This story actually made the French news on TV last night:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12853229

It's interesting in several ways. First, according to the French TV report, "coaches" of the different teams are allowed to circulate among the players while the games are going on. Hearing this, it seems to me that there are likely to have been other cases of cheating, simply with coaches making "suggestions" with their eyes or with hand signals.

But what I find most interesting is that this game, which is supposed to be so "noble," has gotten to the point where even top players are not as good as computer programs. So the players figure that if they can have software analyze their positions, they can do better using suggestions from the software.

I could imagine certain situations in go where this could be useful - complex joseki variations, complicated life-and-death problems - but I can't imagine any go player at such a level needing help with these parts of a game.

In the French TV report, it was said that the players confessed to the trickery before recanting. (The BBC article doesn't say this.)

I guess this is, in some ways, similar to using performance-enhancing drugs. The computer enhances your play.

_________________
My blog about Macs and more: Kirkville

The problem is that computers can deliver better moves than players, coupled with the tiny amount of data that needs to be communicated for it to work.

The only way to fully ensure no communication happens between coach and player, is to keep coaches isolated from the player, so that the player cannot in any way perceive the coach. Something like keeping the players in their own separate room, where no-one else may enter until the match is over, and with a jamming device to prevent any electronic signals being sent.

If they keep it up, that's probably exactly what will happen for important matches.

I wonder if there are any similar stories regarding the modern Pro/Strong Amateur Go tournament such as mejin, WGAC etc

In go you need a stronger player to help you cheat. In chess you can use a computer.

_________________
Sanity is for the weak.

There is at least one case: Yu Bin subbed in for an amateur in an online IGS tournament about 15 years ago. You can check the newsgroup archives for the details.

That's rather surprising! Were there any repercussions for Yu Bin?

Not as far as I know.

soon enough you only need some wifi device implanted into your brains to become world champion

Taking help from a stronger person is already bad enough. But taking help from a computer in a chess tournament is like participating in weight lifting championship with a forklift.

_________________
If you say no, Elwood and I will come here for breakfast, lunch, and dinner every day of the week.

That is what Kasparov (I believe to recall) suggested for Chess - in a new tournament format, making it eligible & legal to employ the help of computers.

_________________
Greetings,
Tommie

3dan EGF (AGA no 13477) || Tommie on KGS: 'June'|| DGS: 'Zhi Laohu' 纸老虎 = 'paper tiger' || Senseis : http://senseis.xmp.net/?tderz ||
ENFP (MBTI) - 'Find your own style within the Fundamentals of Go! '

How would this work? Computers are already stronger than humans, so wouldn't the outcome depend on which player has the ""bigger" hardware with the better software?

You could do something like with car races, where entrants' vehicles have to fit a design specification, which sets a minimum and maximum for various parameters.

This still leaves open the possibility of using an off-site hugely overpowered computer to do the real work, though.

No, it doesn't seem to work that way. The centaur tournaments so far have displayed that having a strong engine is important, but a very well prepared opening book and a good strategic understanding of how to make the most of your choice of engine's strengths seems more important than the net strength of the engine.

Unfortunately, Rybka is _so_ strong, even compared to its nearest rivals, that it is hard to see other engines being as useful, although some swear by Fritz and Junior for very specific types of games and positions.

Strategically, chess engines are still rather stupid compared to humans. But this disadvantage is outweighted by their superior computation power. A human just can't read ahead as far as an engine. Chess engines don't win because they have better strategy, they win using relatively primitive strategies combined with very deep reading.

This of course raises the question: What would happen when you equip a human player with the reading ability of computers? In theory, the level of play would be a lot higher than the level of an engine alone. Centaur tournaments are an attempt to find out whether that's true

In these tournaments, the human uses the engine as a tool to analyze the position, and then makes a move based on that analysis. This is a lot more powerful than just letting the engine generate a move. The human can for example guide the reading of the engine by setting strategic goals, influencing the base evaluation function and so on. The engine can also be used as a query tool, e.g. "can my opponent force this exchange"...