AlesCieply wrote:As far as I remember the game was identified because an Israeli teammate looked at the game with Leela and observed almost 100% matching of CM's moves.
That is so only for a certain range of plays, and for matching one of the top three choices. That smacks of fitting the theory to the data. Edit: And also choosing the data to fit to the theory.
Not that it does not raise suspicions, but that's all.
The Adkins Principle: At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins
bugsti wrote:As explained by someone here or in other threads, they fill a complain against that particular game beacuse that was the game with the most similarity rate according to a measure took by some self-called "experts". So maybe it was just an excuse for presenting a formal appeal by one of the team captain.
As far as I remember the game was identified because an Israeli teammate looked at the game with Leela and observed almost 100% matching of CM's moves. It should be noted the game was played 1 day later than the other 3 games and its result had no bearing on the match outcome as the IL team was winning 3-0 by then. Thus, even if this one game was forfeited the match result would not change. The IL team was definitely not looking for an excuse to present a formal complaint.
I think, if I remember well, that at the time protest, Israel was second to last in the PGETC tournament, so they could get big benefit from an Italian team disqualification.
MircoF wrote:I think, if I remember well, that at the time protest, Israel was second to last in the PGETC tournament, so they could get big benefit from an Italian team disqualification.
The fact that I disagree with the original verdict does not mean that I think that the Israeli team should not have lodged a complaint. The had reason to suspect Metta of cheating. As long as that is so, other motives they may have had are irrelevant.
The Adkins Principle: At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins
I think at the level of team motivations, it is not easy to find one for Italy. Having 1 player cheat won't help much. Same really for Israel, why would the team look to have 15.7 on its own invoked in a won match. Very small benefit there. If they also hoped for 15.8 to be invoked, again, it seems like they are just removing one of their victories. I don't think that the subject of motivations of a team, or an individual, is on topic in this thread, which is called Questions about a game.
Javaness2 wrote:I don't think that the subject of motivations of a team, or an individual, is on topic in this thread, which is called Questions about a game.
Position 5. I found this one particularly tough to decide upon.
The chosen move seems to naturally induce an attack on the marked group, which could surely later rebound against there. I'd have imagined _b_ aiming at inducing _c_ in this position, but that's only a 2 second impression. Interested to know what LZ or AQ would choose here.
$$Bcm51 Move 51 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | X X . . . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . O X X X O . . O . 1 . . . . . X . . | $$ | . O O O X O . O . a . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . O X X . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . O . . . b . . . . . . . c . . | $$ | . . O . . B . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X . X . X . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . O . O . O . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . O . . . . . . O . . X . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X X X O . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . X O O X O . . . . . . O . . X . . | $$ | . . . . X O . O . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------
Bill Spight wrote: They had reason to suspect Metta of cheating. As long as that is so, other motives they may have had are irrelevant.
I think motivations are important Bill, and that it is important to keep it in mind when judging a situation.
If the Israeli team were the investigators, then we might consider their motivations if we were concerned that they might make a biased analysis.
But they were not the investigators, and they did present a biased analysis. So what? Making an unbiased analysis was not their job.
Moreover, the Italian team motivation to cheat was nothing: no gain in cheating when you already lost, in contrast of very big risks.
Carlo's motivation is a factor in considering his guilt, especially as all we have in the game record are coincidences that may have arisen by chance. But, truth to say, the facet that the team had already lost may have increased his personal motivation, since the risk was his alone.
The Adkins Principle: At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins
Bill Spight wrote: Carlo's motivation is a factor in considering his guilt, especially as all we have in the game record are coincidences that may have arisen by chance. But, truth to say, the facet that the team had already lost may have increased his personal motivation, since the risk was his alone.
From PGETC rules:
"Penalties:
Any cheating results in losing the complete match on all four boards with an additional four MP-penalty.
Second cheating disqualifies the team for the running season and the next two season."
Javaness2 wrote:Position 5. I found this one particularly tough to decide upon.
The chosen move seems to naturally induce an attack on the marked group, which could surely later rebound against there. I'd have imagined _b_ aiming at inducing _c_ in this position, but that's only a 2 second impression. Interested to know what LZ or AQ would choose here.
$$Bcm51 Move 51 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | X X . . . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . O X X X O . . O . 1 . . . . . X . . | $$ | . O O O X O . O . a . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . O X X . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . O . . . b . . . . . . . c . . | $$ | . . O . . B . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X . X . X . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . O . O . O . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . O . . . . . . O . . X . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X X X O . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . X O O X O . . . . . . O . . X . . | $$ | . . . . X O . O . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------
Bill Spight wrote: Carlo's motivation is a factor in considering his guilt, especially as all we have in the game record are coincidences that may have arisen by chance. But, truth to say, the facet that the team had already lost may have increased his personal motivation, since the risk was his alone.
From PGETC rules:
"Penalties:
Any cheating results in losing the complete match on all four boards with an additional four MP-penalty.
Second cheating disqualifies the team for the running season and the next two season."
Carlo's loss would have been the fourth loss in the match, anyway, but there was an additional penalty. Thanks for the info.
The Adkins Principle: At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins
In addition, the last thing I wanted to say is that any case has to be judge with his gravity and consequences. If I cheat and win a final game to one of the first place in the tournament, it has a weight. But cheating from an amateurish team that plays to remain in A league, in a game that could not change the situation it is a fact of much less gravity. Indeed, I would forgive the player if I had to judge, also if I had found him guilty.
PS: I hope Javaness will forgive me for being off topic for the last time!
Last edited by MircoF on Thu Jun 21, 2018 3:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Bojanic wrote:...would you be so kind to forward this information to Ales Cieply?
...
This information was provided by Ales himself in the other thread (see viewtopic.php?p=232722#p232722) and I commented extensively on his remarks there. That it was the same machine as his Phd supervisor used to run the tests for the appeal. A Intel Core i7, 2.60 GHZ, RAM 16GB, GPU NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M. Operating system - Windows 10.
It is very similar to my laptop: same specs but a mine with a slightly newer GPU. It is just the type of laptop you expect a Phd student in AI to have: best price/performance and you can builld all the textbook Neural Net models
Jan.van.Rongen wrote:
This information was provided by Ales himself in the other thread (see viewtopic.php?p=232722#p232722) and I commented extensively on his remarks there. That it was the same machine as his Phd supervisor used to run the tests for the appeal. A Intel Core i7, 2.60 GHZ, RAM 16GB, GPU NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M. Operating system - Windows 10.
Jan, actually, your comments in the other thread were quite a bit misleading there but I did not find it important to answer then. Just to clarify. Where do you get the idea that Carlo's PhD supervisor (F.Moradin) did the tests (games analysis) for the appeal. As far as I know he did not. I believe most of it was done by Carlo himself. I guess MircoF can tell us for sure.
What I said there:
AlesCieply wrote:
On the computer Carlo Metta might have used in his PGETC games. In the Italian appeal they specify what computer they performed their counter-analysis on: Intel Core i7, 2.60 GHZ, RAM 16GB, GPU NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M. Operating system - Windows 10. They also say there that it analyses about 100k nodes in about 30s. I asked the question what computer Carlo used in his PGETC games and the answer I got (from Mirco Fanti, the Italian team captain, as he insisted any questions should not be asked Carlo directly but should go through him) that it was the one used in the analysis. I conclude from this that most (in not all) of the Italian counter-analysis was done by Carlo himself.
And something to stay on topic:
Bill, you may also pick the suggestions for any "important moves" that my Leela provided too. They are all in the document I put on-line, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... =925979564
Just have a look on the sheet MettaBenDavid for the game you started discussing here.
there. I'd have imagined _b_ aiming at inducing _c_ in this position, but that's only a 2 second impression.