Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Chess.com's Danny Rensch on Identifying Cheaters
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 22 сен 2022
- Chess.com Chief Chess Officer (made up title) talks to Hikaru about some of how Chess.com identifies cheaters based on not just their number of best moves but also their number of bad moves. I found it fascinating and i'm sure you will to because i'm telling you to.
-----------------------------
👕 MERCH ► streamlabs.com...
♟️ LEARN CHESS & PLAY WITH ME ► go.chess.com/h...
🎁 GIVE CHESS ► www.chess.com/...
📽️ GMHIKARU MAIN RUclips CHANNEL ► www.youtube.co...
🎞️ MORE GMHIKARU RUclips ► www.youtube.co...
💜 TWITCH ► / gmhikaru
💖 INSTAGRAM ► / gmhikaru
🐦 TWITTER ► / gmhikaru
✨ TIKTOK ► / hikarugm
💛 DISCORD ► / discord
💙 FACEBOOK ► / gmhikaru
💪 GFUEL ► gfuel.ly/2LS5Rct and use CODE HIKARU
💚 SUPPORT ► streamlabs.com...
🤣 REDDIT ► / hikarunakamura
━━━━━━━━━━━━━
🎥 Edit by: ChaeDoc - Ch...
👌Channel Management - ChaeDoc - Ch...
📧 Business inquiries only: TeamHikaru@WMEAgency.com or teamgmhikaru@gmail.com
━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Music in this video:
Song:
Artist:
━━━━━━━━━━━━━
#gmhikaru #clips #twitch #chess
*FIDE:* "Our method is a bit more involved, first we ask the suspected player to pinky-swear they didn't cheat. If the player passes this step, we have Ken Regan review two random games of the player's to see if the games were 100% perfectly accurate. If the games were not 100% perfect, the suspected player is considered innocent. We are very proud of the rigor of our system and can proudly say that not a single cheater has been discovered in FIDE history."
I feel like Ken Regan's method and the chesscom method don't seem that different. I think Danny is just better at explaining
"Additionally, we now monitor all chess players' butts for any suspicious vibration during critical positions."
I love the "We are very proud of the rigor of our system and can proudly say that not a single cheater has been discovered in FIDE history.". That’s corporate disclaimers in a nutshell
@@elijahbuscho7715 Ken Regan’s method still isn’t anywhere near perfect
I think it’s good enough to detect any blatant cheating, but again…….. if you cheat subtly enough it’s simply impossible to detect through any statistics
@@elijahbuscho7715 I think the chesscom method is actually better (i.e. not just a better explanation).
This actually follows more in line with general statistical analysis than simply comparing games to top engine moves like others are doing
If you're trained in statistics, Danny actually just gave away a huge amount of information on how the algorithm works. But yeah, it sounds like they're doing a lot
@@hitppohiman Actually, that's not true. Mr. Rensch merely explained an adjustment made in the data preprocessing step for the data used in their algorithm. The bucket analogy is a well-known technique in which you change how classes are determined, so that hopefully you're giving an easier task to your classifier.
@Edwardian23 they could be but I doubt it, the bucket of moves would be the same for most engines so why bother computing the same thing over and over to achieve the same result.
@@hitppohiman He didn't. And it's very unlikely the algorithm can do anything more than detect the outliers in the sport: the ELO1000 that suddenly make 2500 moves all the time. Not the ELO2500 who cheat a little bit by just blundering less often, something that is likely to occur when a player is naturally improving.
There's a category of statistical outlier which may be beyond the reach of any algorithm. Let me explain with an anecdotal example:
In the period before Kasparov's matches with Deep Blue, the developers honed their results with varied approaches, among which was putting their boy into the ring with ICC (or equivalent) players of all strengths.
A certain player, who himself had a background in high level programming and was a classically trained trombonist as well, was well familiar with the principles of the game -- but for whatever reason languished among the middling class players.
So, his moves against the machine could not be fully evaluated as chess moves only -- since, against an opponent of his caliber, the machine was overmatched. This was born out by his record, which was far enough outside of the norm for the site administrator to 86 him. This in spite of the fact that any chess program available to amateur or computer professionals of the day was far inferior to Deep Blue!
Hikaru is the guy who says 'uhum, look, I need to go' the moment you've finished pouring your heart out.
Thats on point lol
All these top chess master are on spectrum
As much as I understood, so long short is that it's not only about how often do you play the top moves but also how less you play blunders/mistakes/worst moves
yes, danny just had a very longwinded explanation of such a simple concept
I think this can be the solution to the "smart cheating" problem
Wow so innovative 💀💀💀💀
@@nehcrow Sounds like he had to keep filtering info on what and what not to share regarding the algorithm.
No, that's not it. The frequency of blunders doesn't necessarily decrease significantly. As far as I understand, what does decrease is the frequency of incorrect critical decisions (i.e. best moves if they work, blunders/bad moves if they don't).
Hans taking notes 😂😂
Funny how Hikaru hit em with the "ok nerd but did you see that catch?"
As a sports fan myself, Hikaru did a good job of handling it. He kept it to a minimum by only interrupting on the biggest catches, and he was open about the situation in advance (it's literally on his screen)
So a cheater would never swing outside the strike zone, but be perfect when he does. A super GM would swing and miss when he thinks he knows a pitch is coming outside the strike zone. So you can identify cheaters by no missed attempts outside the strike zone.
Thanks for helping my pea brain understand this lmao
Yea that Astros analogy was good. Not looking at how often they swung correctly at strikes, but how often they didn't swing at non strikes (pitches outside the zone). Top engine moves vs top engine moves at the right time? Or perhaps knowing when to try for that top move. Something like that. Man, I want him to write a paper or talk more about their process using the Astros.
@@jersey282 I had a bit of difficulty following the nuance of the analogy. By not swinging on a ball, he could also mean avoiding playing the "obvious" move. Tbh, I would have thought a top GM could pick out the best engine moves relatively often. So to catch a "smart" cheater on a handful of games seems impossible ; the cheater would have to be doing it a lot for them to have enough data for it to be significant - which is maybe why they don't buy the "I only did it twice" explanation.
Basically it’s impossible to cheat without getting caught unless if you do it once a year which’s not gonna change your elo noticeably lol
@@Unknown1Percent but will land you prize money at lower rating points.
Basically players' ELO is a mean of a normal distribution, but not only mean is important but also a spread. They probably calculate the strength of each move and if standard deviation is too narrow then something is fishy - computers play always at the same level, but humans have better and worse days in the office. Also, normal distribution should be symmetrical, not skewed (more good moves than bad) - that would mean that the player is cheating by selecting too many good moves or by eliminating the bad ones.
Sounds a lot more like a machine learning predictive analysis than simply comparing differences between variances at different intervals of time. It’s possible, but very reductive in the info it uses compared to ML. Plus he said they convert them into buckets (perhaps like their game review uses, “brilliant”, “best”, etc.). There’s no real way to do that in the way you mentioned
But as a player improves, won't you see a shift in the occurrence of both good and bad moves, creating a deviation? Players can climb from 2200 to 2400 to 2600. People get better, learn new things, refine their skills, and have mental break-throughs. Like if you're learning to play the piano, the number of mis-struck notes is going to fall through lessons and practice until you're excellent. How can you tell the difference between organic improvement (Neimann's claim) and cheating (Carlsen's claim)? I appologize if this is an incredibly stupid question, hahaha. Understanding statistical analysis is not among my strengths, haha.
@@eckroattheeckroat4246 I suppose they don't just compare between the past and present performances by the individual player (i.e., Player A). It could be that Player A is being compared to a cohort of many other players whose rating is similar to Player A. Hence, we don't need to concern with the player's own improvement interfering with the analysis because Player A's performance is constantly being compared to many other people with a similar level of playing. If Player A performed just like those other players, who are good citizens and don't cheat, statistically speaking, Player A will show a similar amount of many average moves with some exceptionally well (best // brilliant) and some exceptionally bad (blunders) across many different games compared to the cohort. If Player A cheated across many games, his performance will show a lot more best moves + a lot less worse moves compared to his cohort. This is a much simplified version of what an anti-cheating engine looks like, but I hope it covers the general concepts. The real engines have to more complicated than this haha. Please take my words with a grain of salt because I'm not an expert in statistics either. The problem the current chess world has, as mentioned in one of Hikaru's recent videos, is whether the real, more advanced anti-cheating algorithm we've got can detect cheating in one or two critical moves. More, the current anti-cheating algorithm doesn't seem to have the ability to do so.
@@eckroattheeckroat4246 Not exactly. Think of a class being graded on an exam. A normal distribution of grades would have the number of As equal Fs. If the class has more As than Fs you know something is wrong. The class can still improve, however the distribution is agnostic to that.
Think about it like this. You can tell the difference between an expert pianist and a computer rendering the music because a computer plays strict times and follows the dynamics perfectly. A human does not. They vary the time and interpret the music slightly to add their own push and pull. If you analyse the music statistically you can see that even in the expert's performance.
@@agravphili But some people improve faster than others right? Also, people don't always improve at a constant rate, some people take rests, some people go all-out all of a sudden. Calling someone a cheater just because some statistics says that he/she is expected to play more poorly doesn't make any sense, to me at least. A cheater is only identified when caught in the act, there is no other way.
My DNA of moves is to play E4, knight to F6, and then hang my Queen a few moves later. No one ever accuses me of cheating.
Way to keep it honest! lol
danny boi is smart asf
is it possible he has smart data scientists that works on this problem?
@@nawzyah It's certain and self-evident.
to say it simple: cheaters elevate their level of play which also means they mitigate the blunders. that way of hightened consistency is not human-like and it marks them as cheaters.
Bro I cheat this is what I do he is right
as someone with stats background my insight to this is that your moves are being plotted and tracked on a distribution as well as just the mean. while everyone expects a player's mean move score rating to shift over time along with skill improvement, i think what he is saying is that shape of the distribution is also changing and how it changes matter. we expect good players to make more and more good moves and less and less bad moves, meaning some skew develops as ELO goes up and there is an expected rate here as well. when engines appear they probably have a very tight distribution and almost no skew.
This makes a lot more sense than what Danny was saying (no offense to him: I have received some statistical education and have never watched american footbal). Thanks a lot :)
If a cheater makes a bad move often enough, they won't be caught. They can lose every third or fourth game with enough bad moves to avoid detection. I know people who do just that.
If the important aspect of this moment (rather than the overvalued drama) is learning more about cheating and how to prevent it, having an experienced professional giving extremely relevant insights to the conversation (which should also be news to Hikaru) being met with "hold on, football" hints at how much of this moment is generated drama by our "drama seeking glands". We should keep that in mind.
I like Hikaru, but was very poor taste to cut off his guest in the middle of their explanation like that.
I believe it might be code for "don't say more".
Just cuz Hikaru is distracted doesn’t mean everyone is. I want to know how and why people are cheating. I find it extremely interesting. An alternate theory is that we may just be witnessing Hikaru transitioning from unique, quality chess content to just another RUclips streamer.
@ wow that actually makes sense
No, the important aspect of this moment is if Hans cheated or not lol
Love how Hikaru is just looking at Thursday night football while Danny gives an insightful rant on how they identify cheaters. Never change, either of you.
Danny: "....So, over time when you aggregate data... Hikaru: TOUCHDOWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!......Now that would have been funny😄
Since the whole cheating scandal with Magnus and hans, there have been floods of cheaters in the online pool. But in fairness most of the people iv reported have been banned so big ups on responding to reports!
I am pretty sure I got cheated. I am 1800 got crushed by a 1000. It's actually rare at my level to get cheated I think.
@@peterhardie4151 Everyone that I noticed cheating was 900-1200. the
@@wee_pizza that's funny.
Truly fascinating and I do love it. I'd listen to a full talk with Danny about this topic
Or actually one of their statistical engineers/mathematicians who (hopefully) work on these things.
It's never going to happen. He already mentioned that he's saying too much. While it is incredibly fascinating, revealing their analysis strategy would also reveal to the cheaters how to cheat around the system.
I know Danny is refraining on revealing too much but DAMN I should have paid more attention in statistics class
"Correlation does not equal causation."
@@munchkinmatt1670 If you're not careful with data, two very different random things can appear correlated. Commercials often do this in their ads to persuade you to buy their products (by not being entirely honest with you).
Basically Ken Regan is looking at data as correlation of your moves to best engine moves, and doing that by putting huge chunks of your games into it. Meaning every game you didnot cheat, every move you didnot cheat will prove you are innocent, meaning even if you cheat half of your games with half engine moves, you will come clean.
These guys are looking at much more detailed aspects of your data, inspecting every suspicious game on its own, as well as your chronological play level.
First method is complete garbage, 2nd is apperantly best we have, and at least somehow promising.
@@munchkinmatt1670 Did they teach you what 'causation' meant?
@@yzfool6639 By pure logic, causation is not correlation.
Just bring a bible and make every palyer swear with their hand on it that they'll never cheat. Works well in the court room.
Obviously you are highly delusional.....
"My analysis speaks for itself" - Hans Niemann
Not understanding your own move is honestly proof someone is a cheat. It's why other GMs like Hikaru, Nepo, Fabi, etc are very sure that Hans is a cheater. The analogy would be like let's say you're a phd student you read a phd paper made by a guy, then you talk to the guy and you figure out that his knowledge is at high school level, you have no proof that his paper is not his own but you are sure he is a cheat.
The takeaway is that they not only collect your best moves but your worst moves also. And when you cheat, not only do your top moves increase, but your worst moves decrease to the point of disappearing altogether.
That's how I understood it too.
Not even dissappearing bad moves, just having a statistically significant portion of your bad moves vanish could prove that you are cheating
Think of it like this. Say that as a chess player, at critical points in the match I make a really good move 30% of the time. But it's also not just that. When I don't make a good move in the original, out of the remaining 70% of the time I make a move that puts me behind 20% of the time.
Even if I'm not making the best move every single time, those numbers, how often I make a really good move and how often I make a move that puts me behind will stay reasonably consistent or go up over time (or down).
If I suddenly had a tournament where I was making a really good move even 35% of the time, and I only make moves that put me behind 10% of the time in critical situations, then you already know something is weird. People don't magically get way better over a weekend, or heck probably even a year. You don't go from losing against nobodies in a foreign local tournament to beating the best players and becoming the front runner of a world level tournament. That's what he's saying
So, no matter what age of engine or whether it is top or 2nd or 3rd computer choice you will be screwing up your appropriate blunder value. None of the top 100 engines will do a 3 move blunder like you usually do, and you will be messing with your human skill floor value instead of just the usually examined human skill ceiling value.
And that's why I know people who suspect Niemann of OTB cheating haven't done their homework. He has played his worst moves just as much as he's always done, including the game against Carlsen. People are selectively looking at his best moves only, but his worst moves follow his usual pattern, and the aggregate reveals a cheat-free Niemann OTB.
So basically, whenever a cheater plays a risky-looking or complicated move, they're disproportionately more likely to play a best move than a blunder.
That's not how I understood it. I understood it as that I am likely to make a certain number of suboptimal choices and a certain number of optimal choices given my chess DNA. When that discrepancy swings too much in my favor, I am likely cheating.
@@yzfool6639 Okay but what if you are a young player that is dramatically improving and you just started working with a new coach who is encouraging a dramatic shift in your style of play, for example: more or less risks. Does this then make your chess DNA irrelevant?
@@HEEHHOOH Even that is not enough to create a dramatic rise at the highest level.
As I understood it, basically the Big Data model computes your "DNA" of moves, how you usually move within the classification of those moves e.g. E1, E2, E3, buckets etc. If your game deviates from your "DNA" then you cheated. This is statistically known as the Law of Large Numbers.
You can imagine Magnus having a distribution in E1, E2, E3, mistake, inaccuracy, blunder buckets different than Hans. Hans's DNA of moves is different than Magnus's.
What about drunk Magnus?
I think the core problem is that many do not formulate the correct null hypothesis. Their null is no cheating occurs if there is not an `unusual' occurrence of top engine moves. This does not work in high-level chess. Your null should be: no cheating occurs if the distribution of move evaluation values (doesn't have to be even top moves) is consistent with his previous performance (his DNA) and reference players of the same elo range. An important point is that these tests will not be very powerful for individual games, so high level cheating probably cannot be proven on the level of individual games, but only historically for multiple games. As a result, I the logical approach is to ban all players who have been cheating online or on the board from ever participating in any tournament ever again.
I hope this doesn't flag experimentation. I've been using this old favorite opening, but suddenly used a new hidden novel opening that I studied intensely under a GM, taking classes and buying his books, etc. A secret technique to play high level players, so to speak.
@@simpletongeek You can tune the model to give different weights to moves beyond prep which I'm sure they do
Putting aside the misleading analogies, increasing the range for each class is not related to the specifics of the algorithm used. However, for some models, you can certainly build an actual distribution for each class as you described in your second paragraph and that could have some value to flag outcomes that are consistently unlikely. Having said that, if a top GM only needs a handful of moves during a game to win, then this sort of distribution is not very useful since a smart cheater can always pick and choose their next move that guarantees an advantage and still keep their moves within the expected distribution.
Just got absolutely destroyed twice by an Egyptian guy, who only started playing 10 days ago and has only played 85 games. He's went from under 300 to over 600 ELO in a week! There's no pride in cheating.
love the Astros analogy/comparison. It's easy to think people would be cheating to win, but the idea that the engine will help you 'not lose' at a key point is mega interesting.
Interesting part about the Trashtros was different guys interpreting the trash signals differently. So Altuve was jumping on first pitch fastballs all those years with remarkable consistency, meanwhile Bregman would wait for the bang and turn on breaking pitches at a historic rate. What an absolutely massive advantage it is to know a breaking pitch is coming...anything in the strike zone should be smashed while literally everything out of the zone gets spit on.
That’s exactly what stood out to me. Danny said he didn’t wanna give away too much involving their algorithm. I made me think… what if they had some crazy statistic like Hans has a < .5% blunder rate in critical positions for all chesscom games. Or something like that.
@@Coreyinthehouse got me thinking of recaps and hearing "the only move that doesnt lose is..." - its just as critical as finding the winning idea. Agree they will have a lot of interesting data on how people play in those situations
@@willc3421 wow that’s a good point. He said that a lot. If you play deep into a game where you know your moves won’t be detrimental, you can patiently wait for your opponent to slip up
"i'm sure you will to because i'm telling you to"
damn hikky chill
danny ranting at hikaru reminded me of "guy yelling at girl meme" lol
Bottom line: when we say Hans cheated more than once at 16 yrs of age we are comfortable enough to go to court with it. He is a cheater.
Cavity search. The gold standard in cheat detection
Just as good, an airport whole body screen (the one you walk through and raise your hands after already emptying all your pockets, watches, jewelery, etc).
I might have turned the game volume down, but at the same time it’s nice to listen to a real conversation.
I was banned because as a 1700 or so blitz rated player I had the audacity to win a game against an FM. Why play the game if the only acceptable result is defeat? Hmm, interesting
Definitely, time controls should definitely be taken into account. Also another thing to take into account is that if the other person blunders, you finding a great move shouldn't be too suspicious.
The football noises in the background were absolutely not annoying at all, please make sure we can hear them in all chess clips from now on.
This was a football stream on Twitch, some of which they talked about other subjects - like this one.
Disclosing how you catch cheaters might not be the smartest idea. Does a bank publicly disclose it's security measures?
now they will start making bad moves on purpose
Why did hans turn off engine his last game?
He already crushed 2 more GMs way above his skill level. I bet he was planning to lose to Magnus as well, if he played.
If indeed Hans is cheating and his method of cheating involves some sort of relay from an accomplice, and that relay involves vibration (whether or not it takes place in his rectum), it's feasible that their mode of communication only identifies which piece should be moved and not where precisely it should be moved. So for example a short burst for a pawn move (with an increasing amount [but not duration] of bursts from a pawn to h pawn), slightly longer bursts for a knight move, slightly longer for bishop and so on up. Hans' losing move in the last game against Le was moving his knight backwards instead of forwards to b3, which would have maintained good drawing chances.
Hans admits to cheating at 12, but maybe it was earlier, which makes me wonder: if a player's chess DNA has always included some form of assistance, how would you be able to determine with clarity what his real character is?
Most 2700s get half their moves from an engine. For the other half of their moves, they play until they can agree to a draw. None of them can beat an engine, so if any 2700 started playing to win every game, we would have our suspect.
@@yzfool6639 They use the engine for opening prep. Super GMs can prepare really deep and have the middlegame mostly sorted out, but it's impossible to prepare for complicated endgames. I would assume that most of a player's chess DNA is determined well after the 10-20 moves of advanced theory that all GMs are aware of. If a player has cheated frequently in the endgame since he was a kid, I'm guessing it'd be very hard to tell which moves are really his.
And how Danny Rensch let the cheaters back into circulation.
I cheated using Leela (lc0) and I'm still not banned in spite of 2450+ blitz rating lol. So that DNA not working (I used 1st or 2nd line of multiPV)
nice cheats :)
I was using a weak engine about 2400 online blitz rating. Just to see how it performs and how far it could go. I was still caught although I was pretending to wait, think etc.
I didnt get the impression that Danny really understood what he was talking about.
Pro Tip: Don't do an interviews while running a football game in the background. You know, for obvious reasons.
This couldn't have been any more awkward to watch.
Damn, I haven't watched the whole stream but from this clip alone, it feels just plain rude for Hikaru to be focusing instead on football while Danny's trying his hardest to explain. It's like he's trying to get someone to cover him from the flames of Hans' idiotic fans while not paying that person the minimum due respect.
@@jpryan90 ahh, I see.
As someone who multitasks myself, I make sure to be honest about my distractions, and to Hikaru's credit, he was honest about it in advance.
He kept the interruptions to a minimum (only the most impressive catches) to show that Danny was still his main focus
Basically doing the same as how they caught Lance Armstrong with his changing hemoglobin levels. Oprah-Hans interview ASAP!
I heard the London subway system is using a machine learning algorithm that spots people who are acting suicidal far enough in advance to intervene. Apparantly, it's already saved lives.
Hans taking hella notes rn
Statistics seems to be the key. Seems like in a match between two grandmasters, if you can play that one move that bumps your eval bar up by .5 in a game then you are going to win a lot of games. I had always wondered how often GMs find that move in a match statistically and if you could use that metric to spot people who seem to find it much more often than others.
… or not play that one slightly negative move
While he kept some things secret, the problem with the general idea of how they identify cheater, is that this only works for a frequent cheater... But if you only cheat 1 or 2 moves in a game, it won't really help.
If I played Magnus Carlsen, I would have to cheat for 50-75% of my moves to beat him. But if a GM plays Magnus Carlsen, just cheating on 1 or 2 moves can be enough to beat him.
And if that's how they do it, then any program analyzing their game will see them not finding the best move 95% of the time. And it'll also see them finding a terrible move sometimes (when they don't cheat, sometimes they'll make big mistakes).
The problem is that the suspects seem to start the engine only in the biggest games.
This gives very irregular results. And it is difficult for us to justify the bias of the evidence. It will seem that we only judge their best games, omitting their bad games.
This requires an argument outside of chess. To justify the criterion where many games are excluded.
Good luck, Danny. Your fight against random cheaters for sure will be successful. But against bigger foes with intention, it will be really hard.
For sure. If i was a super gm using an engine i would KNOW which moves are sus and I'm pretty sure I'd be able to cheat forever without any algorithm catching it.
So this would mainly work on non gm players that don't understand what move is sus and just follow the engine's top moves.
Hell GM's would get a massive advantage without even looking at the engine's moves but only the evaluation, how you catch that?
Hikaru said he found it fascinating but he seemed more interested in the match. Was he even following Danny?
I'm sorry. What was the question?
Of course he has to acknowledge the Cleveland Browns match since that's on his screen. What would've been bad is if he was dishonest about it. It's fine because here he was open about it in advance.
He only interrupts Danny whenever an impressive catch happens. This shows that he's still paying attention to Danny most of the time
Danny sounds more like a data scientist than a chess player
He is the Cheese Chef Chi-Cha-Cha Officer
I'm not a huge fan of banning potential cheaters just because they make certain moves that don't feel natural. It's simply not a 100 % certain way to prove, you can only assume they're cheating. It goes against the law of "Innocent until proven guilty"
Point being, Hans is not on pace to overtake Magnus. He’s losing games since the win over Magnus.
So they build a Biometric of a player, pretty fascinating. So have a "fingerprint" of a person, based on their play over many games. It's still not 100%, but definitely great idea. You also need to account for different time controls. You might also have some things like sickness, playing on a bus on mobile phone, etc. that can make a player play outside the norms. However, these would be in the "bad move" area and not the good move area.
Neimann nearly broke their system...
You know someone cheats because not only do they make more best moves they make less worst moves.
Thanks genius...
I love how you’re giving it all away. The top cheats will appreciate that.
Makes sense why when you play engines they play tons of best moves then just hang there queen for no reason to try and fit in 1200 strength instead of playing just average moves throughout
The problem with cheating at the highest level is that top GMs don't need the engine 95% of the time. Openings are completely prepared, and many sequences of moves are fixed once some initial decision has been made. I wonder if there's a way to identify the key moments of a game, and then seeing what a player's performance is like in those moments. Those are the moves where a top human player might make a mistake.
That's exactly what should be analysed. How often did Hans blunder vs play best move in a critical moment before vs now.
When a mediocre player cheats and plays like a super GM it's obvious because they will struggle to explain their thought process and reasoning behind their moves. This is why I'm willing to bet money that Hans is a cheat. Just watch his post match analysis... he is fucking clueless.
That hold on a moment, "huge football" catch was cringe. I didn't know chess players even watched traditional sports.
"Just use normal people words, then maybe I could understand you" - Ricky, Trailer Park Boys.
But when does something become so egregious that it can't be chalked up to "player A is improving"? They would have to have a standardized "natural progression" of a high level chess player to deem what's realistic. Furthermore, it'd be interesting to see at what age most pro chess players take their biggest leap skill wise.
We can't just flag outliers as cheaters. The problem is, we also need to know context. For example, how much they train? Imagine if Hans's ability to improve is an outlier, but only in the recent years he began to train 12 hours a day. This could make him a statistical anomaly, while not cheating. Also, you have to monitor your opponent's play, he might've just got lucky with his opponents playing easier to punish moves. Statisticss is a very good tool, but there are so many factors to consider...I know a table tennis player who got 2 leagues stronger between the age of 45 and 50, while playing for many years beforehand. He is so off the averages, everyone should suspect that he is cheating....but he is simply an outlier. What if Niemann had the same petential as Pragg and Alireza, he just never practiced and focused as much as the other future-super-gm kids? (Mind you that I don't want to say Hans didn't cheat, I don't know. And I think there is no statistical evidence that he cheated against Magnus, because it would be revealed by then.
Improvement is gradual, so the average that they compare your play to will change as you get better. Basically the overall quality of your moves(i.e. the number of best move you played in the last x games, compared to the number of second-best move you played in the last x games, and so forth) is a normal distribution and as you get better the average of that distribution increases, but the shape stays roughly the same. However, if you are cheating, the shape skews towards higher quality moves. That is essentially what he is saying
@@ajtatosmano2 how you gonna cheat at ping pong?
@@frankfrank6631 that’s the point. drugs are less effective than in performance focused sports or as computer aid in chess. but statistically the sport doesn’t matter, the graph will show the same. the conclusion you draw from the data is where context matters.
@@frankfrank6631 I assume performance enhancing drugs. Even just a powerful energy drink could probably tip balances at higher levels since it can become a bit of an endurance contest.
This is a good strategy to catch cheaters. I always try to play the types of moves the computer suggests when I’m reviewing my games, but because the position is slightly different my moves are always wrong
So the probability of how someone plays all types of moves good/bad/other/ give an accurate picture of whether someone is cheating.
Claim: Eliminating negative moves is better than making equally positive moves, when both are compared to making a neutral move.
Johnny makes 58 3rd best moves, and two 2nd best moves.
Jimmy makes 56 3rd best moves, three 2nd best moves, but one negative fourth best move. Jimmy loses due to the poor move even though he had more better moves. This idea. True at a certain point? Negative moves are worse than an “equivalent” value positive move. Yes? No?
Honestly, as a titled player I would love to have insights into my "DNA" by position type - seems like a great way to improve and to find holes into your game.
As a MSc and a guy who worked in ML & data analysis field I'm still surprised that there's so little data mining in top chess (or in chess in general); instead it came down to memorizing boring Berlin and Italian lines up to a draw smh
I'm glad you worked in ML. I actually think this DNA thing is simply an analogy and what is described here is a data preprocessing step to classify your data in a more robust manner (assuming that was done because of noisy outcomes) while at the same time, giving an easier task to your classifier (instead of classifying digits from 1 to 10, let's just classify odd number vs even number). If we assume you have enough data for each player and you can build a distribution that matches the likely moves such player can reasonably make, then that could be useful to catch normal cheaters. However, if it is true that top GMs only need to cheat for a few moves in critical positions, the same approach gives enough room to make choices that are within the known distribution and still provide an advantage to win games.
@@rsmith31416 From his description, it looks more like an anomaly detection system than a classifier. Honestly, it also sounds like a fun project to work on but maybe with a twist - instead of cheating detection system one could build something like a player profiler tool to automate the process of opening prep.
@@boccobadz I didn't get the feeling that they are working on anomaly detection but who knows... It is certainly an interesting project anyway.
What they're trying to say, is that they don't really have any real idea of who is cheating.
My question is, how do we catch a cheater in that case who cheats for a move at a critical time (not the top engine move but second to top or something) and besides that just because the player is in general a strong player, he wins the game and rest all of the moves are good enough?
You cant catch these people
That's a weird statistics to measure skill, unless you monitor cheating for top players only.
Hikaru: how dare you make a point when someone makes a good catch
Danny: sorry
4:06 what hikaru wanted to say was I'm actually watching the game right now idgaf what u say
I imagine you are already exploring visualizations Danny, et al. Pictures are worth thousands of words. One obvious picture is simply to look at the graph of rating progress.
Fascinating and would love to hear more
Ok good now knowing this they will never catch me
You must be a mathematician if you think you're going to outsmart a multi-tiered anti-cheating detection system that stores your game history and creates a fingerprint or DNA of your playing strength and style. Good luck!
I dont wanna be confused by a real cheater but i actually can easily do that
U see there's something dani didn't mentione in the vid
That this system got a space for developing whitch means it will always give u that benefit of the doubt if u played above your level a bit
So yeah i can easily do figure it out
@@wesamnadir665 . Then we'll see on the next round of the Candidates?
Hikaru is great at pretending to follow a person's monologue.
okey and what if the player arrtificialy makes his own DNA by playing best moves/blunders at the same rate each game with the help of computer and using that to cheat in every/most recorded game/s ?
Yes. A Prestige type swindle is possible.
Exactly this is still an easily flawed cheating system lmao.
That wouldn't be considered cheating. That is what top players do right now. They simply memorize the best moves and agree to play them against each other. Their ratings only fall precipitously once they run out of memory. That's why they agree to draw before they reach that stage of decline whenever possible.
@@yzfool6639 I think that you misunderstood what I said. I am not talking about memorization of any moves, I am talking about cheating algorithm that will suggest moves based on your best move/blunder ratio.
Your DNA (best move/blunder ratio) could be artificially changed by always using that cheating alghorithm in every recorded match. Your DNA will be stable (just as if you wouldn't use the alghorithm), so the anti-cheating software wouldn't recognize the cheating. But your ratings will be artificially higher (or lower if you would wanted to).
Of course you would have to know how the anti-cheating software classifies best moves and blunders, but that could be done in a few ways. (easy example would be to have insider who can directly look at the code)
I don't like that he is talking about it openly but it makes sense. Lot of comments are missing the neuance. He isn't talking about blunders or worse moves he is talking about grasping at straws. If you do a puzzle you know there is a solution and just knowing means you will look down crazier or longer lines to find it. Over the board you might miss a winning line because it looks unproductive and you aren't sure there is something there. He is saying missing those lines or finding them are less telling than players playing moves they think will be productive but aren't, because if you have engine help you dont play those "near miss" lines because the computer already invalidated them.
Bingo!
Playing a blitz vs classical games has to change these stats and analysis. Furthermore, do they document every player on all formats/tournaments in each and every move as well as time spent to make a move?
(when he starts talking about buckets)
"mm yes bucket sort"
(my mind declines to a point to where it's putting numbers into buckets instead of figuring out what he's talking about)
Would have been great without football noise and with an Interviewer paying attention and showing respect
They weren't supposed to even be talking about it. This was supposed to just be a watch along of the football.
I don't understand why people just accept their alogorithm is the best, when we really don't have the slightest idea of how it works, and there is no way for us to measure its effectiveness. It's easy to criticize Ken Regan and say his algorithm is too cautious, because he is transparent with his work. But how do we know Danny's isn't too paranoic and detects too many false positives, as we know for a fact has happened multiple times? And the way he explains it, the algorithm depends on a lot of assumptions about the pshychology of cheaters.
Personally, I just don't trust a company with private interests and no accountability to be an official authority in these serious matters.
Because he manspained it, that's why.
Honestly if someone's using an engine, that's cheating. If someone is leaking information, that's more like treachery affecting the outcome of the game, which might actually be the definition of cheating, but it doesn't bother me as much as if someone is actually using an engine.
Did this guy seriously just spend 4 minutes and 40 seconds explaining that when you make more of your shots then you statistically miss less as well?
Hikaru always have that sarcastic teacher look when he ask you about a question. He nods in a way "Hmmm really?" sarcastically.
Its interesting though that their algorithms false flagged on Alireza.
My suggestion is, at a minimum, have played in faraway cages that will keep out radio waves. Then work on machine learning that catches cheats. You will have the Stockfish level algorithm that detects cheating.
to sum it up. somone knew the prep of an opponent and played it to his own advantage?
After listening 2 minutes and 13 seconds I still hadn't understood one single thing of what they do to find cheaters. I stopped the video at that time.
If I cheated I would not be trying to remember all these stupid Gambits and my rating would have not dropped back down to 940 ha ha
This doesn't explain Regans analysis of the past 2 years of Hans' games. He's nowhere near the red zone or even in the yellow zone in any of his games in that period of time. Thats online and OTB. Unless some new information is brought forward, the evidence that has been shared publicly makes Hans 100% innocent and makes Danny's company look bad.
What if the cheater use accomplice to cheat? Mean, the accomplice using the computer and then give inputs to the player?
Let me now how to do this without being obvious, please. I'm broke right now.
Really interesting. What a shame all the noise from the football, makes it uncomfortable and difficult for non natives
"How we find cheaters". AKA ban whoever beats Magnus. Hikaru and Rensch desperately protecting their new investment.
@mister kluge you can't be this stupid. you're a bot
He is essentially saying that when they don't know what the best move is they just make middling nothing moves that just hold the position rather than taking shots at a move that has potential to do something game changing but is flawed. and this lack of swing and miss attempts is very telling. rather taking risks like throwing the queen across the board trying to force a checkmate that doesn't pan out like what can happen to someone who is trying to win but doesn't know what the best move is. When they don't have the tips that are giving them the best move they just push pawn and try and hold the position until something works out. and they never really do those swing and miss attempts like they used to or at the level that any other player would in their performance range.
Next we need Danny to establish the DNA profile of the real William Shakespeare.
What about when the other player takes exactly 8 seconds for every single move? is that not the most obvious sign?
That’s basic ways to detect them, but behind the scenes it’s way deeper, just like sinistermagnus incident.
Couldn’t turn down the volume for 4 minutes.
These football references are great.
He said DNA. Danny nos all.