If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
15. Have fun!
(Thanks to Nigel Hanrahan for writing these up!)
Chess Cheating on Superficial Evidence: Time to Put Up or Shut Up
"When using RFLP, the theoretical risk of a coincidental match is 1 in 100 billion (100,000,000,000), although the practical risk is actually 1 in 1000 because monozygotic twins are 0.2% of the human population.".
That must be wrong. The chance of a match, if one has randomly chosen an identical twin as the first sample, drops only to 1 in 6,000,000,000 (about the world's population) not 1 in 1000.
But you would choose a twin as the first sample, by chance only 1 in 500 times, so the 100,000,000,000 still applies to almost everyone.
Last edited by Ed Zator; Thursday, 22nd August, 2013, 10:58 PM.
Reason: sp
Cat DNA, which is much less specific than in humans, has been used to obtain a murder conviction. Hairs from the murderer's cat were found on a curtain wrapped around the victim's body. This 1-in-a-hundred probabilistic evidence, along with other evidence, was used to convict the killer.
100 to 1. And that's evidence in regard to a murder conviction.
LOL... "this 1-in-a-hundred probabilistic evidence, ALONG WITH OTHER EVIDENCE..."
Nice try, Nigel. And even if 1-in-a-hundred odds were enough by itself to convict, what's happening in chess is lowering the bar even more.
I notice you weren't one of those who made a post to Rene Preotu expressing sorrow or anger at what happened to his son. What do they call that in the military, when innocent civilians get killed... "collateral damage". That's probably how you regard Rene's son.
Last edited by Paul Bonham; Friday, 16th August, 2013, 12:02 PM.
Reason: proper phrasing
No! You can't blame it on "relying solely on statistical analysis" because Felix Dumont, the expert, says that is the cure to cheating! LOL
Even if a site like ICC or the new FIDE Arena were to start off by having a human element in order to avoid these mistakes, you can bet your sweet ass they would ditch the human element at the earliest opportunity to save costs. Don't for one minute think FIDE Arena won't be making these exact same mistakes.
I don't fathom how any self-respecting human being of decent intelligence (let's call him Bindi) would allow some corporate entity to make decisions affecting Bindi's life, with Bindi knowing that the decisions are made using methods unknown to him, the decisions cannot be appealed, and the decisions affect Bindi's reputation and standing in the world. IMO, Bindi allowing this to happen is Bindi becoming a Pawn in a game of chess. Bindi and others like him need to learn to have some backbone.
There should be an organized boycott of all these entities making these "secret police" decisions. Money talks! FIDE Arena is only going to be free for a short time; if the time comes for people to pay up and only a tiny group of spineless people actually do it, FIDE will realize they made a terrible mistake.
Paul, can you please appear in real life at a chess tournament somewhere? I think you could really attract a solid crowd. If you bring a hat, you can even collect some free money!
Re: Chess Cheating on Superficial Evidence: Time to Put Up or Shut Up
Supplemental:
Cat DNA, which is much less specific than in humans, has been used to obtain a murder conviction. Hairs from the murderer's cat were found on a curtain wrapped around the victim's body. This 1-in-a-hundred probabilistic evidence, along with other evidence, was used to convict the killer.
100 to 1. And that's evidence in regard to a murder conviction.
It was in the 5-m pool, you have no option on who you play with. I was watching him play the whole time and when he stopped I asked him why and he told me he wasn't allowed to play rated games. I thought it was a joke and next thing I know, he got the computer label the next day. Completely unprofessional misconduct by ICC and I have already messaged speedtrap a couple times, talked to fpawn there but a case like this clearly shows they have no idea what they're doing and are relying solely on statistical analysis and without any of the human element. I'm sure if there was a competent player checking the games, they would not have made the same decision.
No! You can't blame it on "relying solely on statistical analysis" because Felix Dumont, the expert, says that is the cure to cheating! LOL
Even if a site like ICC or the new FIDE Arena were to start off by having a human element in order to avoid these mistakes, you can bet your sweet ass they would ditch the human element at the earliest opportunity to save costs. Don't for one minute think FIDE Arena won't be making these exact same mistakes.
I don't fathom how any self-respecting human being of decent intelligence (let's call him Bindi) would allow some corporate entity to make decisions affecting Bindi's life, with Bindi knowing that the decisions are made using methods unknown to him, the decisions cannot be appealed, and the decisions affect Bindi's reputation and standing in the world. IMO, Bindi allowing this to happen is Bindi becoming a Pawn in a game of chess. Bindi and others like him need to learn to have some backbone.
There should be an organized boycott of all these entities making these "secret police" decisions. Money talks! FIDE Arena is only going to be free for a short time; if the time comes for people to pay up and only a tiny group of spineless people actually do it, FIDE will realize they made a terrible mistake.
I think he was crazy enough to play lower rated players LOL Was it some kind of a money tournament?
Would the ICC remove (C) if he would loose 7 games in a row? LOL
It was in the 5-m pool, you have no option on who you play with. I was watching him play the whole time and when he stopped I asked him why and he told me he wasn't allowed to play rated games. I thought it was a joke and next thing I know, he got the computer label the next day. Completely unprofessional misconduct by ICC and I have already messaged speedtrap a couple times, talked to fpawn there but a case like this clearly shows they have no idea what they're doing and are relying solely on statistical analysis and without any of the human element. I'm sure if there was a competent player checking the games, they would not have made the same decision.
I don't know if you are trying to be funny, but you need to learn about programming.
There are many things I need to learn. Today I'm working on learning Day Trading.
In the game at the WC, Eric Hansen had a position where he had a bishop and his opponent had 3 pawns as compensation. Someone commented Houdini had the bishop being superior. I was watching on the site which had no computer output and I commented I preferred the pawns. That's because I had an idea how the ending would play out past the point where the engine was analyzing. That was all I needed to know.
What possible reason could I have for wanting to learn how the engine was programmed when I know the weaknesses?
Re: Chess Cheating on Superficial Evidence: Time to Put Up or Shut Up
I would have to see the games before judging, but it looks like a bad call from ICC.
First, a 77% match is extremely low, a lot of games have higher matching rates without any computer assistance.
And given the ratings, I'd say your son had at least a 5% chance of winning all games. So you have to assume that things like that will happen at some point.
The only thing that remains is if your son played some crazy computer lines to help him in critical positions.
Chess is not a single move game, nor it is a chance game. Every strong computer move is a result of calculating millions of complicated positions, that prove why this move is good. If someone plays every single move, no matter how complicated or simple it is, at a constant rate of 5-10 sec/move, while everything seems to work out great, then something is certainly wrong, but there also other quite convincing proofs against Ivanov.
I'm not a number person nor I'm good in statistics, but as far as I know the number of different positions possible after just the first 10 moves equals a 30 digit number. There is no such thing as patterns in computer games. Given today's technology if you try to study chess by checking out and remembering the best possible moves in every possible position, it will take you several billions of years...
If you are so interested in chess, go out and play some games with real people, try some blitz tournament, maybe buy some good chess books, and if you like it, take some lessons. After this, I assure you that you will be laughing at yourself while remembering your chess related arguments in this site. From this moment I will abstain myself from explaining further how chess actually works and how chess players actually think during a game, to someone who evidently has no clue.
You are now arguing against your previous argument: that someone who understands chess can identify "computer moves". My reply to that was that if someone outside the actual game can do it, someone PLAYING the game can do it.
Now you try and use combinatorial mathematics to prove that NO ONE can do it. You don't know if you're coming or going.
Ivanov could have identified something that no one else did: that if you play the computer enough, withdrawing totally from distractions for say 6 months and also from playing human opponents, you can learn to emulate the computer in every TYPE of situation. It isn't a case of memorizing positions and moves. It's a matter of pattern matching, which is exactly how chess players think. Maybe not every person can do it, but Ivanov claims he has done it and there is no one who can disprove that right now. To disprove it, you'd have to have many people repeat his steps and they'd all have to fail, and even that would only make it very unlikely rather than totally impossible.
Be advised that if you argue against this, you are arguing against the scientific method. Felix Dumont tried that and made himself (a scientist wannabe) look silly.
Also remember that I am very open to the possibility that Ivanov has been cheating. That's the way I swing: keep an open mind. So I give credence to both Ivanov and to his detractors. But you can imagine my displeasure with people who keep their minds closed, and why my favorite quote of all time is "There are none so blind as those who WILL not see." You may be able to teach me things about chess (although I have played chess competitively before and have read books on theory), but I could likewise teach you things about life.
...
I would think ICC used some reliable modeling from some really smart statisticians before they accuse people. It is idiotic to compare it to the Salem witch hunts or Macarthism. Those were not based on raw computer data as that would be available to a sitelike ICC.
But Dan, their modelling would be based on some assumptions, wouldn't it? I mean, how would ICC do this? Would they put a call out to all cheaters: attention cheaters....we're doing some statistical investigations so we can set up cheating detection software....please identify yourselves so that we can study your results vis-a-vis our non-cheating control groups? I'd really be interested in finding out how they do this. Also, Rene Preotu mentioned elsewhere in this thread that his son came to ICC's attention because he won seven blitz games in a row against competition which, with one exception, was significantly weaker. I wonder how many ICCers there are who haven't won 7 blitz games in a row at least once in their ICC careers?
As for the Salem witch hunts and McCarthyism, you may disagree with Paul's choice of analogies but, if you do, you should be able to come up something more intelligent than 'idiotic', shouldn't you? Personally, I think our beloved and thoroughly impartial moderator, Mr. Nigel Hanrahan, should apply the Xs of disapproval to your word 'idiotic.'
Leave a comment: