Simba wrote:
I challenge you {Fenring} to find another situation in any of Metta's online games, PGETC or otherwise, played between the release of 0.11, and the date the cheating accusation was first made where the following criteria are met:
1) We are in the endgame. Let's say move > 150 as a guideline.
2) Leela 0.11's best move shows a significant victory for side A.
3) Leela 0.11 has at least one move that incorrectly shows a significant defeat for side A, and Leela 0.11 does not see that it is incorrect until manually shown the refutation.
4) Leela Zero correctly finds the refutation, and recommends the incorrect move itself as its first choice.
Surely you can see that those criteria, which are all met here, are needle-in-haystack. No one is going to sit there to find something like that. You'd also have to be very strong to find something like this because you'd need to meet criteria 3, i.e. you need to find the refutation, or explore extensively with Leela Zero trying to find blind spots in each position in Leela 0.11. The time required here is immense. In comparison, actually checking the presence of such a move that meets the criteria, if you're told where to look, is very, very easy.
As I have said, IMO, the Leela 11 vs. Leela Zero question is a distraction engineered by the anonymous accuser. But out of respect for Simba let me present a plausible scenario by which he could have found the play and discrepancy.
Suppose that anonymous accuser plays over this game using Leela 11 to look for evidence of cheating. When he gets to move 156, uh-oh!
, not only did Metta not copy Leela 11, he found a better play. Perhaps Metta cheated using Leela Zero. So the anonymous accuser sics Leela Zero on move 156 and Leela Zero recommends Metta's move. Voila!
Then, being a better propagandist than I, the anonymous accuser realizes that he can make hay out of the discrepancy between Leela 11 and Leela Zero, and publishes his post or reddit.
Anyway, no needle in a haystack scenario is required to explain what happened.