Actually in computerchess it happens just sometimes and just by 1
team it has been done very clearly and that team is not from
Europe yet from Middle East / Asia. The odds of an Asian cheating,
someone who hardly makes enough cash to even pay for some basic things,
are quite bigger than that
Moreover, this is a really complicated issue.
There has been some extensive statistical work on human
cheating in chess done by Ken Regan at the University at Buffalo.
However, this relies heavily upon the fact that computers
dominate human play by a wide margin.
The same is not the case in go.
On Sat, 2009-04-04 at 06:14 -0400, steve uurtamo wrote:
Moreover, this is a really complicated issue.
Yes, and I think cheating will always be possible. It's like
cryptography, nothing is ever unbreakable.
I was quite appalled at how often it happened in computer chess when I
was active
Hi,
I see there has been some discussion in this list about cheating remote.
In computerchess this toleration has grown out of hand.
Setting the rules clear and sharp there in computer-go might avoid
for the future a lot of problems.
There is a very simple manner to avoid cheating in go.
But
Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
If a program under no circumstance can reproduce a specific move and
that for several occasions, then that's very clear proof of course.
[...]
Statistics prove everything here.
No. Rather it proves that the program cheats OR that the methods of
detecting cheating
02, 2009 1:20 PM
To: computer-go@computer-go.org
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Rules for remote play at the Computer Olympiad
About the thinking process log.
Enabling debugging options can result in serious performance loss. In my
system
only the admin thread can do such things as tree
Nick Wedd wrote:
I would like to se the time measurement done in the client. I find it
odd that cheat-proof client-side time is now standard for chess
servers, but too difficult for any Go server to implement.
In case of big network lag, client-side time may make the game too long.
The
About the thinking process log.
Enabling debugging options can result in serious performance loss. In my
system
only the admin thread can do such things as tree dumps and that makes
all other
pawn threads idle. I don't think such preventive measures are
justified. In case
of doubt, it should
In message
262b2f900902010529r2ddec4afq31705bd9ccfda...@mail.gmail.com, Erik van
der Werf erikvanderw...@gmail.com writes
snip
Something else for the discussion. I would like to have a rule about
mandatory displaying the thinking process of the program so that both
operators have an idea
In message 4985a9b2.7090...@univ-lille3.fr, Rémi Coulom
remi.cou...@univ-lille3.fr writes
Erik van der Werf wrote:
Hi Remi,
There is a simpler solution: do not allow remote play at all.
I would be in favor of this solution. But this has no chance to make
unanimity. Even with a strong
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Nick Wedd n...@maproom.co.uk wrote:
1.) A neural net cannot explain its thinking process because it does not
have any.
I have used artificial neural nets a lot in my go programs; it is
trivial to display predictions, but understanding them is of course
not
Erik van der Werf wrote:
Hi Remi,
There is a simpler solution: do not allow remote play at all.
I would be in favor of this solution. But this has no chance to make
unanimity. Even with a strong majority in favor of that rule, Jaap would
probably not accept it, anyways.
As for
On Feb 1, 2009, at 11:29 AM, Erik van der Werf wrote:
Something else for the discussion. I would like to have a rule about
mandatory displaying the thinking process of the program so that both
operators have an idea of what is happening. Especially for remote
play I think this is needed
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Rémi Coulom remi.cou...@univ-lille3.fr wrote:
Erik van der Werf wrote:
Hi Remi,
There is a simpler solution: do not allow remote play at all.
I would be in favor of this solution. But this has no chance to make
unanimity. Even with a strong majority in
Erik van der Werf wrote:
For a 3-round playoff I would propose that the third game uses komi
bidding (one operator is given the right to choose the komi, and the
other then chooses whether to play Black or White). An alternative is
to play 4 rounds and use board-points as a tie-breaker.
Hi Remi,
There is a simpler solution: do not allow remote play at all.
Something else for the discussion. I would like to have a rule about
mandatory displaying the thinking process of the program so that both
operators have an idea of what is happening. Especially for remote
play I think this
Hi,
During the Computer Olympiad in Beijing, some remote participants had
problem connecting to their remote machines, which created many
unpleasant incidents. In order to avoid these problems in the next
Olympiad, I believe we need better rules for remote play. Here is what I
suggest:
-
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Mark Boon tesujisoftw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 1, 2009, at 11:29 AM, Erik van der Werf wrote:
Something else for the discussion. I would like to have a rule about
mandatory displaying the thinking process of the program so that both
operators have an idea of
-boun...@computer-go.org [mailto:computer-go-
boun...@computer-go.org] On Behalf Of Rémi Coulom
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 2:19 AM
To: computer-go
Subject: [computer-go] Rules for remote play at the Computer Olympiad
Hi,
During the Computer Olympiad in Beijing, some remote participants
I like having something mandatory, so we dont need to ask for it. Many
Faces did not have this, because the backend and the GUI only communicated
moves. But the backend was creating a log file and it would be easy to
display the log with regular updates in a different window.
To prevent
-go.org [mailto:computer-go-
boun...@computer-go.org] On Behalf Of Erik van der Werf
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 6:26 AM
To: computer-go
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Rules for remote play at the Computer Olympiad
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Mark Boon tesujisoftw...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Feb 1
21 matches
Mail list logo
