Perhaps Bill's point is that in some situations, it may happen that moves A and B have similar winrates, but A is much more bot-like than B.

I got 10/12. In the last 4 examples I found it much easier to determine the better move and so I would only think the bot played the other move for some statistical win probability maximizing reason. But it didn't.

Now I admit, what's the point here? Me calling out the bot move 10/12 doesn't say a lot I guess. Suppose more people can do it, what does that prove? That this forum has good insight in what bots play? That this forum is strong on average? What kind of benchmark is this establishing?

Suppose more people can do it, what does that prove? That this forum has good insight in what bots play?

It proves how one can get to 10.000 posts while knowing he does not know while others not knowing he knows that.

Adin, what is your view of the Carlo Metta cases from the PGETC?

And of Blackstone's principle that


What do you think the correct ratio is for AI cheating is in Go. I think it is reasonable to differ from that for say the crime of murder and the punishment of lenghty imprisonment or execution. But we shouldn't neglect the reputational damage of declaring someone an AI cheater, indeed I would be happy with a lower standard of evidence against an anonymous online account than one linked to a known human individual.

Robert seems to think that ratio is infinity to 1. The US justice prison system seems to think it's flipped at 1 to 10. My first feeling is maybe a bit lower than Blackstone's, say 5 to 1, is an appropriate target to design for. What do others think is a suitable one for Go cheating?

We really need automated detection but I heard of nobody working on that.

A few months ago I played a game on another server than KGS. I got crushed. Looking at opponent user info his latest about one hundred games were all wins. He had skyrocketed from a very stable 2k to 4d and showed no sign of stopping. I contacted the server administration and they won't do anything since there is no policy regarding AI cheating. And meanwhile instead of complaining or taking action people get into the most abstract philosophical discussions involving 0.5% win rate. Oh well.

I just checked the KGS TOS at http://gokgs.com/tos.jsp. Although it says "Dishonest play during rated games." is not allowed, it says nothing specifically against using bots, just prohibits "Having other people play rated games for you".

If you're not careful, you're going to have more posts about Bill's posts than about what you actually want to discuss. Put away your anger for a moment will you? I wouldn't be confident in the refereeing of a person so easily aroused.

Using an AI as a human player in rated games does qualify as dishonest play. But it is certainly a good suggestion to add it specifically, I will bring that up.

There are many openly AI enhanced players on KGS now, I haven't noticed anyone removing their rank. So I am not sure that you are right about that.

I look at it as saying that some robbers are taking away our goods and we should do something about it. And then someone else talks for hours about whether a robber usually wears a hoodie or just a simple shirt, and do they use Android or IPhones etc etc. These things are totally irrelevant, a robber is that guy with YOUR phone in his hand.

Using an AI as a human player in rated games does qualify as dishonest play. But it is certainly a good suggestion to add it specifically, I will bring that up.

If you care about something then you are passionate about it. I look at it as saying that some robbers are taking away our goods and we should do something about it. And then someone else talks for hours about whether a robber usually wears a hoodie or just a simple shirt, and do they use Android or IPhones etc etc. These things are totally irrelevant, a robber is that guy with YOUR phone in his hand.

And of Blackstone's principle that


What do you think the correct ratio is for AI cheating is in Go. I think it is reasonable to differ from that for say the crime of murder and the punishment of lenghty imprisonment or execution. But we shouldn't neglect the reputational damage of declaring someone an AI cheater, indeed I would be happy with a lower standard of evidence against an anonymous online account than one linked to a known human individual.

Robert seems to think that ratio is infinity to 1. The US justice prison system seems to think it's flipped at 1 to 10. My first feeling is maybe a bit lower than Blackstone's, say 5 to 1, is an appropriate target to design for. What do others think is a suitable one for Go cheating?

In 1970 George Akerlof published "The Market for Lemons" on the economic costs of dishonesty and the negative effects on markets. The paper won him the 2001 Nobel prize. Go servers represent such markets where people gather to exchange entertainment services. The ability of some players to cheat, for whatever reason, does reduce the average experience of the more honest players and makes the servers less attractive.

I'd posit there's two types of cheaters: people who just run the bot and destroy their opponent, who want to play the best move every move. And people who want to get away with cheating, who spot check for blunders or the occasional tricky move, but who are savvy enough to not blindly play clearly bot sequences.

I really don't think you'll catch the latter group with anything short of monitoring. And again, if you have an algorithm that detects bot moves, you can train a bot that doesn't play those moves.

In a lot of ways, though, I think it's the former group that's the bigger problem because it's more visible. If people are complaining that the 9-dan ranks are all bots, that's a perception of a widespread problem. But I think Spinal Tap can point us to a helpful counter-measure: make it go to 11! Bots are better than us at Go. Let the cheaters raise up to a rank above us humans and play amongst themselves.