[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)