4 ms·

is there any thinking on how many bits of information do you need to cheat, and how many can be communicated via thumper? e.g. is the bit of information "move

by swyx 4y ago

is there any thinking on how many bits of information do you need to cheat, and how many can be communicated via thumper? e.g. is the bit of information "move the knight" aka theres only about 4 bits of info, or is it "move the knight to E6" which is a good deal more bits, that could be lossy/error prone. just on the surface of it, i dont see how this thing could give enough info but i suppose with a loooot of training you could improve the info transfer rate?

kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 4y ago
I would think a shorthand code would be employed
- swyx 4y ago
  we're dealing with bits of info here, thats the shortest hand there is
  - kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 4y ago
    Sure, but the number of bits is what I meant
Bud 4y ago
Not many at all. For instance it takes a maximum of 6 bits to encode a given destination square on the board. This is probably sufficient, or very close to it.
rococode 4y ago
Here's a relevant quote from Magnus regarding cheating: "I would just needed to cheat one or two times during a match, and I would not even need to be given moves, just the answer on which move was way better, or here there is a possibility of winning and here you need to be more careful. That is all I would need in order to be almost invincible." Even just 1 bit - an indication to be careful - would be enough to boost the strength of a GM. An accomplice coughing in the background to let you know there's something to watch for. For a strong player - and there's no doubt that Niemann is a strong player, the question is just how strong - that's all they need to avoid making mistakes. GMs can solve insanely hard puzzles, because they know it's a puzzle and has a specific solution. Same thing with 1 bit of info. Of course, realistically they could simply use Morse code instead of "bits" and transmit two squares (just 4 Morse "letters").
- swyx 4y ago
  yes but against magnus, who is supposedly two levels above Hans, this is not just a one move cheat, he'd have to cheat + have a continuous absence of mistakes, which is an awful lot of information to transmit. i dont have a horse in this race i just like thinking about things in terms of information theory since this is a remarkable applied case another way to decide this - have them play blitz (where the moves are way too fast for info transmission to happen), and see if the skill level scales accordingly?
  - asimpletune 4y ago
    Carlsen has broken 3000 in blitz before... Unfortunately he's too good for it to mean anything I think.
  - derefr 4y ago
    > he'd have to cheat + have a continuous absence of mistakes, which is an awful lot of information to transmit. Perhaps a top-level player can jump to a higher level if they can stop worrying about coming up with brilliances in the macro strategy, and instead focus entirely on making their micro-level play spotless.
    - CrazyStat 4y ago
      This is the opposite of what a computer-assisted player would do. Computer chess engines (generally speaking, somewhat less true of the latest generation) are not great at high level strategy but will never miss a tactic (micro level play).
      - Taek 4y ago
        That's outdated, now that we have deep learning the machines are great at high level strategy too.
  - cool_dude85 4y ago
    >this is not just a one move cheat, he'd have to cheat + have a continuous absence of mistakes Blunders are exactly what a device like the one described would seriously help with. If the buzz means both "there is an only move here and it's not immediately obvious" and "at least one of the natural moves here is a blunder or very inaccurate" then you need to just send a buzz and you've probably cut inaccuracies significantly. That said, a very simple communication device like this is probably badly hurt by a 15 minute delay.
viraptor 4y ago
At their level it's pretty much known what location / piece they're thinking about. For key moments, it may be enough to transmit the piece name only. And have some follow up for destination if they really need them.
noitpmeder 4y ago
From what I understand you only need one bit. The assistance doesn't need to be "move piece P to square S", but "this position is critical, if you spend extra time exploring here you will find a winning move". As these players are on timers there is a race against a clock. So if you know where to focus your time/effort you can easily gain an advantage.
squeaky-clean 4y ago
Just "e6" would likely be enough context in most situations. Sometimes only one piece can legally move there. Sometimes it's obvious which piece should move there once the position is pointed out.
- jasonwatkinspdx 4y ago
  I watched the livestreams of Andrea Botez's games in Vegas. Something I was really struck by is even though she's not a GM strength player, her mental board visualization skills are way up there. She did post game debriefs on the streams where she went rapid fire through hundreds of variations with her cohost just verbally. She'd go through them faster than the host could click to show chat at times. Now imagine what people like the Super GMs are capable of.
  - Raidion 4y ago
    You don't have to imagine, check out any post match press conference or when players discuss over the board after the game. They remember all the variations they consider, and they've considered most of the variations their opponents have calculated, so the variations aren't new branches, they're just pointers to spots in the game tree both players have in their heads.
  - deadfoxygrandpa 4y ago
    just watch this https://youtu.be/pUgvAoTzWBA https://youtu.be/pUgvAoTzWBA and you will see what super gms are capable of
  - lysp 4y ago
    I saw a video a while ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eC1BAcOzHyY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eC1BAcOzHyY They put a number of mid-game positions on the board, and Magnus was able to guess the players, tournament, game number, who won, what the next few moves were. Who was playing on the table next to him. What their moves were.
  - fizx 4y ago
    Half the reason people believe Hans was cheating is cause he couldn't do this for the game in question.
pdpi 4y ago
One move is 12 bits at most. 3 bits each X/Y, two XY pairs for source and destination.
- philsquared_ 4y ago
  You would only need one set of coordinates. The destination coordinates. Any high level chess players would only need that information to dominate.
  - TakeBlaster16 4y ago
    Honestly I think all you'd need is the piece. There are 6 pieces, so that's 3 bits of info with room to spare.

by swyx 4y ago

kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 4y ago

I would think a shorthand code would be employed

swyx 4y ago
we're dealing with bits of info here, thats the shortest hand there is
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 4y ago
  Sure, but the number of bits is what I meant

Bud 4y ago

Not many at all. For instance it takes a maximum of 6 bits to encode a given destination square on the board. This is probably sufficient, or very close to it.

rococode 4y ago

Here's a relevant quote from Magnus regarding cheating: "I would just needed to cheat one or two times during a match, and I would not even need to be given moves, just the answer on which move was way better, or here there is a possibility of winning and here you need to be more careful. That is all I would need in order to be almost invincible." Even just 1 bit - an indication to be careful - would be enough to boost the strength of a GM. An accomplice coughing in the background to let you know there's something to watch for. For a strong player - and there's no doubt that Niemann is a strong player, the question is just how strong - that's all they need to avoid making mistakes. GMs can solve insanely hard puzzles, because they know it's a puzzle and has a specific solution. Same thing with 1 bit of info. Of course, realistically they could simply use Morse code instead of "bits" and transmit two squares (just 4 Morse "letters").

swyx 4y ago
yes but against magnus, who is supposedly two levels above Hans, this is not just a one move cheat, he'd have to cheat + have a continuous absence of mistakes, which is an awful lot of information to transmit. i dont have a horse in this race i just like thinking about things in terms of information theory since this is a remarkable applied case another way to decide this - have them play blitz (where the moves are way too fast for info transmission to happen), and see if the skill level scales accordingly?
- asimpletune 4y ago
  Carlsen has broken 3000 in blitz before... Unfortunately he's too good for it to mean anything I think.
- derefr 4y ago
  > he'd have to cheat + have a continuous absence of mistakes, which is an awful lot of information to transmit. Perhaps a top-level player can jump to a higher level if they can stop worrying about coming up with brilliances in the macro strategy, and instead focus entirely on making their micro-level play spotless.
  - CrazyStat 4y ago
    This is the opposite of what a computer-assisted player would do. Computer chess engines (generally speaking, somewhat less true of the latest generation) are not great at high level strategy but will never miss a tactic (micro level play).
    - Taek 4y ago
      That's outdated, now that we have deep learning the machines are great at high level strategy too.
- cool_dude85 4y ago
  >this is not just a one move cheat, he'd have to cheat + have a continuous absence of mistakes Blunders are exactly what a device like the one described would seriously help with. If the buzz means both "there is an only move here and it's not immediately obvious" and "at least one of the natural moves here is a blunder or very inaccurate" then you need to just send a buzz and you've probably cut inaccuracies significantly. That said, a very simple communication device like this is probably badly hurt by a 15 minute delay.

viraptor 4y ago

At their level it's pretty much known what location / piece they're thinking about. For key moments, it may be enough to transmit the piece name only. And have some follow up for destination if they really need them.

noitpmeder 4y ago

From what I understand you only need one bit. The assistance doesn't need to be "move piece P to square S", but "this position is critical, if you spend extra time exploring here you will find a winning move". As these players are on timers there is a race against a clock. So if you know where to focus your time/effort you can easily gain an advantage.

squeaky-clean 4y ago

Just "e6" would likely be enough context in most situations. Sometimes only one piece can legally move there. Sometimes it's obvious which piece should move there once the position is pointed out.

jasonwatkinspdx 4y ago
I watched the livestreams of Andrea Botez's games in Vegas. Something I was really struck by is even though she's not a GM strength player, her mental board visualization skills are way up there. She did post game debriefs on the streams where she went rapid fire through hundreds of variations with her cohost just verbally. She'd go through them faster than the host could click to show chat at times. Now imagine what people like the Super GMs are capable of.
- Raidion 4y ago
  You don't have to imagine, check out any post match press conference or when players discuss over the board after the game. They remember all the variations they consider, and they've considered most of the variations their opponents have calculated, so the variations aren't new branches, they're just pointers to spots in the game tree both players have in their heads.
- deadfoxygrandpa 4y ago
  just watch this https://youtu.be/pUgvAoTzWBA https://youtu.be/pUgvAoTzWBA and you will see what super gms are capable of
- lysp 4y ago
  I saw a video a while ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eC1BAcOzHyY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eC1BAcOzHyY They put a number of mid-game positions on the board, and Magnus was able to guess the players, tournament, game number, who won, what the next few moves were. Who was playing on the table next to him. What their moves were.
- fizx 4y ago
  Half the reason people believe Hans was cheating is cause he couldn't do this for the game in question.

pdpi 4y ago

One move is 12 bits at most. 3 bits each X/Y, two XY pairs for source and destination.

philsquared_ 4y ago
You would only need one set of coordinates. The destination coordinates. Any high level chess players would only need that information to dominate.
- TakeBlaster16 4y ago
  Honestly I think all you'd need is the piece. There are 6 pieces, so that's 3 bits of info with room to spare.