Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:23:14 12/13/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 13, 2003 at 12:38:27, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >On December 13, 2003 at 12:18:43, Sune Fischer wrote: > >>>A CCT style tournament can never turn into an official event, since you cannot >>>prevent any kind of cheating. I can run 5 engines on different computers, see >>>which analysis I like, and then force my engine to play that move by feeding the >>>move via a file it checks once a second. How are you going to prevent that? By >>>looking at the analysis I output?! I can force my engine to print a spurious PV >>>starting with the move I want it to play... >> >>You can do exactly the same in WCCC. >> >>Here is one way, you do a ssh to some remote 'super' computer not monitored by >>any officials. >>Then you get your cheating partner sitting at home to use multiple engines to >>decide on the move. >>He then feeds the best move into your proxy which then makes up some bogus node >>count and PV and sends it back. >> >>You can even let it show analysis on the fly, it just has to have the right fail >>high at the time when the move is sent. It's a nobrainer to fake. > >It's all true. But the only person running remote in Graz was Vincent. And we >know enough about him and what he does to be confident that he is running on >what he says he is running. I ensure you that if an unknown person shows up >running on some unknown remote machine, everyone will question that and will ask >for verification. See my other post. I won't run remote. I _will_ cheat. Because you simply can't stop it without the expense I mentioned. Want to provide a wide-band frequency scanner to detect RF? Won't catch a burst transmission. Nor an IR transmission. Nor a transmission into the room over building power (do a web search for electrical power line modem). Etc... > > >> >>>The only reason why CCT tournaments are popular is that the stakes are not high. >> >>You may be on to something here, we are all so scared when the stakes are high. >>:-) >> >>Nah, I think the answer is more straight forward: it's because it's so >>accessible to everyone while the ICGA event is so unaccessible to most. >> >>>Most programmers join CCT only to test their engine against others (speaking for >>>myself, I will enter a totally experimental and untested version of Falcon). >> >>I will enter whatever version I think is the strongest, probably it will be >>experiment and somewhat untested, all my versions are. >>I would have done the same had I been at the WCCC. > >I wouldn't. In Graz I used a version which was tested enough (tens of long time >control matches against top programs), and was proven to be stable. During the >whole tournament I didn't encounter even one bug in Falcon. I learned quite a >lot about its weaknesses, but no programming bugs. > > >> >>I assume you also won't be joining with something you know for certain to be >>weaker 'just for the testing'. > >Untested means I don't know. It could be stronger or weaker. > I _always_ enter with what I believe is the strongest version. "believe" != absolutely certain. But I do that at WCCC/WMCCC events as well. I treat them no differently from that perspective. > >> >>>But >>>when you give an official title to the winner, expect many (if not most) >>>participants to cheat in various degrees starting from "move now" to playing all >>>the moves as dictated by the operator. >> >>So you expect most people at WCCC to be cheaters given the chance? > >The stakes in WCCC are so high that you cannot rule out that option. If you >don't do any drug tests in 100 meter sprint in the olympics, how many contenders >will use drugs in your opinion? Not me. I can't speak for others. But I notice they still get away with it. Testers are human. They can be bought just as easily as the competitors can. > > >> >>And you think showing up in person made cheating impossible for everyone there? > >Makes it very hard to cheat, and almost impossible to fake a whole game. > > >> >>>The physical presence of the programmers (or operators) is inevitable for an >>>official event, especially one giving the title "World Computer Chess Champion" >>>to the winner. >> >>It doesn't prevent cheating at all, nothing can prevent cheating 100% unless you >>want to release codes etc... > >In a physical WCCC there is no easy way to cheat, apart from plagiarism which is >a different story. When playing against an engine in WCCC, I know that the move >it just played was produced by itself, not some external entity (machine or >human). Could you say the same in CCT? Again, see my previous post. I could use any program I choose and you would _never_ know or prove it. You might leave scratching your head "how did he do that?" but that's it.. > > > >> >>-S.
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.