uri65 wrote:
Being a weak player helps! For example I am a class B player. So when I play against somebody of same level or even up to ELO 2000 I can be quite sure they are not cheaters - otherwise their rating would be much higher.
Exactly.
Centaurs Vs Humans... A forced competition, why?
Sort:
Forgive my ignorance I cannot figure out if you guys are talking about OTB or online? Wafflemaster mentioned playing CC before computer technology, I thought CC refers to Computer Chess?
My solution online is that I just do not care. People using computers will out rate me quick, and anyway, what difference should it make to me if my opponent really is that good, or using a computer to help him? Maybe I am playing Magnus Carlsen under a pseudonym for all I know.
My solution OTB is to just play in low stakes tournaments so no one is bothered to use fancy technology so they can win $40 for 20 hours of chess.
I think it is inevitable that in the future chess will be for low stakes to reduce incentives to cheat. Cheating will be impossible to detect, eventually.
Maybe the best solution is to change to purse to be a donation to your charity of choice - who is going to cheat for a donation?
CC is Correspondence Chess. In the old days, postcards, stamps etc...
rooperi wrote:
CC is Correspondence Chess. In the old days, postcards, stamps etc...
Oh thanks, duh. And here I am, and oldtimer who played in a CC chess tournament many, many years ago. Just shows how much technology has rotted my brain.
CC = correspondence chess.
And with current technology, smart cheating should be impossible to detect today IMO. It's just that there isn't the right combination of greed, know-how, money, etc.
Of course with proper precautions it would be very hard to cheat. Radio wave jammer would be a great start but I think they're outlawed by the FCC for just general use especially if you end up blocking out the whole hotel lol.
First of all, all this talk is about master level of play (ELO rated above 2300) of correspondence chess (CC). And most importantly, we are not talking about cheating here. We are talking about a condition where authorities force us to play against centaurs (chess engine supported humans). Majority of people thinks that authorities allowed computer engines because of impossibility to detect engine play. Thanks anyway for your feedbacks. I guess majority of players here never bother such things as : Forced centaurs vs human competitions. I'm calling forced, because there is no competition for just centaurs vs centaurs and humans vs humans. Just one forceful way: you either become a centaur or quit. Many of my old friends (dedicated whole their life to correspondence chess) already resigned from cc because of this forceful approach. So, I have a hope that someday, someone in the world find a way to prevent centaurs invasion to correspondence chess and OTB as well. I'm quite sure this person will become a new chess hero no matter how stupid his/her method. Please share your insights. Any knowledge is highly important for the whole correspondence chess community.
How can humanity make a new chess that is untouchable by computers? Please think about it and share with honesty!
The solution is simple: Instead of checkmating the king, we simply have a net guarded by a (heavily) padded man and instead of 32 pieces just one thick black disc shaped pawn, or puck. No more 1 on 1 chess, rather teams of 6 (including the padded man). Finally, I think they should play on a big slab of ice instead of a chessboard, with iceskates and sticks, and should be allowed to slam into each other as hard as they want. If anyone seems to be using an engine to assist them with their moves, or is otherwise violating the rules or is just maybe playing too well it should be acceptable to suspend the chessgame in order to fist-fight out one's grievances. Maybe a penalty after that like both players lose some time from their clocks. I call this variant Canadian Chess.
In the position below Canadian Chess GM Sidney Crosby has just lost a pawn...
Well, sorry but I cannot see any possible way to prevent centaurs in CC chess. I think it will soon be difficult or impossible to prevent it OTB, so I can't conceieve of the miracle that would prevent it in CC.
Making a game that rewards humans' strategic strengths and is much less amenable to the brute-force calculation that computers are so good at was one of the motivations for the game Arimaa.
It's a really fun game to play, and it can be played with a standard chess set.
Here's what the creator of the game said about the origin and motivation of the game (from The Creation of Arimaa):
It was a cold winter day on January 15th 1999. I was watching the kids while my wife went to get the groceries. Aamir was only four and a half years old at the time, but I was trying to teach him how to play Chess. I soon realized that playing a game with the full set of Chess pieces was not yet a possibility, so I started with just the Pawns and King and planned to introduce the other pieces one at a time later. While playing these games with just Pawns and King I realized that even with pieces that had such simple movements there can still be some very interesting games. This brought back some thoughts and memories from 1997 when Garry Kasparov, the world Chess champion was defeated by Deep Blue, a Chess playing computer built by IBM. For some reason after watching that match I really felt sorry for Garry Kasparov because I thought that in a way he was not able to show the depth of his real intelligence over a game of Chess. I felt that Garry had just been out calculated, not really out smarted. I had this feeling that using just the board and pieces of a standard Chess set, it should be possible to make a game which would require the kind of real intelligence that humans possess and computers have not even begun to acquire.
Love this post, Sapientdust....and sapient is one of my favorite words in the English language. Sagacious would be another; Well done.
JG27Pyth wrote:
How can humanity make a new chess that is untouchable by computers? Please think about it and share with honesty!
The solution is simple: Instead of checkmating the king, we simply have a net guarded by a (heavily) padded man and instead of 32 pieces just one thick black disc shaped pawn, or puck. No more 1 on 1 chess, rather teams of 6 (including the padded man). Finally, I think they should play on a big slab of ice instead of a chessboard, with iceskates and sticks, and should be allowed to slam into each other as hard as they want. If anyone seems to be using an engine to assist them with their moves, or is otherwise violating the rules or is just maybe playing too well it should be acceptable to suspend the chessgame in order to fist-fight out one's grievances. Maybe a penalty after that like both players lose some time from their clocks. I call this variant Canadian Chess.
In the position below Canadian Chess GM Sidney Crosby has just lost a pawn...
+1x10^6
If I recall this was a brilliant positional sacrifice that Crosby eventually went on to win.
[COMMENT DELETED]
miriskra wrote:
First of all, all this talk is about master level of play (ELO rated above 2300) of correspondence chess (CC). And most importantly, we are not talking about cheating here. We are talking about a condition where authorities force us to play against centaurs (chess engine supported humans). Majority of people thinks that authorities allowed computer engines because of impossibility to detect engine play. Thanks anyway for your feedbacks. I guess majority of players here never bother such things as : Forced centaurs vs human competitions. I'm calling forced, because there is no competition for just centaurs vs centaurs and humans vs humans. Just one forceful way: you either become a centaur or quit. Many of my old friends (dedicated whole their life to correspondence chess) already resigned from cc because of this forceful approach. So, I have a hope that someday, someone in the world find a way to prevent centaurs invasion to correspondence chess and OTB as well. I'm quite sure this person will become a new chess hero no matter how stupid his/her method. Please share your insights. Any knowledge is highly important for the whole correspondence chess community.
Ethics....if this is lacking in your chess abilities then playing is pointless.
If lie detectors would work perfect and 100% reliable you could test them afterwards about the game. This may sound silly, but I think its the only possible solution. Its just that lie detectors may never become so reliable.
Perhaps they find something very innovative and not very expensive? Ah well, not a solution at this time anyway.
ElKitch wrote:
Perhaps they find something very innovative and not very expensive? Ah well, not a solution at this time anyway.
Magnetic-resonance imaging (MRI) could be a solution.
Very soon we will come to a conclusion that will produce just one single word "brute-force". Are you ready to congratulate an oil oligarch or a drug baron (kingpin) on his world correspondence chess champion title?
Feb 8, 2013
0
#39
sapientdust wrote:
Making a game that rewards humans' strategic strengths and is much less amenable to the brute-force calculation that computers are so good at was one of the motivations for the game Arimaa.
It's a really fun game to play, and it can be played with a standard chess set.
Here's what the creator of the game said about the origin and motivation of the game (from The Creation of Arimaa):
It was a cold winter day on January 15th 1999. I was watching the kids while my wife went to get the groceries. Aamir was only four and a half years old at the time, but I was trying to teach him how to play Chess. I soon realized that playing a game with the full set of Chess pieces was not yet a possibility, so I started with just the Pawns and King and planned to introduce the other pieces one at a time later. While playing these games with just Pawns and King I realized that even with pieces that had such simple movements there can still be some very interesting games. This brought back some thoughts and memories from 1997 when Garry Kasparov, the world Chess champion was defeated by Deep Blue, a Chess playing computer built by IBM. For some reason after watching that match I really felt sorry for Garry Kasparov because I thought that in a way he was not able to show the depth of his real intelligence over a game of Chess. I felt that Garry had just been out calculated, not really out smarted. I had this feeling that using just the board and pieces of a standard Chess set, it should be possible to make a game which would require the kind of real intelligence that humans possess and computers have not even begun to acquire.
As one of the top Arimaa players I think I am qualified to estimate that the top human is roughly 400 points stronger than the top bot, if anyone's interested in that. The game is still quite young so it could go either way. You can decide whether or not 400 ELO qualifies as highly computer resistant. Personally I'd like to see a larger gap, and hope to personally increase it 
Also, Humans can give handicaps of a horse to bots, which is quite a large advantage. It is very difficult to compare to chess, but I'd say that is like a rook. When I gave this handicap I did take advantage of a specific weakness to win though, so it might not be the best indication of human superiority.
True true. Go is untouchable by computers. Supercomputers for chess can see 40 moves into the future in a relatively small amount of time. It took the world's best supercomputer 38 hours to see 8 moves into the game in Go, operating at an amazing 1.02 petaflops. The best computers in the world can only win a fraction of games angainst the "GMs" of Go at a 9 STONE handicap, which is quite a lot.
Perhaps a different version of chess will allow for less computer advantage. Adding more squares, more pieces, different rules will lessen the impact of the computer.
This to many would totally ruin the game of chess. But, seeing as how it is about to be solved in about 80-90 years, computers will become unbeatable and something would have to be done.
Go is harder to burte-force calculate, but go programs have actually come a long way, and get better every year. Go is far from untouchable. The best ones are 5 or 6 dan on Go servers playing fairly quickly for each move. It's true they still lose to the best players in the world (for the time being).
As for the OP, computers have long been better than me (and I'd say 99% of all chess players) but we all still enjoy playing. Sometimes I do wish I had been born 50 years ago so I could enjoy CC play before technology.
One idea is making the game much more positional. So instead of adding many new squares and pieces you could take away powers of movement, e.g. the queen might be removed, the rooks and bishops range limited to say, 2 squares, and pawns can only move 1 square. This makes it harder to brute-force calculate as well... but either way you drastically change the game.