4 ms·
I'm not sure why they ham up the risk of privacy loss regarding unmasking anon players, the only "risk" I can think of would be someone developing and testing n
by philippejara 4y ago
I'm not sure why they ham up the risk of privacy loss regarding unmasking anon players, the only "risk" I can think of would be someone developing and testing new strategies but then I'd assume the fingerprinting would be far less accurate, testing if you can effectively hide your own quirks while deviating from them would be far more interesting. As it stands this is nothing new and the concerns seem weirdly pointed, everyone(?) already knows the risks of fingerprinting and pattern recognition in more general applications. It was a fun paper to read, shame half the article promoting it was cautioning.
- lobe 4y agoOften the new strategies top level players test on anonymised accounts are subtle tweaks in lines deep into / slightly beyond opening theory. Often these lines are slightly inferior to mainline but come with an edge due to the "surprise factor" making it harder for opponents to prepare. Each of these subtle tweaks will only arise in a small proportion of games (as only some of the time your opponent will play the line you want to test), so I imagine fingerprinting based on play style will still work relatively well.
- wolverine876 4y agoWhy do you "ham" it down? What is too much or too little? Other people want to be anonymous. Can they have beliefs and preferences independent of yours? Can their free choices have value independently of whether you agree? The value is in their free choice for it; your choice is equally valuable, but doesn't diminish theirs.
- philippejara 4y agoI don't get your point, I want to be anonymous generally and am all for it, but the risks being cited for half the article have been known for a decade already and it's pointless wasting this much time on it as if it were news.