Javaness2 wrote:
This post from reddit strikes me as a crock of shite.
Yes, CM could have cheated, but then why tell people about it. Is the allegation that the entire Italian squad was complicit, if so then doesn't that strike you as slightly beyond belief.
People who have done wrong often confide in someone, to ease the burden on their own conscience. This is extremely common. No, I don't think the entire Italian squad was complicit. I think CM is the only one who has done wrong here. His teammate came forward and spoke up, albeit after a short delay, because it was playing on his conscience. That's fine - I forgive them for the delay. They didn't keep it quiet forever.
Javaness2 wrote:
Yes okay, Leela 11 and Leela Zero differences exist, but so what? Why would CM want to cheat with the obselete Leela 11 in the first place? Why not pick 1 of many strong LZ networks?
He did pick one of the strong LZ networks - and not the most up-to-date one, because that would be too obvious. If he was accused of cheating, he could (and was planning on) pointing at move 156 as proof he wasn't. If he was accused of cheating
with Leela Zero, then of course this wouldn't have worked. But having such a quick first line of defence on hand for a general "we think you are still cheating" accusation would've been powerful.
Bill Spight wrote:
Also, in your game vs. Metta, if Black 157 descends, White can win the resulting semeai. The play is pretty much a one lane road, so is within the capabilities of a European 4 dan.
This isn't relevant. If he'd been playing for himself, I'm sure he'd have seen it - I certainly saw it, that's why I didn't descend. No one is contesting this. We all can see that it works. What is far more interesting and not at all obvious is what Leela 0.11 and Leela Zero say about it. There is no easy way of finding that this move is such an unlikely and critical blind spot (see criteria 1-4 below). You can check it when told, and check that the refutation when entered manually does make Leela 0.11 see sense, sure, but that's so different from finding it for yourself.
Fenring wrote:
What i dont understand is why it would be a very difficult task for a malicious person to produce such a statement?(Np-problem)
All he have to do is to check the Carlo's moves where Leela 0.11 and Leela Zero disagree? check the moves "Leela 11 says it is very bad move but Leela Zero says it is super so he plays it", i dont know how many of them exists,and on which metrics it is based(top 3 choice,Winrate variation) but it doesn't matter,we are clearly not in a situation "impossible to find,easy to check" like PvsNp problem.
I refer you back to PF137's post here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/baduk/comments ... d/e0c509f/. If you play this way, Leela 0.11 believes it's going to lose until manually shown the refutation. That is a pretty big thing that could be pointed to as proof that "I didn't cheat, see, look, Leela says it would lose if I did that". Leela 0.11's suggested move wins the game. This is in the endgame too.
I challenge you 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.
Jan.van.Rongen wrote:
Simba wrote:
As it happens, the move in question (156) was Leela 0.11's third choice, ...
What does that show? Nothing IMO.
For the 5 alternatives White has for this move (h19, J-19-J16) 3 win the game if my analysis is correct. J18 played by Metta is a well known shape move. It is not even too difficult to see that it works when you notice the dame zumari of Blacks bigger dragon.
Lol, what are you talking about? The person that I quoted was harpering on about the whole top-3 Leela thing from ages ago, and how he would, as part of his finding of such a move, exclude top-3 moves by Leela. When in fact the move demonstrated was in the top 3 Leela 0.11 chose. Don't try to use what I've said out of context.
Jan.van.Rongen wrote:
You are a 3 dan who lost to a 4 dan. What's wrong with that? Why put up a show how you let your team down etc. ? Your only "evidence" that white cheated is an unnamed person that made some remarks on reddit.
My only evidence? Please read through the rest of the thread and the other analyses that people have provided.
I apologise in advance if the next section comes off as arrogant; I'm simply trying to state things factually here.
I'm not 3-dan. I'm 6-dan on KGS, and routinely chew up 4d players without any issue (in fact I do paid teaching for players up to 3d level). I've won every game I've played in PGETC (the tournament that these games are part of) for the past two years, and beat the British champion in fairly serious games with mid-long time limits last year 5-0, albeit with one win on time (he's 4-5d). I attempted to reset to 5-dan before the PGETC league started, but the league organiser didn't allow it, so I'm stuck with an outdated EGF rating and beat the stuffing out of most people I get put against on the lowest board (because the boards are forcibly ordered by rating, as per PGETC rules, and my country has several people with a higher EGF rating than me). I've beaten professionals on even before several times and don't feel out of my depth against them.
EGF ratings are completely unsuitable for players who are primarily online-based. It's impossible to get an accurate reflection of someone's skill from half a dozen games per year in a rating system. But that's one hell of a large topic, and one that we shouldn't get distracted by here. My last face-to-face tournament was in 2016, and I lost two games from lol-nonsense in byo-yomi from clearly winning positions because I'm not used to playing in that setting. Perhaps in over-the-board play, while I remain rusty at it, and that's unlikely to change in the near future, I'd only be 3-4d, but online? I give 2-3 stones to those players.
The gap between 4d and 6d is enormous. I don't want this to sound unkind but you really have no perception of how much stronger than 6d - stronger than the professionals that I've played - someone would have to be to make me feel so utterly helpless like in that game. I wasn't playing against a 4d. No chance in hell. It scares me even thinking how many stones I'd need to take from an opponent that strong. Maybe I'd have a chance with four, but I'm sat here now doubting myself even with four stones. But yeah, don't think for a single second that it's somehow normal for me to get blown into space without any glimmer of hope by a 4d. It isn't. And that certainly isn't unique to me; all 6ds will tell you that 4ds just can't completely oppress them to the point of feeling like they have no hope. You can say all you want as a kibitzer, but you weren't playing. You didn't feel that; don't even pretend to know what it was like.
Bojanic wrote:
There is one important point that we have not discussed in this topic.
That is how big difference is between 4d and 5d, and 5d and 6d.
^ This, this so much. And how big the difference between 6d and someone who completely tears them to pieces is. It's pure naivety (and slightly insulting, though understandable given lack of perception of this kind of difference from a player who isn't at this level) to suggest that a 4d is capable of that with no counterplay available.