3 ms·

The difference with chess compared to casino games is that at this level of play, you only need 1 or 2 BITS of outside information to gain a huge advantage. You

The difference with chess compared to casino games is that at this level of play, you only need 1 or 2 BITS of outside information to gain a huge advantage. You can decrease it to 1 bits if you agree on the meaning of the signal beforehand. It is enough for a high level player to receive a signal that signifies that the current board position is critical. They will be able to find the correct move themselves. So cheating at this level is not like an engine giving you moves to play. It is more like a signal that says "your opponent blundered, if you take advantage you will win", or "if you find the critical move in this position you'll most probably win". Just have that signal at the correct moment and a 2500+ ELO player will, with little effort, figure out the winning move. That single bit of information can change the entire outcome.

robotresearcher 4y ago
Chess moron here. Why not assume that bit is set at every move?
- dkarras 4y ago
  I mean in theory you could, but there are time limits, mental limits, psychological effects in play. That opportunity is not always there so you can't expend the mental energy (and time) to treat every position as an entirely new chess puzzle by making yourself believe that it has a winning solution. Most of the time there isn't but you can't know that there isn't so most moves would consist of you giving up (because there is no such move). Then you'd get used to giving up. Yet you don't know when to give up exactly and move on because there may or may not be a valid answer. When you know there is a valid answer though, your strategy for time planning changes, your psychological approach changes because you know there is a solution. When you know there is a solution, you can afford to expend the mental energy that produces hyperfocus which is costly and can't be sustained for the entirety of the game. Your dopamine circuitry kicks in and you search for the solution that you know exists. A programming analogy may be: When you are programming you are solving problems but you don't approach it with the assumption that every line of code can be buggy. You just assume things are right and keep on writing best you know how - or you'd never make progress. Sometimes there are bugs, only later you can find and fix them. Asking a chess player to assume every position is critical is like checking every line of code for bugs each time you read them just in case. If you know there is a bug you have methods to search for it, but you can't program while checking every line over and over again by assuming they introduce bugs.
- cwillu 4y ago
  To add to the sibling: if you have infallible advice that there's a solution, but you have ruled out all possible solutions, you know you've made a mistake, and you can review your logic. It basically serves as a checksum on your thinking. If the advice isn't infallible (worst case of which is the stuck bit you describe), then you don't have that checksum.
jayski 4y ago
very interesting explanation. i don't play chess, didn't know this. thanks

robotresearcher 4y ago

Chess moron here. Why not assume that bit is set at every move?

dkarras 4y ago
I mean in theory you could, but there are time limits, mental limits, psychological effects in play. That opportunity is not always there so you can't expend the mental energy (and time) to treat every position as an entirely new chess puzzle by making yourself believe that it has a winning solution. Most of the time there isn't but you can't know that there isn't so most moves would consist of you giving up (because there is no such move). Then you'd get used to giving up. Yet you don't know when to give up exactly and move on because there may or may not be a valid answer. When you know there is a valid answer though, your strategy for time planning changes, your psychological approach changes because you know there is a solution. When you know there is a solution, you can afford to expend the mental energy that produces hyperfocus which is costly and can't be sustained for the entirety of the game. Your dopamine circuitry kicks in and you search for the solution that you know exists. A programming analogy may be: When you are programming you are solving problems but you don't approach it with the assumption that every line of code can be buggy. You just assume things are right and keep on writing best you know how - or you'd never make progress. Sometimes there are bugs, only later you can find and fix them. Asking a chess player to assume every position is critical is like checking every line of code for bugs each time you read them just in case. If you know there is a bug you have methods to search for it, but you can't program while checking every line over and over again by assuming they introduce bugs.
cwillu 4y ago
To add to the sibling: if you have infallible advice that there's a solution, but you have ruled out all possible solutions, you know you've made a mistake, and you can review your logic. It basically serves as a checksum on your thinking. If the advice isn't infallible (worst case of which is the stuck bit you describe), then you don't have that checksum.

jayski 4y ago

very interesting explanation. i don't play chess, didn't know this. thanks