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

[Matti]

As my last task as an EGF officer I prepared the proposal for the AGM 2013 to install the EGF appeals committee, which by the constitution should exists, but didn't exist before. The idea was to direct the appeals to the appeals commisson instead of the rules commission. This would separate making the rules and applying the rules to separate bodies. Apparently this idea got never updated to the EGF tourmament rules.

[RobertJasiek]

As my last task as an EGF officer I prepared the proposal for the AGM 2013 to install the EGF appeals committee, which by the constitution should exists, but didn't exist before. The idea was to direct the appeals to the appeals commisson instead of the rules commission. This would separate making the rules and applying the rules to separate bodies. Apparently this idea got never updated to the EGF tourmament rules.

Separation of powers is good in principle, as is expertise of judges. For the EGF Appeals Commission to meaningfully become the third instance of arbitration in rules matters, its members ought to have education with the rules and as referees. The EGF Rules Commission (or whatever the current name is) has this education.

The EGF has further bodies with conflicts of power because, it has been thought, the EGF does not have enough manpower to install a full separation of powers yet. IMO, cutting conflicting powers from the EGF Committee is the most urgent to prevent such incidents as in the EGC 2009 with rules change AFTER the end of the tournament to determine tournament results.

[Matti]

As my last task as an EGF officer I prepared the proposal for the AGM 2013 to install the EGF appeals committee, which by the constitution should exists, but didn't exist before. The idea was to direct the appeals to the appeals commisson instead of the rules commission. This would separate making the rules and applying the rules to separate bodies. Apparently this idea got never updated to the EGF tourmament rules.

Separation of powers is good in principle, as is expertise of judges. For the EGF Appeals Commission to meaningfully become the third instance of arbitration in rules matters, its members ought to have education with the rules and as referees. The EGF Rules Commission (or whatever the current name is) has this education.

Does the EGF has access to CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport) possibly via IGF and GAISF? If so, I expect it to have enough expertice.

[Javaness2]

... cutting conflicting powers from the EGF Committee is the most urgent to prevent such incidents as in the EGC 2009 with rules change AFTER the end of the tournament to determine tournament results.

What is this thing that I have surely forgotten about?

[Uberdude]

Changing the rules after the tournament to change the results sure sounds bad, but I could see it being justified in some circumstances (though which body should do it is debatable). For example, imagine a comedy 6-dan who is really 1-kyu is entered in the supergroup of the EGC (this did happen one year after 2009). If a real 6d who ends up placing highly in the final standings played him in the first round his SOS would suck. If that meant real 6d only got 7th place instead of 3rd (in the case of comedy 6d got an average 6d supergroup SOS) then real 6d would be understandably aggrieved. More so if it changed the tournament winner. So changing tournament rules to use SOS-1 instead of SOS as a tiebreaker might be justified. But then another 6d who lost their first game (against 1st place say) and then beat comedy 6d in round 2 and ended in 7th might have got 4th if comedy 6d was a real 6d. So maybe you'd say SOS-2, or give the fake 6d half a point per round for the purposes of SOS (probably my preferred option as more focused and SOS-1 upsets someone who beat a strong person in round 1).

[Fedya]

They could always do what diving does, and remove the single best and single worst score. (If there are enough rounds.)

[RobertJasiek]

Javaness2, I do not recall enough details by heart and lack time to dig out more. I do remember that afterwards the tiebreaker list was prolongued (but still undefined after the 10th tiebreaker:) ).

[Javaness2]

https://www.eurogofed.org/results/congress/egc2009.htm are you sure you are on the good year?

[Lukan]

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.

White has just played "1". Can you estimate the strenght of this player?

$$Wc
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . X O O O . . . . . . O . O X . X . X |
$$ | . X O X O . . . O X X X O O X X . X . |
$$ | X X O X O X . . O . X . X O O X . . X |
$$ | O X X X O O O . O X X X O . . O X . X |
$$ | O O X X X O . . O . . O . O . O X X . |
$$ | . O O . X X O O X X X O . . . O X X . |
$$ | . O X X . X O . . . X X O O X O X . X |
$$ | . O O X O X O X X . . . X O O . O X . |
$$ | . . . O O X X O . . . . X O . O O O . |
$$ | . . . O X X X X X , . X X O O X X . . |
$$ | O O O X X O X O O X X O X X X X . X . |
$$ | O . O O O O X X O . X O . X O O O X . |
$$ | X O X X X O O O O . . . O O . . . O . |
$$ | X X . . X O . . O O O O . . . . . O . |
$$ | . . X X X X O O X O X X O O . O O X . |
$$ | X X X O X O X X X X . X X X O O X . X |
$$ | X O O O O O O O X . . . . . X X X X . |
$$ | O . O O X X . O X . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . O 1 X . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wc
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . X O O O . . . . . . O . O X . X . X |
$$ | . X O X O . . . O X X X O O X X . X . |
$$ | X X O X O X . . O . X . X O O X . . X |
$$ | O X X X O O O . O X X X O . . O X . X |
$$ | O O X X X O . . O . . O . O . O X X . |
$$ | . O O . X X O O X X X O . . . O X X . |
$$ | . O X X . X O . . . X X O O X O X . X |
$$ | . O O X O X O X X . . . X O O . O X . |
$$ | . . . O O X X O . . . . X O . O O O . |
$$ | . . . O X X X X X , . X X O O X X . . |
$$ | O O O X X O X O O X X O X X X X . X . |
$$ | O . O O O O X X O . X O . X O O O X . |
$$ | X O X X X O O O O . . . O O . . . O . |
$$ | X X . . X O . . O O O O . . . . . O . |
$$ | . . X X X X O O X O X X O O . O O X . |
$$ | X X X O X O X X X X . X X X O O X . X |
$$ | X O O O O O O O X . . . . . X X X X . |
$$ | O . O O X X . O X . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . O 1 X . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

Btw, my account has been deleted together with all of my previous posts. So, I had to create a new one. I'm wondering, what the hell has happened...

[AlesCieply]

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.

White has just played "1". Can you estimate the strenght of this player?

I guess many of you wonder why Lukan put this particular position here and how it relates to the topic. Well, we were discussing it yesterday evening in relation to the "4d-6d guessing game" so I proposed him to put it here as a nice example of how this game can be tricky sometimes. I add the answer and a bit of comment below but keep it hidden not to spoil the guessing for some of you.

The move was played by a player who is 4d but often plays as 6d+ on internet. Who of you guessed it correctly? It is from the internet game Mero-Metta played in the 5th round of the PGETC League A. One really has to wonder why this particular move was played. The only explanation we could come up with is that white is making sure he does not win the game (the result was B+2.5). Since the game was played just after Carlo was accused of cheating he was probably afraid that it would not make him any good if he won a 5th game in a row against a top European player. Make out of it what you wish.

[jlt]

My guess was "15k or drunk 4d"...

[HermanHiddema]

At this point, it feels like people will just fit everything into to their personal opinion of what happened.

1. Carlo plays like Leela?
A: He's using Leela
B: He's trained with Leela a lot

2. Carlo does not play like Leela?
A: He's cleverly hiding his use of Leela
B: He's not using Leela

3. Carlo plays a good move?
A: Using Leela!
B: He's just strong.

3a. But not suggested by Leela?
A: Other AI probably
B: See, not using Leela

4. Carlo plays a bad move?
A: Hiding his use of Leela
B: Not using Leela

5. Carlo uses a lot of time?
A: Allowing Leela enough playouts or visiting the toilet or hiding his use of Leela
B: Obviously thinking for himself

6. Carlo uses 2 seconds?
A: Already checked the branch with Leela on an earlier slower move
B: Couldn't have put it in Leela that fast, so not using Leela

At this point, it all seems rather pointless.

If people want to move forward, they need to turn this thing around. Don't fit every data point to your conclusion, fit the conclusion to the data. First describe a method and predict its outcome, then perform the test and see if it fits your prediction.

Want to check the opinion of strong players? Design a good unbiased double-blind way to test their opinion.

E.g: Select a number of strong players, present each player with a collection of random anonymized games (only rank data, no names) with some deliberate cheating games added in, have them give their opinion on whether either player cheated, and have them identify moves they felt were obvious cheating, then see if they agree widely on the same moves in the same games, and check whether those identified moves are from the deliberately cheated games. If they do agree, you've identified a potential test for cheating. If they don't then their opinion is not reliable evidence of cheating.

[Bill Spight]

Want to check the opinion of strong players? Design a good unbiased double-blind way to test their opinion.

E.g: Select a number of strong players, present each player with a collection of random anonymized games (only rank data, no names) with some deliberate cheating games added in, have them give their opinion on whether either player cheated, and have them identify moves they felt were obvious cheating, then see if they agree widely on the same moves in the same games, and check whether those identified moves are from the deliberately cheated games. If they do agree, you've identified a potential test for cheating. If they don't then their opinion is not reliable evidence of cheating.

[dfan]

The move was played by a player who is 4d but often plays as 6d+ on internet. Who of you guessed it correctly? It is from the internet game Mero-Metta played in the 5th round of the PGETC League A. One really has to wonder why this particular move was played. The only explanation we could come up with is that white is making sure he does not win the game (the result was B+2.5). Since the game was played just after Carlo was accused of cheating he was probably afraid that it would not make him any good if he won a 5th game in a row against a top European player. Make out of it what you wish.

I want to make sure I understand the proposed narrative. Is the hypothesis that Metta played very strongly all game, but then realized after 200 moves of excellent play that it would be too suspicious if he won, so he started playing terrible endgame moves to ensure that he lost?

[Uberdude]

So 1 is a 0 point gote move (and taking the liberty doesn't have any threat on black outside), but perhaps could be played by a player thinking it was a 1 point reverse sente move if they didn't see that black h1 is not sente due to the snapback. A 10k could probably find the snapback if the position was posed as a problem though might not in a game, and a stronger player might overlook the snapback in a moment of dumbness or play it if very short of time. Hard to judge from this one move (even pros play the occasional self-atari blunder) but the rest of the shapes on the board look sensible so both players probably dan level. Actually this reminds me of a pair go game I played last year: my 1d partner missed a snapback in middlegame fighting so then in endgame I made an unnecessary defence, but it was only unnecessary if you could see another snapback and I was wary of another case of snapback blindness. That move meant we lost the game by half a point (I knew it was close but hadn't counted that accurately).