Hello jlt,
thank you for constructive contribution to this topic.
jlt wrote:
A few observations on Bojanic's analysis. For the game Carlo Metta – Reem Ben David, he analyzed middle game tenuki moves 51, 59, 65, 87, 97, 101.
Just to note - fighting sequences in between are also analyzed.
Tenuki moves are interesting for research because they are not forced.
Quote:
[*] I still have Champion Go 1.1.4 on my smartphone. This program is quite weak compared to Leela or to the two players, probably at most 5k EGF. Among these 6 moves, it found move 65, so we can assume that Carlo Metta could easily find move 65 by himself.
It is possible, of course, but we are taking into account several tenuki moves and fighting sequences.
He could have found one (although in WAGC he failed to find any), but almost every move to be similar to top choice is too much of coincidence.
Quote:
[*] If we want to make Bojanic's method more scientific, we should give a precise definition of tenuki that a computer could check. I don't know if this has already been done, but in any case I am not able at the moment to provide such a definition.
It is certainly a bit subjective, but I think that definition that it could be a move that is played without a contact with previous group of stones.
Quote:
[*] Find at least 100 random online games played before the existence of strong AI, with sufficiently long time settings (no blitz), and with both players being mid-dan. For each of these games, determine the number of "non obvious moves", and how many of these are Leela's suggestions.
Finding a good sample of games would be a problem, especially if player is improving.
In last year, for Metta we have only records of 2 live games, and less than 10 internet (of which half could not be used in analysis).
Quote:
[*] More important than solving this particular case is to design a scientific method to prevent future cheating. We don't know for sure if cheating has already occurred in online or OTB tournaments, but we know that cheating will occur in the future. Cheating discovered by statistical methods can justify at least that a match be replayed and monitored, while someone found guilty of using a hidden electronic device should be banned from tournaments for several years.
Please note that in this situation we have two games where there are almost complete similarities in middle game with Leela, and it is very difficult to prove without reasonable doubt.
How could you prove if someone used program only for one fighting? Or to analyze his moves. It is impossible.
Quote:
[*] In online tournaments, if matches are not monitored or recorded by webcams, it will always be possible to cheat in a subtle way, like using a strong software just once or twice during the game. This will be undetected by statistical methods, just like when athletes are injected just enough EPO/growth hormone/testosterone/whatever so that their blood or urine analysis looks normal; these athletes should be considered innocent until material proof is found.
I don't think that camera is enough, esp if player has help. We have seen player in China who cheated in live game, which is substantially more difficult.
Player could open window, or on his phone, and watch online game analysis.
Or receive moves via message system.