On Sat, 2009-04-04 at 06:14 -0400, steve uurtamo wrote: > Moreover, this is a really complicated issue.
Yes, and I think cheating will always be possible. It's like cryptography, nothing is ever unbreakable. I was quite appalled at how often it happened in computer chess when I was active in it, and there were also incidents of humans using computers and having the moves transmitted to them. And of course in correspondence chess I think they had to allow computers because the honest players were at a disadvantage. - Don > There has been some extensive statistical work on human > cheating in chess done by Ken Regan at the University at Buffalo. > However, this relies heavily upon the fact that computers > dominate human play by a wide margin. > > The same is not the case in go. > > s. > > On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 1:56 AM, Robert Jasiek <jas...@snafu.de> wrote: > > Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >> > >> If a program under no circumstance can reproduce a specific move and that > >> for several occasions, then that's very clear proof of course. > > > > [...] > >> > >> Statistics prove everything here. > > > > No. Rather it proves that the program cheats OR that the methods of > > detecting cheating are improper. > > > >> One always must have a logfile > > > > Good. > > > > -- > > robert jasiek > > _______________________________________________ > > computer-go mailing list > > computer-go@computer-go.org > > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ > > > _______________________________________________ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
_______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
