< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 8 OF 8 ·
|Sep-17-17|| ||tamar: <Richard Taylor> You sayin Ivanchuk and Aronian dress like gypsies?|
|Sep-17-17|| ||ChessHigherCat: <beatgiant: <ChessHigherCat> I will just reply here one last time to clear up some misunderstandings.|
<challenge me to provide proof which is absent precisely because of people like you who are opposed to developing the system>
Why can't you ever reproduce a sentence in its entirety, just out of curiosity? Might it be that you don't want to address what I actually say since you prefer to make up your flimsy arguments, pretend that they're mine and then refute them? Whatever floats your boat, but that has no relation to my arguments.
For example, you say:
<I am not "opposed to developing the system," and I am not arguing from non-existence of the system. Instead, I am I am arguing that there are some strict limits of what could be detected inherent in the nature of this kind of target.>
What system? For no reason whatsoever you assume that I am talking about a computer analysis system (which, as everybody knows, I absolutely detest and avoid like the plague that they are). I have repeatedly explained that I'm advocating a trial-like dispute-solution team with expert opinions, witness testimony, evidence collection, forced discovery of evidence in the possession of the other party, a fair hearing with an impartial judge. You totally ignore all that and claim that "such a system" (i.e., the computer analysis system in your article, which I never even mentioned!) cannot succeed (so what?) and that such a system alone cannot suffice to provide proper evidence. If you don't want to continue the argument that's fine with me, in fact it's extremely fastidious since you never even read what I write, as I have learned the hard way from prior experience, but if you try to put words into my mouth I have the right to defend myself. I didn't even bother to reply before because I thought any intelligent person could see you weren't responding to my arguments at all, but now I'm being "refuted" by people based on your complete misrepresentation of my arguments.
|Sep-17-17|| ||Domdaniel: <patzer2> Er, sorry, but if pigs could grow wings they would most certainly *not* be able to fly -- far too much body mass for any plausible wing to provide lift. It's the same reason that winged angels are impossible, and Dumbo the flying elephant never gets off the ground.|
Still, flying pigs is a more reasonable debate than the match-fixing wiles of the sinister Hayastan Mafiya.
|Sep-17-17|| ||Sally Simpson: Hi Dom,
According to the law of aerodynamics Bumble Bees should not be able to fly.
I think if pigs grew wings large enough they could fly.
They could certainly glide, but "if pigs could glide" does bit have same ring to it.
Agatha McSweeny says there are two type of people in this world, those that think pigs cannot fly and those that try to make them fly.
(topic wise we are OK. 'Blind Pigs' is a chess term.)
Agatha McSweeny is an old lady I sometimes meet in the queue at the green grocers. She never has enough money and I keep having to bail her out. Of late her feet have been playing her up.
|Sep-17-17|| ||patzer2: <ChessHigherCat> I wasn't trying to judge your argument, so much as I was just trying to understand and formally construct it.|
The words <system of analysis and investigation> in the premises P1 (A and B) and P2 (B) I constructed in modus ponens form to understand your argument are your own words in reply to <beatgiant> on page 4 of the kibitizing here at Aronian vs Ivanchuk, 2017.
I did take the liberty of inserting the word <objective> because no doubt such a system that you now clarify to include <a trial-like dispute-solution team with expert opinions, witness testimony, evidence collection, forced discovery of evidence in the possession of the other party, a fair hearing with an impartial judge> would, I assume (in your vision of it,) most certainly never be "subjective."
|Sep-17-17|| ||ChessHigherCat: <patzer2: <ChessHigherCat> I wasn't trying to judge your argument, so much as I was just trying to understand and formally construct it.>|
I want you to judge my argument, but based on the arguments I actually set out, which cover the whole range of guarantees of due process rather than on some totally distorted, inaccurate and dubious summary that gives the impression I am somehow focusing on a computer system I couldn't care less about, especially since I have a very low opinion of "Artificial Intelligence" applied to anything non-binary (such as the justice system).
You did me a service by reconstructing "my argument" based on BeatGiant's summary, because that made me realize how incredibly misleading it must be.
<The words <system of analysis and investigation> in the premises P1 (A and B) and P2 (B) I constructed in modus ponens form to understand your argument are your own words in reply to <beatgiant> on page 4 of the kibitizing here at Aronian vs Ivanchuk, 2017.>
Yes, of course, I said <analysis and investigation>, those are my own words, but how you construe that to mean "electronic devices/IT systems" is beyond me. Is forensic analysis and investigation generally conducted by electronic devices or by people? The days of Bladerunner may be just around the corner but the justice system isn't run by androids yet. And from there to raise pseudo-objections that "exclusive use of electronic systems is insufficient" when I only mentioned electronic systems very tangentially (audio/visual recordings and never computers as far as I remember) is totally off-the-wall, considering all the other forms of evidence I mentioned.
<I did take the liberty of inserting the word <objective> because no doubt such a system that you now clarify to include <a trial-like dispute-resolution team with expert opinions, witness testimony, evidence collection, forced discovery of evidence in the possession of the other party, a fair hearing with an impartial judge> would, I assume (in your vision of it,) most certainly never be "subjective.">
I don't "now clarify it to include" due process, I said it repeatedly from the very beginning but instead of reading what I wrote you just read that mangled summary which deliberately omitted every substantial argument. And I'm not the one who's being naive about "objective" and "subjective". I've said a thousand times already that there's no absolute proof in law, and the same goes for absolute objectivity, but that's life. We can never be absolutely certain about anything, so what, are we supposed to fall down on the floor and suck our thumbs in despair? Can't you see how that "lack of absolute objectivity" argument could be (and is) used in bad faith to claim that there should be no justice system and no punishments at all because there's always a possibility, however slight, of human error? The standard of beyond a reasonable doubt suffices.
Now of course, one can ask "but how can we prove blah, blah, blah" but those are all practical issues that can be worked out by experts. Take the example of FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (http://www.fifa.com/governance/disp...). FIDE could set up a similar system, but with adequate guarantees of an impartial judge.
Finally, somebody will no doubt brilliantly call to my attention that there is a difference between soccer and chess (doh!) but there all kinds of behind-the-scenes deals and corruption in the soccer world, it's not all a question of transparent action on the playing field.
|Sep-17-17|| ||beatgiant: I will break silence to clarify only one thing. My claim, as I stated in my first post, was <one cannot really use only the moves in the game as evidence>, and <the only convincing evidence of a fix must come from outside the chess game>.|
This does <not> argue against the possibility of judging cheating using a full tribunal armed with all investigative powers at its disposal; quite the contrary. I am saying exactly that any investigation must look beyond the moves of the game.
In other words, some here who write as though they are disagreeing with me are actually agreeing with me.
It <does> argue against those who say, "Look how weakly Ivanchuk played in this game, that alone shows there must be a fix." And that is all.
|Sep-17-17|| ||Boomie: Been feeding the trolls here, have we? I thought we weren't going to do that. |
That either of these two fine players who have always shown the greatest respect for chess would conspire to fix a game is preposterous and does not warrant all this blather. Either post about the game here or take this drivel to Rogoff.
|Sep-17-17|| ||ChessHigherCat: <Boomie: Been feeding the trolls here, have we? I thought we weren't going to do that.|
That either of these two fine players who have always shown the greatest respect for chess would conspire to fix a game is preposterous and does not warrant all this blather. Either post about the game here or take this drivel to Rogoff.>
Who's the troll? You're the living proof that a moron can be good at chess! I've argued all along against Ivanchuk conspiring to fix the game. If you're too stupid to read why do you feel it is your duty to butt in?
|Sep-17-17|| ||WorstPlayerEver: <Either post about the game here or take this drivel to Rogoff.>|
Yeah, maybe you should practise what you preach. Gee, even as a troll I am failing...
|Sep-17-17|| ||Boomie: <ChessHigherCat>|
What makes you think my post is about you? Like just about everything else in the world, it isn't about you.
|Sep-17-17|| ||Boomie: <WorstPlayerEver>|
There are two kinds of posts at CG that interest me: chess and humor. Your posts are mostly humorous and therefore of value to me. Keep up the good work. I reserve the right to steal any joke at any time.
|Sep-17-17|| ||WorstPlayerEver: <Boomie>
Ah, I am glad you don't take my posts too seriously; usually they are born out of sheer desperation.
|Sep-18-17|| ||patzer2: Turns out FIDE already has a quasi-legal system set up to investigate claims of cheating, determine guilt and impose sanctions through its Anti-Cheating Committee (ACC) and Ethics Commission (EC.)|
See https://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/.... for the 22 page FIDE handbook entitled "Anti-Cheating Guidelines," which provides detailed procedures for initiating, investigating and prosecuting formal accusations of cheating.
Note that the FIDE anti-cheating guidelines already allow for the use of "statistical analysis" of games, and such analysis can be used as supporting evidence in determining if cheating took place and in imposing sanctions through the ACC and EC.
However, I can find no instances in which game analysis alone, either by computers or Chess Masters, was used as the sole basis for FIDE imposing sanctions as punishment for cheating.
|Sep-18-17|| ||WorstPlayerEver: <However, can find no instances in which game analysis alone, either by computers or Chess Masters, was used as the sole basis for FIDE imposing sanctions as punishment for cheating.>|
Of course not. Because before you know it a GM will be foolmated.
Then the FIDE has to proof that this GM was cheating. Which will end up in a case where the GM will use a laywer to get compensation for the unjust accusation which the FIDE had made to that GM's address.
|Sep-18-17|| ||Richard Taylor: Pigs with wings could fly. Anything can happen. I saw a flying elephant yesterday. I was sober. But anything can happen. Expect nothing. Or don't expect nothing. And don't expectorate. Or expectorate if that is what is advised by the polite dentist, or it was to me. Fortunately I knew the word, that day: The Day I Had My Tooth Pulled. Of this no more, but I expect you to expect. Except I don't accept that I expect. But I expect you will accept. Is this acceptable he asked. I expect so came the circumspect reply. He was circumcised so he felt it necessary to be circumspect. But he didn't expect that he would be "expecting". An expection was made. You might have expected "exception". This is entirely exceptable. Expectant. Many people of all kinds are expectant. Those who are expectant were allowed through the right hand side. Those without any significant or dubious expectorations were excepted and entered the left side. A lot of exceptional expletives were expectorated on those expecting to be accepted to the middle way. This was something that those who were Expectors or Inspectors, accepted. Elephants they used to mutter calmly to themselves, can fly. (For millions of millenia they all agreed, anything can happen, but during that brief spit of a time slice, nothing did). They evolved and become other things. It was seen that they all had the heads of bumble bees and the bodies of extraterrestrials. They were always expectant: in their excitement they buzzed and hummed and buzzed around forever. Their Message to the Planet was something about happiness etc etc and cleverly they sought out Irises. But that aside the expectant bumble bees aliens, executing impossibilities, always accepted that they and elephants could, given the right expectapreceptions, fly.*
(But the deep question remains: where to put the full stop, after or before the bracket: and where in '1984' does Winston puzzle over this, what page, or approximate page, he asked.) He tried some examples: .) ). ]}. .]. Most of all her preferred .I. as it was symmetrical, like a tyger.|
|Sep-18-17|| ||Domdaniel: <Richard> You've read 'Great Expectorations', of course?|
By Dickens. Or Mark Spitz?
|Sep-18-17|| ||Domdaniel: Circumcision is what separates the Jews from the genitals.|
|Sep-18-17|| ||Marmot PFL: Video review of this remarkable encounter
|Sep-19-17|| ||ChessHigherCat: <Patzer2 However, I can find no instances in which game analysis alone, either by computers or Chess Masters, was used as the sole basis for FIDE imposing sanctions as punishment for cheating.>|
You are totally pathetic! You're still claiming I advocated using game analysis alone! See if you can find a version of Stockfish for ordinary thought because you are sorely in need of it!
|Sep-19-17|| ||Richard Taylor: <Domdaniel: <Richard> You've read 'Great Expectorations', of course?
By Dickens. Or Mark Spitz?> Yes wonderful book! Spiffing! I mean spitting...by Mark "what the Dickens?" Spitz or someone like him....|
|Sep-19-17|| ||Richard Taylor: < Marmot PFL: Video review of this remarkable encounter
King elides the obvious that Ivanchuk simply had to develop his King side and in fact even after Nh4 he had Ne7...(instead of using up nearly an hour on useless calculations). It was not playing straightforward developing moves and playing too slowly that lost him the game.
Because Aronian won it is assumed that his position after d4 is winning. This is ridiculous although I like King who does those videos.
The time pressure that Ivanchuk had put himself under is stupid. He should have realised that had gone wrong and then developed his pieces. I heard Karpov say that in a game where he took a move back so to speak...he was asked, and he had no problem playing an inferior move to save the game and indeed he did. And also there were many sequences of moves in say the match Karpov-Kasparov where there was almost no significant calculation required....
...Ivanchuk beat himself in that game Aronian just played fairly obvious moves to take the point.
The "Catalan Bishop" is not significant...in any case he gave himself no chance getting down to 12 minutes or even less. Ivanchuk was demoralised by "getting out of book" which is something that dos happen. It is like a pilot who cant switch his system from a computer controlled system to manual. Ivanchuk needed to go onto manual and fight but he just folded. Aronian's moves weren't particularly surprising or hard to find. It was logical but Ivanchuk just sat there like a stunned man slowly disintegrating. It was sad to watch.
|Sep-19-17|| ||ChessHigherCat: Thank you all for convincing me that this website is a complete waste of time.|
|Sep-19-17|| ||patzer2: <Chesshighercat> <totally pathetic> No I never said you advocated using game analysis alone to determine cheating. |
I simply summarized your position in your own words as a <system of analysis and investigation,> and after your reply I acknowledged that you meant this to be a quasi-legal system to determine guilt using <a trial-like dispute-solution team with expert opinions, witness testimony, evidence collection, forced discovery of evidence in the possession of the other party, a fair hearing with an impartial judge.>
However, I am concerned that both the FIDE system already in place or your proposed more eleaborate quasi-legal system could use game analysis as the sole basis to investigate and put players, who have a few exceptionally good game or good tournament results, on trial for cheating.
Existing FIDE guidelines already give tournament officials the authority to not only follow "suspected" players to the bathroom, but also to authorize strip searches. The FIDE guidelines encourage tournament officials to submit games from tournaments in progress to FIDE, and if the results show a suspicion of cheating, this along with an accusation by an opponent or one too many visits to the bathroom, apparently gives TDs the authority and duty to start following "suspected" players to the toilet, authorizing strip searches etc. This, it appears to me, may have taken us a bit too far in the direction of invading the privacy and human rights of players.
Cheating is a serious problem, and certainly must be dealt with, but I'm not at all convinced that a quasi-legal system like you propose or the existing system being implemented, developed and "improved" by FIDE is the answer.
P.S.: Based on everything you've written so far, I trust you share those concerns.
|Sep-21-17|| ||ChessHigherCat: How I love these solitary walks along the beach...|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 8 OF 8 ·