3 ms·
> Chess will be replaced with an acting and subterfuge competition. Which sort of prompts the question: Why isn't there a "World Chess Cheating Championship"?
by dane-pgp 4y ago
> Chess will be replaced with an acting and subterfuge competition.
Which sort of prompts the question: Why isn't there a "World Chess Cheating Championship"?
The competitors would be given the chance to either demonstrate a type of cheating, or demonstrate a counter-measure, and then judges would be able to organise rigorous tests that paired the methods off against each other.
One sort of test that would be interesting to try is to have a GM who is able to receive a one-bit signal from an accomplice once per game (the much-discussed "this is an important move, think carefully" signal), and then statisticians should try to pick that game (or some set of such games) out of a sea of non-cheating games.
Basically I think that the chess community shouldn't take any "security measures" by event organisers at face value. Without red-teaming, any such measures are just security theatre.
- ajhurliman 4y agoThere actually is, computer-aided humans can beat computers, in fact.
- Rodeoclash 4y agoMy understanding is that computer aided humans lose vs pure computer opponents. The human is a handicap.
- ajhurliman 4y agoThis is an old citation[0] but it's pretty difficult to find much on it. It doesn't look like it's very popular but I remember reading an article years ago that discussed "advanced" or "centaur" chess (human + computer teams) and their ability to beat computers alone. This is assuming that the human is already at the forefront of human performance in chess, though. [0] https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/11/what-are-humans-still-good-for-the-turning-point-in-freestyle-chess-may-be-approaching.html https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/11/wh...