“Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A”

[Bojanic]

Yes, but as I wrote, this is first such case and it is difficult to find good approach.
Statistics is not good enough.
To some strong players, case is immediately clear. But it is difficult to put what you feel into words.

[frmor]

Hello to everybody,

I am one of the authors of the appeal. I wrote most of the statistics parts in the document.
Here I speak only as a statistician, not on behalf of the other authors, or as Carlo's defense.

Bill,
I analyzed, with some help from friends, critical moves in Carlo's suspicious games and in his wagc games. It clearly shows different level of play. In live games, Carlo is not able to play so strong. In online, most of his moves match Leelas top choice. Dramatic difference!

It will take me few days to write this report, you will have chance to see it here.

Please take care of a couple of things if you want to do this analysis in the right way.

1) Do not take a small arbitrary number of live games to make the confrontation. In particular, the recent games of WAGC were played in few days in a single tournament, with stronger opponents and after the initial accusation. If you show that Carlo was weaker in those games, well... you just proved that he was weaker in those games. Could be for the pressure after unjust accusations, for the jet lag, because the food gave him stomach ache... anything.

2) The correct way to proceed would be to find all the available live games by Carlo of the last years (I think 2 years should do) and analyze all of them or at least a randomly chosen subset. You should provide evidence that the subset was randomly chosen, of course.

3) If you are not using a measurable quantity, but expert opinion, you should use more than one expert. You should let the experts analyze the games without them knowing which ones are from live games and which ones are from online games and without them knowing whether Carlo played white or black. Moreover, you should secretly give them also some random live games by other players of similar level as a control group.

The above may not be enough, but should lower quite a bit the possibility of false positive. I recommend you to ask assistance of an expert in statistics before you start, or as soon as possible. And to be honest with yourself if the conclusion does not match your expectations.

I am friend with Carlo and I do not believe that he may ever cheat playing go, but I am no expert of human beings, so I won't speak about his situation of honest player unjustly accused. But I am an expert in statistics. As such I am much more afraid of the future situations similar to this one, because I know for sure that if any of the methodologies I have seen proposed here are systematically used in the future, a lot of honest players will have to go through unjust accusations, unjust conviction and unjust shame and humiliation.

--
Francesco Morandin -- frmor.net
Department of Mathematical, Physical and Computer Sciences
Parma University -- sfmi.unipr.it

To call in the statistician after the experiment is done may be
no more than asking him to perform a post-mortem examination:
he may be able to say what the experiment died of. (R.A. Fisher)

[John Fairbairn]

Statistics is not good enough.

I have gleaned the impression that statistics may not be good enough definitively to prove cheating but are always good enough to prove a charge of cheating based on a given set of statistics may be unsound. (Correct, Bill?)

So you seem to be saying that, given your statistics don't work, you'll use suspicions instead.

To some strong players, case is immediately clear. But it is difficult to put what you feel into words.

Which strong players? All European amateurs are laughably weak. Or to put it another way, if go players were doctors I wouldn't go near a European amateur, and I'd only go to an EGF pro in case of hopeless desperation.

Don't get me wrong. Your suspicions may be justified, and at the very least something strange clearly happened to arouse those suspicions. But I think you need to understand that you cannot ban someone on grounds of suspicion alone. There are more important things in life than go, justice being one of them.

Otherwise, we'd have to conclude society has apparently not moved on much since the Salem witches were burnt on grounds of suspicion by people who were practising Christians (i.e. thought they were "strong" players). But at least, as I recall the story, some of these Christians had the decency to admit later that they were paranoid and wrong.

[Bill Spight]

Statistics is not good enough.

I have gleaned the impression that statistics may not be good enough definitively to prove cheating but are always good enough to prove a charge of cheating based on a given set of statistics may be unsound. (Correct, Bill?)

I used to be promising in statistics. As an undergraduate, when the prof was in the hospital he had me teach the class for two weeks. These days I am rusty, but I could tell that the statistical evidence in this case was weak.

So you seem to be saying that, given your statistics don't work, you'll use suspicions instead.

Based upon suspicion, he is examining the game records for evidence of different levels of play under different conditions. A kind of forensic analysis.

To some strong players, case is immediately clear. But it is difficult to put what you feel into words.

Which strong players? All European amateurs are laughably weak. Or to put it another way, if go players were doctors I wouldn't go near a European amateur, and I'd only go to an EGF pro in case of hopeless desperation.

Besides that, we do not have any cases at that level of play where analysis of game records has detected cheating. (We do at the weak kyu level, I believe.) It may be that consensus of some number of top amateurs is good enough.

But let the case be made.

Otherwise, we'd have to conclude society has apparently not moved on much since the Salem witches were burnt on grounds of suspicion by people who were practising Christians (i.e. thought they were "strong" players). But at least, as I recall the story, some of these Christians had the decency to admit later that they were paranoid and wrong.

IIRC, Cotton Mather was always skeptical of "spectral evidence". Even so, given the beliefs of the time, spectral evidence was not just suspicion.

[Kirby]

If I were Carlo, and if I were innocent, I would probably try to explain the reasoning behind whatever questionable moves people have found from analyzing the games. If a strong player pointed out a move and said that "this is above Carlo's strength, and comes from Leela", I would explain my thought process and why I thought the move was correct. I'd explain how it came from my own strategy, and what other moves I as considering.

Maybe I have different personality than Carlo. Or maybe he just doesn't want to make matters worse by being vocal.

But anyway, that's what I'd do in this situation if I were innocent.

[Bill Spight]

If I were Carlo, and if I were innocent, I would probably try to explain the reasoning behind whatever questionable moves people have found from analyzing the games. If a strong player pointed out a move and said that "this is above Carlo's strength, and comes from Leela", I would explain my thought process and why I thought the move was correct. I'd explain how it came from my own strategy, and what other moves I as considering.

Maybe I have different personality than Carlo. Or maybe he just doesn't want to make matters worse by being vocal.

But anyway, that's what I'd do in this situation if I were innocent.

Unfortunately, in this world when you explain yourself you give your critics something to attack. As your lawyer I would advise you to hold your tongue.

[Charlie]

If I were Carlo, and if I were innocent, I would probably try to explain...

That would be my first instinct, too, but I would hope and pray that someone wiser and calmer than I would convince me not to try. I think that a lot of people have already formed their opinions on the matter and any explanation or statement of any kind would be attacked severely.

Unfortunately, in this world when you explain yourself you give your critics something to attack. As your lawyer I would advise you to hold your tongue.

Indeed, we have already observed this with the two records of Metta v. Shakhov.

[Kirby]

I suppose so. But still, silence speaks something as well, in my opinion. Explaining your innocence and being shot down by critics seems more credible to me than saying nothing.

Maybe it's because I already formed an opinion, though.

I guess it's impossible to be objective...

[sorin]

Which strong players? All European amateurs are laughably weak. Or to put it another way, if go players were doctors I wouldn't go near a European amateur, and I'd only go to an EGF pro in case of hopeless desperation.

The gap between EGF (or AGA) pros and top Asian pros is similar to the gap between top Asian pros and AlphaGo.
By that measure, your best doctor is a computer

[Gobang]

As a general comment I find this topic and discussion rather ugly and at times pointless. Let the kids play, but don't attach any undue importance to their games. Arguing about whether someone has cheated in an online game is pointless because at the end of the day the only person who truly knows is the player.

And as a more specific comment, I find your tone unduly dismissive The vast majority of the players in the PGETC are adults, not children, so why demean them? As for how much importance to attach to them, shouldn't players be able to choose? I place more value on them than most of my real life tournament games (mostly against low dans) because they are a rare opportunity for serious games against strong players. Strong players on the continent with more such opportunities likely values this aspect less. I also think it's a nice event to encourage European camaraderie.

I think cheating is wrong and we should try to prevent it, but also as you say at the end of the day the only person who really knows is the accused and it may be we can't made a useful detection system with a low enough false positive rate. However, I am aware that fears of people cheating have reduced the enthusiasm for the league of some players, so if it is to remain viable strong action against cheating is needed. Personally, if I play 6 games a season and 1 of them is bot-cheating (which I think is quite a lot higher percentage than we have now or will soon), I'd prefer that to cancelling the league entirely, a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater imo. Making the games unrated again would be reasonable though.

Thanks for your well considered comment. If my tone was dismissive it was not meant to demean any particular player(s), but rather to express annoyance and frustration with the situation as a whole.

If players still enjoy the online league and wish to continue playing in spite of the problems, then it is entirely up to them. I will say that if I was responsible for the administration of such a league and was faced with a problem of the magnitude of the cheating affair being discussed here, then I would be very sorely tempted to cancel the entire competition on the basis that it is impossible to ensure fair play.

Putting time and effort into constructing a cheat detection system seems like an endeavor worthy of Sisyphus.

Making the games unrated is an obvious step.

[Bill Spight]

I guess it's impossible to be objective...

It's certainly difficult.

But it is possible and, I think, worthwhile to think about things from the perspective of the other side. (When playing go, as well. )

That's not advice. I think you do that.

[Kirby]

That's not advice. I think you do that.

Certainly not enough. It's a good point, and I hope to try to consider opposing viewpoints more.

I recently read Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman, and near the end, he discusses what he refers to as "cargo cult science" - kind of like being "scientific" to prove your own opinion.

It's always good to consider different viewpoints and to try to prove your own viewpoint wrong.

In the current case, I acknowledge that both the possibility of cheating and of innocence exist.

[Gobang]

That's not advice. I think you do that.

Certainly not enough. It's a good point, and I hope to try to consider opposing viewpoints more.
/quote]

I feel like that in this particular case, as in many others, no view is the best view.

"The Buddha of the early discourses often refers to the negative effect of attachment to speculative or fixed views, dogmatic opinions, or even correct views if not known to be true by personal verification."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_(Buddhism)

[Bill Spight]

That's not advice. I think you do that.

Certainly not enough. It's a good point, and I hope to try to consider opposing viewpoints more.
/quote]

I feel like that in this particular case, as in many others, no view is the best view.

"The Buddha of the early discourses often refers to the negative effect of attachment to speculative or fixed views, dogmatic opinions, or even correct views if not known to be true by personal verification."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_(Buddhism)

Cease to cherish opinions.

[Javaness2]

Concerning only the rating development of CM

The overall picture can be seen at http://www.europeangodatabase.eu/EGD/Pl ... y=14713996.
CM's first rated event was back in 2007, and he progressed rapidly upward in strength until about 2010 by which time he was at 2 dan. In 2014 he played less, the record shows only 4 rated events, one of which was the PGETC. From 2015 his rating starts to climb again. See table of year end ratings for exact figures.

A non neglible number of his tournaments are online: Examples: 2017 (2), 2016(4), 2015(2), 2014(1*)
In his last 6 internet tournaments he always gained rating points. Notably
"2016-2017 Pandanet European Team Go Championship, League B" in this year long event he gained 31 points. If it were class A it would be 62 points.
Adding the play-off game the gain was 38 points.

Is this out of kilter with other results, or indeed his overall rating development? Not obviously, for example.

2016 European Congress he gained 13 points
2017 European Congress he gained 50 points.

Indeed since the 2015 Italian Championship, he has (Counting EGC as 1 event) lost points in tournaments only twice.

In the 2018 WAGC he gained in reality no points. Without the default over France his rating change was 0 points.

You can key in the results of the latest PGETC season to the EGF calculator yourself. Yes, CM won a lot of points there. Is it particularly suspicious? To me, not obviously so. CM's rating shows mostly that he continues to progress in strength. Yes, it is harder to get stronger as your rating gets higher, but to counter, people have good tournament performances from time to time.

This does not show that he was cheating.
This does not show that he was not cheating.
It is just a simple, and probably shallow, overview of his rating development.

Code: Select all

Year End
2017	2396
2016	2327
2015	2274
2014	2230
2013	2267
2012	2301
2011	2280
2010	2260