It is currently Fri Feb 22, 2019 3:42 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 720 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 ... 36  Next
Author Message
Offline
 Post subject: Re: “Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A
Post #421 Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:52 am 
Tengen

Posts: 4698
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 637
Bojanic wrote:
Good enough theory?


Perfectly not because every cheater is different.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: “Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A
Post #422 Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:55 am 
Dies with sente

Posts: 103
Liked others: 20
Was liked: 82
Rank: 5 dan
RobertJasiek wrote:
Bojanic wrote:
Good enough theory?


Perfectly not because every cheater is different.

Yes of course, and I also think that there is more cheaters in PGETC and most of them will go unsanctioned.
But in case of those two games, it is good enough.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: “Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A
Post #423 Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 9:01 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 8053
Liked others: 2275
Was liked: 2829
Bojanic wrote:
Bill Spight wrote:
As for the 98% matching evidence, you must understand that matching one of a bot's top three choices was chosen in order to generate impressive matching numbers, not through any theory of how a player might have cheated. (This motive may have been unconscious.) Also, restricting the possible matches to the fifty moves between moves 51 - 100 is also suspicious. In addition, it is confirmatory evidence instead of disconfirmatory evidence. IOW, it is not just unsound, it is crap.

So you think we should also include in analysis opening phase, which could easily show 100% similarities to Leela in many games?


I think that the analysis of game records should be done in terms of go, not in terms of matching any bot's choices. Why omit any play?

Consider Regan's approach. Chess engines are good enough that he is able to rate the difficulty of plays, giving them ELO ratings. That way he can eliminate plays that are too easy from consideration, not just consider a certain range of plays. Also, he can give an ELO rating for a player's play in a single game. We are far from being able to do that in go.

Now, playing well at chess will produce a lot of matches to the plays of top engines. But the point is not matching any engine's play, it is playing too well. Play a long enough game with no blunders or mistakes, and the odds are good that you are cheating. No human plays that well. But Regan requires extremely good odds for statistical evidence alone.

Quote:
BTW, opening usually lasts up to move 30, not 50 as you claim.

You are confusing me with the people who came up with the method used.

Quote:
And I am curious, what method would not show that Metta's two online games are very different to his two live games?


I await the evidence, in terms of go, not statistics. An analysis in terms of go might produce behavioral evidence, which is necessary, given the weakness of the statistical evidence.

_________________
There is one human race.
----------------------------------------------------

The Adkins Principle:

At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?

— Winona Adkins

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: “Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A
Post #424 Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 9:37 am 
Oza

Posts: 2290
Liked others: 14
Was liked: 3275
tapir wrote:
Quote:
I would much prefer unsound evidence (not too unsound, but the 98% in the case), occasional false positives and lenient punishment, that keeps the control systems simple and overall trust (we catch most cheaters + few innocents) higher.


maf wrote:
Quote:
I understand your sentiment, but this will never be accepted. It is literally against a core value of Western society.


I think this method is in use in many places, even if a little disguised perhaps.

For example, a policeman told me that his almost 100% honest force had a brute in their ranks whom they found very useful. If they encountered a particularly obnoxious individual they couldn't handle by ordinary means, they would consign him to the hulk, who would beat the detritus out of him. This ensured few people then took the Michael out of the good police while limiting the bad stuff to a tiny handful of people whose only actual crime may, admittedly, have been that they were obnoxious.

This strategy is used even in trivial ways such as a baseball pitcher tossing at the head of a batter just to keep him "honest". Even parents sometimes use it with their kids: trampling over their human rights, terrifying them and scarring them for life by taking their smart phones away for a day just to make sure that the next time they need to ask for homework to be done, they just have mention the p word.

It sounds awful on paper, but in my experience it seems to work quite well. Maybe because, although it's open to abuse, it's a strategy used by basically good people who will draw the line at excess. So it might just work in go.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: “Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A
Post #425 Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 10:07 am 
Beginner

Posts: 14
Liked others: 4
Was liked: 8
Rank: 1 dan
Bojanic wrote:
And I am curious, what method would not show that Metta's two online games are very different to his two live games?


In addition to your question, I'm more interested in your conclusion. Are you suggesting that every player plays exactly the same way in every game?

This is far from reality. Every player can play in many ways and strength. We are not professional players, our game can vary depending on our opponent's strength, our opponent's mistake, our opponent's style, our mood, whether we slept well or not that day, basic time, byo yomi time, and so on.

I think a 4 dan can easily vary from 2 dan to 6 dan depending on hundreds of factors. 4 dan is simply his average strenght.

Not to mention the fact that online games are played around 1 every month, live games are usually played 2 or 3 every day. This aspect favors heavily strong players in live tournament and vanishes in online tournament.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: “Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A
Post #426 Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 10:59 am 
Dies with sente

Posts: 103
Liked others: 20
Was liked: 82
Rank: 5 dan
theoldway wrote:
I think a 4 dan can easily vary from 2 dan to 6 dan depending on hundreds of factors. 4 dan is simply his average strenght.

Actually I completely agree on you on this matter.
And we can see it Metta's WAGC games.

But that is why it is actually completely impossible to explain how could Metta played two entire games completely on level of Leela program. Only mistake - Leela's L&D mistake.
European pros in same event played several mistakes per game.


This post by Bojanic was liked by: Hidoshito
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: “Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A
Post #427 Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 11:00 am 
Lives in sente

Posts: 769
Liked others: 133
Was liked: 153
Bill Spight wrote:
As for the 98% matching evidence, you must understand that matching one of a bot's top three choices was chosen in order to generate impressive matching numbers, not through any theory of how a player might have cheated. (This motive may have been unconscious.) And restricting the possible matches to the fifty moves between moves 51 - 100 is also suspicious. In addition, it is confirmatory evidence instead of disconfirmatory evidence. IOW, it is not just unsound, it is crap.


I fully understand how the 98% came about. The choice implies a theory of how the player cheated. (I.e. sometimes choose 2nd or 3rd move to make it not too obvious.) Yes, it is limited. Yes, it may be wrong. Still, afair no other game looked into in this thread came even remotely close in similarity.

What people don't seem to appreciate at all is that this isn't a scholarly discussion about the quality of the evidence, but a decision about how Go will be in the future. Making it almost impossible to catch a cheat (all the doubts piled up in this thread do exactly that) will only lead to more cheating and all pervading hypocrisy. I would like to see lenient (for the sake of the accused innocents and for human betterment), but swift sanctions.

I am also fairly sure that I won't ever be wrongly accused of cheating that way, this particular excuse seems something reserved for 4 dan upwards. I doubt anyone would give a 5 kyu the benefit of a doubt, even if he too would place 100% of his moves on the intersections of the board. Now please ponder what conclusions beginners will draw from all this.


This post by tapir was liked by: Bojanic
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: “Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A
Post #428 Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 12:08 pm 
Lives in gote

Posts: 347
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 80
Rank: KGS 2k
GD Posts: 100
KGS: Tryss
tapir wrote:
I am also fairly sure that I won't ever be wrongly accused of cheating that way, this particular excuse seems something reserved for 4 dan upwards. I doubt anyone would give a 5 kyu the benefit of a doubt, even if he too would place 100% of his moves on the intersections of the board. Now please ponder what conclusions beginners will draw from all this.


I'm currently 3k on KGS

I recently played a game where, according to LZ, I only made 3 mistakes, And only one after move 30 (and it was only a -1.5% winrate loss). Did I cheat?


This post by Tryss was liked by 2 people: Bill Spight, Charlie
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: “Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A
Post #429 Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 12:22 pm 
Dies with sente

Posts: 103
Liked others: 20
Was liked: 82
Rank: 5 dan
Tryss,
If that is your level of game, why are you wasting your time on KGS?
You should play in some strong league, Honinbo or Judan would be OK.


This post by Bojanic was liked by: Joaz Banbeck
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: “Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A
Post #430 Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 12:24 pm 
Lives in sente

Posts: 1109
Liked others: 70
Was liked: 236
Show us the game and your analysis, it can be an interesting example to study. :) What else is the sgf tag for here?

_________________
North Lecale

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: “Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A
Post #431 Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 12:25 pm 
Beginner

Posts: 14
Liked others: 4
Was liked: 8
Rank: 1 dan
Bojanic wrote:

But that is why it is actually completely impossible to explain how could Metta played two entire games completely on level of Leela program. Only mistake - Leela's L&D mistake.
European pros in same event played several mistakes per game.


Actually there are other PGETC players with several games almost completely Leela-like (even some famous and distinguished player). They are all cheaters? Or maybe in hundreds of PGETC games it is possible to observe these coincidences from time to time?

This is the main question we need to answer in the future.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: “Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A
Post #432 Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 12:31 pm 
Lives in gote

Posts: 347
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 80
Rank: KGS 2k
GD Posts: 100
KGS: Tryss
Bojang wrote:
Tryss,
If that is your level of game, why are you wasting your time on KGS?
You should play in some strong league, Honinbo or Judan would be OK.


Where did I say I played like a pro player? I played like a 3k, my opponent just played badly in the oppening and blundered, and he never catch up with me, so from most of the match, my winrate was over 95% and didn't drop : I didn't make any mistake for LZ.

Now, what if he accused me of cheating?


This post by Tryss was liked by: Bill Spight
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: “Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A
Post #433 Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 12:32 pm 
Dies in gote

Posts: 45
Liked others: 31
Was liked: 18
Rank: 2kyu
When I read this thread I see a lot of hand wringing, clutching at straws and missed points. People trying to glue together a toy that is broken.

As far as I am concerned this issue is not about a few games and one player who has been unfortunate enough to become the topic of this discussion. There are larger things at stake here, such as the future of online Go tournaments. We do not appear to be anywhere near a system that can reliably detect cheating in online games. While such a state of affairs exists, is it reasonable to have cash prizes and determine ranking based on online performance? Of course not.


This post by Gobang was liked by 2 people: Bill Spight, Joaz Banbeck
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: “Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A
Post #434 Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 12:34 pm 
Lives in sente

Posts: 1109
Liked others: 70
Was liked: 236
theoldway wrote:

Actually there are other PGETC players with several games almost completely Leela-like (even some famous and distinguished player). They are all cheaters? Or maybe in hundreds of PGETC games it is possible to observe these coincidences from time to time?

This is the main question we need to answer in the future.


Who are they, and which are the games you mention?

_________________
North Lecale

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: “Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A
Post #435 Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 12:51 pm 
Beginner

Posts: 14
Liked others: 4
Was liked: 8
Rank: 1 dan
Javaness2 wrote:

Who are they, and which are the games you mention?


Are you seriously asking to expose more players, maybe false positive, to this crusade?

I envy some people certainty about cheaters and cheating, I'm still full of doubts.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: “Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A
Post #436 Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 12:55 pm 
Lives in sente

Posts: 1109
Liked others: 70
Was liked: 236
Yes

_________________
North Lecale

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: “Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A
Post #437 Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 1:08 pm 
Dies with sente

Posts: 103
Liked others: 20
Was liked: 82
Rank: 5 dan
theoldway wrote:
Actually there are other PGETC players with several games almost completely Leela-like (even some famous and distinguished player). They are all cheaters? Or maybe in hundreds of PGETC games it is possible to observe these coincidences from time to time?

This is the main question we need to answer in the future.

First, others did it is not an excuse.

I have found several more games in which deviations histogram is close to Leela. In some short games, one player dominated another. Since it was mainly fight, there was lot of similar moves to Leela, but also some of the different moves.
I have one game I am very suspicious of, but in it some tenuki moves are different.

Those two Carlo's games are closest to Leela of all games. And since it is two games of one player, it is even more suspicious.

If you eant to prove that others cheated, it would be goodthat you make prošer analysis.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: “Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A
Post #438 Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 1:15 pm 
Honinbo

Posts: 8053
Liked others: 2275
Was liked: 2829
tapir wrote:
Bill Spight wrote:
As for the 98% matching evidence, you must understand that matching one of a bot's top three choices was chosen in order to generate impressive matching numbers, not through any theory of how a player might have cheated. (This motive may have been unconscious.) And restricting the possible matches to the fifty moves between moves 51 - 100 is also suspicious. In addition, it is confirmatory evidence instead of disconfirmatory evidence. IOW, it is not just unsound, it is crap.


I fully understand how the 98% came about. The choice implies a theory of how the player cheated. (I.e. sometimes choose 2nd or 3rd move to make it not too obvious.)


OC, one can come up with such a theory. But the reasons for the choice of that methodology should have been given in the original verdict and ruling. Sorry, but when people here have talked about how they might actually cheat, has anybody said, well, I'll pick one of the bot's top three choices? No. Picking the top choice is, I understand, done in cheating in casual online chess. Not in online tournaments because it's a dead giveaway. It may be done in FTF tournaments if the player thinks they can get away with it, but the physical evidence can be uncovered in those cases. Anyway, if picking the top choice is a dead giveaway, picking one of the three top choices is almost a dead giveaway.

Not that someone might not cheat in that fashion, particularly the first time. But this is a case of fitting the theory to the evidence. That does next to nothing to bolster the theory itself, and even less to support the charge of cheating.

Quote:
Yes, it is limited. Yes, it may be wrong.


It's crap.

Quote:
What people don't seem to appreciate at all is that this isn't a scholarly discussion about the quality of the evidence, but a decision about how Go will be in the future.

The two are not at odds. Not at all.

Quote:
Making it almost impossible to catch a cheat (all the doubts piled up in this thread do exactly that) will only lead to more cheating and all pervading hypocrisy.

My view is that this is about making it possible to catch cheats. :)
Edit: And not just sow suspicion and distrust.

----

On a slightly different tack, today's top go bots have tactical weaknesses but excel in whole board judgement and what in humans would be called intuition. Humans are quite good at learning such things, largely through imitation. That is why I think that go will experience a flowering in the coming years. I would not at all be surprised in the pros 20 years from now are two or three stones stronger than the pros of today. And they will get there in large part through imitating bots. (By contrast with chess, where engines play differently from humans.) Defining cheating at go as playing like a bot is not only mistaken, it is counterproductive, insofar as it discourages players from imitating bots.

_________________
There is one human race.
----------------------------------------------------

The Adkins Principle:

At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?

— Winona Adkins


Last edited by Bill Spight on Thu Jun 14, 2018 1:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.

This post by Bill Spight was liked by 2 people: Charlie, Joaz Banbeck
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: “Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A
Post #439 Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 1:22 pm 
Honinbo

Posts: 8053
Liked others: 2275
Was liked: 2829
Bojanic wrote:
theoldway wrote:
Actually there are other PGETC players with several games almost completely Leela-like (even some famous and distinguished player). They are all cheaters? Or maybe in hundreds of PGETC games it is possible to observe these coincidences from time to time?

This is the main question we need to answer in the future.

First, others did it is not an excuse.

It is not an excuse. It is an indication that playing like Leela is not the same as cheating.

Quote:
If you meant to prove that others cheated, it would be goodthat you make proper analysis.

(Spelling corrected by me.)

Equating playing like Leela with cheating is not a proper analysis.

_________________
There is one human race.
----------------------------------------------------

The Adkins Principle:

At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?

— Winona Adkins

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: “Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A
Post #440 Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 1:37 pm 
Dies with sente

Posts: 103
Liked others: 20
Was liked: 82
Rank: 5 dan
Regarding top moves in Leela, it is very useful to see how the analysis changes after more variations. Sometimes it changes from A to B, then to another move. In most of times, suggestions change places, meaning that moves B or C xould have been A for a while.
Since Leela analysis is live, you can atop it at any moment.


Last edited by Bojanic on Thu Jun 14, 2018 1:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 720 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 ... 36  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group