Author: Omid David Tabibi
Date: 10:48:29 12/13/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 13, 2003 at 13:23:14, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... See my other post. It is far easier to cheat online (needs about half an hour of coding to enable a full range of cheatings), than to use RF or IR. > >> >> >>> >>>>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.