It is currently Wed Jan 20, 2021 10:40 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
Offline
 Post subject: Re: II. Corona-Cup 2020 Rules
Post #21 Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2020 12:58 pm 
Gosei
User avatar

Posts: 1798
Liked others: 478
Was liked: 358
Rank: KGS 1-dan
To get it all in here : )

https://eurogofed.org/egf/EGFGeneralRegulations2014.pdf wrote:
Article 21. Organization of Official European Events
The schedules for all Official European Events must clearly state that the EGF Statutes, General Regulations, and Agonistic Regulations apply.


https://eurogofed.org/egf/EGFGeneralRegulations2014.pdf wrote:
Article 16. Appeals
Appeals can be filed by an affected party against decisions of the EGF, including its organs and
disciplinary instances, unless such appeal is expressly excluded in these bylaws or in the
regulations of the EGF.
Appeals concerning go matters can be filed by players or legal persons:
    ● who have completed the internal juridical procedure within the go organization in
    Europe, to which they are affiliated (provided there was an internal procedure which
    could be followed) or
    ● against decisions of the go organization in Europe to which they are affiliated, when this
    go organization has no internal juridical procedure.
Appeal to a decision of General Meeting is not possible, since General Meeting is the highest
authority of the EGF.


And it seems I missed it before, but according to the rules of the II. Corona-Cup "the appeals committee will be determined right before the start of the tournament".

_________________
My "guide" to become stronger in Go

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: II. Corona-Cup 2020 Rules
Post #22 Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2020 2:25 pm 
Gosei

Posts: 1337
Liked others: 108
Was liked: 277
https://eurogofed.org/egf/EGFGeneralRegulations2014.pdf wrote:
Article 21. Organization of Official European Events
The schedules for all Official European Events must clearly state that the EGF Statutes, General Regulations, and Agonistic Regulations apply.


I wonder if all official European Events do actually state this. Later on there is also this, and I wonder who actually checks this.

Quote:
All participants must be registered with a Member of the EGF, before they can be entered and
permitted to take part in Official European Events, unless otherwise specified by any specific
rules that may be established by the relevant Technical Commission.

_________________
North Lecale

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: II. Corona-Cup 2020 Rules
Post #23 Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2020 2:47 pm 
Tengen

Posts: 5233
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 724
EGF tournament means EGF General Tournament Rules apply, whose §7 specifies the arbitration bodies and procedure incl. a tournament's Appeals Committee formed for the tournament.

The EGF General Regulations §21 simply mean that texts such as EGF General Tournament Rules, EGF Tournament System Rules, specific tournament rules of the tournament, rating guidelines etc. apply because those are General Regulations etc.

§16, however, is for organisational appeals (such as a member country complaining against the EGF) other than tournament rules questions, and is handled by the EGF Appeals Commission. For the unfortunate sake of confusion, §16 and the EGF Appeals Commission also speak of appeals but the permanent EGF Appeals Commission is not a particular tournament's appeals committee, is not the third instance EGF Rules Commission of a tournament rules dispute and does not refer to those appeals according to §7 of the EGF General Tournament Rules. The EGF Appeals Commission and §16 were formed to solve such disputes as the Italian federations trouble.

(I know because I was in the EGF Rules Commission for ca. 16 years.)

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: II. Corona-Cup 2020 Rules
Post #24 Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2020 1:14 am 
Gosei
User avatar

Posts: 1798
Liked others: 478
Was liked: 358
Rank: KGS 1-dan
It seems EGF also has some professional standardisation to do. At least when it comes to the regulatory outline of "their" tournaments.

_________________
My "guide" to become stronger in Go

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: II. Corona-Cup 2020 Rules
Post #25 Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2020 6:06 am 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 1097
Liked others: 87
Was liked: 376
More details in an email sent by Lukas Podpera to participants:

-- begin quote --

You have two choices on how to make the video recording. You can either connect online with your opponent (by Skype, Discord or any other application) or you can make the recording offline and keep it available for the opponent or organisation team, if necessary. You have also two choices for recording: Sharing your screen and face would be a simpler option. However, the preferred option is to place your camera on the side and make sure it records your screen, face and your hand on the mouse. Attached you can find an example picture, how to do it.

This time we will also have an anti-cheating committee. Antti Tormanen and Su Yang are very experienced in this field and they will use a special application for detecting cheating. It has already revealed a lot of cheaters in the past. They will be really strict and merciless in this matter, so if they find probable, that cheating happened, it will result in forfeited game and eventual disqualification. You can of course send me a protest, if you believe such dishonest behaviour has happened, but I hope that will not be necessary.

-- end quote --

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: II. Corona-Cup 2020 Rules
Post #26 Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2020 6:23 am 
Tengen

Posts: 5233
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 724
jlt wrote:
a special application for detecting cheating. It has already revealed a lot of cheaters in the past.


AFAIK, only one alleged go AI cheater has been revealed. Therefore, apparently this software's revealing of a lot of alleged cheaters in the past must refer to other games, such as chess. A software's findings for any other game(s) does not qualify the software for go. That the software has determined alleged cheaters in other games says nothing about whether its assessments have been correct. Trusting such a software produces false findings.

EDIT: I do not know about Asian go servers. Maybe the software has been used for some of them. The point remains on what grounds the software's findings should be correct or false.


Last edited by RobertJasiek on Mon Nov 02, 2020 6:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: II. Corona-Cup 2020 Rules
Post #27 Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2020 6:26 am 
Oza

Posts: 2814
Liked others: 16
Was liked: 3927
I honestly can't get my head round this. It's one of the longest threads of recent times - on what?

As far as I can see from the EGF website we are dealing with the following:

1. Because of the hopefully one-off "emergency" of coronavirus, a group of amateur organisers have volunteered purely out of the goodness of their hearts, for the sake of fellow lockdown sufferers, to organise a amateur (="for the love of the game") tournament.

2. Fellow amateurs are invited to participate by paying 6 euros - two cups of coffee (or a mouthful if you are in Scandinavia) and a biscuit. You play at home, so that is your total outlay.

3. If you are one of the very few who will have a serious chance of winning, you will get, at the most, a mere 300 euros.

Yet we have here a long debate, talk of federal courts, and hints at involvement of the CAS. And that's before anything, apart from CV, has happened.

Isn't it time for some sanity?

Let us be clear. If someone cheats, the most each participant risks is two cups of coffee (let's not waffle about the extra theoretical opportunity loss of a trivial prize, which will apply to so few). The organisers, however, who are more numerous than usual because of anticipation of cheating allegations, face a loss of their voluntary time that will surely far, far exceed even 300 euros, in dealing with someone who merely has suspicions.

Recall the days of your childhood and kick-about football. You provide the ball, you get to pick your team. If any other kid doesn't like that, he can go and play elsewhere. I think the kind-natured EGF organisers should likewise threaten to take their ball home if there's even the slightest aggro.

(Even if I've misread something and, say, pros can take part, the call for sanity still applies in full.)

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: II. Corona-Cup 2020 Rules
Post #28 Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2020 6:38 am 
Tengen

Posts: 5233
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 724
John, arguing "amateurs, only €6, free time, little to lose" might go further: just trust all participants, keep arbitration simple (referee only would do), simply clarify the rules that absolutely must be clarified (territory in seki). I would understand your opinion if you went all the way in such a direction. However, it is not the way this tournament is set out; instead, it is "federations / organisations involved, Grand Prix, three or more arbitration bodies, ratings, webcam requirements, strict anti-cheating intention".

Then such tournaments set precedents for how anti-cheating is treated. If uncommented, such might evolve into the standard. Now, when everything is new, is the best time to discuss matters. Much better than letting bad standards establish themselves and then trying to overcome them.


This post by RobertJasiek was liked by: Harleqin
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: II. Corona-Cup 2020 Rules
Post #29 Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2020 7:06 am 
Oza

Posts: 2814
Liked others: 16
Was liked: 3927
Quote:
However, it is not the way this tournament is set out; instead, it is "federations / organisations involved, Grand Prix, three or more arbitration bodies, ratings, webcam requirements, strict anti-cheating intention".


An important word is missing in that list: amateurs.

But if this list is indeed to be taken seriously, I would argue that it is for one of two reasons:

1. The organisers have felt themselves pushed into such an over-the-top reaction because of over-the-top actions of some players in the past.

2. The organisers are themselves rules mavens, and so deserve to lie on the bed they have made for themselves.

Either way, I think they should take a large step back and re-insert the word amateur into all their thinking.

By all means continue work on finding a vaccine for the virus of cheating, but don't ruin ordinary go life in the process. And I remind everyone again the word "emergency" on the tournament's website. Now is not the time to be a dog with bone.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: II. Corona-Cup 2020 Rules
Post #30 Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2020 7:41 am 
Gosei
User avatar

Posts: 1798
Liked others: 478
Was liked: 358
Rank: KGS 1-dan
John Fairbairn wrote:
I honestly can't get my head round this. It's one of the longest threads of recent times - on what?


Online cheating. See the last "eight pages in 14 days"-thread. It just gets one's blood boiling.

Justifiable? Maybe not. Right now online go servers do not have anti-cheating tools as far as I know and I don't know either how existing "reporting tools" are used to mark cheaters.

So without actual numbers we are left alone with our emotions. And emotions amplify easily and readily. That's why we see The Grim everywhere.

John Fairbairn wrote:
I think the kind-natured EGF organisers should likewise threaten to take their ball home if there's even the slightest aggro.


Like in any good bubble opinions on L19 do not really reflect opinions elsewhere. The tournament has 385 participants and I strongly believe the organisers are oblivious to our posts here - unless proxies are involved. And even then they could care less because well, they have 385 participants.

Welcome to the ivory tower!

_________________
My "guide" to become stronger in Go

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: II. Corona-Cup 2020 Rules
Post #31 Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2020 8:28 am 
Oza

Posts: 2814
Liked others: 16
Was liked: 3927
Quote:
I strongly believe the organisers are oblivious to our posts here


I'm sure you're right. Their loss? At any rate, this too speaks of L19's rapidly fading place in the go world.

Quote:
Welcome to the ivory tower!


With this lockdown, my hair is growing long enough to do a Rapunzel and escape. But to what? Do I want to escape...

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: II. Corona-Cup 2020 Rules
Post #32 Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2020 8:56 am 
Gosei

Posts: 1337
Liked others: 108
Was liked: 277
When trying to establish what rules apply in EGF tournaments it is always possible to quickly clock up a fair flurry of posts, but that doesn't make this a very crucial issue.

_________________
North Lecale

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: II. Corona-Cup 2020 Rules
Post #33 Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2020 11:12 pm 
Beginner

Posts: 15
Liked others: 2
Was liked: 7
Rank: 1p
My apologies, it has been some time since I last checked L19.

For anybody who missed my announcement on nordicgodojo.eu (apparently everyone), this article describes the used anti-cheating tools to a degree. For now, there is no exact description mainly because the tools are still a work in progress.

When the above model brings a suspicious game to my attention, the anti-cheating team then analyses the game in detail, judging if a player of the given level should be able to perform as well as shown. If the team unanimously decides that a player is suspicious and most likely used an AI for help, the team asks the player if they have video footage to present as counter-evidence. If they don't, or if the counter-evidence is not enough to show that no cheating happened (for example not showing the player's hands or screen clearly), the player is disqualified. We recognise that it is possible that this will result in innocent participants getting disqualified, since we are working from 'mere probabilities', but so far this is the best solution we have found.

Anecdotally, I have tested the model on a semi-random collection of 20 games, 5 of which were human v. human, 5 AI v. AI, and 10 AI v. human (in which the AI was always AlphaGo). In this test, I got a hit rate of 87.5%; there was one false positive, Ke Jie's masterpiece against AlphaGo.


This post by NordicGoDojo was liked by 2 people: SoDesuNe, Uberdude
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: II. Corona-Cup 2020 Rules
Post #34 Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2020 3:51 am 
Tengen

Posts: 5233
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 724
I will read the paper later and so far only discuss the procedural aspects of using the tools irrespective of their quality.


You describe the following process:

1) Software suggests a suspicious game.

2) The anti-cheating team then analyses the game and judges if a player is still suspicious.

3) The player may provide counter-evidence, which can be a video recording or something else.

4) The anti-cheating team judges if the player is deemed likely to have cheated so disqualified.


What is good about this process is that human arbiters override software. However, the process should be improved as follows:

- Human arbiters should have at least the same power as software in step (1), that is, also have the possibility to suggest initially suspicious games.

- Step (2) is described to depend on a player's given level (such as rank or rating). However, this involves prejudice because it overlooks the possibility that a player can have learnt very much from AI before the game and therefore play similar to AI on many moves. Furthermore, a player can have a particular strength, such as the endgame, where good play can often result in many same moves by AI and the player.

- In step (3), there is too little description of the, what I have called, "something else" evidence. A player can, e.g., provide counter-evidence by explaining his thinking and decision-making as detailed as time allows him in a dispute schedule. Such evidence can be very strong but is not properly mentioned in the description of the process.

- Step (4) pretends that the anti-cheating team would be the only arbitration body. It is not. There are also the arbitration bodies "referee" and "appeals committee" and, if the EGF General Tournament Rules should apply (I cannot know because this has not been clarified yet), the "EGF [Tournaments and] Rules Commission". The relation between the anti-cheating team and the other arbitration bodies are unclear with each other, in relation to the EGF General Tournament Rules (if they apply) and in relation to the player's right to a fair trial (he has a right to know in advance which arbitration body decides at which procedural order and why that, if applying, is according to the EGF General Tournament Rules, which do not refer to an anti-cheating team at all).

- See also my earlier remarks on open decision-making and impact on player reputation.


The tournament announcement speaks of "state-of-the-art anti-cheating tools". I do not understand why the mentioned software tools should be the state-of-the-art. It would be easier to understand if they were just described as "whatever tools the anti-cheating team wants to use". Furthermore, an earlier claim was made that such tools have identified many cheaters, but I see no evidence for that claim and in particular none for the tools applied to go.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: II. Corona-Cup 2020 Rules
Post #35 Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2020 6:59 am 
Beginner

Posts: 15
Liked others: 2
Was liked: 7
Rank: 1p
RobertJasiek wrote:
However, the process should be improved as follows:

- Human arbiters should have at least the same power as software in step (1), that is, also have the possibility to suggest initially suspicious games.

This is exactly how the process works. We generate graphs only to games that are brought to our attention one way or the other. I will then analyse the graphs for if the game looks the tiniest bit suspicious or not, and if it does, then I will analyse the game itself. Su Yang does not operate in the same fashion.

RobertJasiek wrote:
Step (2) is described to depend on a player's given level (such as rank or rating). However, this involves prejudice because it overlooks the possibility that a player can have learnt very much from AI before the game and therefore play similar to AI on many moves. Furthermore, a player can have a particular strength, such as the endgame, where good play can often result in many same moves by AI and the player.

This applies very little to our model. We only compare the convergence of a player's moves with the AI's at a very late stage of the analysis, at which point we anyway have an idea on if cheating has happened or not. More important are metrics showing a player's general performance, irrelevant of if the player's chosen move is the AI's first or third or tenth choice.

RobertJasiek wrote:
In step (3), there is too little description of the, what I have called, "something else" evidence. A player can, e.g., provide counter-evidence by explaining his thinking and decision-making as detailed as time allows him in a dispute schedule. Such evidence can be very strong but is not properly mentioned in the description of the process.

We are in general very happy to hear of any counter-evidence that the suspect can provide, but, in my experience, a player's verbal 'evidence' is worth much less than the information that our graphs give. In the first Corona Cup, we let several players 'off the hook' after listening to their explanations, and by this point two of them have been confirmed to have cheated. This is why we mention video footage as the players' recommended 'protection'.

RobertJasiek wrote:
Step (4) pretends that the anti-cheating team would be the only arbitration body. It is not. There are also the arbitration bodies "referee" and "appeals committee" and, if the EGF General Tournament Rules should apply (I cannot know because this has not been clarified yet), the "EGF [Tournaments and] Rules Commission". The relation between the anti-cheating team and the other arbitration bodies are unclear with each other, in relation to the EGF General Tournament Rules (if they apply) and in relation to the player's right to a fair trial (he has a right to know in advance which arbitration body decides at which procedural order and why that, if applying, is according to the EGF General Tournament Rules, which do not refer to an anti-cheating team at all).

I cannot account for all the details, as I am not the main tournament organiser. However, I can mention that we are currently handling the first cheating case of the tournament, for which the procedure has been as follows:

  • We (the anti-cheating team) receive a cheating accusation.
  • We analyse the game in question and (this time) unanimously find it to be suspicious.
  • We contact the player, tell them of our suspicion, and ask for any possible counter-evidence they may have.
  • Upon receiving no counter-evidence necessitating rejudgement, we then check with the tournament referee that he accepts our judgement.
  • Upon receiving the referee's approval, we tell the player of our decision and briefly explain how we came to find their play suspicious, and instruct them to contact the appeals committee if they disagree with the decision.

The above procedure may not unfold exactly the same way each time because it has not been set in stone. Still, in general the players can expect roughly this level of communication from the organisers and possibility to influence the outcome.

RobertJasiek wrote:
See also my earlier remarks on open decision-making and impact on player reputation.

I am not the main tournament organiser, so I cannot comment on this. However, in general I will try to influence the procedure so that any reputation damage to participants is minimised.

RobertJasiek wrote:
The tournament announcement speaks of "state-of-the-art anti-cheating tools". I do not understand why the mentioned software tools should be the state-of-the-art. It would be easier to understand if they were just described as "whatever tools the anti-cheating team wants to use". Furthermore, an earlier claim was made that such tools have identified many cheaters, but I see no evidence for that claim and in particular none for the tools applied to go.

I do not intend to discuss the semantics of what 'state-of-the-art' means. To my best knowledge, no current go anti-cheating tools can compete with the level of analysis and precision of my graphing tools combined with my experience. For example Yike's Hawkeye, from what I know, is a much simpler and error-prone solution, whose main benefit is that it is automatic. I have worked on the model for almost a year, constantly improving it, and I will continue improving it from now on too.

How should I show that my tools have identified many cheaters while protecting their reputation?

In addition to the first Corona Cup and a larger number of non-tournament online games, my model has also been used in the 15th Korea Prime Minister Cup and for example the Canada Open Online tournament. There were no cheating cases in the KPMC, but you can ask the organisers of the Corona Cup and the Canada Open Online tournament (the webpage has an email address) if you want evidence of the model working.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: II. Corona-Cup 2020 Rules
Post #36 Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2020 7:26 am 
Tengen

Posts: 5233
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 724
Thank you for your replies! I have a few questions about some aspects of your last reply.

Since you have worked for a long time on your tool, I wonder whether you do so as part of some task at university or is it purely your hobby?

Maybe it will become clear from your paper but what do you refer to as "a player's general performance"?

During the first Corona Cup, how have players been confirmed to have cheated? Or at which URL can we read about that?

You can protect reputations while reporting about detected cheaters by giving the players aliases, such as Player000001, and mentioning tournament and date of judgement.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: II. Corona-Cup 2020 Rules
Post #37 Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2020 8:00 am 
Beginner

Posts: 15
Liked others: 2
Was liked: 7
Rank: 1p
RobertJasiek wrote:
Since you have worked for a long time on your tool, I wonder whether you do so as part of some task at university or is it purely your hobby?

At this point, the answer is kind of 'both'. Personally I am not affiliated with any university, but the Associate Professor I am collaborating with is (you can read a bit more on him in the paper).

RobertJasiek wrote:
Maybe it will become clear from your paper but what do you refer to as "a player's general performance"?

Most importantly, I am tracking the effect of a player's moves to their winrate and estimated score lead. From the latter, we can further track the size of a player's average mistake and how it develops throughout the game. Comparing this with the development of the winrate already gives a lot of information, and there are still a few more experimental metrics used that I will keep secret for now.

RobertJasiek wrote:
During the first Corona Cup, how have players been confirmed to have cheated? Or at which URL can we read about that?

Nowhere – and because of the topic's sensitivity, I will not give any further details.

RobertJasiek wrote:
You can protect reputations while reporting about detected cheaters by giving the players aliases, such as Player000001, and mentioning tournament and date of judgement.

So to superficially anonymise the cases while still making it possible to snoop some of them out? In my opinion, the risk of the cheaters' identities possibly getting figured out severely outweighs any possible PR gain for the model.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: II. Corona-Cup 2020 Rules
Post #38 Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2020 8:32 am 
Tengen

Posts: 5233
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 724
There are different uses of public versus alias names of (alleged) cheaters. Depending on use, the best might be one of: a) public name; b) alias name but stated tournament and date; c) alias name without further information, provided care is taken not to count any case more than once; d) statistical summaries. The less specific the information the less credit it might get and the more reputation is preserved.

Top
 Profile  
 
Online
 Post subject: Re: II. Corona-Cup 2020 Rules
Post #39 Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2020 10:09 am 
Lives in gote

Posts: 617
Liked others: 100
Was liked: 722
Rank: maybe 2d
Just to chime in here as a bystander - I'd like to say that I've generally been impressed @NordicGoDojo's level of thoughtfulness and care in the Go community. And that for this particular issue, the line being walked between transparency of some of the general approaches and methods and willingness to engage with the community, versus maintaining privacy and/or pushing back on giving too much detail any specific people or players or instances, seems not unreasonable to me. I don't imagine that this is always an easy line to walk, and with the wide range of opinions on the internet it can be easy to draw criticism - so anyways, thanks for doing this work.


This post by lightvector was liked by 3 people: jlt, NordicGoDojo, SoDesuNe
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: II. Corona-Cup 2020 Rules
Post #40 Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2020 10:33 pm 
Tengen

Posts: 5233
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 724
The paper is discussed here: https://www.lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.p ... 9&start=10
Conclusion: the theory of the software tools is far from ready for distinguishing cheating from no cheating, and judgement about cheating is prejudiced depending on players and towards finding alleged cheating.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group