Cheating suspicion at the Zadar Open in Croatia

[Modern Times]

Again, if you can't show HOW he is doing this, then there is no case to answer.

I disagree with this.
No human being can consistently play the #1 or #2 choice of Houdini. Detecting this pattern exposes the cheating, no further evidence is required.
I'm surprised that even on a computer chess forum this is not self evident.

Robert

I disagree, I think you must have a plausible theory as to how he is doing it. Without that, then he is for the moment innocent.

[Don]

That is what happened with the Lance Armstrong case in the court of public opinion. You could explain away any individual piece of evidence but together it formed a clear picture. And guess who was guilty? A lot of people said, "I don't really see any evidence here ....."

It works in this case because you can sample ALL the moves he played, not just pick and choose one or two to make your case.

There are significant differences from the Armstrong case.

Again, if you can't show HOW he is doing this, then there is no case to answer.

Who decided that rule? You are spouting rules about how thing should be done and expect everyone to accept them as a guiding principle? You have been watching too many crime shows.

All you have to prove is that someone cheated, why is it required to show exactly how they did it? In fact, you may never know how they did it unless they tell you.

In court cases people have been convicted without knowing any of the details of HOW, provided it can be proved that it was done by the accused. You don't even need a body if you can establish beyond reasonable doubt that the crime was committed but of course having a body usually makes it more obvious that there was a murder. Otherwise, anyone could get away with murder simply by making sure the body was never found, even if people saw them commit the crime.

You may be 99% sure he is cheatiing, but if you can't show how it is possible that he is doing it, then I'm afraid he is innocent until the cheating mechanism is discovered.

Says who? He is either innocent or guilty and what you or I think is not relevant. I think you have to be a lot more than 99% sure of cheating or a crime and that is why innocent people have often been convicted of crimes they didn't commit. The nonsense seems to go in both directions here and innocent people get convicted but not when sound principles are honored.

I think a lot of people go free who are guilty beyond any doubt simply because of lack of good judgement. The solution isn't to be stupid or fearful of making a conviction but to apply a lot more reasoning to the problem.

Probably, at least in the US, the jury system is pretty broken but the average man or woman simply doesn't have the training necessary to be a good judge. They do attempt to train you on the spot but that only goes so far.

I know that if were guilty, my lawyer would be delighted to have you as a juror.

It *was* discovered eventually with Armstrong, maybe it will be discovered here too. But until it is, if it is, then it is innocent until proven guilty.

I don't like that principle. I understand the good sentiment behind it but it's rather a stupid thing when the accused is sitting in jail so that he doesn't run and everyone proclaiming him innocent because he has not been proved guilty. Hello? The reason he is on trial is because there is good reason to believe he is guilty! The real principle should be an honest search for truth and there should be NO assumptions about either innocence or guilt. He should be treated humanely and respectfully until the truth is determined and after.

If people honored the "search for truth" principle they could be a lot more objective than pretending innocence when the reality is that it is more likely he is guilty. Note that giving the benefit of the doubt is a different principle than "innocent until proven guilty" - benefit of doubt is a principle that I believe in. It means that if you are going to err, do it in favor of the accused. But it doesn't mean to reject all the strong evidence and be stupid.

[Modern Times]

The principle of innocent until proven guilty is fundamental in most democracies.

Personally I like to see a very high standard of proof, and I think it is better to err on the side of caution. Sure some guilty people get away with crime at the moment, but that is better than lots of innocent people being convicted. And if I was on a jury, that would certainly be my view.

[Modern Times]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Mine differs from yours Don, I can live with that.

[Don]

The principle of innocent until proven guilty is fundamental in most democracies.

My point is that this principle is improperly stated, probably because it sounds more noble when expressed that way. If you actually view the person as innocent, why do you "lock him up" or require him to post a bond if he can afford it?

When the infamous son of sam and many other serial killers were caught, why didn't they just let them go until the trial since they are "innocent" until proved guilty? It's just a stupid thing that is in direct conflict with actual reality.

The principle this is supposed to capture is that the accused should be given the benefit of the doubt and being accused should not be viewed as being guilty. The real problem is that it often is.

Personally I like to see a very high standard of proof,

You and everyone else. Nobody want to see innocent people go to jail or considered guilty of something when they are innocent and it's universally understood that you had better be really sure when you convict someone because it affects their lives in a major way.

... and I think it is better to err on the side of caution. Sure some guilty people get away with crime at the moment, but that is better than lots of innocent people being convicted. And if I was on a jury, that would certainly be my view.

When it comes to certain types of crime you have to think not just about the accused, but also the victims and the future victims. Let's say you have a serial criminal, perhaps a rapist, pedophile or killer who is sure to continue committing offenses. You say you want to err on the side of caution, but evidently you don't really mean that. Letting such people go even when there is strong evidence is not cautious. I think what you really meant to say is that you would rather error on the side of the accused.

The sad truth is that it's really rare that you can prove 100% that someone did something - but you cannot have justice if you require this kind of proof. Not even a confession qualifies with details of the crime exposed.

The guiding principle of the law (at least in the U.S.) is "beyond a reasonable doubt" and I agree with that 100% but I'll bet that I would require more proof than you would. Who doesn't claim they want to see a very high standard of proof? The problem is that people get confused. I believe the evidence is there to make the right decision in the vast majority of cases and we could have our cake and eat it too, convicting the innocent less and the guilty more at the same time) but the legal system is set up to be adversarial and greatly favors the wealthy, so the problem has almost nothing to do with our threshold of proof but our being able to recognize it objectively.

This cheating thing is a case in point as was the Lance Armstrong scandal. How many people couldn't see what was so obvious? For such people there can never be enough evidence.

[Don]

OK, so is Ippolit a reverse engineered Rybka?

No. Ippolit is not Rybka. It was heavily based on Rybka but it is a different program.

[Don]

Again, if you can't show HOW he is doing this, then there is no case to answer.

I disagree with this.
No human being can consistently play the #1 or #2 choice of Houdini. Detecting this pattern exposes the cheating, no further evidence is required.
I'm surprised that even on a computer chess forum this is not self evident.

Nothing surprises me on this forum.

Robert

[Jesse Gersenson]

No human being can consistently play the #1 or #2 choice of Houdini.

What percentage of moves were consistent?

I'm rated 1800 fide and, in a typical over the board game, 75% of my moves will match the first or second choice of a strong engine.

[Don]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Mine differs from yours Don, I can live with that.

No worries. I am not concerned with that and I do sometimes come across more adversarial that I intend. I don't have any problem with different opinions on this subject and I will state my feelings and hope that you do too and nobody need get offended.

The funny thing here is that I am not really that sure we have a difference because when the subject of justice comes up everyone states their view in just difficult to define terms that you cannot always compare. For example you said that you believe the level of proof should be very high to convict, but I feel exactly the same way! The difference is not necessarily the level of proof but our understanding of it. The most convincing argument of all is worthless if the argument is not understood.

I don't know if you remember the Al Gore vs George Bush debates. Al Gore was spouting statistics and they were very convincing to me. I am politically neutral so I'm not predisposed to taking anyone's side in politics but I did completely understand the point that he was making and thought it was powerful. Then Bush got up and just made a joke out of the numbers, saying "fuzzy numbers" as if they didn't mean anything. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't but it occurred to me at that moment that George Bush was taking advantage of the average persons ignorance. I imagined that he gained votes just by poking fun at statistics and that this would appeal to anyone who didn't understand. It's like that in court too. It can work either way, but often the least sensible arguments are the ones that resonate with people.

Personally, I believe that jurors should not come from the general population but be specially trained. That carries some problems of its own, but I think it would be the lessor of two evils.

[Don]

No human being can consistently play the #1 or #2 choice of Houdini.

What percentage of moves were consistent?

I'm rated 1800 fide and, in a typical over the board game, 75% of my moves will match the first or second choice of a strong engine.

The match was on virtual every move. And the second choice move was never a bad move but a move Houdini might even had played on a slightly different setting. I think the point is that even if you take Houdini's move every time you cannot check later and expect to get 100% match due to chaos theory, no engine plays exactly the same on different hardware, different conditions, etc.