×

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!

Detecting Chess Cheats Taxes Computers

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the listen-for-the-synthesized-voice-in-the-background dept.

AI 159

First time accepted submitter jeffrlamb writes "Cheating in live chess matches — fueled by powerful computer programs that play better than people do, as well as sophisticated communication technologies — is becoming a big problem for world championship chess. Kenneth W. Regan is attempting to construct a mathematical proof to see if someone cheated; the trouble is that so many variables and outliers must be taken into account. Modeling and factoring human behavior in competition turns out to be very difficult."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

159 comments

so? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39415599)

and not a fuck was given - ffs, it's chess. Does anyone actual, um, care?

Huh? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39415619)

Either someone made an illegal move, or they didn't. Chess has no behavioral rules; you can't insider-trade a rook and then illegally short an enemy knight.

Re:Huh? (5, Informative)

Fourier404 (1129107) | more than 2 years ago | (#39415649)

RTFA, you can use a computer to come up with a better move than you would have on your own.

Re:Huh? (0, Redundant)

Flyerman (1728812) | more than 2 years ago | (#39415769)

RTFA?

THIS! IS! SLASHDOT!!!!!

Re:Huh? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39417009)

Then read the summary. It's clear enough to suggest humans cheating by having a computer make their move.

Re:Huh? (3, Interesting)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 2 years ago | (#39415917)

Are they aiming the computer to detect only if they had outside help from a computer, so that outside help from a human chess player would not be detected?

Re:Huh? (3, Funny)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#39415963)

If that's the case, just have the computer play Computer vs Computer.

Re:Huh? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39417357)

There are tournaments for that. The best chess programs are at a much higher rating than the best human players. They rate chess programs by playing against eachother.

Re:Huh? (3, Interesting)

mcavic (2007672) | more than 2 years ago | (#39416011)

So check the players for technology, and block outside communications. No algorithm needed.

Re:Huh? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39417203)

So check the players for technology, and block outside communications. No algorithm needed.

What if the "outside communication" is scratching your left ear when you want to know whether to pincer or castle? And an observer responds by touching their tie after they've run the simulation? It's harder to detect than simply checking for electronics on the body.

Re:Huh? (2)

newcastlejon (1483695) | more than 2 years ago | (#39417549)

What if the "outside communication" is scratching your left ear when you want to know whether to pincer or castle?

That doesn't matter if the venue itself is sealed against outside communication, which would prevent anyone in the audience communicating with a computer system outside and relaying moves to the contestant. Deep Blue and its descendants aren't exactly something a spectator could hide in their coat.

If cheating occurs in a sealed room, the judges can be sure that it's collusion between two people and I'm sure they have a great deal of experience with that.

Re:Huh? (4, Insightful)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 2 years ago | (#39417191)

RTFS, they intend to "construct a mathematical proof" to show that a given move, or number of moves, indicates cheating.
This is impossible to prove because it's always possible that the human made those moves on his own. By the same logic that you can assume a human player can only go so deep in the search tree, you can't assume a human player to arrive at a move solely by use of an optimal or deterministic process. A meatbag can see any valid move and decide to play it for any reason. You can't mathematically prove cheating unless you see them cheating. For all you know the player is just lucky,.

Re:Huh? (3, Insightful)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#39415721)

It's cheating in the same sense that using a dictionary in Scrabble is considered cheating if you agreed to no dictionaries before hand - not trying to use qzjkh as a word. In this case, rather than consulting a dictionary, they're consulting a computer to come up with a better solution than they could come up with on their own.

Re:Huh? (1)

newcastlejon (1483695) | more than 2 years ago | (#39417593)

not trying to use qzjkh as a word

You appear to have spelled jozxyqk incorrectly.
It's easy to do, since finding it in the dictionary is usually such a pain.

Re:Huh? (1)

Anrego (830717) | more than 2 years ago | (#39415749)

Sure, but some moves are characteristically human (very unlikely for a computer).

If you want to read some detailed thoughts on this, see anything written about whole Deep Blue vs. Kasparov thing (especially game 2).

Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39415633)

Let them cheat, then get assraped by Kasparov in the afterlife.

Simple (5, Funny)

demonbug (309515) | more than 2 years ago | (#39415635)

I'd just use the CoD system for cheat detection. If they beat me, they cheated. Simple enough.

Cage Matches! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39415653)

Check their pockets and make them play in a giant Faraday cage! In a room with only them and an impartial referee. No outside influences, and nobody else to give signals or otherwise interfere.

Re:Cage Matches! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39415711)

Two players enter, one player leaves!

Re:Cage Matches! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39415745)

Then shortly after, the other player leaves.

Re:Cage Matches! (1)

sourcerror (1718066) | more than 2 years ago | (#39415813)

Re:Cage Matches! (2)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 2 years ago | (#39415915)

I really don't want to click on that link.

Re:Cage Matches! (1)

Algae_94 (2017070) | more than 2 years ago | (#39417061)

It's a YouTube link. Not exactly going to be some graphically disgusting video. Unless you think Beyond Thunderdome is graphically disgusting.

Re:Cage Matches! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39416071)

Seriously though, what's so hard about preventing players from having cheating devices or sight lines to possible cheating accomplices?

Obsolete (1, Interesting)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39415681)

Chess is obsolete then. Better to pick a game where people can still beat computers.

Re:Obsolete (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39415739)

Chess is obsolete then. Better to pick a game where people can still beat computers.

Oblig XKCD http://xkcd.com/1002/

Re:Obsolete (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39415955)

Har! Calvinball just made my day.

Re:Obsolete (4, Insightful)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#39415771)

In that case, are the Olympics obsolete because the world's fastest sprinter can't even beat a moped, much less a Ferrari? Are painters obsolete because of photoshop? When the competition is man vs man, the abilities of machines shouldn't make it obsolete.

Re:Obsolete (2)

ooshna (1654125) | more than 2 years ago | (#39416081)

When machines can beat Humans at the triathlon then we should worry.

Re:Obsolete (3, Insightful)

Eponymous Hero (2090636) | more than 2 years ago | (#39416333)

in a way they have. the convenience they bring us has convinced most of us to give up lifestyles that might include triathlons.

Re:Obsolete (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39416763)

Sanity has convinced most of us to give up lifestyles that might include triathlons.

Re:Obsolete (0)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 2 years ago | (#39416121)

Yes, they are all obsolete. If you are doing it only for it's artistic value with no other purpose then yes it is obsolete. Not that art isn't a good thing it just isn't required. Running really fast is no longer needed to feed the hungry. Painting is no longer needed to capture historical likenesses.

Re:Obsolete (2)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39415981)

And not just because of computers. Chess has been researched to the point where in most professional matches more than half of the moves is predetermined. Matches are not decided near the table, but in the research before that done by the players' teams. It's not about fighting each other on the board anymore, but finding a better variant before the match.

Re:Obsolete (3, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#39416023)

Which is why I love chess boxing.

5 minutes of chess, 5 minutes of boxing, keep recycling.

Yes IT's hard to move pieces while wearing boxing gloves.

Re:Obsolete (1)

NeoMorphy (576507) | more than 2 years ago | (#39416429)

There's a lot of book players who wonder how they lost when they reached a book position that was supposed to be in their favor! It's not that simple. Yes, they do try to find weaknesses in their opponent's opening repertoire, but both sides are doing the same thing, and are aware of the fact that the other side is looking for weaknesses. Sometimes they'll add something completely different to throw off their opponents work. Sometimes they'll get the advantage because of a novelty they worked out ahead of time, and their opponent still manages to get a draw, and now they can work out whether they can come up with an answer to the new move.

Their preparation doesn't negate their opponent's skill. It's still an over the board battle.

Re:Obsolete (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39416067)

Like Knife-y Spoon-y?

Headline... (4, Insightful)

krept (697623) | more than 2 years ago | (#39415699)

...was hard to read.

Stupid whiny taxes computers (5, Funny)

Fallingcow (213461) | more than 2 years ago | (#39415765)

I don't see how detecting chess can cheat the taxes computers. Our detecting chess should be none of the taxes computers business, IMO.

More of the usual bitching I've come to expect from taxes computers. Big complainers, them.

Re:Stupid whiny taxes computers (4, Funny)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 2 years ago | (#39415943)

More of the usual bitching I've come to expect from taxes computers. Big complainers, them.

Well, yeah. Everything's bigger in Taxes.

Re:Headline... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39415889)

Tax Computers Detect Cheating with Chess?!?

The IRS announced that their tax computers would detect cheaters by using chess playing algorithms. What's so hard about that?

Re:Headline... (1)

Translation Error (1176675) | more than 2 years ago | (#39416181)

You're right. The headline should have been:

Chasing Chess Cheats Challenges Comps!

Re:Headline... (1)

mooingyak (720677) | more than 2 years ago | (#39416945)

You're right. The headline should have been:

Chasing Chess Cheats Challenges Comps!

Not bad, though when I read it I have to go over it twice to see that the last word isn't "Chomps".

I kind of like:
GIANT REPTILIAN MONSTER ATTACKS TOKYO!!!
and in other news, telling human generated chess moves from computer generated ones is bitchy.

A Better Solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39415709)

Faraday Cage. BOOM CHECKMATE!

Why is it 'cheating'? (0)

Omnifarious (11933) | more than 2 years ago | (#39415743)

IMHO, the solution is to create leagues. Aided players and unaided players. Allow people who have computer assistance to play. Why this 'pure human' garbage anyway? Do we really want to be at war with the technologies that we use to enhance our reach?

I would also like to see advances made in user interface design that enable computers to act more as extensions of ourselves. Creating a computer-aided chess league would do a great deal to push this forward. We should embrace the technological enhancements we've been learning to make for ourselves, not shunning them.

Re:Aided players and unaided players (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 2 years ago | (#39415819)

Already done. "Aided Playing" is called Advanced Chess.

"Unaided Playing" just gets back to the article. The sneaky part is that you don't need to be a moron playing GM moves for an event of Cheating. There was a couple of stories a while back in which GMs only needed one key decision such as "Go for the Win or Keep the Draw" and their own talent was the rest.

Re:Why is it 'cheating'? (3, Funny)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#39415827)

I, for one, welcome having an Aided Olympics where sprinters are allowed to use motorcycles and lasers.

Re:Why is it 'cheating'? (1)

baenpb (1343241) | more than 2 years ago | (#39415853)

Or a football league where the players are allowed steroid use? Sure would make things interesting.

Re:Why is it 'cheating'? (2)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#39416053)

Football would be far more entertaining if they mined the endzones...

"He's running! 30, 20, 10 KABOOOM!" Ohhh too bad, 2nd down.

Re:Why is it 'cheating'? (1)

dreemernj (859414) | more than 2 years ago | (#39415965)

If they created another league for computer-aided play, they would still be trying to eliminate cheating from the non-computer-aided play league. So that doesn't solve anything.

And, who exactly is shunning technological enhancements? How much press have human vs computer matches gotten? And how frequently do people play chess against computers?

Computers in chess is not really a new thing, and it certainly isn't shunned from chess in general. But, this is a league that is meant to test one player against another player, not one player's team and tech vs another player's team and tech. This league, and any other leagues that decide they don't want technology aiding players, have no reason to change that position if they don't want to. It's their league, they are playing a game, there is no right or wrong, there is simply what the people involved prefer. If a majority of players in the league wanted the technology, they would probably allow it.

Re:Why is it 'cheating'? (1)

Omnifarious (11933) | more than 2 years ago | (#39416367)

Computer vs. human is totally different from computer + human. One is adversarial and ends up with people being made to feel small as computers brute force their way into a win using techniques that would never ever work for a person. The other allows playing that's better than either a human or a machine could manage on their own.

It's finite. (1)

baudilus (665036) | more than 2 years ago | (#39415747)

Technically speaking, chess does have an enormous, yet finite amount of moves. Eventually computers will be able to calculate every possible outcome within a few seconds. Why not just give up on chess and play games that computer's can't play (or at least play like humans)?

Re:It's finite. (5, Insightful)

dreemernj (859414) | more than 2 years ago | (#39415989)

My guess is they don't want to give up because they enjoy playing chess against other people.

Re:It's finite. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39415995)

You don't really grasp the concept of exponential growth, do you? Computers are able to beat humans in chess, but chess will *never* be solved. The game tree complexity is, by some guesses, around 10^123, and yet there are only 10^81 atoms in the entire observable universe.

Re:It's finite. (1)

MisterMidi (1119653) | more than 2 years ago | (#39416721)

Depends on your definition of "solved". If the solution is "beat any human at chess" I'd say it's pretty much solved.

Re:It's finite. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39417057)

Depends on your definition of "solved". If the solution is "beat any human at chess" I'd say it's pretty much solved.

I guess it does. Or I could define "solved" as playing by the rules, so chess was solved by computers many decades ago. Still, I think we'd both be better off using the definition of solved already used by others instead of making up our own.

Re:It's finite. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39417283)

And you don't grasp the concept of alpha beta pruning.

Re:It's finite. (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 2 years ago | (#39416037)

Because in the bigger view, most games in these categories will eventually be playable by computers - it's only because chess was so famous that the proper programming theory developed in with advances in comp science. And we can't bear to let it go because it was the Grand Game of Kings - it symbolized a certain intelligence culturally like few other games did.

I am having trouble thinking of a game that a person could play better than computers for longer than say 20 years. I know, Go fans like to flaunt that their game hasn't received the same onslaught, but all it takes is a "paradigm change" in AI for suddenly that game to crack in half too.

Re:It's finite. (1)

uigrad_2000 (398500) | more than 2 years ago | (#39416913)

Because in the bigger view, most games in these categories will eventually be playable by computers - it's only because chess was so famous that the proper programming theory developed in with advances in comp science.

Arimaa [arimaa.com] is a game designed to take the place of chess. It can be played with a chess board and pieces, and there's been a $10,000 challenge to develop an AI that can beat a top human player. The challenge has been around for a long time, and is good through the year 2020.

Computers may overtake humans in Go, just because we've seen human ability has already pretty much peaked in the game. It was a hugely popular game 50 years ago, but kids aren't learning it and playing it today. So, we already know what mark AI has to meet.

Arimaa is still growing in popularity. The champions today are much better than those 10 years ago, and dominant strategies among top players are still being debated and changed. Even though the game can be brute-force searched easier than Go, I think humans will hold the edge in it considerably longer than Go.

Re:It's finite. (1)

AdamHaun (43173) | more than 2 years ago | (#39416119)

Well, first of all, computers will never be able to calculate every possible outcome. The game tree complexity [wikipedia.org] of chess is on the order of ~10^120, which is larger than the number of atoms in the observable universe. Even storing every position would take the matter content of a small galaxy.

Secondly, chess is a game first and a mathematical problem second. We're having fun, not calculating digits of pi. You can cheat at any game, but that doesn't mean games are pointless.

Re:It's finite. (1)

WalksOnDirt (704461) | more than 2 years ago | (#39416359)

Even storing every position would take the matter content of a small galaxy.

Nah, the total number of positions is only 10 to the 43 to 47 power [wikipedia.org] , which is fewer than the atoms in the Earth. I wouldn't hold my breath on when we'll get them all calculated, though.

disproof (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39415799)

Assume I am a human who, before starting a game, has learnt and will apply the algorithm a computer uses to play chess.

I am then indistinguishable from someone who is cheating by consulting a computer executing this algorithm.

Therefore there is no mathematical proof to determine whether someone has cheated.

This is in the realms of computability 101.

Re:disproof (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39415997)

I think this is a case of bad summary. The article itself doesn't seem to say mathmatically proven.. more "suspicious".

Re:disproof (1)

NeoMorphy (576507) | more than 2 years ago | (#39416113)

Assume I am a human who, before starting a game, has learnt and will apply the algorithm a computer uses to play chess.

Computer chess algorithms are extremely inefficient if not impossible for a human to use, not unless you have a lot of pen and paper to keep track of your billions of calculations, but using notes is cheating and besides, your clock would run out. Strong human players use algorithms that are not easily translated into computer code. Sometimes(maybe a lot of times) there might be flaws in their calculations, but unless they are playing against a high end chess program/system, nobody will notice the mistake.

Proof? Nope. (1)

demonbug (309515) | more than 2 years ago | (#39415803)

The article doesn't say anything about mathematical proof of whether someone cheated. At the moment he seems to simply be running the decision points (moves) of a game under suspicion against both historic games (to see if the player is playing significantly above their "normal" rating) and against a single computer chess program (to see if the competitor's moves have unusually high correlation with the moves the computer would make). All of this provides evidence of cheating (or lack thereof, as noted in the article where some grandmasters were found to just be playing unusually poorly rather than their competitor cheating), but in no way does it constitute mathematical proof of cheating. Mathematical proof would suggest that there is absolutely no uncertainty, which is clearly not the case.

So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39415863)

How do I use chess to cheat on my taxes?

How to test if a chess-AI is any good (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39415883)

If you play as white, have a rook or a queen on line 7 threatening and keeping the black king locked on line 8. If the AI starts doing crazy shit then discard the whole thing as junk.

I have seen this pattern emerge in every chess-AI I have played. There is this one move where it seems it cannot comprehend anything anymore and starts pushing pieces at you to draw out time.

Re:How to test if a chess-AI is any good (1)

PRMan (959735) | more than 2 years ago | (#39416741)

I'm not good enough at chess to GET a rook or queen to line 7 safely against most AIs...

capthas? (2)

findoutmoretoday (1475299) | more than 2 years ago | (#39415909)

just use captchas to make sure the content is generated by a person

Re:capthas? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39416155)

Are you an AI or a stupid human?

The humans doing the cheating would handle the captchas, the computers will handle most of the chess.

Not a "World Champion" chess problem... sorry! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39415971)

In smallish events (say, under 16 players) at the most elite levels, cheating detection is not difficult. Danialov's Toiletgate accusations aside (translation: Grandstanding,) on a small scale it is easy to detect cheating:

1) All players are completely segregated and in a sterile environment during play.
2) All players can be metal-detected before play - absolutely no electronics not provided by the tournament allowed.
3) Any 'private' areas not under observation (toilet area,) hook up broadcast frequency counter(s) in the room, such that any elecronics usage in the room trips it.
4) Any live transmissions are broadcast delayed and spectators not allowed in the room. (Can't give advice if you can't see the board.)

Simple.

Now, something like the Olympiad, different story to police (or set up similar conditions.) But, then again, that's not "World Championship" chess - just elite.

(Or we can keep doing the best job we can and that is actually pretty good.)

Above Average Player (2)

LeAzzholeChef (2576267) | more than 2 years ago | (#39416215)

Although I am not a Grand Master of Chess. I can still hold my own. Playing online these days is not like the real situation. Visualizing, anticipating, seeing the expressions on the opponents face, watching his eyes, and facial quirks. All these play a part in the strategy. ONLINE CHESS GAMES are a farce. Though fun, and challenging at times. It's nothing like the real situation.So quit griping about online chess games. MAKE an appointment and do it LIVE on a green and white map with ivory pieces.

Re:Above Average Player (1)

Xiver (13712) | more than 2 years ago | (#39416413)

They are not talking about online chess. They are talking about people cheating during tournaments and such with outside help.

isolate the players is easier (1)

RichMan (8097) | more than 2 years ago | (#39416353)

put the players in an environment where outside input is impossible.

Each player goes into a separate black box faraday cage. They get a touch screen display of the board the opponent is looking at. There are 3 video cameras, wathing the board, player and reverse views. The only signals going through the faraday cage are the video feeds and the board control interface.

The video feeds are out only so no problem there. The control to update the opponents move is the only feed in and the only hole in the system that needs hard monitoring.

No human can play a decent game of chess (3, Insightful)

Animats (122034) | more than 2 years ago | (#39416481)

The classic remark by Dreyfus, "No computer can play a decent game of chess", has been inverted. Today's commercial chess programs, running on ordinary desktop machines, or even laptops, can beat any human. No grandmaster has won a tournament against a chess program since 2005. Pocket Fritz 4 on a phone now plays at the grandmaster level.

Hence the cheating. About once a year, a major chess player is caught cheating. [wikipedia.org]

It turns out that, even at the grandmaster level, about 1 human move in 10 is clearly suboptimal. So, one computers got close to the grandmaster level, they could beat humans just by not making mistakes.

Re:No human can play a decent game of chess (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39417489)

Would Fischer Random Chess (defeat opening books) or adapting chess rules to a 16x16 fight off the AI dominance?

After all, AIs still struggle at Go, but not if Go is played on an 8x8 board as Chess is.

Chess... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39416589)

There are only so many moves on the board, all can be calculated.

Just lock them in a room (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39416603)

Two go in one goes out. If you can somehow manage to smuggle in a computer you are the smarter one and deserve to live. Simple effective and lessens the number of chess fanatics in the world.

Slippery elm tablets (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39416861)

If one of the players is being handed a slippery elm tablet from a personal aide before each move, then there might be cheating going on.

I've met Ken Regan (1)

Theovon (109752) | more than 2 years ago | (#39416937)

I interviewed for a position at Buffalo, and I had dinner with Ken Regan there. Fascinating guy, with a lot of varied interests and a lot of depth. He had some interesting stories to tell about alledged cheating at chess.

How do we know (1)

Grindalf (1089511) | more than 2 years ago | (#39417019)

How do we know that this program is not a cheat to allow stupid friends to win with a cut of the millions of USD prize money? Who can trust this?

Parse Error (4, Funny)

hhedeshian (1343143) | more than 2 years ago | (#39417321)

Parse error: Detecting Chess Cheats Taxes Computers
Parse error: (Detecting) Chess Cheats Taxes Computers
Parse error: (Detecting Chess) Cheats Taxes Computers
Parse error: Detecting (Chess Cheats) Taxes Computers
Parse error: Detecting Chess (Cheats Taxes) Computers
Parse possible: (Detecting Chess Cheats) Taxes Computers
Parse possible: (Detecting Chess Cheats) Taxes Democrats
Parse SUCCESSFUL: (Detecting Chess Cheats) [consumes] Computer [resources]
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...