebrow.
| The next few days will show if there's any solid
| evidence.
|
| Btw. the 24% chance of "winning" against a 200 Elo higher
| rated opponent refers to "winning a point" - it includes
| draws as well.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| Not correct, the _current_ rating doesn 't reflect growing
| player's strength. It takes time for them to accrue rating.
| Alireza used to be beat players 200 points higher as he was
| climbing through the ladders. Hans just topped 2700.
|
| There is also the reverse side of the coin that top players
| peak at a rating and then decline as they age. Not saying
| Magnus is, but it is not a possibility that can be ruled
| out.
| peter422 wrote:
| Magnus has played tons and tons of chess games this year
| and has maintained his rating. There is no doubt his
| rating is very accurate unless you think his skill
| started to deteriorate in the last month.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| What if Hans is actually rated higher than his current
| rating, seems quite plausible, no? ELO has pros and cons;
| it is not some law of nature:
| https://en.chessbase.com/post/what-s-wrong-with-the-elo-
| syst...
| fasthands9 wrote:
| I know very little about chess.
|
| Do computers play like top humans? Or different stylistically?
|
| ie - if you were a top player and looking at the moves of an
| opponent, could you discern if the style was more similar to a
| top rated human or a top rated computer?
| CSMastermind wrote:
| There are "computer moves" which stand out vs human players.
| These normally show up in lines where there are many options
| of roughly equal value and the computer picks a move that is
| infinitesimally better but out of 'theme' with the position.
|
| They can also show up when for instance there are multiple
| checkmates in a position. The computer will choose the one
| requiring the least number of moves even if it requires deep
| calculation and perfect play. Humans will just trade off
| material and go for an easy win.
|
| Now that chess engines have started to use neural networks in
| move selection the amount of "computer moves" has decreased
| noticeably.
|
| > if you were a top player and looking at the moves of an
| opponent, could you discern if the style was more similar to
| a top rated human or a top rated computer?
|
| With a large enough sample size I believe that top players
| would be able to tell the difference. But that sample size is
| much larger than a single game or likely even the ~10 games
| being played in a tournament.
| camjohnson26 wrote:
| If every move was an engine it would be suspicious, but it
| would be easy to just use the engine a few times at important
| moments in the game to get a huge advantage, and it would be
| very difficult to detect. The top player normally know the
| best few moves on the board and choose between them based on
| long term strategy.
| ummonk wrote:
| Top humans tend to pick a slightly weaker move than computers
| every few moves. By letting the computer veto their chosen
| move sometimes but not all the time (and only doing so when
| the computer's chosen move was one they were strongly
| considering), they can have stronger performance without
| anyone catching on.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| Hans seems like a cool guy, I watched his interview afterwards.
|
| PowerPlayChess covered the game, it was a magnificent
| performance but also not perfect:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n27zd_dVtFw
| icelancer wrote:
| Wow, somehow I missed this. Pretty wild accusations from Magnus
| and Hikaru on this. Hans just had a horrific tournament in his
| last attempt, which makes this whole thing pretty interesting.
|
| Hans didn't play engine perfect lines when beating Magnus in
| the Sinquefield Cup, though he obviously played extremely
| accurately.
| EGreg wrote:
| Even a stripsearch cannot prevent everything. Competitive play at
| any casual games is not secure anymore.
|
| https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/01/28/239657/lasers-ca...
| vlle wrote:
| Very interesting article. I like reading about cheating and how
| people try to trick everyone, especially in chess. It seems
| unusual to me that there's only 89 points, but I guess thats
| temporary.
| jonas-w wrote:
| Interesting read, although I know nothing about chess.
| Animats wrote:
| Computer-assisted chess cheating has been going on for over a
| decade now.[1]
|
| It's getting to be embarrassing for humans, that small battery
| powered devices now win against strong players. At world
| championship level, at least you still need a laptop.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheating_in_chess#High-profile
| ziddoap wrote:
| Why would it be embarrassing?
|
| Does the size of the device really make it more or less
| embarrassing? If anything, I think it's pretty awesome that a
| small battery powered device -- designed and programmed by
| humans -- can excel at games like chess.
| faeriechangling wrote:
| Magnus Carlsen would have a real hard time drawing stockfish on
| a phone 1/100 games.
| nlzoperand wrote:
| I wonder why everyone focuses on electronic communication and
| wearable devices.
|
| There are tons of acoustic side channels if an accomplice watches
| the live stream outside of the playing venue. Set up construction
| site and use a hammer just loud enough to be just barely heard
| from the inside. Bird sounds, music, the possibilities are
| endless.
|
| Very few bits of information need to be transmitted for the best
| three moves.
| Victerius wrote:
| Then chess games will be held inside windowless, purpose built
| sound proof rooms with only staff members inside, and the
| players will be forced to leave their shoes and socks at the
| door and wear tournament-provided slippers. Construction work
| around the building will also be stopped during the tournament.
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-05 23:00 UTC)