Actually in computerchess it happens just sometimes and just by 1
team it has been done very clearly and that team is not from
Europe yet from Middle East / Asia. The odds of an Asian cheating,
someone who hardly makes enough cash to even pay for some basic things,
are quite bigger than that so
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
Moreover, this is a really complicated issue.
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.
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
Hi,
I see there has been some discussion in this list about cheating remote.
In computerchess this toleration has grown out of hand.
Setting the rules clear and sharp there in computer-go might avoid
for the future a lot of problems.
There is a very simple manner to avoid cheating in go.
But l
> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 1:20 PM
> To: computer-go@computer-go.org
> Subject: Re: [computer-go] Rules for remote play at the Computer Olympiad
>
> > About the "thinking process" log.
>
> Enabling debugging options can result in serious performance loss. In m
> About the "thinking process" log.
Enabling debugging options can result in serious performance loss. In my
system
only the "admin thread" can do such things as tree dumps and that makes
all other
"pawn threads" idle. I don't think such preventive measures are
justified. In case
of doubt, it
Nick Wedd wrote:
I would like to se the time measurement done in the client. I find it
odd that cheat-proof client-side time is now standard for chess
servers, but too difficult for any Go server to implement.
In case of big network lag, client-side time may make the game too long.
The be
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Nick Wedd wrote:
> 1.) A neural net cannot explain its "thinking process" because it does not
> have any.
I have used artificial neural nets a lot in my go programs; it is
trivial to display predictions, but understanding them is of course
not always easy. Still
In message <4985a9b2.7090...@univ-lille3.fr>, Rémi Coulom
writes
Erik van der Werf wrote:
Hi Remi,
There is a simpler solution: do not allow remote play at all.
I would be in favor of this solution. But this has no chance to make
unanimity. Even with a strong majority in favor of that rule
In message
<262b2f900902010529r2ddec4afq31705bd9ccfda...@mail.gmail.com>, Erik van
der Werf writes
< snip >
Something else for the discussion. I would like to have a rule about
mandatory displaying the thinking process of the program so that both
operators have an idea of what is happening.
mputer-go.org [mailto:computer-go-
> boun...@computer-go.org] On Behalf Of Erik van der Werf
> Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 6:26 AM
> To: computer-go
> Subject: Re: [computer-go] Rules for remote play at the Computer Olympiad
>
> On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Mark Boon
wrote:
&
I like having something mandatory, so we dont need to ask for it. Many
Faces did not have this, because the backend and the GUI only communicated
moves. But the backend was creating a log file and it would be easy to
display the log with regular updates in a different window.
To prevent cheat
I'm in favor of starting rounds on time, with remote machines either getting
a time penalty or playing locally (their choice). The clock should run for
the remote machine as soon as the round is scheduled to start. Once a round
is started the remote program cannot switch. For example if it start
Erik van der Werf wrote:
For a 3-round playoff I would propose that the third game uses komi
bidding (one operator is given the right to choose the komi, and the
other then chooses whether to play Black or White). An alternative is
to play 4 rounds and use board-points as a tie-breaker.
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Rémi Coulom wrote:
> Erik van der Werf wrote:
>>
>> Hi Remi,
>>
>> There is a simpler solution: do not allow remote play at all.
>>
>
> I would be in favor of this solution. But this has no chance to make
> unanimity. Even with a strong majority in favor of that rul
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Mark Boon wrote:
> On Feb 1, 2009, at 11:29 AM, Erik van der Werf wrote:
>> Something else for the discussion. I would like to have a rule about
>> mandatory displaying the thinking process of the program so that both
>> operators have an idea of what is happening.
On Feb 1, 2009, at 11:29 AM, Erik van der Werf wrote:
Something else for the discussion. I would like to have a rule about
mandatory displaying the thinking process of the program so that both
operators have an idea of what is happening. Especially for remote
play I think this is needed becaus
Erik van der Werf wrote:
Hi Remi,
There is a simpler solution: do not allow remote play at all.
I would be in favor of this solution. But this has no chance to make
unanimity. Even with a strong majority in favor of that rule, Jaap would
probably not accept it, anyways.
As for stricter
Hi Remi,
There is a simpler solution: do not allow remote play at all.
Something else for the discussion. I would like to have a rule about
mandatory displaying the thinking process of the program so that both
operators have an idea of what is happening. Especially for remote
play I think this i
20 matches
Mail list logo
