×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Top French Chess Players Suspended For Cheating

timothy posted about 3 years ago | from the neither-kosher-nor-cricket dept.

AI 295

cf18 writes "The French chess federation has suspended three top players for violating sporting ethics at a chess olympiad in Siberia last September. The allegation claims while the first member was playing, a second member would watch the game via internet, use software to find the best move, and send it to the third member via SMS. The third member would then sit himself at a particular table in the competition hall. Each table represented an agreed square on the chess board."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

295 comments

Hand gestures (5, Insightful)

denshao2 (1515775) | about 3 years ago | (#35618152)

Would have been much easier and less obvious than changing seats for every move.

Re:Hand gestures (3, Interesting)

fishbowl (7759) | about 3 years ago | (#35618248)

You wouldn't need a whole lot of signals. It could very easily be as simple as "yes or no" signals. At this level of play you are far beyond "wondering which piece to move where." Problems are much more likely to present themselves in terms of "does this line lead to some tactical trouble that I don't see?" Chess has some pretty weird aspects that stem from its simplicity.

Re:Hand gestures (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35618262)

Hell, even a simple 2D grid map mapped to eye actions. Such as left wink to move right, right wink to move down a row and start at the beginning.
Even smirks, or touching ears, or countless other facial or body movements.
Better yet, do all of them together, jumping in between each method at random.
Delay movements by a random set time after the person signals you.

For cheaters playing chess, they certainly never thought things through.

Re:Hand gestures (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35618306)

"every move" is a relative term in chess at this level... a move may take quite a bit.

Also, it wouldn't be for every move, most likely.

Re:Hand gestures (-1)

dgatwood (11270) | about 3 years ago | (#35618318)

And even more problematically, if the SMS is garbled, you'll leave the third person wondering "Which seat do I take? [youtube.com] "

Re:Hand gestures (4, Funny)

IorDMUX (870522) | about 3 years ago | (#35618420)

Warning! Parent is worse than a Goatse Troll!

It's a Rebecca Black Troll!

Re:Hand gestures (0)

dgatwood (11270) | about 3 years ago | (#35618590)

And anybody who couldn't figure that out from the comment deserves to have to watch that video.... Just saying.

Re:Hand gestures (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35618828)

Offtopic, but jeez, what is with people's weird fascination with the latest hated singer? First Beiber, now this one? I for one just don't see the lulz in this meme.

Re:Hand gestures (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35618826)

Wow. Is it any wonder music sharing has slowed down? Autotune in monotone. That industry just sinks lower and lower...

Re:Hand gestures (3, Informative)

More_Cowbell (957742) | about 3 years ago | (#35618564)

Possibly, but it's not like it was how they were caught, so does it matter?
From TFA:

The alleged strategy was discovered by French chess federation Vice President Joanna Pomian, who spotted a text message on the mobile phone of one of the three players while the French team was involved in a game.

PATHETIC. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35618162)

So the French can't even pwn at Chess without cheating? What CAN they do without stooping to low ethical levels?

Re:PATHETIC. (0, Troll)

MarkRose (820682) | about 3 years ago | (#35618180)

Surrender?

Re:PATHETIC. (1, Funny)

hey! (33014) | about 3 years ago | (#35618342)

What can the French win at... let me see. France is internationally competitive in:

    * Having names for various minor variations in sexual acts.
    * Baking bread.
    * Making wine.
    * Taking vacation (30 per year legal minimum vacation plus 10 holidays).
    * Smoking.
    * Organizing nation-paralyzing strikes.
    * Intellectual bullshit sessions.

Of course on the negative side is there's their world class national chauvinism (they invented the word, after all). In that respect the French are pretty much like Americans, but without the overwhelming military power and a with a more appealing lifestyle.

Re:PATHETIC. (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 3 years ago | (#35618850)

You forgot "making movies nobody wants to watch or can understand". It's a bit like watching a dubbed black and white Kubrick movie with badly matched subtitles.

Re:PATHETIC. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35618848)

For sale: WWII era French military rifle, never used, only dropped once.

Re:PATHETIC. (1, Troll)

LoP_XTC (312463) | about 3 years ago | (#35618254)

So the French can't even pwn at Chess without cheating? What CAN they do without stooping to low ethical levels?

Shoot down Libyan jets after they have landed back at their home air bases? :)

naughty naughty (1)

craftycoder (1851452) | about 3 years ago | (#35618168)

That's what you get for putting money on the line. No one would do that for the glory of it because there would be no glory in it.

Re:naughty naughty (5, Insightful)

vux984 (928602) | about 3 years ago | (#35618284)

You've obviously never played MMORPG. :)

People will PAY EXTRA to cheat depriving themselves of any glory in accomplishment... for the empty bragging rights that come with having something you didn't earn, and which has no inherent real world value.

But they still do it in droves.

How would that work ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35618170)

... if the agreed upon seat is already occupied?

Re:How would that work ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35618266)

implying there is an audience for a chess game.

Re:How would that work ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35618530)

... if the agreed upon seat is already occupied?

Slap fight for the seat.

we got a name for that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35618178)

We called that : "une victoire à la Française".

fromage retentir (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35618188)

Le stink.

wow..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35618270)

as a chess player myself I find this very insulting to the game. It's not about winning it's about the beauty of the game the thought and ideas that go into making a position work regardless of it being advantagous to you or not.

Re:wow..... (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about 3 years ago | (#35618926)

You don't play competitive, do you?

Competitive, professional "sport" is not about sport at all. It's about money.

Not like other sports. (3, Funny)

tie_guy_matt (176397) | about 3 years ago | (#35618276)

My first thought, how would steroids help in chess? Guess chess isn't like other sports.

Re:Not like other sports. (1)

kevinatilusa (620125) | about 3 years ago | (#35618810)

Steroids, no. Other drugs, maybe. Top level chess games can last for 5-6 hours on end, and I could see players taking some sort of aid to keep concentration going for that long a period.

Re:Not like other sports. (2)

phantomfive (622387) | about 3 years ago | (#35618908)

Substance abusing chess players typically do Ritalin. Or not so long ago, nicotine. Neither one is banned by FIDE.

I wonder how Deep Blue would do? (1)

zippo01 (688802) | about 3 years ago | (#35618280)

Nothing worse the cheating and loosing. And no the loosing loser is not the winner in some twisted proverb of the world

Re:I wonder how Deep Blue would do? (0)

Opportunist (166417) | about 3 years ago | (#35618942)

We're not talking about a "normal" game where cheating is indeed the equivalent of denying yourself the chance to win. If you win, you won because you cheated, if you lose, you really are a loser because you can't even win when cheating.

Here we're in professional sports where it's not about the person's self esteem and his achievement. It's just money, that's all.

If you're taking a game that serously, you fail (0, Offtopic)

Rogerborg (306625) | about 3 years ago | (#35618290)

Doing it, getting angry about it, either way: fail. Total, utter fail. You're no different to the 12 year olds h4xx0rz1ng Call of Duty, or the other 12 year old screaming about OMFG h4xx0rz. It's a game. Grow up, get over it, find a grown up activity where cheating gets you punched in the throat.

This has been a public service announcement from your neighbourhood adult who's about to go nail his wife in three orifices. Try to focus on that, just for one second. Three orifices, in any order I feel like. How'd you like that, Grand Master k1ll54l0tZ?

Re:If you're taking a game that serously, you fail (1)

preaction (1526109) | about 3 years ago | (#35618314)

And those people who make a living and get the most attractive members of the opposite sex for being able to do 100 apm in Starcraft are taking the game too seriously?

Re:If you're taking a game that serously, you fail (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35618662)

APM == Ass Pussy Mouth?

Re:If you're taking a game that serously, you fail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35619008)

[Citation needed] To you have any evidence of Starcraft actually helping any nerd get laid???

Re:If you're taking a game that serously, you fail (1)

santax (1541065) | about 3 years ago | (#35618604)

Chess might be a game to someone who doesn't understand it. To most serious chess-players this isn't a game. Sure chess in it self is a game. But when you are studying openings for 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, when you have spend weeks analysing every game your opponent has played to give you that edge when the match is, so you might be able to get that last win you need for your grandmaster or international or regular master title... only to find out later that your opponent was a cheating son of a bitch? No sir. That ain't no game. Adults should be able not to cheat, or not to play. I would even call for a system where a caught cheater would be banned from joining any other club or sport. Not by law, but just by sport-clubs regulations. Keep my fine sport(!) chess, safe from those people.

Re:If you're taking a game that serously, you fail (2)

Raenex (947668) | about 3 years ago | (#35618718)

Keep my fine sport(!) chess, safe from those people.

Typical sports envy. Chess is not a sport. It's a board game.

Re:If you're taking a game that serously, you fail (1)

santax (1541065) | about 3 years ago | (#35618768)

Neh, when you play it casual it is a game. Just like jogging once a year isn't a sport. When you start training, when you enter competition, you are doing a sport. In Dutch we call these non-physical sports "denksport" that would translate to thinkingsport. A word every language should have.

Re:If you're taking a game that serously, you fail (2)

Raenex (947668) | about 3 years ago | (#35618956)

It's not whether you are taking it serious or not, it's that the word "sport", in common usage, applies to physical activity.

When chess fans use it, they are just trying to latch on to the popularity and good connotations of the term. Some English-speaking players have taken to calling these intellectual games "mind sports", which is just stupid.

Re:If you're taking a game that serously, you fail (0)

santax (1541065) | about 3 years ago | (#35619016)

According to you. In Dutch denksport is a very common word, most languages have a word just like it. Just because the USA doesn't really like to think doesn't mean the word has no right to exist. It would be great addition to your vocabulary. The only thing stupid is saying: it has to raise your heartbeat before we call it a sport. The first question that comes to mind is: how much does it have to raise? And how much sweat do I have to lose before you would call it a sport? Hell, I was quite good at Sanda... does that mean that I can consider football not a sport? Because well... compared to Sanda, only sissies do football? Well?

Re:If you're taking a game that serously, you fail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35618614)

Does raging online make you feel better about your minimum wage job at a 7-11, knowing that these guys make good money and are famous for playing a "game"?

Re:If you're taking a game that serously, you fail (1)

PPH (736903) | about 3 years ago | (#35618672)

Yeah. I say we should let Barry Bonds and his ilk shoot up steroids or whatever they like and leave them the hell alone.

Re:If you're taking a game that serously, you fail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35618712)

Really man, I was about to agree with you, but then you claim a real achievement is having sex?
Like every adult ever, and alot of teenagers do?
I mean raising healthy, well adjusted children to the age of 20 is an achievement.
Contributing to humanity in some/any meaningful way is an achievement.
Having sex with somebody is not an achievement.
In any case I'm quite sure that these grand-masters are capable of getting some when they're not playing thier chess :).

Also, if cheating in a grown up activity gets you punched in the throat, that only shows the low quality of human being participating in the activity, not the importance of the activity itself.

Re:If you're taking a game that serously, you fail (1)

Kell Bengal (711123) | about 3 years ago | (#35618914)

I completely agree. And while you mention it, anyone who has ever played chess in a semi-serious fashion will be able to tell you that a lot of girls dig guys with big brains. And not a few of them are hot. And a lot of them play the game and are good at it (read: "smart").

Chess groupies. Just saying.

Is chess solved, or were these guys midlevel? (3, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 3 years ago | (#35618322)

My understanding was that Chess, while significantly less intractable than some games, was still something that you needed a fairly serious computer to play well fast enough to be tournament legal.

Has the state of the art in fact advanced more significantly than I thought, or were these guys sufficiently low-level players that some quite ordinary software was deemed sufficiently likely to be better? I'd assume that you wouldn't take the risk of being caught cheating unless you were fairly confident that it would boost your odds of winnning, which would imply a belief that you were substantially worse than whatever software they had access to.

Re:Is chess solved, or were these guys midlevel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35618400)

This was at the FIDE Olympiad tournament. To play at this tournament, you have to be one of the best in your country. With a few exceptions, you can figure everybody there is at either Grandmaster or International Master level.

Re:Is chess solved, or were these guys midlevel? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35618426)

You can run Shredder on an Ipad. They advertise grandmaster-level play. On an Ipad.

Re:Is chess solved, or were these guys midlevel? (2)

gman003 (1693318) | about 3 years ago | (#35618480)

World-class players usually have a Elo rating around 2000-2500. Rybka (first one I checked) on a quad-core machine is usually rated about 3000 or so. Given that info, I would say it's pretty much plausible that a computer can beat any human player.

Re:Is chess solved, or were these guys midlevel? (1)

santax (1541065) | about 3 years ago | (#35618638)

They tried that. It almost worked. Almost. The computer won, but not all games. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue_(chess_computer) [wikipedia.org] If they try it again, let them pick Magnus Carlsen for the game. I would love to see that match. He would have a good change at not losing all the games. But indeed, processing power and databases have become so fast and big that a computer can win from 99% of all people just by looking at former games... The first computer-program that actual can really play chess still has to be invented.

Re:Is chess solved, or were these guys midlevel? (0)

Raenex (947668) | about 3 years ago | (#35618766)

The first computer-program that actual can really play chess still has to be invented.

Boo hoo, the computer is better at chess than humans. "real chess" my ass.

Re:Is chess solved, or were these guys midlevel? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35618812)

The question 'are computers better at chess than humans' is as meaningful as 'are submarines better at swimming than humans'

Re:Is chess solved, or were these guys midlevel? (1)

santax (1541065) | about 3 years ago | (#35618862)

What is up with you? I've read another stupid comment from you minutes ago. It's not about boo hoo. It's about the fact that every chessgame in the world that can beat me (and there are heaps of them) use databases. The program doesn't know how to play chess. It only knows the number of wins and losses after a position and move on the board. If you think pointing such a fact out is the same as crying about it, then what the hell are you doing on slashdot?

Re:Is chess solved, or were these guys midlevel? (0)

Raenex (947668) | about 3 years ago | (#35618990)

What is up with you? I've read another stupid comment from you minutes ago.

See, I could ask you the same question.

It's about the fact that every chessgame in the world that can beat me (and there are heaps of them) use databases.

So? Humans spend countless hours creating databases in their heads. Are you saying computers shouldn't be allowed to have a memory?

The program doesn't know how to play chess. It only knows the number of wins and losses after a position and move on the board.

You clearly don't understand how computer chess works. They win because they look ahead very far into the game, not just by having knowledge of previous games.

Re:Is chess solved, or were these guys midlevel? (1)

dcollins (135727) | about 3 years ago | (#35619010)

New Yorker article Mar-21: "I asked Carlsen if he would be interested in a Deep Blue-type contest, and he said no -- it would discourage him."

Longer quote here. [slashdot.org]

Re:Is chess solved, or were these guys midlevel? (1)

owlstead (636356) | about 3 years ago | (#35618536)

There are chess players that are specialised playing chess against computers. They are supposedly better than most computers/applications. But that's different than playing any human chess player. So I think it's quite likely that a computer could beat a grandmaster if he thought he was playing a human. And don't forget that there were two others that could e.g. discard some computer moves. That said, that's what I heard in college, and that's already 10 years (!) ago.

Re:Is chess solved, or were these guys midlevel? (0)

DontLickJesus (1141027) | about 3 years ago | (#35618572)

According to the article, these players were very well trained. There is no mention in the article, but I can tell you as a developer that writing something like this wouldn't take a ton of know how, just enough processing power. With GPU systems these sort of calculations would become a breeze. Also, one must consider the limiting factors:
  1. 1. Every piece captured makes the computation time shorter.
  2. 2. Tournament games have a time limit. Number of possible moves along with an average or minimum time spent would limit the possible moves.
  3. 3. One is simply looking for statistics. This means the resulting percentages could be displayed real time, providing the "best effort" answer
  4. 4. Given a set of rules on what pieces you definitely do NOT want captured, more limits imposed
  5. 5. One could limit the advantage to a certain number of turns. Beyond a certain point the move itself likely becomes statistically insignificant.

The one thing I could tell you for sure is that any person wanting to spend this level of effort on cheating would have had to spend a lot of time teaching the computer their preferences. Statistics can easily lie in a simulator like this, so the player would need to spend time training it what decisions he/she would prefer in the more difficult situations. The software to play chess has existed for a very long time, but my guess would be that they would start with something open source and modified it. Any publicly available package like this would likely try to cover a wide variety of extra rules.

Re:Is chess solved, or were these guys midlevel? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35618630)

Are you serious or just trolling? I mean clearly you don't know fuck all about the state of computer chess.

Re:Is chess solved, or were these guys midlevel? (1)

dcollins (135727) | about 3 years ago | (#35619034)

I would mod this up if I could. "Insightful" and concise. 5-stars.

Re:Is chess solved, or were these guys midlevel? (1)

jmdc (1152611) | about 3 years ago | (#35618716)

Apparently these are grandmaster level players being accused.

Your comment intrigued me, so I googled chess program strength. The impression that I got was that chess programs have gotten significantly better in just the past few years at evaluating the strength of a position, allowing them to be very aggressive in pruning the search tree.

This is pulled from wikipedia:

Chess engines continue to improve. In 2009 chess engines running on slower hardware have reached the grandmaster level. A mobile phone won a category 6 tournament with a performance rating 2898: chess engine Hiarcs 13 running inside Pocket Fritz 4 on the mobile phone HTC Touch HD won the Copa Mercosur tournament in Buenos Aires, Argentina with 9 wins and 1 draw on August 4–14, 2009.[16] Pocket Fritz 4 searches fewer than 20,000 positions per second.[17] This is in contrast to supercomputers such as Deep Blue that searched 200 million positions per second.

Re:Is chess solved, or were these guys midlevel? (1)

dcollins (135727) | about 3 years ago | (#35618974)

"Has the state of the art in fact advanced more significantly than I thought...?"

Apparently, yes. New Yorker article last week (Mar-21) profiling current chess prodigy Magnus Carlsen (21-years old, ranked #1 in world last year):

"But processors are now so powerful that no human stands a chance of winning a match. I asked Carlsen if he would be interested in a Deep Blue-type contest, and he said no -- it would discourage him. Among the chess elite, the idea of challenging a computer has fallen into the realm of farce and retort. At the London Chess Classic, one commentator quoted the Dutch grandmaster Jan Hein Donner, who, when asked what strategy he would use against a computer, joked, 'I would bring a hammer.'

"Computers have no skills and they have nothing approaching intuition. Carlsen finds their games inelegant, and complains about 'weird computer moves I can't understand', whereas in talking about his own game he speaks of achieving 'harmony' among the pieces on the chessboard, and even of 'poetry'. He told me about watching two advanced computers play one another in a recent match in Norway: 'My conclusions were, one, the best computers are stronger than the best players, and, two, the games are not interesting at all.'"

Abstract here: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/03/21/110321fa_fact_max [newyorker.com]

A worthy effort (-1, Troll)

eyenot (102141) | about 3 years ago | (#35618352)

Chess is for autistic, gullible, unimaginative people who should be stuck im the dark ages if at all and in any way possible.

That it teaches strategy is a misnomer; the limitations on the game's entire possible data set is a cul-de-sac that the player enters willingly, with one ruse: that white is entering the room with black behind holding the knife, whereas in actuality the first player "leads" in the sense of gesturing into the room (wherein lies the end) and follows as black is forced to respond to the initial gesture.

If two gods were to play, white would forever win. This we *do* know as indisputable fact. Icingly we can also store all nine piece endgames -- ALL of them, possible, probable, or not -- on a singlle Digital Video Disc.

Chess does nothing but pigeomhole otherwise useful mental cycles. I't's all niches and workout, no payoff or analogy. Even simple study of naval warfare would be a better exertion for every single one of chess's claimed passive benefits. For the active, well, modern gameplay has surely provided better. Golf. Football. Flight sims. aNYTHING is closer to reality.

Some people believe chess is mystical because we cannot yet compute it all. The same people believe human conciousness can exist in electrons and transistors (but not the equivalent in even a trillion abacii). Chess is an abacus compared to what we can achieve today in challenges and discoveries. The holdover is entirely for nostalgia.

These young men showed it up is all. If the scheme had been more actively encryptable, and the answers to questioning prepared more carefully, they would have ruined exhibition chess for the rest of eternity.

So saying, they have done so by proxy. I applaud their genius and so should every instructor alive today, for the liberation they exposed.

Re:A worthy effort (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35618388)

You have no understanding of the game at all. It is very imanginative. The calculations that must be done, the proper sequence of moves to give yourself a better position. Chess isn't for every one. Just those of us that have a higher IQ.

Re:A worthy effort (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35618430)

Then Go is for the gods.

Re:A worthy effort (0)

nathan s (719490) | about 3 years ago | (#35618494)

Chess IS solved. That is indisputable. Otherwise, having some experience of the game myself, I decided long ago that it's dull. Once you master basic tactical play, then the game typically falls to whoever has the most extensive opening book memorization. Once I reached the stage where I could compete with 2000-ranked players, beating them if they slipped up on their openings (which occurred when I reached only about 1450 myself), I realized quickly that the memorization factor was the primary differentiator and I lost interest in the game entirely. Try go - it's a much better game, in my opinion, and requires much more imagination (and probably a higher IQ to play successfully) than chess.

Re:A worthy effort (1)

nathan s (719490) | about 3 years ago | (#35618568)

Er, my mistake, chess is not yet solved. But in any case, I think the evidence strongly suggests that with perfect play, white wins, and certainly my experience indicates that memorizing opening play leads to a degree of advantage that means you can't really seriously play the game without bothering to spend significant amounts of time memorizing. If it's your thing, go ahead, but I just got bored.

Re:A worthy effort (1)

santax (1541065) | about 3 years ago | (#35618680)

What a bunch of bull shit. A 2000 player will never, ever, ever loose from a 1450 rated guy. The only time that this happens is when that 1450 guy is heavily underrated, maybe due to a lack of games. Anyone playing chess on competition level will just know that either you are lying or you aren't telling the whole story.

Re:A worthy effort (-1, Troll)

eyenot (102141) | about 3 years ago | (#35618496)

Oh my god, shut up.

You think you can flagrantly insult me without base and find a foothold? You're a hapless romantic, nervously prizing chess for purely sentimentalist motives. You're no intellectual or you would be able to find no quarrel in any of my conjectures.

If you just want to troll, there's 4chan (or so i hear). If you need more there's irc. But you've officially earned te reward of "longest response to an obviously unmotivated troll in over ten years".

From yours truly,
Eyenot

P.S. You dont't even know me, whar a laugh! Please, roast me again in the future, troll!

Re:A worthy effort (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35618468)

Your white would aways win "argument" is flaws. It is correct white always plays first and the setup is symmetric, however the fact that white is "forced" to make a move may very well mean that black would always win if both players had perfect knowlegde of all possible outcomes.

Re:A worthy effort (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35618476)

By eyenot's logic, any game that can be cheated upon exposes the weakness of those competing honestly. Applaud steroids, for they show how futile bicycling is, when cars run much faster. Boiling a soup to powder does not mean it would not have tasted good. Games are social, Beavis.

Re:A worthy effort (0)

eyenot (102141) | about 3 years ago | (#35618804)

Chess and its entire paradigm
Whreupon two "masters"
(differwnt from the rest of us)
Seat humched over one board
(which if you arent playing, dont touch)
Where what your autonomous thought aays to do with the board is denigrated beneath the rules created centuries ago

Yeah

Youre a real social poster child

Re:A worthy effort (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35618522)

Your statement is true about standard Chess.

Your statement is untrue about the Fischer Random variant.

Of course, it's also true that the vast majority of chess players I've come across don't want to give up their precious hundreds of hours of time they've spent on rote memorization of opening theory, and thus are profoundly scared of playing Fischer-Random chess. Especially the "expert" players.

Re:A worthy effort (1)

eyenot (102141) | about 3 years ago | (#35618636)

Out of every response ive garnered in tese fifteen minutes, yours is te most lucid and sees the most clearly theough the entire issue. But sadly, you are wrong. Even im random play there are board Configurations that cannot be rwached, and in the real set there are branches upon which one player sits already imminently defeated by any competitive opponent, and within the remaining competitive set there is a set we could say is noncompetitive or we could say is randomized. But it doeant break through its subset notation into anything more grand; rather , within what would be to a computer a narrow instance of plays closely following a line of entropy, there is an opportunity to destroy the hopes of a system based of memorization of openings and so-far-successful middle games, that opportunity being proporionate to one's own memory space versus the opponent's. We could add an optimization and it would still be about resources in an unknown. Which against a fellow computer is a procedure; only a human ho hasmt thought it through believes its achieving something outside the game or improving its life and not wasting its time playing.

I say this because I know fame theory and i know that if chess is a balanced game there is a theoretical point to always achieve stalemate. I searched for it for ten years and interviewed an amazing array of hobbyists and scholars and i can assure you, chess is not balanced.

Firat player wins, that is chess.

Re:A worthy effort (1)

Raenex (947668) | about 3 years ago | (#35618906)

You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Most people think the game is a draw. Theoretically it can be any possibility. There are no proofs.

Re:A worthy effort (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35618544)

hmm, me play white, loose too

Re:A worthy effort (1)

santax (1541065) | about 3 years ago | (#35618664)

You know nothing about chess and why it is good for your development. That's for sure. And about that God part? Bobby Fisher would tend to disagree if he got to play White ;)

Computers are better than humans? (1)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | about 3 years ago | (#35618356)

I know specialist systems (big blue) can beat anyone, but are standard PC-based chess programs really better than players at this level?

(If so, maybe time for everyone to switch to Go?)

Re:Computers are better than humans? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35618502)

And why should computers being stronger than humans at chess mean that humans should switch to another game? For some people games are about recreation and, if anything, having strong computer programs probably enhances the game for such people. Almost all the people I know who are reasonably strong at Go claim to be keen on the concept of a strong Go playing machine, it's a shame we haven't managed to build one yet.

People aren't going to stop playing chess simply because it is difficult for tournament organisers to limit cheating.

Re:Computers are better than humans? (3, Informative)

cf18 (943501) | about 3 years ago | (#35618548)

After submitting the story I found a more detail story from The Independent [independent.co.uk] .

It mention the chess program used is called "Firebird". From google there are many reference for it in various chess forums as an open source chess engine but I can't find an official page in English.

My understanding of Chess comes from Anime (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35618368)

Accordingly, I'm supposed to lead with my King and be the first to summon Exodia.

Nice stunt (2)

kju (327) | about 3 years ago | (#35618376)

While I despise such cheating in general, I still have to say that this is a nice stunt. I like the coding through seating step.

Re:Nice stunt (1)

globalist (1332141) | about 3 years ago | (#35618610)

Can you explain it? I'm afraid I'm not getting how exactly the positioning of the 3rd member could indicate what move to play.

Re:Nice stunt (1)

eyenot (102141) | about 3 years ago | (#35618668)

It is a great occasion for kudos. This is a modern tragedy!!! ... From now on, this is what *could have been happening*, anytime anyone wins, anywhere!!!

Do you see the breakthrough?

Truly the game is the player!!!!

Spotted by their own federation (2)

camcorder (759720) | about 3 years ago | (#35618394)

According to TFA, this cheat is discovered by their own federation, and disclosed so at least these cheaters can be considered as violator of their own ethics and the rest of the French chess players on that level won't have a bad reputation or leave a doubt in future events.

It's wise, and also fortunate, that they solved this problem in house.

First time? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35618670)

How long has crap like this been going on? How do we know computers didn't surpass humans two decades ago and we just haven't noticed that a lot of people are cheating?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...