<Comment deleted by user>
I too think it's important to keep the discussion on this topic alive. The problem, as your article points out, is that there isn't much to discuss! But this is one "news" story we can't let dwindle away.
<Comment deleted by user>
@dboing said in #4:
> Could it be that engine style has been adopted by humans?
>
> I am not talking about a particular incident, but isn't relying on an isolated expert on cheating, a chess expert deformation, in trusting a bit too much what individual expertise might do bring to the table of establishing some statement to be valid objectively?
>
> It might be that detecting cheating, in the context of known best engine source code and reproducibly analysable behavior over many position to characterize its programmed tendencies, is an art that like chess might not be easy to share in a common language or common means of explanations, in which case, we might at least need a community of experts.
>
> Also, on the extent of online cheating, while considering that chess.com might have inflated numbers for its own pubilicty stunt needs. should I finnish that sentence.... How can we use those numbers to tell of the extent?
>
> I think it is more alarming that we now have accepted that a grand-master could be still having wisedom issues with respect ot won art. That a grand-master might still be putting winning some title or trophy over own art. onece in a while, could not repress the envy to cheat?
>
> I am just asking questions.
probably. I mean, the only way you make someone quit or withdraw is if you threaten him or his family. OR for some reason, somehow he (MC) was practicing with engine and that exact move was use to him by HN on that exact moment. anyhow HN game was to awful for a GM.
> Could it be that engine style has been adopted by humans?
>
> I am not talking about a particular incident, but isn't relying on an isolated expert on cheating, a chess expert deformation, in trusting a bit too much what individual expertise might do bring to the table of establishing some statement to be valid objectively?
>
> It might be that detecting cheating, in the context of known best engine source code and reproducibly analysable behavior over many position to characterize its programmed tendencies, is an art that like chess might not be easy to share in a common language or common means of explanations, in which case, we might at least need a community of experts.
>
> Also, on the extent of online cheating, while considering that chess.com might have inflated numbers for its own pubilicty stunt needs. should I finnish that sentence.... How can we use those numbers to tell of the extent?
>
> I think it is more alarming that we now have accepted that a grand-master could be still having wisedom issues with respect ot won art. That a grand-master might still be putting winning some title or trophy over own art. onece in a while, could not repress the envy to cheat?
>
> I am just asking questions.
probably. I mean, the only way you make someone quit or withdraw is if you threaten him or his family. OR for some reason, somehow he (MC) was practicing with engine and that exact move was use to him by HN on that exact moment. anyhow HN game was to awful for a GM.
<Comment deleted by user>
The inmediate result of the controversy and scandals of cheating in chess is that the chess world has found out there is a "hole" in terms of rules, laws, jurisdiction, experts, Courts. Online or OTB? cheating is cheating but FIDE so far does not rule the online chess community. How is this possible? How someone who has confessed to have cheated online yet has a valid license and all necessary credentials for OTB tournaments? Where is the limit between online and real world? Who is the authority here? Even when a player belongs to a Federation and this to FIDE and so has accepted the rules of FIDE the online world is a complete different game and this is the hole and the Elephant in the room. "Anti-cheating experts" ... who gave them this title, license or certification to become a Judge of others? under whose supervision? under who's responsability? What is acceptable to clearly establish and as any law requires to flawlessly declare someone guilty? I mean the reliability of the algorithms? 99,9% like required for a medical diagnosis? or to prove DNA filiation? Are there anti-cheating algorithms in chess with such degree of reliability??? Who can guarantee that? who has done the evaluation, tests, calibration and certificatin of these algorithms? under which conditions or what are the minimun requirements? Have these algorithms undergone the minimun analysis of "pairs" who could reproduce the tests? where are the results? When I read that an algorithms is allegdely "good" because it has been developed by some PhD from Harvard I can only raise my eyebrow because simply that is not the way it works in the real world ... though it looks like in the online world that is it!
Another debate is on the table: algorithms, bots, engines with decision power above any human being ... and just like that, today it seems a bot or algorithm can decide de fate of a person. By some work of "witchcraft" we, humans, are being judge of all our imperfections by AIs without from the start, any kind of values, moral, virtue and seems people accept them without questioning or without any evidence or test as natural Judges. A bot can ban a person in a chat, an algorithm can decide about your identity and so open or close a gate, deliver or not money, in other words decide about you, an already scary world accepted by a society of zombies.
Another debate is on the table: algorithms, bots, engines with decision power above any human being ... and just like that, today it seems a bot or algorithm can decide de fate of a person. By some work of "witchcraft" we, humans, are being judge of all our imperfections by AIs without from the start, any kind of values, moral, virtue and seems people accept them without questioning or without any evidence or test as natural Judges. A bot can ban a person in a chat, an algorithm can decide about your identity and so open or close a gate, deliver or not money, in other words decide about you, an already scary world accepted by a society of zombies.
<Comment deleted by user>
<Comment deleted by user>
I agree with this statement near the end.
"We’re going to need to rethink the policy of protecting online cheaters’ identities and giving them second and third chances"
If the 4th order polynomial machine learning computer recognizes a cheater online for lets say three days straight (whether its during a major tournament or just rated pairings). And its obvious to any moderator
Then there is no reason to 'protect' the identity of the cheater
Again, it has to be repetitious. One game in one tournament doesn't seem to be enough evidence
"We’re going to need to rethink the policy of protecting online cheaters’ identities and giving them second and third chances"
If the 4th order polynomial machine learning computer recognizes a cheater online for lets say three days straight (whether its during a major tournament or just rated pairings). And its obvious to any moderator
Then there is no reason to 'protect' the identity of the cheater
Again, it has to be repetitious. One game in one tournament doesn't seem to be enough evidence