Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA

National developments, strategies and ideas.
Daniel Gormally
Posts: 128
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2019 6:41 pm

Re: Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA

Post by Daniel Gormally » Sun Dec 15, 2019 11:55 am

As for what Roger wrote, yes it is possible, but we are going into more "monkeys in a room writing out the works of shakespeare" than even the odds of winning the lottery, so astronomically high is the chances of someone matching the engine to that extent. In practice it just doesn't happen.

Roger Lancaster
Posts: 1032
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm

Re: Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA

Post by Roger Lancaster » Sun Dec 15, 2019 12:16 pm

Daniel Gormally wrote:
Sun Dec 15, 2019 11:55 am
As for what Roger wrote, yes it is possible, but we are going into more "monkeys in a room writing out the works of shakespeare" than even the odds of winning the lottery, so astronomically high is the chances of someone matching the engine to that extent. In practice it just doesn't happen.
Snag then is that we're in the position of the detective who "knows" who committed the murder but doesn't know how. Chances are that the detective is more likely right than wrong but it's not a good basis to bring charges.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 19018
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sun Dec 15, 2019 12:18 pm

Daniel Gormally wrote:
Sun Dec 15, 2019 11:55 am
so astronomically high is the chances of someone matching the engine to that extent. In practice it just doesn't happen.
Good moves are likely to be found by strong players and particularly if they are almost the only moves. You can be engine assisted without cheating, it being legal to consult an engine before a game and remember what it suggested.

One other point is that engines don't always concur. In one of the more recent World Championship matches, a position was reached where three engines were giving opinions on what they thought the three best lines. There were seven or eight lines on offer, nearly all of them "about equal".

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 7840
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA

Post by JustinHorton » Sun Dec 15, 2019 12:19 pm

This is a sample size question though
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

Daniel Gormally
Posts: 128
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2019 6:41 pm

Re: Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA

Post by Daniel Gormally » Sun Dec 15, 2019 12:48 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Sun Dec 15, 2019 12:18 pm
Daniel Gormally wrote:
Sun Dec 15, 2019 11:55 am
so astronomically high is the chances of someone matching the engine to that extent. In practice it just doesn't happen.
Good moves are likely to be found by strong players and particularly if they are almost the only moves. You can be engine assisted without cheating, it being legal to consult an engine before a game and remember what it suggested.

One other point is that engines don't always concur. In one of the more recent World Championship matches, a position was reached where three engines were giving opinions on what they thought the three best lines. There were seven or eight lines on offer, nearly all of them "about equal".
But not over and over again and in very complex positions... anyway I've said enough on the issue. clearly the all-knowing forumites aren't impressed enough by the fact that I'm a grandmaster who's worked extensively with engines and was one of the few players to call out rausis. which makes you wonder what will impress them. :roll:

and as for rogers point... well you don't always need physical evidence to prosecute someone in a court of law. sometimes circumstantial evidence is enough.

anyway as I've said it'll all come out in due course.

John Upham
Posts: 4731
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:29 am
Location: Cove, Hampshire, England.
Contact:

Re: Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA

Post by John Upham » Sun Dec 15, 2019 1:19 pm

Daniel Gormally wrote:
Sun Dec 15, 2019 12:48 pm
But not over and over again and in very complex positions... anyway I've said enough on the issue. clearly the all-knowing forumites aren't impressed enough by the fact that I'm a grandmaster who's worked extensively with engines and was one of the few players to call out rausis. which makes you wonder what will impress them. :roll:
I've consulted Shanai Twain on this very matter and she said : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqFLXayD6e8

Hopefully most forumites will want to see a cheerful outcome in this case but maybe a minority don't.
British Chess News : britishchessnews.com
Twitter: @BritishChess
Facebook: facebook.com/groups/britishchess :D

Daniel Gormally
Posts: 128
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2019 6:41 pm

Re: Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA

Post by Daniel Gormally » Sun Dec 15, 2019 1:33 pm

Yeah maybe I threw my toys out of the pram with my last comment... anyway my feeling is we aren't harsh enough on cheats. For example I was amazed that Rausis took as long to get caught as he was.

I just found the whole thing with him ridiculous... the idea that you can improve that much in your fifties (he had advanced his rating by about 200 points by the end) seemed ga-ga land to me. And yet many bought into it or were thrown off by this beating much weaker players argument. It also annoyed me because I made a recent effort to get back over 2500, which for an old fart like me I felt wasn't a bad effort (normally in your older years you go the other way) ok a small improvement of about 40 points in the end but got completely overshadowed by this gargantuan "achievement" by Rausis, which made my achievement looked pitiful by comparison

but yet this was going on for years, he was winning tournament after tournament, stealing other players prize money and effectively hiding in plain sight and yet nobody did anything. I think that's one of the advantages of online chess over playing in the flesh. Ok maybe there are some faults with it, but in online blitz if you are cheating you often get called out straight away, and they don't have to provide physical evidence. Which apparently isn't enough for the forumites who demand absolute proof in every case.

Matt Bridgeman
Posts: 484
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 9:21 pm

Re: Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA

Post by Matt Bridgeman » Sun Dec 15, 2019 1:39 pm

Retrospectively the most comedically brilliant forum posts can be found on cycling forums where years earlier Lance Armstrong is passionately defended. Whole eulogies on why he couldn’t possibly be cheating. The most tested athlete in history, a heart a third bigger than the average man, a physiological marvel, etc, etc. It took a few very brave souls to stand up to him and out him to the world in the end.

NickFaulks
Posts: 5900
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA

Post by NickFaulks » Sun Dec 15, 2019 1:40 pm

Daniel Gormally wrote:
Sun Dec 15, 2019 11:55 am
As for what Roger wrote, yes it is possible, but we are going into more "monkeys in a room writing out the works of shakespeare" than even the odds of winning the lottery, so astronomically high is the chances of someone matching the engine to that extent. In practice it just doesn't happen.
Really? I know that other people have said the same thing, but without any statistical support. Have you seen something that I haven't?
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.

Daniel Gormally
Posts: 128
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2019 6:41 pm

Re: Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA

Post by Daniel Gormally » Sun Dec 15, 2019 1:54 pm

NickFaulks wrote:
Sun Dec 15, 2019 1:40 pm
Daniel Gormally wrote:
Sun Dec 15, 2019 11:55 am
As for what Roger wrote, yes it is possible, but we are going into more "monkeys in a room writing out the works of shakespeare" than even the odds of winning the lottery, so astronomically high is the chances of someone matching the engine to that extent. In practice it just doesn't happen.
Really? I know that other people have said the same thing, but without any statistical support. Have you seen something that I haven't?
not really following what you're saying there to be honest, but your patronising tone comes over loud and clear.... :evil:

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 19018
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sun Dec 15, 2019 1:54 pm

Daniel Gormally wrote:
Sun Dec 15, 2019 1:33 pm
Which apparently isn't enough for the forumites who demand absolute proof in every case.
There are cases on record where a server's witchfinding has proved false. It would be completely wrong for the ECF or FIDE to ban players exclusively on the basis of supposed computer matching evidence. There are witnesses in OTB play, they have to see or find something.

I'm more struck by evidence of bad play. If someone doesn't play to a consistent standard, can their good results be treated as legitimate?

I'm not a fan of the attitude that if a non-GM beats a GM, the non-GM must have been cheating.

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 7840
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA

Post by JustinHorton » Sun Dec 15, 2019 1:59 pm

Daniel Gormally wrote:
Sun Dec 15, 2019 1:33 pm
the idea that you can improve that much in your fifties (he had advanced his rating by about 200 points by the end) seemed ga-ga land to me.
With no prejudice to the rest of your argument, is this a completely sound assumption? (I was wondering about, say, Terry Chapman as a possible counter-example.)
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

NickFaulks
Posts: 5900
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA

Post by NickFaulks » Sun Dec 15, 2019 2:04 pm

Daniel Gormally wrote:
Sun Dec 15, 2019 1:54 pm
not really following what you're saying there to be honest
I'm sure I've seen such comments about monkeys and typewriters before, and would genuinely like to know where they started and how they are backed up. Does anyone know their origin?
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.

Daniel Gormally
Posts: 128
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2019 6:41 pm

Re: Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA

Post by Daniel Gormally » Sun Dec 15, 2019 2:08 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Sun Dec 15, 2019 1:54 pm
Daniel Gormally wrote:
Sun Dec 15, 2019 1:33 pm
Which apparently isn't enough for the forumites who demand absolute proof in every case.
There are cases on record where a server's witchfinding has proved false. It would be completely wrong for the ECF or FIDE to ban players exclusively on the basis of supposed computer matching evidence. There are witnesses in OTB play, they have to see or find something.

I'm more struck by evidence of bad play. If someone doesn't play to a consistent standard, can their good results be treated as legitimate?

I'm not a fan of the attitude that if a non-GM beats a GM, the non-GM must have been cheating.
I'm not beholden to that at all either. I lose to non-gms all the time. GM is just a title. it doesn't mean anything, really. it's just a measuring stick.

It would be completely wrong for the ECF or FIDE to ban players exclusively on the basis of supposed computer matching evidence.

Not sure I agree it would be completely wrong. But to get a complete case, ideally you'd need evidence of some kind of device. But the problem with being too correct is the supposed cheat is able to get away with it for much longer, if you can't catch him in the act, or those in charge feel no willingness to even investigate. Hence my suggestion that scanners should be made much more available. I mean for example if they didn't go to this extreme measure of catching Rausis in the toilet, most probably he'd still be playing now. There should be an easier way available. Otherwise who is protecting the opponents of these suspected cheats? Or don't they matter?

Daniel Gormally
Posts: 128
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2019 6:41 pm

Re: Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA

Post by Daniel Gormally » Sun Dec 15, 2019 2:12 pm

NickFaulks wrote:
Sun Dec 15, 2019 2:04 pm
Daniel Gormally wrote:
Sun Dec 15, 2019 1:54 pm
not really following what you're saying there to be honest
I'm sure I've seen such comments about monkeys and typewriters before, and would genuinely like to know where they started and how they are backed up. Does anyone know their origin?
Oh ok. Sorry thought u were taking the mickey earlier. Sensitive as ever :lol:

No idea where it sprang from. Probably similar odds to me backing a winner at golf. :cry:

Locked