Chess Cheating Poll

[JustinHorton]

I suspect Carlsen would be capable of beating the best engine available IF said engine were not allowed to use pre-programmed opening moves, ie it had to calculate from move one rather than relying on GM instructions.

You mean like AlphaZero?

Or they could play Chess960, in which contest my money would not be on the human player.

[MartinCarpenter]

You were wondering about portable devices, and these days that means mobile phones

Yes, but twenty years ago it didn't.

Pre mobile phone devices didn't use fast cpu's on general. Laptops excepted of course.

So you're saying that pocket sized devices were not capable of running a chess program, except for the ones which were, such as the one I owned.

Of course could have done, just not strongly enough to matter for Carlsen

Laptops perhaps.

[NickFaulks]

Of course could have done, just not strongly enough to matter for Carlsen

You can't make a false statement true by adding a smiley face. There were devices you could fit into your pocket ( just ) with as much processing power as a laptop, they were just very expensive.

[MartinCarpenter]

Of course could have done, just not strongly enough to matter for Carlsen

You can't make a false statement true by adding a smiley face. There were devices you could fit into your pocket ( just ) with as much processing power as a laptop, they were just very expensive.

Running Windows and costing loads I'm sure They won't have had nearly as much processing power as a laptop in general - you can run a laptop cpu at 45w+, handhelds are down much lower.

Intel's first decent cpu's capable of running without a cooling fan came in around 2015-16. They were still moderately limited and I would hazard a guess that MC was probably still ahead of engines running on those.

[NickFaulks]

Running Windows

Obviously not Windows, some dedicated operating system. Anyway, whatever I tell you you will just say I'm lying, so let's forget it.

[Paul Cooksey]

Thanks everyone who voted.

2:1 and a lot of beyond reasonable doubt a surprise for me, I was expecting a bell curve.

You would always ask a different question if you knew the result in advance. But also I did not know before the last Chicken Chess Podcast that FIDE had a different level of proof for cheating: "Substantial evidence is preponderance of the relevant evidence that a reasonable person, considering the record as a whole, would accept as sufficient to find that a contested fact is more likely to be true than untrue."

[NickFaulks]

FIDE [ has ] a different level of proof for cheating: "Substantial evidence is preponderance of the relevant evidence that a reasonable person, considering the record as a whole, would accept as sufficient to find that a contested fact is more likely to be true than untrue."

However, the guidelines actually say
"In general, a Post Tournament Complaint (PTC) should be based on very substantial evidence", which is not defined.

It would be nice if these podcasts would read the whole document, rather than pulling out snippets. Dream on!

[Roger de Coverly]

However, the guidelines actually say
"In general, a Post Tournament Complaint (PTC) should be based on very substantial evidence", which is not defined.

Let's suppose someone was using the Rausis method. They are observed by numerous witnesses to leave the board frequently during the game. Tests of how much or little their moves match with engine suggestions shows a high level of matching. Very substantial evidence or not? No phones or usage of phones actually directly detected.

[NickFaulks]

Very substantial evidence or not?

As so often, that is a question you should be addressing to FPL, if you are actually looking for an answer. Here, we can only speculate.