It is currently Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:12 pm

 All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]

 Page 34 of 36 [ 720 posts ] Go to page Previous  1 ... 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36  Next
 Print view Previous topic | Next topic
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: “Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A #661 Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 3:01 am
 Lives in sente

Posts: 1257
Liked others: 101
Was liked: 264
jlt wrote:
Personally I am not claiming that anyone is right or wrong, I am just waiting for some strong players to play the "4d vs 6d" game. If Bojanic would like to play the game, then there are three possible outcomes:

• He guesses right most of the time, and never confuses a 4d with a 6d or vice-versa. This would be a strong argument in favor of the validity of his method of analysis.
• He confuses a 6d with a 4d but never a 4d with a 6d. The test is not conclusive.
• He confuses a 4d with a 6d. Then, either Bojanic's method is not accurate, or cheating has already occurred in the past as substitution of players (so maybe cheating in PGETC is much more widespread than we previously thought).

Whatever the outcome, I would find the conclusion interesting.

While the test is interesting, I don't think it looks at the right thing.
More correct would be to get somebody like Uberdude to play 5 games with an opponent. In 2 games he will cheat by using Leela. Can you find out in which games he did that. 5/5 score must be obtained.

_________________

 This post by Javaness2 was liked by: AlesCieply
Top

 Post subject: Re: “Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A #662 Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 3:09 am
 Dies in gote

Posts: 65
Liked others: 31
Was liked: 55
jlt wrote:
It would be nice if Bojanic could play the "4 dan or 6 dan ?" game. I wouldn't expect 100% accuracy, but it would be interesting to check if at least he never confuses a 4 dan with a 6 dan or vice-versa.

Bojanic's analysis is about establishing that Carlo Metta plays quite differently on internet and in his regular games. For the "significant moves" (chosen not to be part of forced sequences) Carlo is much more likely to play in agreement with Leela in his PGETC games than in his regular games. That's what Bojanic's analysis tells us. It has nothing to do with establishing whether he plays as 4d or 6d, though it is understood that Leela is quite a bit stronger than 4d.

Last edited by AlesCieply on Thu Jun 28, 2018 5:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
 This post by AlesCieply was liked by: Hidoshito
Top

 Post subject: Re: “Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A #663 Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 3:13 am
 Dies in gote

Posts: 65
Liked others: 31
Was liked: 55
Javaness2 wrote:
While the test is interesting, I don't think it looks at the right thing.
More correct would be to get somebody like Uberdude to play 5 games with an opponent. In 2 games he will cheat by using Leela. Can you find out in which games he did that. 5/5 score must be obtained.

Exactly!

 This post by AlesCieply was liked by: Gobang
Top

 Post subject: Re: “Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A #664 Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 3:30 am
 Judan

Posts: 6125
Location: Cambridge, UK
Liked others: 350
Was liked: 3299
Rank: UK 4 dan
KGS: Uberdude 4d
OGS: Uberdude 7d
jlt wrote:
I am not talking about kyu players here. Bojanic (5d) as well as other strong players say that it is easy to see from a game if a player is 4d or 6d. In addition, Bojanic can use computer tools to make more accurate analyses. Other people like Uberdude (4d) and Robert Jasiek (5d) think that it is not possible to judge from a single game or from a small number of games.

Actually, I think strong players can do a fairly good job in judging the strength of similar players from their moves (and I was actually impressed how well my wife did on the test, with caveats noted there), but indeed suspect they may not be quite as good as they think, particularly in the case of a 4d playing well or a 6d playing badly (note for my test I didn't look at the games before choosing them so have no idea if any of the 4ds played well or 6ds badly), and small samples are always problematic. I like evidence, and will happily update my views on its production. Lukan (7d) said he'd give it a go, I hope he does.

Gobang wrote:
(I had the nerve a critical comment about it and was slammed for my "negativity").

As the someone who "slammed" Gobang, I'd call that more of a counter-throw than a slam of my initiation as I said "I disagree, though I think your constant repetition of negativity is a waste of time." in response to "So all this is is a waste of time, just like 99% of the babble around the topic of detecting online cheats.". That was said out of frustration of his repeated calls to throw our hands in the air, give up on detecting or preventing cheating (at least attempting in an imperfect way) and just cancel the entire PGETC league (plus demeaning the participants as "kids"). This is despite admitting he is new to serious/tournament Go and the accounts from various people actually involved of how much they value the league (e.g. dsatkas in Greece, quantumf in SA, Simba and me in UK).

Gobang wrote:
It is also questionable to construct this test with online games where there is no way of verifying who was in fact playing.

As for the possibility of the actual player not being the named one, yes it is non-zero and in the ~4500 games played in the history of the league I think it likely some may be so, but the chance it happened in the 14 cases I picked pretty slim, more so because they are from higher leagues so who exactly would the replacement be? Most of the top players of the countries involved participate so either it's: 1) another player on the team, who isn't playing at the same time and they all collude to keep the cheating secret, 2) some secret strong player from their country not in the league or unknown to the Go community, are there many of these? 3) some pro or strong player in Asia?. Also by being from the same event they have the same time controls, seriousness etc (and were easy for me to obtain). If someone else could collect game records from e.g. the EGC and we judge those too it would be interesting, maybe a 4d in 1 hour PGETC game online is generally weaker / plays worse / judged lower than a 4d at the 2.5 hour EGC? How about at the WAGC? Or faster KPMC? Or your average 1 hour game from a 3-a-day McMahon (last game worse from tiredness perhaps?).

Java's proposed test is also an interesting one, I hope someone conducts it (but I'm rather busy atm, and won't be able to work on my extension of Ales's mistake analysis for some time; my hope is that will give typical profiles for 4 and 6 dans, be better at identifying them than humans, and by knowing their variance we can answer questions like how unlikely is it a 4d plays as well as a 6d, or did Dragos play particularly poorly in that game vs Carlo particularly well). A lot of consideration in this thread has been on false positives, false negatives are also important to test for (but perhaps less so if we consider punishing an innocent worse than not punishing a guilty).

Edit: As Ales said, the 4 or 6 dan test isn't really relevant to Bojanic's analysis, it was prompted by the "I'm a strong player and I looked at the game and there's no way that's a 4 dan (even on a good day)" type arguments (which has a side premise of "and we don't think Carlo is really a 6 dan based on the WAGC").

Edit 2:
Gobang wrote:
For this 6d or 4d test to make any sense, then it should be done in the context that it was created. A 6d player played an entire serious game with someone who is allegedly 4d, (but most probably just acting a bot for Leela). The 6d player said that it felt nothing like playing against a 4d.

Then someone decided to construct a "test", apparently for the purpose of showing that this 6d may not be a reliable judge of whether his opponent was 4d or stronger. My perception is that someone, with the intention of calling the 6d player's judgement into doubt created this "test".

My prompt wasn't just the Simba vs Carlo game, but also using the views of strong players looking at other past games of Carlo to decide whether he cheated instead of statistical Leela similarity approaches (e.g. suggested by Lukan). Gobang makes the distinction between the actual person playing the game (Simba most recently, we've not heard from Reem\Dragos\Kulkov etc) vs an observer and that they will be better at detecting the opponent's strength or if they cheated. I agree playing is different to watching, but it's not clear to me the player is a better judge: in Javaness's test we could ask the opponent of the sometimes-cheater as well as observers to identify the cheating games. But also if we are trying to distinguish "4d cheating with Leela beating 6d" and "4d not cheating getting that expected 1 in 10 win against a 6d" we'd need lots more than 5 games. Also I would like to cheekily point out the EGF rank of the 6d mentioned is 3d (though I believe he is at least 5d).

Edit 3:
Gobang wrote:
Getting kyu players to decide if a 6d or 4d was playing, just by looking at the games is obviously absurd.

I'd say fun but irrelevant:
Uberdude wrote:
What threshold should we take as demonstrating the truth of "It easy to tell the difference between a 4 dan and 6 dan"? (for sufficiently strong players, weaker players might like to play this game for fun/interest but them being bad at it doesn't show 6 or 7ds couldn't be good at it, I hope some strong players participate).

Top

 Post subject: Re: “Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A #665 Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 5:18 am
 Gosei

Posts: 1407
Liked others: 695
Was liked: 459
Rank: AGA 3k KGS 1k Fox 1d
GD Posts: 61
KGS: dfan
Javaness2 wrote:
More correct would be to get somebody like Uberdude to play 5 games with an opponent. In 2 games he will cheat by using Leela. Can you find out in which games he did that. 5/5 score must be obtained.

This would tell us something if the subject failed, but I'm not sure if it would tell us anything if the subject succeeded (since one explanation would just be "Uberdude is bad at cheating").

By the way, chess grandmasters have made "my opponent played too strongly for his rating, therefore he was cheating" accusations that have been determined to be incorrect before. Of course, chess is not go.

Top

 Post subject: Re: “Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A #666 Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 6:18 am
 Lives in sente

Posts: 1257
Liked others: 101
Was liked: 264
Yes, I guess we already discussed somewhere here that we have this problem of people genuinely believing somebody has cheated when they haven't cheated. It happens.

In this case, 5 games would probably be a small sample. I suggested it only as a starting point. Probably a 6 player round robin with 1 player assigned as cheater each round would be more interesting. Who is going to have the time for that though? Nobody...

_________________

Top

 Post subject: Re: “Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A #667 Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 6:45 am
 Honinbo

Posts: 8909
Liked others: 2677
Was liked: 3029
Uberdude wrote:
Gobang wrote:
For this 6d or 4d test to make any sense, then it should be done in the context that it was created. A 6d player played an entire serious game with someone who is allegedly 4d, (but most probably just acting a bot for Leela). The 6d player said that it felt nothing like playing against a 4d.

Then someone decided to construct a "test", apparently for the purpose of showing that this 6d may not be a reliable judge of whether his opponent was 4d or stronger. My perception is that someone, with the intention of calling the 6d player's judgement into doubt created this "test".

My prompt wasn't just the Simba vs Carlo game, but also using the views of strong players looking at other past games of Carlo to decide whether he cheated instead of statistical Leela similarity approaches (e.g. suggested by Lukan). Gobang makes the distinction between the actual person playing the game (Simba most recently, we've not heard from Reem\Dragos\Kulkov etc) vs an observer and that they will be better at detecting the opponent's strength or if they cheated. I agree playing is different to watching, but it's not clear to me the player is a better judge: in Javaness's test we could ask the opponent of the sometimes-cheater as well as observers to identify the cheating games. But also if we are trying to distinguish "4d cheating with Leela beating 6d" and "4d not cheating getting that expected 1 in 10 win against a 6d" we'd need lots more than 5 games. Also I would like to cheekily point out the EGF rank of the 6d mentioned is 3d (though I believe he is at least 5d).

I am not very good at judging the strength of another player, either from observing them or playing them. That in part has to do with my psychology, in two ways. First, I don't really care. Second, I tend to raise the level of my game to meet a challenge.

That said, I do think that it is easier to tell any difference while playing a game. Perhaps it has to do with really getting into the game and understanding the play as well as you can, perhaps it has to do with the time involved. In Uberdude's test I am not going to take an hour or two for each game to make the effort.

But looking back on the few games in which I have felt outgunned, in each game, aside from that feeling, I could point to at most a few plays, usually only one, that gave me that feeling. So just because someone has a feeling that their opponent played much better than expected, I also want to know which plays gave rise to that feeling. (I know that that is not always possible. Sometimes you suddenly realize that you are losing and you don't know why. )

_________________

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

The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet.

Top

 Post subject: Re: “Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A #668 Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 6:48 am
 Honinbo

Posts: 8909
Liked others: 2677
Was liked: 3029
dfan wrote:
By the way, chess grandmasters have made "my opponent played too strongly for his rating, therefore he was cheating" accusations that have been determined to be incorrect before. Of course, chess is not go.

I seems to me that at present it is easier to detect cheating at chess than go. Give us ten years, though.

_________________

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

The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet.

 This post by Bill Spight was liked by: Gobang
Top

 Post subject: Re: “Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A #669 Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 6:56 am
 Honinbo

Posts: 8909
Liked others: 2677
Was liked: 3029
dfan wrote:
Javaness2 wrote:
More correct would be to get somebody like Uberdude to play 5 games with an opponent. In 2 games he will cheat by using Leela. Can you find out in which games he did that. 5/5 score must be obtained.

This would tell us something if the subject failed, but I'm not sure if it would tell us anything if the subject succeeded (since one explanation would just be "Uberdude is bad at cheating").

If we are going to make progress at detecting cheating, we need to have verified cases of cheating for our research. The only way to get a large number of verified cases is to have games in which people cheat on purpose for the sake of the research. (OC, the other players must be in on the fact that their opponent may be cheating.)

_________________

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

The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet.

Top

 Post subject: Re: “Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A #670 Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 7:40 am
 Judan

Posts: 6125
Location: Cambridge, UK
Liked others: 350
Was liked: 3299
Rank: UK 4 dan
KGS: Uberdude 4d
OGS: Uberdude 7d
Bill Spight wrote:
That said, I do think that it is easier to tell any difference while playing a game. Perhaps it has to do with really getting into the game and understanding the play as well as you can, perhaps it has to do with the time involved. In Uberdude's test I am not going to take an hour or two for each game to make the effort.

 This post by Uberdude was liked by: Bill Spight
Top

 Post subject: Re: “Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A #671 Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 9:47 am
 Lives with ko

Posts: 136
Liked others: 26
Was liked: 89
Rank: 5 dan
Fenring wrote:
Thanks for the anlalysis Bogdan.
But maybe better to follow the same process with others european player to have a comparaison point?

My name is Milos Bojanic, not Bogdan, and I already explained here as well as in paper update: in preliminary analysis I checked all games from A league and qualifications. Some ten games looked suspicious in deviations histogram,
After more detailed analysis, some were fismissed, and two with most similarities are presented here.

 This post by Bojanic was liked by: Hidoshito
Top

 Post subject: Re: “Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A #672 Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 9:54 am
 Lives with ko

Posts: 136
Liked others: 26
Was liked: 89
Rank: 5 dan
jlt wrote:
It would be nice if Bojanic could play the "4 dan or 6 dan ?" game. I wouldn't expect 100% accuracy, but it would be interesting to check if at least he never confuses a 4 dan with a 6 dan or vice-versa.

For what purposes, except for derailment of this research?
We are not discussing 4 or 6d diff at all, but diff to program that plays very consistent. And that analysis is not performed by me, but by same program.

 This post by Bojanic was liked by 2 people: Gobang, Hidoshito
Top

 Post subject: Re: “Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A #673 Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 9:58 am
 Dies in gote

Posts: 31
Liked others: 3
Was liked: 7
Rank: 5 kyu
Bojanic wrote:
My name is Milos Bojanic, not Bogdan, and I already explained here as well as in paper update: in preliminary analysis I checked all games from A league and qualifications. Some ten games looked suspicious in deviations histogram,
After more detailed analysis, some were fismissed, and two with most similarities are presented here.

How many time did you spend analyzing each move? How many nodes? I think we need at least 200k nodes per move in order to obtain a reliable deviation histogram, and there will be still many sources of error (some good moves are found after that limit). That requires something like 45 days of calculation on a good hardware, or 1 year in a normal pc.

You need also to produce this histogram for any available strong bot, they are like a dozen right now

Top

 Post subject: Re: “Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A #674 Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 10:48 am
 Honinbo

Posts: 8909
Liked others: 2677
Was liked: 3029
bugsti wrote:
Bojanic wrote:
My name is Milos Bojanic, not Bogdan, and I already explained here as well as in paper update: in preliminary analysis I checked all games from A league and qualifications. Some ten games looked suspicious in deviations histogram,
After more detailed analysis, some were fismissed, and two with most similarities are presented here.

How many time did you spend analyzing each move? How many nodes? I think we need at least 200k nodes per move in order to obtain a reliable deviation histogram, and there will be still many sources of error (some good moves are found after that limit). That requires something like 45 days of calculation on a good hardware, or 1 year in a normal pc.

You need also to produce this histogram for any available strong bot, they are like a dozen right now

IMO, our current bots are not good enough. They may play at a superhuman level, despite making blunders, but they were optimized for play, not for evaluation and analysis. (Even though they make use of evaluation. That's not all it takes to play well at the time limits in use. Their evaluation just has to be good enough to play well. )

_________________

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

The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet.

Top

 Post subject: Re: “Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A #675 Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 12:23 pm
 Lives with ko

Posts: 136
Liked others: 26
Was liked: 89
Rank: 5 dan
bugsti wrote:
How many time did you spend analyzing each move? How many nodes? I think we need at least 200k nodes per move in order to obtain a reliable deviation histogram, and there will be still many sources of error (some good moves are found after that limit). That requires something like 45 days of calculation on a good hardware, or 1 year in a normal pc.

You need also to produce this histogram for any available strong bot, they are like a dozen right now

Ah, you just came up with 12 Herculean tasks of AI go.
Good idea how to stop investigation, too bad it does not work.

Deviations histograms were actually pretty similar for quick analysis, and for 50k and 200k.
Quick analysis is preliminary screen, and it serves only to select games for further analysis. Games with similar deviations were then analyzed in greater details, especially tenuki moves.

No need to analyze all moves in all games in 1m variations in all programs that even did not exist then.

Top

 Post subject: Re: “Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A #676 Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 1:02 pm
 Dies in gote

Posts: 31
Liked others: 3
Was liked: 7
Rank: 5 kyu
Bojanic wrote:
Ah, you just came up with 12 Herculean tasks of AI go.
Good idea how to stop investigation, too bad it does not work.

I heard from one of top team that the final ranking is approved. They send invitation to EGC for PGETC finals to the 4 top team. I guees that case is over for EGF officials.

Top

 Post subject: Re: “Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A #677 Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 1:23 pm
 Lives in sente

Posts: 1257
Liked others: 101
Was liked: 264
bugsti wrote:
Bojanic wrote:
Ah, you just came up with 12 Herculean tasks of AI go.
Good idea how to stop investigation, too bad it does not work.

I heard from one of top team that the final ranking is approved. They send invitation to EGC for PGETC finals to the 4 top team. I guees that case is over for EGF officials.

No. This would not preclude an appeal

_________________

Top

 Post subject: Re: “Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A #678 Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 1:38 pm
 Dies in gote

Posts: 31
Liked others: 3
Was liked: 7
Rank: 5 kyu
Javaness2 wrote:

No. This would not preclude an appeal

But I understood that a penalty or disqualification would exchange ranking between Poland and Romania. So how can the top 4 teams play under an open ruling? Am I missing something here?

Top

 Post subject: Re: “Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A #679 Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 1:55 pm
 Gosei

Posts: 1989
Location: Groningen, NL
Liked others: 198
Was liked: 1069
Rank: Dutch 4D
GD Posts: 645
Universal go server handle: herminator
Javaness2 wrote:
bugsti wrote:
Bojanic wrote:
Ah, you just came up with 12 Herculean tasks of AI go.
Good idea how to stop investigation, too bad it does not work.

I heard from one of top team that the final ranking is approved. They send invitation to EGC for PGETC finals to the 4 top team. I guees that case is over for EGF officials.

No. This would not preclude an appeal

The PGETC rules on the site have the following to say about appeals, in section 3.3:

PGETC rules wrote:
In case of differences during or after a game, first of all the captains should try to solve the problem. If no solution is found the responsible league manager should be consulted who will decide. Against this decision it is possible for a team captain to escalate the case by involving the appeals commission. The decision of the appeals commission is final

The EGF General Tournament Rules have the following to say about appeals, in section 7.1:

EGF Tournament rules wrote:
The arbitration procedure used to resolve disputes has three levels of operation: the referee, the appeals committee, and the EGF rules commission. A player with a dispute refers the matter to the referee in the first instance. The dispute may then be referred to the next level up if either player is not satisfied with the judgement or its reasoning. The next level may reject to resume a case if it considers the preceding instance's judgement and reasoning obviously right and just.

It then goes on to say in section 7.5

EGF Tournament rules wrote:
If a player in dispute disagrees with the decision of the appeals committee, the matter must be referred to the EGF rules commission for consideration after the end of the tournament. If the dispute affects titles or prizes, the tournament director cannot declare winners or present prizes until the EGF rules commission has given a final judgement on the matter.

Also, importantly, the EGF tournament rules specify the following in section 1.1

EGF Tournament rules wrote:
These are the general tournament rules of the European Go Federation (EGF) and are used in the tournaments of the EGF. The following rulesets apply:
1. These General Tournament Rules.
2. The Tournament System Rules of the EGF.
3. The event's own Particular Tournament Rules specifying details or variations to the General Tournament Rules.

Point 3 seems relevant here. The event's own rules specify that the decision of the appeals committee is final. If we interpret that as a variation to the EGF general tournament rules, then there is no further avenue for appeal. If we think the EGF rules cannot be altered on this issue and keep superceding the the PGETC rules, then there is a possible appeal to the rules committee, and no winners can be declared, nor prizes awarded. (This appeal would have to come from the Israeli team, BTW. Neither rules allow outsiders to appeal AFAICS)

There seems to be no specific stipulation of how much time is allowed for an appeal (mostly, I think, because these rules are very much written for over the board tournaments, where there's a next round coming up and everything needs to happen a.s.a.p)

 This post by HermanHiddema was liked by 2 people: AlesCieply, Bojanic
Top

 Post subject: Re: “Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A #680 Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 2:54 pm
 Dies in gote

Posts: 45
Liked others: 31
Was liked: 18
Rank: 2kyu
Many thanks to those who took the time to read and reply to my post.

I hope the discussion continues in a constructive way without derailments.

Top

 Display posts from previous: All posts1 day7 days2 weeks1 month3 months6 months1 year Sort by AuthorPost timeSubject AscendingDescending
 Page 34 of 36 [ 720 posts ] Go to page Previous  1 ... 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36  Next

 All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]

#### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

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

Search for:
 Jump to:  Select a forum ------------------ Life In 19x19.com General Topics    Introductions and Guidelines    Off Topic    Announcements    General Go Chat    Beginners    Amateurs    Professionals       Lee Sedol vs Gu Li    Go Rules    Forum/Site Suggestions and Bugs    Creative writing    Tournaments       Ride share to tournaments Improve Your Game    Game Analysis    Study Group    Teachers/Club Leaders       Teacher advertisements    Study Journals L19²GO (Malkovich)    1-on-1 Malkovich games    Big Brother Malkovich games    Rengo Games    Other versions of turn-based games Go Gear    Go Books    Go Book Reviews    Computer Go    Gobans and other equipment    Trading Post    New Products/Upgrades/Sales Go Club Forums    Go Club Discussions       Honinbo Go League    American Go Association Forum       Go Congress 2011 volunteers       AGA volunteers ( non-congress)    Australian Go Association    European Go Federation Forum    Singapore Weiqi Association    KGS    ASR League    IGS    OGS    Tygem    WBaduk    Turn Based Servers    Insei League Events    Kaya.gs       King of the Hill