Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:30:13 04/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 24, 2000 at 04:17:13, blass uri wrote: >On April 23, 2000 at 23:27:36, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On April 23, 2000 at 12:43:55, James Robertson wrote: >> >>>On April 23, 2000 at 03:29:30, blass uri wrote: >>> >>>>On April 23, 2000 at 01:30:59, James Robertson wrote: >>>> >>>>>On April 23, 2000 at 00:19:33, Jerry Adams wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hello >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I would think with all the knowledgable programmers here someone could give me >>>>>>some information on ICC Computer Cheating Detection techniques. My interest is >>>>>>pure curiosity. Some people have told me that they used to be able to cheat for >>>>>>several months before getting busted, now it seems that cheaters are identified >>>>>>almost immediately. Has ICC developed some new Software to detect Programs >>>>>>running in the Background? If so, How would they indentify these programs as >>>>>>Chess Software? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>> >>>>>I think the quick detection is due to the fact that large bands of suspicious >>>>>people think everyone rated over 2000 is cheating. As a result they invariably >>>>>catch cheaters. :) >>>>> >>>>>(Note: this is a slight exaggeration of their techniques.) >>>>> >>>>>James >>>> >>>>If someone is using a computer in an intelligent way it is impossible to catch >>>>him(her). >>>>I do not see a way to catch someone who use computer to help him(her) only for >>>>part of the moves in every game and does not use the same program all the time. >>>> >>>>If someone follow the moves of one program all the time then it is easy to prove >>>>it. >>>>For example if there are 100 moves in a row that can be reproduced by crafty >>>>than it is clear that crafty was used. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>>I think it is also possible to create a program that uses time very irregularly >>>(for instance if a move looks to be good immediately, take a risk that it is >>>obvious and make it) and occasionally make mistakes. Such a program would be >>>almost impossible to catch based on most detection methods (lack of blunders, >>>regular time use). >>> >>>James >> >> >>This wouldn't be hard to catch. Regular time/move is just _one_ thing we look >>for. There are many other 'signatures' on a computer-user... > >James suggested also occasionally to make tactical mistakes. > >Of course it is not going to be the best program but it can help the cheater to >get better rating. > >I also think it is dengerous to say that someone is a computer only based on the >fact that there were no tactical mistakes. > >There are many draws between humans with no tactical mistakes. >I have some draws from my tournament games when I did not do a tactical mistake >and my opponent also did not do a tactical mistake. > >I cannot say that somebody is a cheater in standard time control only because >(s)he knows to play with no tactical mistakes in most of the games. > >Uri I wouldn't disagree at all. _BUT_... when was the last time you played 4 games in a _row_ with no tactical mistakes? or 8 games? Cheaters start out being clever, but since cheaters have little moral character anyway, they also are mentally lazy. And laziness means they rely more and more on the computer's suggested move. And they get caught..
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.