Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 10:54:58 12/13/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 13, 2003 at 12:38:27, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >>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. This is the same level of security being applied to the CCT's. Most programs are well known, if a new strong program suddenly appears there will be questions. >>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 wouldn't play with a totally rewritten and untested engine either, obviously. But I would definitely use the one I thought was the strongest, even if I wasn't 100% sure it was the strongest. >>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. Completely untested, yes. But experimental means you have reason to believe but cannot be sure. >>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? High stakes, what stakes? The WCCC is for fun like the CCT, nothing is really at stake, nothing perhaps your honour :) If the stakes were high, say the winner got $1,000,000 or a match against Kasparov, you can be sure playing in person wouldn't be enough to prevent people from cheating. Where there is a will there is a way, and you haven't thought of all the ways yet. ;) >>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. Hard, but no where near as hard as programming a world champion program I bet. >>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? Many there are regulars and most newcommers have fairly weak engines. If we see anything suspect it will be investigated, just as in WCCC. -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.