And what if this guy was a Super-GM in the first-place and on top of that can actually explain all of those moves! :o
How would you guard against this kind of high profile cheating?
Sort:
Xilmi wrote:
And what if this guy was a Super-GM in the first-place and on top of that can actually explain all of those moves! :o
I wouldn't be concerned about that. I'd be more concerned about the case where s/he wasn't.
reflectivist wrote:
Xilmi wrote:
And what if this guy was a Super-GM in the first-place and on top of that can actually explain all of those moves! :o
I wouldn't be concerned about that. I'd be more concerned about the case where s/he wasn't.
But other super-GMs probably would if one of their kind would win a super-gm-only-tournament with a perfect score.
What if a player went to a tournament wired for audio or some kind of other signaling, and video of the board such that they could get feedback from multiple computer programs to assist?
They could haved several top engines helping them analyze the game and then they pick responses round-robin such that nobody could find a pattern they could attribute to cheating with a particular chess engine.
And, if the engines all came up with the same move at a certain time, it might be because it is the only logical move and therefore also relatively safe from accusations of cheating.