Cheating Allegations Lead to "Strip Search" of Chess Player

[Something Amyss]

It is a tricky situation, especially if only when performing without a live feed he was defeatable.

He was defeatable once before, though, so it's not like he's unbeatable with a live feed. Correlation doesn't equal causation.

 

[Something Amyss]

magical powers

This isn't magic any more than magnets are miracles that cannot be explained. Whether he cheated or not, no magic was involved.

Well, unless he offered his soul to some dark, fiendish entity, but that's not so much magic as we understand it.

 

[thesilentman]

There's no such thing as useless information. Everything has it's place, especially in books like those. The reason that they were 'worthless' as they gave too much information not relevant to them (Wright brothers). And just because information is worthless to you doesn't mean it's worthless for other people.

Yes there is. It's information that claims one thing works when it actually doesn't. Just gives the illusion of success.

The whole point of a field like that is to disprove what works and doesn't. Ever heard of science?

Wright Brothers found this, that many of the formulae for aerodynamic flow were just plain wrong, to spite the equivalent of BILLIONS of dollars being spent by so many other competing scientific agencies they all used the same wrong presumptions.

You can literally be better off having that page torn out and having to work it out from scratch as at least then they would waste less time and effort applying that assuming it was right.

PS: it's an analogy, not an equivalence. Yes, chess is a very old game, but equally kite flying is a very old pastime which was the fundamental principal behind controlled flight shaken up by light powerful engines. And chess has been shaken up recently by new maths and machine reasoning.

I saw that it was an analogy. That particular analogy is invalid as flight was relatively new at the time while chess has been honed for a couple thousand years at this point. That entire analogy falls apart when you see that as analogies need to have similar circumstances around it to make sense.

 

[Abomination]

It is a tricky situation, especially if only when performing without a live feed he was defeatable.

He was defeatable once before, though, so it's not like he's unbeatable with a live feed. Correlation doesn't equal causation.

He was defeatable before his string of victories against those who were deemed out of his league. Then the one match after his string of victories that he lost was the match that didn't have a live feed.

It's not proof but it's certainly grounds for suspicion.

 

[Treblaine]

The whole point of a field like that is to disprove what works and doesn't. Ever heard of science?

No. Science is that you first have to prove that it works, not that an empty claim is may and is true till someone can prove it wrong.

I saw that it was an analogy. That particular analogy is invalid as flight was relatively new at the time while chess has been honed for a couple thousand years at this point. That entire analogy falls apart when you see that as analogies need to have similar circumstances around it to make sense.

Don't reply if you don't read my comment.

I TOLD YOU that kite flying had been around for thousands of years and I TOLD YOU that kite flying was the fundamental mechanism behind powered flight.

 

[thesilentman]

The more I'm reading Treblaine's posts the more I'm worried...

No.

Travelling through space faster than the speed of light is impossible. What you describe is simply unusual.

If you can't define what exactly is unusual, then it is impossible. The reason that you can't go past the speed of light is because it all boils down to the fact that the energy that you need to cross the light speed barrier is... infinity. In math, infinity is used as a simple limit that can't be crossed. In real life, infinity is the next possible number which is a problem as you can go as high as you want.

In chess, this has never happened before. At all. This is akin to an average high school student suddenly finding the equation(s) to string theory. There is no way that a high school student, with a maximum of learning calculus, will find the equations to something that has stumped physicists for decades.

Grounds for investigation to find evidence? Yes

DoPo called. Look at the video for the evidence.

Grounds to call off any investigation, disregard any evidence and say he's guilty of fraud anyway? NO!

Irrevelant. The evidence was the fact that he couldn't have perfectly synced up with a computer. The computer in question happened to be the strongest chess engine yet.

The fact that you're picking a fight with an experienced chess player when you don't know exactly what's going on in chess is worrying me. I don't know whether you have chess experience or simply are trying to apply "innocent till proven guilty" to a problem that already has more than enough evidence to prove that he's cheating.

No. Science is that you first have to prove that it works, not that an empty claim is may and is true till someone can prove it wrong.

Science is also about disproving concepts that inaccurately describe nature and proving ones that do. I don't think Newton figured out calculus on the first try.

Don't reply if you don't read my comment.

I TOLD YOU that kite flying had been around for thousands of years and I TOLD YOU that kite flying was the fundamental mechanism behind powered flight.

Flight hadn't gone anywhere until the Wright brothers picked it up and decided to improve it.

For chess, (I don't mind explaining again) the game has already been through so much analysis and evolution. It's fine to refer to older ideas in chess as they were honed through several hundred and thousand years.

 

[electric method]

Ok this is ridiculous. Time to put paid to this. Someone, anyone prove me wrong. Show me in depth analysis of the games showing that these are indeed the moves and play of a non titled 2200 level player. Explain to me the ideas and plans, both short and long term, behind this guys moves in these games. And how, exactly these are moves a completely human player would make.

Like theory in chess, someone refute the argument with a logically deduced line.

Edit 1: For those wondering, yep... I will understand master level commentary and lines for these games. So don't worry about confusing me or that I will not get it.

 

[Treblaine]

You're trying to transpose this idea of "innocent until proven guilty" onto our own personal thought processes, and it's just counterproductive. If we here on these forums conclude that this guy probably cheated, nothing happens. The reason we hold that presumption of innocence in court is because there are real consequences there, and to presume otherwise might lead to negative social and judicial outcomes. The presumption of innocence is not a logical starting point for matters of simple reason, though - it's a societal tool that sacrifices some logical objectivity for (a justifiable) social good. What I'm getting at is that you shouldn't be so quick to defend this guy when the odds are really against you. Even if you think it's possible that he didn't cheat, you have to at least acknowledge that the most likely scenario is that he did - that's been demonstrated quite clearly by the numbers. The simplest, most likely explanation should be the one we hold as default until we see evidence to suggest otherwise, not the other way around. That still doesn't mean we dismiss all alternatives as impossible, of course.

I think you're also a bit confused between the definitions of "evidence" and "proof." Evidence just speaks to the likelihood that something happened. In this case, the statistics demonstrating the absurd improbability of him accomplishing this feat without the assistance of a computer ARE evidence. I'm with you entirely on the suggestion that they need to step their game up and take security and anti-cheating measures seriously, but that's a separate issue. The main point I was trying to make is that something doesn't have to be irrefutable (I.E., direct evidence) to be considered evidence. Not even our court system demands direct evidence in all cases, and circumstantial evidence can be enough to convict on its own merits if it's sufficiently convincing as to make the probability of all the factors making it "circumstantial" lining up insignificant when taken all together.

We typically rely on a system of "reasonable" doubt in court, which means that the jury (or judge, depending) needs only to be able to conclude that it is highly unlikely the man is innocent, not that they can claim that he is without any doubt whatsoever. There are even different specific standards for -how- sure we must be before convicting, typically depending on the severity of the crime. Absolute certainty is impossible to achieve regardless, as even direct evidence can be explained away with a convoluted enough story, and basing any conclusion on a REQUIREMENT of direct evidence is thus absurd for consequence-free thinking exercises like this. I understand that you want to see some actual evidence that speaks to HOW the man cheated, but simply looking at the statistics and seeing how unlikely the alternative is (and after seeing how easy it would be to theoretically cheat, given the lack of security) should be enough evidence for any reasonable observer to admit the default assumption should be that he did. Is it possible he didn't? Yes. Does that mean you should take that bet? Well, put it this way, I'd put money against you and I'm pretty sure Vegas would give me the winning odds.

It's actually a very good stating point to not conclude things are a certain way until there is some evidence for it.

It doesn't have to be proven in a court, there just has to be SOME PROOF! Of course you are more than welcome to make any outrageous claim you like, freedom of speech and all, that doesn't make it logical to presume guilt without evidence. Not in a court, not in ANY rational discourse where you expect anyone to take you seriously.

Don't get semantic to me on "evidence" vs "proof". You can't wriggle out of this with careful selection of contrasting definitions and interpretations.

In this case, the statistics demonstrating the absurd improbability

Don't insult statisticians with your claim that your subjective analysis has anything to do with the science of statistics.

You're still acting as the Grand Inquisitor on a witch hunt and constantly shun the idea of needing non-subjective evidence to prove the actual act of using a machine aid. You cannot make a case entirely on circumstantial evidence that could just as well be used to condemn anyone else that you happen to set your Inquisitor eyes upon.

And I'm not using this inquisitor term as an insult, I'm making you stop and think about the investigate approach you are taking.

Lovely spiel about "reasonable doubt" but YOU HAVE DONE NOTHING to prove any kind of certainty, just proclaimed it.

You still seem unable to accept how utterly spurious your "evidence" is.

You are making the specific claim that he used a computer, you have no idea how. But do you even care? This is called making a case. You talk of probability, if it was so improbable why was he even put in the running against Grand Masters? What, was he supposed to be just a warm-up, a designated loser.

Stop using the term statistics as if it means anything more than "look at his SCORES, he's obviously cheating". That's not statistical analysis. Seeing how unlikely? Where are your probability statistics? In comparison to what?

Being better doesn't prove cheating. He didn't suddenly score 2x as high, or even 50% higher. He scored around 2200 for a while, then around 2330. A WHOPPING... 5% improvement. He's already made a 5% improvement before, just over 6 months rather than 2.

You make the fallacious insinuation of making this tiny 5% increase seem implausibly large by acting like the consistency he had before somehow ordains that he cannot make any sharp improvements.

You haven't done a SINGLE THING to prove people cannot make sudden improvement after steady performance, you have simply proclaimed it assuming we would all take the same ignorant assumption.

Is it possible he didn't? Yes. Does that mean you should take that bet?

To hell with bets. That's not how justice works.

If all you ever had to do was see the probability scale was 50% into the "he did it" then there's no point in getting any investigation.

 

[Treblaine]

Ok this is ridiculous. Time to put paid to this. Someone, anyone prove me wrong. Show me in depth analysis of the games showing that these are indeed the moves and play of a non titled 2200 level player. Explain to me the ideas and plans, both short and long term, behind this guys moves in these games. And how, exactly these are moves a completely human player would make.

Like theory in chess, someone refute the argument with a logically deduced line.

Edit 1: For those wondering, yep... I will understand master level commentary and lines for these games. So don't worry about confusing me or that I will not get it.

Burden of proof is on the accuser.

You are on the side of the accusers here.

 

[DoPo]

magical powers

This isn't magic any more than magnets are miracles that cannot be explained. Whether he cheated or not, no magic was involved.

Well, unless he offered his soul to some dark, fiendish entity, but that's not so much magic as we understand it.

It isn't magic, yes, but the way people explain it, it may very well be - "But...dude, he is a computer programmer AND THEN HE WAS GOOD AT CHESS!". Makes as much sense as him bending time or something.

 

[electric method]

Ok this is ridiculous. Time to put paid to this. Someone, anyone prove me wrong. Show me in depth analysis of the games showing that these are indeed the moves and play of a non titled 2200 level player. Explain to me the ideas and plans, both short and long term, behind this guys moves in these games. And how, exactly these are moves a completely human player would make.

Like theory in chess, someone refute the argument with a logically deduced line.

Edit 1: For those wondering, yep... I will understand master level commentary and lines for these games. So don't worry about confusing me or that I will not get it.

Burden of proof is on the accuser.

You are on the side of the accusers here.

Seriously? Bloody Seriously? I already posted my "proof". Disprove my thoughts on dxe in game one, the following reasons I posted for it and the thematic reasons why playing dxe is just not a good idea. Then, disprove my ascertation that in game 2 Bd6 is a horrible blunder that no GM would play. IF you want to go down "the courtroom" style here, I as part of the "prosecution" have posted my evidence and made evidenciary claims. As the defense it is now your turn to counter argue the points I made. If you don't want to accept my arguments, look at the FM commentary on the games that DoPo posted. He does a very good job of making most of it understandable to the layman.

The fact that you have not posted a single line of analysis for any of the games worries me greatly. I will ask you again; Do you understand chess at a master level? Did you understand anything I posted about the thematic ideas and plans for the KID? If you are going to argue for this gentleman at least present a solid case, that shows lines, theory and other games, with analysis, that show his moves cannot be computer assisted ones. As well as using his game history to show he has the understanding of the game to be able to play consistantly at a 2600+ GM level.

 

[Treblaine]

The more I'm reading Treblaine's posts the more I'm worried...

No.

Travelling through space faster than the speed of light is impossible. What you describe is simply unusual.

If you can't define what exactly is unusual, then it is impossible. The reason that you can't go past the speed of light is because it all boils down to the fact that the energy that you need to cross the light speed barrier is... infinity. In math, infinity is used as a simple limit that can't be crossed. In real life, infinity is the next possible number which is a problem as you can go as high as you want.

In chess, this has never happened before. At all. This is akin to an average high school student suddenly finding the equation(s) to string theory. There is no way that a high school student, with a maximum of learning calculus, will find the equations to something that has stumped physicists for decades.

Grounds for investigation to find evidence? Yes

DoPo called. Look at the video for the evidence.

Grounds to call off any investigation, disregard any evidence and say he's guilty of fraud anyway? NO!

Irrevelant. The evidence was the fact that he couldn't have perfectly synced up with a computer. The computer in question happened to be the strongest chess engine yet.

The fact that you're picking a fight with an experienced chess player when you don't know exactly what's going on in chess is worrying me. I don't know whether you have chess experience or simply are trying to apply "innocent till proven guilty" to a problem that already has more than enough evidence to prove that he's cheating.

No. Science is that you first have to prove that it works, not that an empty claim is may and is true till someone can prove it wrong.

Science is also about disproving concepts that inaccurately describe nature and proving ones that do. I don't think Newton figured out calculus on the first try.

Don't reply if you don't read my comment.

I TOLD YOU that kite flying had been around for thousands of years and I TOLD YOU that kite flying was the fundamental mechanism behind powered flight.

Flight hadn't gone anywhere until the Wright brothers picked it up and decided to improve it.

For chess, (I don't mind explaining again) the game has already been through so much analysis and evolution. It's fine to refer to older ideas in chess as they were honed through several hundred and thousand years.

I'm INSTANTLY worried by your post:

In chess, this has never happened before. At all.

What a ridiculous fallacy.

#1 how do you know this hasn't happened before?

#2 Everything hasn't happened before until it happens for the first time (or at least isn't SEEN to have happened before before it is recorded for the first time)

There is proof that objects cannot travel though space faster than speed of light. There is no proof that it's impossible to beat a Grand Master unless you are a Grand Master yourself. There is just no rational basis that you HAVE to steadily improve.

DoPo's claims are empty, spurious, based on fallacious and ignorant assumptions, claims of probability statistics when there are none.

Science is also about disproving concepts that inaccurately describe nature and proving ones that do. I don't think Newton figured out calculus on the first try.

OK. To make a complete ass out of you for saying science is about "disproving concepts":

Disprove the concept that there is a "God".

Science doesn't disprove concepts that NEVER HAD ANY EVIDENCE FOR THEM! They won't hold any spurious claim up as needing refutation.

Flight hadn't gone anywhere until the Wright brothers picked it up

I don't know why anyone should waste their time on you... making claims like that.

 

[thesilentman]

Ok this is ridiculous. Time to put paid to this. Someone, anyone prove me wrong. Show me in depth analysis of the games showing that these are indeed the moves and play of a non titled 2200 level player. Explain to me the ideas and plans, both short and long term, behind this guys moves in these games. And how, exactly these are moves a completely human player would make.

Like theory in chess, someone refute the argument with a logically deduced line.

Edit 1: For those wondering, yep... I will understand master level commentary and lines for these games. So don't worry about confusing me or that I will not get it.

If you don't mind, I'll do some with you. I'm not as good as you in chess, but I can explain what is going on in those games.

I'm INSTANTLY worried by your post:

In chess, this has never happened before. At all.

Man cheats and the moves happen to match up with the strongest chess analysis engine of the time. Coincidence? I think not. And no one has attempted this and got the same results before.

What a ridiculous fallacy.

#1 how do you know this hasn't happened before?

#2 Everything hasn't happened before until it happens for the first time (or at least isn't SEEN to have happened before before it is recorded for the first time)

Look up.

There is proof that objects cannot travel though space faster than speed of light. There is no proof that it's impossible to beat a Grand Master unless you are a Grand Master yourself. There is just no rational basis that you HAVE to steadily improve.

In chess, there is a monstrous difference between 2200 and 2700. Enormous difference. I'm not going to repeat what others have said on this; go read [user]electric method[/user]'s or DoPo's explanation.

DoPo's claims are empty, spurious, based on fallacious and ignorant assumptions, claims of probability statistics when there are none.

[citation needed]

Hello? I don't see any evidence that you know what chess is about and how players become Grand Masters and the difficulty of becoming one. DoPo knows a little about chess, which is unfortunately much more than what you're implying about your knowledge of chess.

OK. To make a complete ass out of you for saying science is about "disproving concepts":

Yes, it's about disproving concepts to make better ones. And if that fails, the current concept is good enough. Newtonian mathematics worked up until we needed to compute on the largest scale possible. For that, Einstein's theory of relativity worked. And when we needed to go to the smallest possible scale, quantum mechanics worked.

There are problems with having independent systems to describe two ends of the scale. When you need to describe objects such as black holes (which are simultaneously big and small), mish-mashing relativity and quantum mechanics failed and gave an answer of infinity. Hence the need for a new theory because the old one will not work in that situation.

Disprove the concept that there is a "God".

Irrevelant. The reason that religion and science arguments will never get anywhere is that they're both different things. They both involve faith, but in different areas.

I can't comment on this one as I follow my own life philosophy that is somewhat similar to atheism and Buddhism with a constant reincarnation cycle.

Science doesn't disprove concepts that NEVER HAD ANY EVIDENCE FOR THEM! They won't hold any spurious claim up as needing refutation.

Science proves concepts that never had any evidence for them? That's a good double negative you got there.

I don't know why anyone should waste their time on you... making claims like that.

Don't single me out. Science is always about searching for a better theory to fit the machinations of the universe.

 

[electric method]

Treblaine, it's like this. You want hard evidence? It's been given to you, you just don't understand it. Hard evidence in this case are the games he played, his rating history and his game history. All of which add up to he bloody cheated.

It is now completely obvious to me you do not understand chess at all. If you did you would have replied with analysis and commentary backing up your statements and ascertations. It is appalling that a non player, or someone that does not understand chess at a master level would have the gall to try defend something they just don't understand. That is so far out of the scope of their knowledge that they have no reasonable basis for comparison.

If it wasn't obvious from my earlier posts, let me be brutually blunt; I do understand chess and play at a master level. I have used that knowledge repeatedly to catch computer assisted players. Even a GM at one time. That you completely disregard statements I make that go directly to point about the nature of this gentleman's (and I use that term very loosely) play and probability that he cheated is, well, ridiculous. That you completely disregard an internationally titled player's move by move analysis of the game, to wit the post from DoPo from an FM, is outright laughable.

Almost everyone here is in agreement, he cheated. That is not in question. What is in question is HOW he did it. A good number of people have tried to explain to you why this is so. You have chosen to be argumentative and ignore the posts of people with experience in this and in chess. That you still don't understand all of this is on you, period.

Edit@ thesilentman, no I do not mind at all. I'll have to hunt down some materials, unless you have a prefered site you play on.

 

[Garrett]

Yes I understand how the world works. If he had played a perfect game (which by the way is impossible, no human can play the best move every move) under conditions that did not indicate cheating. I'd be suprised and actually quite happy for him. A 2200 beating a 2600+ GM in tournament play is a huge feather in one's cap. However, if he then did it 3 more times, like he did then the it progresses from merely improbably, straight through highly unlikely and into impossible without assistance of some form.

I don't know if you caught one of my earlier posts but, I used to catch computer assisted cheaters in chess for a living. I am highly knowledgable in this regard. It is not my ego at stake, I did not have to play this guy. I use/used the word impossible because it is actually applicable here. Let me explain. Game 2, look at it. He gets himself into a draw position after playing a game where he performed at roughly a 2600 level. Then, he makes a mistake no 2600 level GM would ever make. Clarifying that even further; there were no time constraints or issues here, he had 30 minutes for each move. Any GM, or player earning their norms and playing at 2600+ level of play would have looked at that position and realized Bd6 is an instant lose move. Yes, it looks logical but, is the worst move he could have possibly made. People performing at that level would never make that mistake. It's a gigantic blunder. Which puts paid to the lie of his performance being a completely human endeavour.

Why do latch to this huy so much. I don't give a crap about him or if he cheated or not. If this will make feel better then yes, I think he cheated too. But that is not what was I arguing about. I don't give a damn about your chess "knowledge" or your CV (btw. the only thing that you indicate when saying "so yeah, I've been doing this for a living for a while" is that someone was willing to hire you at a specific position for a fraction of second too long to change his mind without a reason, it doesn't say anything about your level of expertise and inb4 you try to explain to me just how much awesome you are, I. dont't. give. a. flying. fuck.). What I'm arguing about is that it is possible to achieve that kind of play in pretty much any amount of time without any help. It is ubelievebly close to 0 but there is one. And just because your ego locked your though process so that you can only compare things by existing measures (seriously "it never happened before", what kind of a stupid argument is that?) it doesn't mean you're right.

Whether you like it or not, chess has finite combinations of play. That means a perfect play IS achievable. That means that perhaps one day (maybe tomorrow, maybe in thousand years or maybe never) we will find out whether given perfect play from both players (and by perfect I do mean perfect in every possible way) we can, with 100% probability, force white to win, force black to win or force draw.

 

[Something Amyss]

It's not proof but it's certainly grounds for suspicion.

The article mentions he lost once before to a rookie mistake.

 

[ben-]

So a man who writes chess programs plays like a computer ?!?! Well color me shocked.

 

[Setch Dreskar]

So a man who writes chess programs plays like a computer ?!?! Well color me shocked.

You should be because no normal human being can play like a computer (Should note in terms of sheer processing speeds in games like chess), because no normal human can calculate at the sheer speed a computer can unless they are a savant, which would be incredibly noticeable.

 

[jovack22]

For those who do not understand chess. A player who plays consistently at 2200 will not stand a chance against a GM (rating 2500+).
Especially in 4 games. If he drew 1 game and lost the other 3, that would still be a feat.

Chess at its highest echelons is more of an exercise of execution. It is very predictable and can be analyzed to a high degree with software assistance.

When someone makes moves out of the ordinary (out of their capability, out of their preparation, and that have a high correlation to computer predictions), you can know for certainty that they cheated.

This kid is surely a great player (2200 is nothing to sneeze at), and he is clearly a very creative person with a good analytical mind (computer programmer), but creating chess programs does not automatically make you a grandmaster.

I suspect he may have had something taped to a part of this body that may have sent him impulses which he just followed.