Feelin' puny...
May. 13th, 2008 12:15 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alexpgpToday was a struggle to finish my self-imposed quota, but I got there. A series of power naps did the trick. Things ought to go easier tomorrow, though it's after midnight as I type this.
One last thing before racktime: The paradox posted earlier today reminds me of something I read in a copy of Chess Life not long ago, in an article examining the unfortunate phenomenon of cheating in chess.
It'd be easy to dismiss the idea of cheating at chess as something frivolous, but the fact is that prize funds at big tournaments are pretty attractive, even down below the grandmaster level. And if you consider that most mediocre chess programs play high-quality, master-level chess without any particular tweaking, then you can understand why some organizers have instituted all sorts of draconian rules in an attempt to forestall cheating (e.g., forfeiting you if your cell phone goes off during a game).
Once chess computers become implantable, though, how do you catch cheats? One proposed method: subject the winner to a quiz by players of equal or superior strength, where answers will have to be provided explaining one's thought processes during a game.
It's an interesting approach, on its surface, but I must pull another Fermat and leave further discussion for another time.
Cheers...
One last thing before racktime: The paradox posted earlier today reminds me of something I read in a copy of Chess Life not long ago, in an article examining the unfortunate phenomenon of cheating in chess.
It'd be easy to dismiss the idea of cheating at chess as something frivolous, but the fact is that prize funds at big tournaments are pretty attractive, even down below the grandmaster level. And if you consider that most mediocre chess programs play high-quality, master-level chess without any particular tweaking, then you can understand why some organizers have instituted all sorts of draconian rules in an attempt to forestall cheating (e.g., forfeiting you if your cell phone goes off during a game).
Once chess computers become implantable, though, how do you catch cheats? One proposed method: subject the winner to a quiz by players of equal or superior strength, where answers will have to be provided explaining one's thought processes during a game.
It's an interesting approach, on its surface, but I must pull another Fermat and leave further discussion for another time.
Cheers...
