Confused_by_Theory wrote on 08/25/20 at 07:39:00:

An algorithm needs to be verifiable. Researchers have made mistakes with algorithms before, sometimes quite crude mistakes, and so these things need to be checked by other researchers. This raises the issue that a cheater can inspect the algorithm and find a way not to exceed the threshold. So be it. If the algorithm is not sufficiently robust to survive such inspection by the enemy, then it can't be the sole basis for convicting such enemy. If an algorithm is a black box which can't be inspected or challenged, then an eventual miscarriage of justice is even more certain than the statistical "reliability" of the algorithm.

https://lostontime.blogspot.com/2019/10/ever-get-feeling-youve-been-cheated.html

People for some psychological reason find computational answers too convincing. Give someone a calculator, an algorithm, and a task to calculate the distance from the Earth to the Moon. If the calculator returned 1.496E+11 meters, too many people would without hesitation put that answer down. More decimal places is even more "convincing". Ask someone "how did you get that result?". If the answer is "we used an algorithm" (or "statistical model", or "computer program", etc.), too many people would be completely satisfied with the response and never check the result. I find the argument "higher than the one for DNA tests" to be basically an appeal for the audience to make this kind of acceptance error. The more I think about "DNA tests", the more I wonder how these can have any relation to algorithms for cheating.

Hi.

Fide president Dvorkovich has published some questions about computer-assisted cheating in chess for the whole wider chess community.
https://www.fide.com/news/703

Somewhat interesting reading imo. Fide has faith in algorithms and is projecting complete readiness for legal challenges (defamation? retrieving prize money? something else?). I guess the main thing is what Fide does after this questionnaire. the questions asked are of course basis for probably some discussion though so let's go.

Questions from Fide:
1. Our methods of detection, although very advanced and ever-improving, can't provide a 100% confirmation. In many cases, the probability estimated is higher than the one for DNA tests. Do you believe a statistical algorithm (or a combination of those) giving close to 100% probability of cheating could stand as sufficient grounds for banning a player? If yes - what odds would you find sufficient?


2. Shall FIDE apply sanctions for alleged online violations to over-the-board-play (and vice versa)?


3. Shall we apply sanctions for alleged violations at platforms’ own events, and other unofficial online events, to official FIDE online events (and vice versa)?


4. Shall we publish the names of alleged violators after the very first conviction?


5. Shall the violators be punished retroactively, with their prize money, rating and titles been revoked for some period preceding the verdict? And, if yes, how far back should these actions go?


6. What would you consider a reasonable banning period for first-time violators, and for repeat offenders? How strict should be the measures in youth competitions?