Life In 19x19

AlesCieply wrote:Is the statistics based on grades declared by players or on ratings?

I concede the point: I checked the EGD search page again and it is apparently declared rank and so the 14.4% is possibly an exaggeration of the true winning rate.

Does this mean that the event is vanishingly rare? I believe not but at least that EGD search page can't answer that question.

Gobang wrote:Sorry if I am raining on anyone's parade, but to be perfectly honest I think there is no way to prevent cheating in online tournaments. You may spend days/weeks/months/years discussing and developing an anti cheating system but all such a system will do is eradicate the most blatant cheating and make cheaters a bit more careful.

Trust in Allah, but tie your camel.

Gobang wrote:(I stand by my comment that a 6d player should be able to notice if his opponent is playing at a 4d level or 6d+ level during a serious game. It is not about whether he won or lost the game. He may lose the game, but it will still feel like he lost to a 4d. Not a 6d+. So, if a 6d player says that a 4d player was cheating I believe it.)

Your last statement is a non sequitur. OC, if a 6 dan loses to a 4 dan he or she will feel like he or she lost to a 4 dan. That's what happened. That does not mean that the 6 dan can tell whether the 4 dan was cheating or not.

No one can tie a camel that is gone and nowhere to be found.

Charlie wrote: I concede the point: I checked the EGD search page again and it is apparently declared rank and so the 14.4% is possibly an exaggeration of the true winning rate.

Does this mean that the event is vanishingly rare? I believe not but at least that EGD search page can't answer that question.

The declared rank is usually the rank obtained from the national ranking system, and is not necessarily less reliable than the EGF rating (for instance when a player's national rank is reset at a more realistic level while the EGF rank remains unchanged).

Anyway I mentioned that (declared) 3 dans do sometimes win against (declared) 7 dans, this is an indication that people occasionally play at least 2 stones above or under their usual level.

Gobang wrote:No one can tie a camel that is gone and nowhere to be found.

Allah has 1,000 names and only the camel knows them all.

Charlie wrote: I concede the point: I checked the EGD search page again and it is apparently declared rank and so the 14.4% is possibly an exaggeration of the true winning rate.

Does this mean that the event is vanishingly rare? I believe not but at least that EGD search page can't answer that question.

At the time I was still maintaining the ratings before they were moved to EGD I had several statistics done by myself including probabilities to beat 100 points stronger opponents etc. Maybe I could still find those old files but from memory I remember at the top end (stronger player about 6d) the probability of 4d beating 200 points higher opponents was about (more likely slightly less then) 10%. Thought, it is so many years ago that I do not remember it for sure. Definitely, the number is not negligible.

I have started a new thread which may be of interest.
viewtopic.php?t=15836

One very important thing that I just noticed:
Game Metta-Ben David, during analysis of move 51, I noticed that this move showed as a top choice before white played move 50.
So I went to check similar approach with move 97, L7, which was rated low in analysis.
Before move 96 was played, Leela thought that white would play M2/N2, after which black should play L7.
After 96 was played, L7 was for a while top choice, and then it switched to N14, and L7 fell on D place.

This shows that Leela's choices change even more during analysis. Even if made analysis on same way and on same machine as alleged cheater played it's game, it would be impossible to have all same A suggestions.
That is why at analysis after certain number of variations, moves that were marked as C or even D, could be earlier top suggestion.

Therefore, analysis if moves match "only for A suggestion at one point" are not good in some examples.

I have updated previous analysis with Metta's EGC games.
Attached is updated paper (basically only part with EGC games, and conclusion) and all files used in research.

Bojanic wrote:I have updated previous analysis with Metta's EGC games.
Attached is updated paper (basically only part with EGC games, and conclusion) and all files used in research.

Thanks, great work and very much appreciated.

"By observing level of play and similartities - not just statistics - it is clear that in two analyzed
games played on PGETC help from Leela was used by Carlo Metta, which boosted his level of
play significantly. His level of play in live games was much weaker than in two examined
internet games."

I still shake my head in wonder, that Metta should even consider being a referee for a major tournament.

Thanks for the anlalysis Bogdan.
But maybe better to follow the same process with others european player to have a comparaison point?
Because someone can contest with differentcondition/jet-lag/irl stress/stress due to cheating accusation/one opponent stronger or games too old,etc, we can expect a difference between IRL and PGETC

Fenring wrote:Thanks for the anlalysis Bogdan.
But maybe better to follow the same process with others european player to have a comparaison point?
Because someone can contest with differentcondition/jet-lag/irl stress/stress due to cheating accusation/one opponent stronger or games too old,etc, we can expect a difference between IRL and PGETC

At the start of this thread, Uberdude made some research for the % of moves in top 3 positions of Leela. I imagine that picking one of those players and using them as a comparison point might be useful in making the report of Milos more complete.

It is not clear to me that anyone in the EGF is going to look at Milos's report though. I didn't hear that the BGA made a new appeal, nor that Israel kicked off stage 3 of their appeal.

It would be nice if Bojanic could play the "4 dan or 6 dan ?" game. I wouldn't expect 100% accuracy, but it would be interesting to check if at least he never confuses a 4 dan with a 6 dan or vice-versa.

jlt wrote:It would be nice if Bojanic could play the "4 dan or 6 dan ?" game. I wouldn't expect 100% accuracy, but it would be interesting to check if at least he never confuses a 4 dan with a 6 dan or vice-versa.

Why don't we just find 1000 distractions and then perhaps the problem will just be forgotten? Perhaps Metta should just be declared innocent because a bunch of kyu players can't tell the difference between 4d and 6d?

For this 6d or 4d test to make any sense, then it should be done in the context that it was created. A 6d player played an entire serious game with someone who is allegedly 4d, (but most probably just acting a bot for Leela). The 6d player said that it felt nothing like playing against a 4d.

Then someone decided to construct a "test", apparently for the purpose of showing that this 6d may not be a reliable judge of whether his opponent was 4d or stronger. My perception is that someone, with the intention of calling the 6d player's judgement into doubt created this "test". (I had the nerve a critical comment about it and was slammed for my "negativity"). For this test to make any sense whatsoever it should consist of a 6d player playing a serious game with an alleged 4d and after the game making a guess as to the real level of his opponent. Getting kyu players to decide if a 6d or 4d was playing, just by looking at the games is obviously absurd. It is also questionable to construct this test with online games where there is no way of verifying who was in fact playing.


I have nothing but thanks and respect for those who have spent time seriously researching the matter at hand, players who have shared their in game impressions and those who have provided insight as to the broader context of all this, for example how this affair is connected to the EGC.

Gobang wrote:Getting kyu players to decide if a 6d or 4d was playing, just by looking at the games is obviously absurd. It is also questionable to construct this test with online games where there is no way of verifying who was in fact playing.

I am not talking about kyu players here. Bojanic (5d) as well as other strong players say that it is easy to see from a game if a player is 4d or 6d. In addition, Bojanic can use computer tools to make more accurate analyses. Other people like Uberdude (4d) and Robert Jasiek (5d) think that it is not possible to judge from a single game or from a small number of games. Personally I am not claiming that anyone is right or wrong, I am just waiting for some strong players to play the "4d vs 6d" game. If Bojanic would like to play the game, then there are three possible outcomes:

• He guesses right most of the time, and never confuses a 4d with a 6d or vice-versa. This would be a strong argument in favor of the validity of his method of analysis.
• He confuses a 6d with a 4d but never a 4d with a 6d. The test is not conclusive.
• He confuses a 4d with a 6d. Then, either Bojanic's method is not accurate, or cheating has already occurred in the past as substitution of players (so maybe cheating in PGETC is much more widespread than we previously thought).

Whatever the outcome, I would find the conclusion interesting.