<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Comic Sans MS";
panose-1:3 15 7 2 3 3 2 2 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 12:15 PM BillK via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Computers now play chess far better than humans. So young players<br>train by using computers and now play more and more like computers.<br>But this applies not only to chess. Computer assistance is changing<br>humans in many areas.<br><br><<a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2022/10/hans-niemann-chess-cheating-artificial-intelligence/671799/" target="_blank">https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2022/10/hans-niemann-chess-cheating-artificial-intelligence/671799/</a>><br><br>A Good Chess Cheater Might Never Be Caught<br>The line between human and computer play is very hard to find.<br>By Matteo Wong October 20, 2022,<br>…<br>---------------<br><br>BillK____________________________________________<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>BillK, you may recall the discussion here about 20 years ago when the Brazilian chess championship where they allowed a computer to play, but not as in the running for the prize: it was not eligible for that, but would still be in the cross-table and play as a regular competitor. This competition included two grandmasters.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Final result: the computer had the highest score at 13 wins, two draws. It was 1.5 games ahead of its nearest human rival, which was a remarkable result for software at the time.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The kicker: it was running on a cell phone. A standalone cell phone processor was running that software. This demonstrated that to play at grandmaster strength required clever software rather than the brute strength of a supercomputer.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>This caused a big discussion on this forum at the time in which I (and others) speculated that sooner or later a human will work out some kind of interface that could not be detected or defeated by electromagnetic field scrambling or jamming. The computing device would need to somehow be internal (so metal detectors could not find it) and would need to somehow interface in both directions. Talking to the computer was simple enough, but it isn’t clear how it would talk back to the human.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>At the time, many chess followers including me, speculated about how we would spot the cheating. A signature of such a thing would be a player who refused review his game afterwards, which is exactly what Hans Niemann did, and was defacto proof of his perfidy. He flatly refuses to analyze his game immediately afterwards because he cannot. He can talk about it a coupla days later, after he has had time to figure out why he did what he did. But at the time, he would not and cannot because he doesn’t know.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>spike<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>…<span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>