If someone played all top stockfish moves or if not "all" at least an extremely improbable amount of them, but they had no history of cheating and there was no other proof what would happen? With only the moves as proof of cheating and high security and fair play measures in place, could or would FIDE take action against them?
Ask HN!
@MrPushwood That was my answer....
@ELO5287 said in #1:
> With only the moves as proof of cheating and high security and fair play measures in place, could or would FIDE take action against them?
Maybe not on just one tournament but over a couple of tournaments statistical evidence for sure. Assuming cheating on all moves at least
handbook.fide.com/files/handbook/ACCRegulations.pdf
Currently there only accredited statistical method By Dr. Regan
Regan own statement was that analysis needs about 200 moves so about 5 games. And top tournament has more rounds than that. But a top player is probably harder to tell from a computer program.
> With only the moves as proof of cheating and high security and fair play measures in place, could or would FIDE take action against them?
Maybe not on just one tournament but over a couple of tournaments statistical evidence for sure. Assuming cheating on all moves at least
handbook.fide.com/files/handbook/ACCRegulations.pdf
Currently there only accredited statistical method By Dr. Regan
Regan own statement was that analysis needs about 200 moves so about 5 games. And top tournament has more rounds than that. But a top player is probably harder to tell from a computer program.
@petri999 said in #4:
> Assuming cheating on all moves at least
But that's going to be a non starter. They wouldn't need to cheat on all moves if they are in the strength level of a GM. As some top level GMs have said you'd only need to do it a couple times a game at key points to get a tremendous advantage. So it would probably be over multiple tournaments.
But then, and here is the focus of my question, let's say Dr Regan's detection model flagged them as a cheater over a few tournaments would they be labeled as a cheater by FIDE and banned? Without any physical evidence and based on statistics alone to destroy someone's whole career and rewrite the history books? That seems like an incredible decision to take and one that would be immensely controversial and upend the whole chess world. Would they really do that?
> Assuming cheating on all moves at least
But that's going to be a non starter. They wouldn't need to cheat on all moves if they are in the strength level of a GM. As some top level GMs have said you'd only need to do it a couple times a game at key points to get a tremendous advantage. So it would probably be over multiple tournaments.
But then, and here is the focus of my question, let's say Dr Regan's detection model flagged them as a cheater over a few tournaments would they be labeled as a cheater by FIDE and banned? Without any physical evidence and based on statistics alone to destroy someone's whole career and rewrite the history books? That seems like an incredible decision to take and one that would be immensely controversial and upend the whole chess world. Would they really do that?
According to their own rules. Yes, they would.
I don't think Fide can ban anyone purely on statistics.
Our future will surely experience some troll patzer (with no fide rating yet) getting into Fide tournaments and playing 100% SF moves just to troll and destroy the field, and afterwards smile into camera, telling that it is all his intuition and that is how he always plays, and he played chess since childhood, just never participated in tournaments. Especially if you jsut disregard opening, play some goofy moves and then start SFing your opponent. Legally what can Fide do? You don't have any history of the player, and he played like SF, which is super unlikely, but none of judges would pull the trigger if you don't present the method (with proof), which cheater used to cheat, so every ban can be appealed and won by cheater. When you ban someone in real life you can't just we know you cheat, but we don't know how. It is then on Fide to find, which method cheater uses and expose it.
Our future will surely experience some troll patzer (with no fide rating yet) getting into Fide tournaments and playing 100% SF moves just to troll and destroy the field, and afterwards smile into camera, telling that it is all his intuition and that is how he always plays, and he played chess since childhood, just never participated in tournaments. Especially if you jsut disregard opening, play some goofy moves and then start SFing your opponent. Legally what can Fide do? You don't have any history of the player, and he played like SF, which is super unlikely, but none of judges would pull the trigger if you don't present the method (with proof), which cheater used to cheat, so every ban can be appealed and won by cheater. When you ban someone in real life you can't just we know you cheat, but we don't know how. It is then on Fide to find, which method cheater uses and expose it.
@ELO5287 said in #6:
> That seems like an incredible decision to take and one that would be immensely controversial and upend the whole chess world. Would they really do that?
They would unless the accused person can provide evidence to contradictory. Did read the linked chapter? It clearly said that this is the case and also specified the threshold for taking action and also told which probability of wrong positive in such a case. Not event murder trial require proof in mathematical sense. Innocent people do get jailed.
Getting physical evidence is quite difficult after the fact.
> But that's going to be a non starter. They wouldn't need to cheat on all moves if they are in the strength level of a GM
Well you asked for one tournament then it needs to be almost every move. occasional cheating needs more moves so will take more games 2-3 tournament perhaps
> That seems like an incredible decision to take and one that would be immensely controversial and upend the whole chess world. Would they really do that?
They would unless the accused person can provide evidence to contradictory. Did read the linked chapter? It clearly said that this is the case and also specified the threshold for taking action and also told which probability of wrong positive in such a case. Not event murder trial require proof in mathematical sense. Innocent people do get jailed.
Getting physical evidence is quite difficult after the fact.
> But that's going to be a non starter. They wouldn't need to cheat on all moves if they are in the strength level of a GM
Well you asked for one tournament then it needs to be almost every move. occasional cheating needs more moves so will take more games 2-3 tournament perhaps
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.