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
I do not know enough about the statisical basis of chess cheat catching software to comment. But I think others have pointed out flaws specific to your analysis, for example the one about sample size which is huge.
Sorry but based on some of the things you have said i have to trust their statements rather than yours :).
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.
I am not using those events as a direct comparison to right now. I'm saying that once we start on the path of lowering the probabilities needed to convict, we are on a slippery slope towards returning to those kind of eras. So we need to guard against lowering those probabilities imo, and so far at least most people in our civilized society agree with this, otherwise our judicial system would already be lowering their standards.
Also, I have not agreed that my one-game analysis convicts Kovalyov of cheating. But -- and this is a very key but -- by just mentioning that he matched Stockfish to such a degree, I have implanted in everyone's mind the nagging question... "could he have cheated?". That's the whole point here: we are using these measures to implant a SUSPICION of guilt. And someone (presumably an "expert in statistics") is going to decide that if 4 games or 6 games or 8 games or 12 games is enough to turn that suspicion into a conviction. Apparently some such person or persons at ICC decided 7 games was enough to convict Rene's son, with no appeal possible. Not only that, but we don't know HOW they arrived at their numbers. What engine(s) did they use? What search depth did they apply? These were 3 minute games; as someone pointed out, how could someone possibly manage computer engine cheating in such short time controls?
This is all "secret police" stuff. Very dangerous and leading to a slippery slope.
Re: Chess Cheating on Superficial Evidence: Time to Put Up or Shut Up
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.
And by the way, I love your conclusion that "it is your analysis and premises that are flawed". Exactly. The computer engine analysis, and the premises that go with it, are definitely flawed -- that is my very point. When 76.6% of a Top 3 match is enough to convict, and we have innocent people being convicted even now as we speak, "something is fishy in Denmark".
I do not know enough about the statisical basis of chess cheat catching software to comment. But I think others have pointed out flaws specific to your analysis, for example the one about sample size which is huge.
Sorry but based on some of the things you have said i have to trust their statements rather than yours :).
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.
As I noted in the the Borislav Ivanov "cheat thread", probabilistic evidence is very common. This sort of language is even used when, strictly speaking, no exact percentages are given. "On the balance of probabilities", said one Canadian civil servant, "so-and-so is not a competent parent." And, on the basis of their expertise (and the expertise of others in agreement), a child is taken away from her mother. Happens all the time in this country and, with minor language changes, in dozens of others. And it happens with all sorts of cases and circumstances.
But you're welcome to retain your opinion. I might caution you, however, that DNA evidence is ALSO given in terms of probabilities, so I guess you must be in favour of jettisoning that sort of evidence as well?
Good luck with that. I'm sure David Milgaard, Thomas Sophonow and others who spent decades in jail for wrongful convictions in Canada will be happy to go ... back to jail. After all, they were freed based on DNA evidence. To hell with probabilistic nonsense, eh?
It was my impression that Kerry was referring to 'guilt by statistics' in the matter under discussion, cheating in chess. How like you, Nigel, to twist his words and make it appear that Kerry wants the use of probability-based evidence stopped everywhere.
EVERYTHING in the scientific/engineering domain is based on statistics and probability. Do we know 100% the speed of light, no. But do we know it to a high degree of probability ? Yes.
Yes, even our very existence and everything around us is simply probability. And when it comes to deciding any court case, it is always possible even in the face of indisputable evidence, such as being caught in the act, there may be extenuating circumstances by which the accused could be found not guilty, but we may ignore or not even know of such circumstances and go ahead and pronounce guilt. So I agree with your basic premise that nothing is ever 100% certain.
But we should still strive for very stringent requirements on probability before we make decisions on guilt or innocence. The essence of our judicial system is that one is innocent until proven guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is a vague term. We should make sure it doesn't become more and more vague. Nigel would appear to prefer that we do away entirely with that phrase and replace it with "on the balance of probabilities", which if you think of the word "balance", could be construed in the extreme case as 51% probability. If it is 51% probable that you are guilty, that tips the balance and we can pronounce you guilty. This is where Nigel appears to want us to go.
"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."
Very clever indeed of Nigel to use an example of at worst 99.99% certainty to push an agenda that pushes that certainty down to (in the extreme case) 51%. If Nigel disagrees with the 51% number (again, suggested by use of the term "balance"), I would press him to provide us a probability number that he would deem sufficient to pronounce guilt or innocence, and then to explain to us how he arrived at that number.
If you read Rene Preotu's post from today, you'll see that his son has been convicted of computer use on ICC, with no chance of appeal, on the basis of only 76.6% of his moves matching any of Houdini's top 3 choices during his games. How much lower can that number go to pronounce guilt with no chance of appeal?
Not only that, but they give his son 3 options, EACH OF WHICH IS BASICALLY AN ADMISSION OF GUILT. There is no option provided for fighting the decision or argueing innocence. So it seems the chess establishment, in its rush to prevent cheating, is taking steps that in the end will likely choke off future growth and perhaps even kill the game. Rene's son may some day realize how he was abused in this case and may simply quit organized chess, and many others like him.
And I've already given examples of where this kind of agenda leads: the Salem Witch Hunt, Germany from 1933 to 1945 (the Gestapo), and late 1950's America (McCarthyism). How low do you think the probabilities were in each of those eras for guilt to be pronounced?
"All I can say is, be careful what you wish for. I'm sure we can find some probabilities that apply to YOU"
What on earth are you talking about. Either you do have something statistically true to a high probability (that doesn't break the laws of probability) or you don't, it's not a question of being able to "find" something on a whim. If you are able to find every chess player guilty of cheating through your "analysis", it is your analysis and premises that are flawed. Not the laws of probability.
See my response above to see "what on earth I am talking about". It is indeed a question of being able to find something on a whim, as long as you can show N% probability where N is a number that creeps lower and lower towards the 51% ideal that Nigel appears to desire. So I advised him to be careful what he wishes for, the "secret police" may serve and protect... and may also arrive at Nigel's front door to convict, with no chance for appeal.
And by the way, I love your conclusion that "it is your analysis and premises that are flawed". Exactly. The computer engine analysis, and the premises that go with it, are definitely flawed -- that is my very point. When 76.6% of a Top 3 match is enough to convict, and we have innocent people being convicted even now as we speak, "something is fishy in Denmark".
I'd have responded with 4) take appropriate legal action.
I'd have wanted to do the same thing, Ken. Practically speaking though, you'd be looking at trying to prove...what?...that ICC is wrong in taking the position that winning 7 blitz games in a row with an x% Houdini correlation is proof positive of cheating? Would you need an expert to testify? The legal fees would be through the roof, I bet. Provided they don't go too far out on a limb, ICC must think they're bullet proof on these types of decisions for the simple reason that the cost of fighting their decision would be way out of proportion to the benefit.
I'd have responded with 4) take appropriate legal action.
Unfortunately, I think that taking action against the ICC is probably as easy as taking action against FIDE and IlluisionOf...
I doubt you would get very far without deep pockets and a lot of free time. Even if you "win", what exactly might you achieve?
I think Bob Gillanders hit the nail on the head with his comment: "guilty by statistics" gone mad!
Re: Chess Cheating on Superficial Evidence: Time to Put Up or Shut Up
I'm sorry to hear this, Rene. It must be very frustrating for your son to be falsely labelled and punished without so much as a chance to defend himself and without any reasonable way to fight the decision.
Recently my son was added to the computer list (C) on ICC because he won 7 games (3 minutes time control) in a row. His ICC rating was over 2400 and his opponents were 2159, 2429, 2277, 2164, 2258, 2270 and 2226. ICC sent me an email (see below) but didn't give me any details about the "other factors". I managed to get the PGN files for the 7 games and found out that 76.7% of his moves matched with Houdini 3 moves. I'm sure he didn't use "computer assistance" during these 3 minutes games but the statistics are against him. We went with option 1 because he needs ICC for online training. For blitz he's now using the new FIDE Arena and Playchess.com.
You have been added to the computer list on the Internet Chess Club, and a (C) will appear by your handle. Our computer-detection group has analyzed a number of your games and other factors, and determined that you used computer assistance in some of your ICC games. This is a violation of ICC rules, unless you have a (C) beside your name. This decision cannot be appealed, but you have 3 choices on how to continue from here:
1) You can continue on ICC with your current handle and the (C).
2) You can have the (C) removed if you promise to never use computer-assistance on the ICC and place the following note in your
first finger note for at least 60 days. While playing on ICC, I used a computer chess program to assist my play. This is against ICC rules. I apologize for this and promise not to use assistance of any kind in the future. Message FREEBIRD as soon as you put the note in your finger, so we can start the 60 days. If you remove the note in less than 60 days, we will put the (C) back on your account.
NOTE: If you are caught cheating again on this account or any other account, appropriate actions will be taken at the sole discretion of ICC management. This might include, but is not limited to, a permanent (C) or even banishment from the club with no refund.
3) You can quit the ICC and get a pro-rata refund of your remaining membership time. Read "help refund" for details. But you cannot
register another account on the ICC. If you do, the new account will be banned. Asking for a refund means you are leaving the ICC
permanently.
I'm sorry to hear he needs ICC for training :) - on receiving that I would have picked #3 and had some choice language for those
fools (almost my last choice of word for them) ...
How exactly does one use computer assistance in 3 minute games?
It seems hard to have houdini or any other engine cough up anything on demand let alone on a lot of moves.
What would be interesting would be to have a computer analysis of Botvinnik's games - most of them (all?) were before there were any
computers or chess-playing computers. I wonder how many of HIS moves would be flagged as 'computer like'?
Recently my son was added to the computer list (C) on ICC because he won 7 games (3 minutes time control) in a row. His ICC rating was over 2400 and his opponents were 2159, 2429, 2277, 2164, 2258, 2270 and 2226. ICC sent me an email (see below) but didn't give me any details about the "other factors". I managed to get the PGN files for the 7 games and found out that 76.7% of his moves matched with Houdini 3 moves. I'm sure he didn't use "computer assistance" during these 3 minutes games but the statistics are against him. We went with option 1 because he needs ICC for online training. For blitz he's now using the new FIDE Arena and Playchess.com.
You have been added to the computer list on the Internet Chess Club, and a (C) will appear by your handle. Our computer-detection group has analyzed a number of your games and other factors, and determined that you used computer assistance in some of your ICC games. This is a violation of ICC rules, unless you have a (C) beside your name. This decision cannot be appealed, but you have 3 choices on how to continue from here:
1) You can continue on ICC with your current handle and the (C).
2) You can have the (C) removed if you promise to never use computer-assistance on the ICC and place the following note in your
first finger note for at least 60 days. While playing on ICC, I used a computer chess program to assist my play. This is against ICC rules. I apologize for this and promise not to use assistance of any kind in the future. Message FREEBIRD as soon as you put the note in your finger, so we can start the 60 days. If you remove the note in less than 60 days, we will put the (C) back on your account.
NOTE: If you are caught cheating again on this account or any other account, appropriate actions will be taken at the sole discretion of ICC management. This might include, but is not limited to, a permanent (C) or even banishment from the club with no refund.
3) You can quit the ICC and get a pro-rata refund of your remaining membership time. Read "help refund" for details. But you cannot
register another account on the ICC. If you do, the new account will be banned. Asking for a refund means you are leaving the ICC
permanently.
The fact that it happens doesn't make it right... or laughable. But you obviously approve and appear to want to extend the "balance of probabilities" even further. All I can say is, be careful what you wish for. I'm sure we can find some probabilities that apply to YOU.
EVERYTHING in the scientific/engineering domain is based on statistics and probability. Do we know 100% the speed of light, no. But do we know it to a high degree of probability ? Yes.
"All I can say is, be careful what you wish for. I'm sure we can find some probabilities that apply to YOU"
What on earth are you talking about. Either you do have something statistically true to a high probability (that doesn't break the laws of probability) or you don't, it's not a question of being able to "find" something on a whim. If you are able to find every chess player guilty of cheating through your "analysis", it is your analysis and premises that are flawed. Not the laws of probability.
Leave a comment: