Houdini move matching snares more chess cheats

[mwyoung]

You cannot use tactical games and forced sequences for your silly comparisons. You know this, but continue to insist.

Robert Houdart: "No human being can consistently play the #1 or #2 choice of Houdini. Detecting this pattern exposes the cheating, no further evidence is required."


Hello Jeremy,

It is strange you want to justify the computer cheating standard that has been put forth by FM LiLov and Robert Houdart , and you take exception when I point out the standards flaws. It is not my standard, so I agree the standard needs much justifying.

The standard is No human, and the moves by Paul Morphy are not forced. There are other moves that can by played by Paul Morphy.

I do find it funny that you did not mind FM Lilov counting tactical and forced sequences against Ivanov in his games as so called proof.

The games played by Ivanov are not positional master pieces, they are tactical wins.

Why should I take out such moves and games, when the standard by FM Lilov and Robert Houdart as stated and used do not.

[wwowgold]

Welcome to have more fun game waiting for you

[hyatt]

I do not buy this matching approach as proof of cheating. It is, at the very best, only an indication that more study is needed. Very much like the "similarity testing" some are trying to use to detect clones. The question that MUST be answered first, before using these tests, is "what is the probability of a false positive". Most are just happy to find something that catches the obvious cloners or cheaters. Which is a good idea. But if it can also catch non-cheaters, that's a problem.

My suggestion has always been to use these kinds of matching studies as a filter. But just because it detects a high level of matches, there is no high probability that it did not get a false positive, until a LOT of testing has been done...

One should be able to take any tournament prior to 2000 and test with ZERO positive cheating indications, because there were no computers strong enough to be used prior to that time... Running the comparison on a couple of hundred different tournaments with zero cheaters detected might be convincing...

[User923005]

This is an excellent and balanced view of the subject.
Further, such an experiment should be revealing as to probability of an accident.

When a positive indication does occur, it seems that investigation could be warranted.
I think that such a possibility should be indicated to the players before the tournament begins.
An honest player should have little to object about.

The exact conditions of the test should be spelled out BEFORE hand, so that it does not look like a fishing expedition if a fuller investigation should occur.

The test, by itself, should not be viewed as proof of cheating.

[Kappatoo]

Sorry, but I don't quite get this discussion.
>Robert Houdart: "No human being can consistently play the #1 or #2 choice of Houdini. Detecting this pattern exposes the cheating, no further evidence is required."
This seems to be a very reasonable position. But neither can a single game show that a player consistently plays Houdini's moves, nor does Lilov's 'method' (which isn't really a method; I really dislike his videos on the case). To demonstrate the kind of pattern mentioned by Houdart, you need valid data from a large number of games.

[mwyoung]

Sorry, but I don't quite get this discussion.
>Robert Houdart: "No human being can consistently play the #1 or #2 choice of Houdini. Detecting this pattern exposes the cheating, no further evidence is required."
This seems to be a very reasonable position. But neither can a single game show that a player consistently plays Houdini's moves, nor does Lilov's 'method' (which isn't really a method; I really dislike his videos on the case). To demonstrate the kind of pattern mentioned by Houdart, you need valid data from a large number of games.

Just to clarify the context and to make it clear. Houdart's comment is in response to FM
Lilov's video and directed to FM Lilov. The whole quote and comment is telling FM Lilov that Houdart is agreeing with the multi move matching idea of FM Lilov shown in the video using Houdini 3. And to continue to focus on this idea because no further evidence is needed to show guilt. The other part of Houdart's comment not quoted here is telling FM Lilov to not focus on strange looking moves and claim cheating against the player as this is unconvincing in Houdart's opinion as shown in FM Lilov's Video.

Houdart is agreeing with FM Lilov's method shown in the video.

Your point is correct and this is my problem also. You can not run this kind of move matching idea with no data, and then run this against only one person. With no testing ever, and then claim this shows guilt with no other evidence being required.