I didn’t threaten to cast you out.
I predicted that your way would not gain a following. This is completely different, and the second time you have misrepresented what I said in this thread.
1 Like
But how to detect this?
There’s stupid cheaters who just relay the complete game played by an AI, you can easily pick those out. But how to distinguish an honest player from a player who only consults the AI once or twice during the game, e.g. to find that one tricky tesuji? They could’ve come up with it themself or they could’ve played a great move by accident.
6 Likes
The answer is simple: you cannot. The program will consider that the “smart cheater” is honest.
3 Likes
Exactly, so catching cheaters by only analysing games is in a way impossible.
Especially at the professional level, where the AI helping with one move could mean the difference between winning and losing.
Thus we do really need some external surveillance to be sure people don’t cheat, but this brings privacy concerns with it. There isn’t really a good system for these kinds of privacy problems yet.
3 Likes
In addition to the objections raised by @BHydden, personal security would be a major concern for some people (not including criminals). Being video-recorded is equivalent to identification in our age of excellent facial-recognition systems. Some people understandably would like to avoid the many online crazies, scammers, and other assorted bad actors. People with these concerns might well avoid IRL tournaments because they have a refuge in anonymous online play.
3 Likes
I think that the same rules that apply in a real life tournament, should apply in an online one, in terms of what you can do or not, with the added caveat that you are, indeed, at home. This means that some extra things should be allowed. E.g.
- Phone rings or the doorbell. It goes without saying that you should be able to answer your door.
- Someone else living in the house with you, talks to you about something that needs your immediate input. It goes without saying that you should be able to answer at those questions/issues.
and so forth …
I do not think that rules need to cover all the “common sense” things that someone might do at home. All the rules should say is “please be ready to provide some proof that you were not using AI or cheating during a very serious tournament game IF and ONLY IF someone accuses you of cheating”. I do not know if everyone records themselves playing and send the video along each time, but if so, that is creating extra overhead for the players and the organisers that is uneccessary.
Personally I do not think that recording does anything other than provide a sense of “we did our best” … people will find a way to bypass a recording angle, if they really want to cheat, so if there was a poll I would agree with the people that expressed the opinion that putting too much focus on this issue is actually doing more harm than good long-term.
2 Likes
But why should we feel forced to give people trying to hide their identity a refuge in online play, when doing so comprimises our tournaments, and they don’t have the same available IRL?
If you have to prove your identity to play IRL, why should you be allowed to hide it when you compete online?
… and furthermore, you can wear a mask - either IRL or online, so this whole “identity” thing seems moot.
We don’t need to see people’s faces while they record themselves playing online to see whether or not they are cheating.
1 Like
In the interest of diversity. Why should people with legitimate personal security concerns (remember, we are not talking about criminals) be excluded from all go tournaments.
3 Likes
They don’t need to be: just wear a mask.
2 Likes
OK, let me try it this way:
You “predict” that any person who tries to push back and ask for some regulations on what a serious hobby can and can’t ask of them to be allowed to participate, won’t have it their way, because the majority are too afraid to not conform.
There are many, many, many reasons to not want to be recorded, and I don’t think I should have to list them here.
And there’s always the underlying notion that, whoever doesn’t agree, is a potential cheater and should be looked at with suspicion. “Hm, why wouldn’t you want to be recorded in your home?.. You probably intend to cheat, don’t you?..” This is where we are heading, if we don’t stop and think that, no, demanding someone to be recorded in their house without a second thought is not normal. It is a concession that some may be willing to make, but it should be demanded by all of us for the regulatory bodies to look for better ways to achieve what is best for all, which is to minimize cheating as much as possible.
(I don’t misrepresent things; I point out how they can be interpreted. So nonchalantly saying “well, the poors weren’t included before anyways” is not what you meant probably, but if I’m labeled the blunt one here, then everyone else should be even more precise and careful with their words.)
And in any case, yes it’s important to do the morally right thing and not cheat for everyone, yes it’s also important for pros because there’s money involved, but it’s not nuclear codes or anything. Let’s push back and see if there are better ways to solve the issue, because instead of pushing the shove to those who are responsible, we just take it for granted it’s our problem to solve and stay the pushed ones. It wouldn’t be terribly bad for the community to grow a backbone and stop acting with the fear of the federations labeling an innocent person a cheater.
If I’m in my house, I shouldn’t have to be labeled a cheater if I need to go off frame to sneeze.
3 Likes
Okay, but let’s make it fair. Let’s equalize the inconvenience and discomfort by requiring everyone to wear a mask.
1 Like
I think this argument about identity is a sideshow to the main concerns, so let’s deal with those first.
(I’m all ears for arguments why identity should be a “main concern”, I’m just personally wanting to put it aside because it can be dealt with “in this kind of way, if all other concerns were removed”)
2 Likes
Once again, I didn’t predict any such thing.
In fact I welcomed the discussion about what regulations should be in place:
What I did say was that if ultimately you are not comfortable with whatever the result is, you are fully empowered to set up your own variant with less imposition on your “rights” and less protection against cheating, and I predicted that if you did that, your version would not be popular because when push comes to shove, people do care about and want to see provisions against cheating.
I think we would have more luck in discussions if you made your own points to counter mine, rather than incorrectly paraphrasing mine.
2 Likes
I don’t know if it would be right to play as Gia77 in online tournaments, without any kind of identification. Our online nicknames mean nothing, I could be Gia77 here, G77ia in KGS, etc. I believe we should at least register with our real name when there is an official ranking involved (prize or no prize), because in a competition it’s only fair to know who you are playing against.
But other than that, I’m not fond of having to do with online stalkers and the such. And for some reason I think people forget that the crazy one may as well be within an organizer’s rank, it doesn’t even have to be a disgruntled opponent who takes the game too seriously.
Imagine a stalker strong player having access to videos from the homes of dozens of players, to their mail/ Skype id etc, sent to them to assess if there’s cheating.
If anyone thinks not many useful things can be taken out of those that could be used to harm someone, I have news for you.
5 Likes
Those two are not mutually exclusive. That is my point.
Why must
(rights in quotes, I guess you don’t find personal security important, ok)
Why the only way you can envision provisions against cheating is “yes, ask whatever of me, gods of anticheating measures”? Why can’t you at least entertain the notion that other possible solutions may be available, but we are not looking for them, because everyone is afraid that they will be labeled “anti-provisions-against-cheating”?
It just looks to me that everyone found recording, and took the lazy way out instead of poking at the problem some more.
2 Likes
Where did I say this?
Now for the third or fourth time you are quoting me, yet that is the opposite of what I said.
I even requoted myself saying “it is important that we explore what the solutions are”.
This is the opposite of demanding that we accept whatever the anti-cheating gods dictate.
I am somehow failing to communicate that the scenario I described is the one in which after this debate reaches a conclusion, you still find it objectionable.
This was in the context of “how voluntary is it to participate”, and I pointed out that it is reasonably voluntary for us amateurs, who can create tournies with whatever rules we like.
In THAT scenario, I predicted that the tournies with less cheat protection would be less successful.
2 Likes
I just want to pick out some bits since I’m late to the thread.
This is exactly what bugcat was talking about. It’s ‘voluntary’ in that you can choose to do it, except it’s not clear what happens if you choose not to (e.g. in the Corona Cup). If someone says “oh this x kyu shouldn’t have beaten me they must’ve cheated” and you didn’t make a recording are you just thrown out immediately with your other rounds cancelled, if they think you ‘played above your level’ etc. Will the accuser be banned like in a recent (non Corona Cup, but AGA city league) game. So it might be ‘voluntary’ in theory but in practice the potential repercussions pressure you into it. In some cases like the recent Paris tournament we got an email part of the way through about video recordings which more than likely pressured people to start recording if they weren’t already due to accusations and spot checks
"For kyu players, it is not mandatory by the rules, but it is still very highly recommended. All players with some above-average results should do it to protect themselves in case of suspicion. "
So it’s not always going to be voluntary either.
Depends 
Some IRL tournaments one could afford to go to of course, especially when they’re nearby or one could stay with friends etc to minimise costs. But as BHydden says
Not only that, but one has to consider the cost of storing and transferring the video files. You might need to buy a new hard-drive for the videos, or buy cloud storage. (You could be looking at video files of the order of 15 GB, I got it down to 10 with a space saver option on my phone) but if someone wants to see them, you’re not going to post them a harddrive? I needed to buy a tripod to hold my phone because I couldn’t charge it while recording and the battery doesn’t last 2-3 hours while recording, and the space fills up, and completely messes with the phones perception of how much space it has.
At the very least I think one would want to buy an external webcam to record ones mouse/screen/eyes/hand. (others mentioned this too)
Didn’t even think of this one 
4 Likes
If someone is concerned about security, it is a “main concern.” But I will move on. The need for surveillance is understandable and has value in pro games and high dan games, where most of the players are known on sight, at least in their own local circle of friends. However, it is largely pointless in the lower ranks, where the large majority are unknown on sight. I say this because it is vastly simpler for a cheater to sandbag than to use a bot, and most people inclined to cheat would probably do that.
8 Likes
About “affording the equipment”.
I think we can agree that we are talking about serious competitions here, not just casual ASTs.
Right? I agree with Conrad that there is no way we would expect the camera stuff to apply to lower rank less serious competitions.
If this is the case, then it is not unreasonable to expect serious competitors to have the right equipment.
The problem of enabling less financially fortunate prodigies to have the necssary equipment is usually solved other ways than saying “oh, we won’t worry about that equipment requirement” … by support funding etc.
Similarly, the idea that you are playing a serious competition on your phone seems pretty out there… but even if you are, this doesn’t stop you from having a web cam pointing at you playing on your phone, if that’s what the rules require.
1 Like
Here is a very easy way to cheat, despite being recorded, and having your identity “verified” even if someone else or an AI is really playing.
Needed equipment:
a) A laptop/tablet from which you will be seen playing
b) A computer+screen from which the actual game will take place.
In the recording angle you will be seen playing out the moves. Away from the viewing angle - even a couple of meters depending on how you set it up - the AI or a friend of your can be the ones really deciding your moves. Those will appear on their screen and all you have to do is just move your eyes a bit and copy-paste their response.
And while finding strong players willing to cheat for you is quite unlikely on its own, in case of AI usage you could even have a random (totally clueless about Go) person be your accomplish. So, it is very easy to set up and now you are immune from any suspicion O_o
So, what exactly is the point of caring about the id of the player (since it can be easily obfuscated) or recording a player while participating in a tournament since, while they are at home they have a wide variety of bypasses to the “video recording measure”? I really do not see it.
Now all you managed to do as a tournament organiser (not you specifically, I am speaking in general) is annoy the players, add extra administrational overhead and still have cheaters in the tournament that now cannot be caught because “they have video proof hohoho”.
I think that amateur tournaments should consider “the supermarket approach”.
While visiting a supermarket you might notice that sometimes people have opened some packages and helped themselves with part of the product (yesterday I saw someone had stolen 2 AAA batteries out a 10 battery pack 
and I tend to find cartons of eggs with a couple of eggs missing and so forth ).
Now, the supermarket could crack down on that with extra guards and cameras and what-not just to “cultivate a culture of zero tolerance to thieves”, but that would piss off the 99.9% of their actual customers that do not ever even consider stealing anything AND it would cost a lot of effort and money.
What is the supermarket approach then? It is pretty simple:
“The vast majority of our customers are honest and there is no need to inconvenience that vast majority to catch a few cheap-scates that think that stealing a couple of batteries and an egg will improve their monthly economics. No real harm is done to the customers, no lasting damage is done to the supermarket and the cost of implementing an array of tight security measures (that will still not be 100% effective) is incredibly higher than the cost of some missing eggs and knick-knacks”
One final note:
Once you accuse or suspect an honest person of cheating/stealing you might find out that a childish/juvenile mood takes over them that tells them “if you are going to think I am a thief anyway, I might as well do it”.
Overly strict measures are sometimes counter-productive like that 
Reputations are a bit like new cars. Once they have a few scratches on, then you eventually stop caring. So, casting doubt and shadow on a lot of innocent rule abiding players might not be a very good idea in the long run.
9 Likes