hehe, now we have the robot conspiracy.
sure why not! Welcome to the fold.
sure why not! Welcome to the fold.
@iizuzetan github.com/lichess-org/lila can you please show me where in the code i can find these bots as lichess is open source.
"The level of precision in their play and the specific, accurate combinations they use are simply impossible for humans around 1700 rating to execute consistently"
can you site your source for the abilities of a 1700?
Lichess has bots: lichess.org/player/bots
"The level of precision in their play and the specific, accurate combinations they use are simply impossible for humans around 1700 rating to execute consistently"
can you site your source for the abilities of a 1700?
Lichess has bots: lichess.org/player/bots
Great defection, but it wouldn't be in open source now would it?
@JLee2027 said in #13:
> but it wouldn't be in open source now would it?
it's close to impossible to run code on lichess.org other than the actual source code published on github. for example, you'd have to make certain that at all times both versions of the code have the same bugs. and you don't know which bugs are in the published source code.
and we can all verify that the published code has the same bugs as show up on lichess.org.
so it's really difficult to find a conspirative way to pair people with bots that does not show up in the published source code. anyone who has ever done any kind of software development will tell you that keeping up a conspiracy like that for any serious amount of time is close to impossible, maybe even completely impossible.
> but it wouldn't be in open source now would it?
it's close to impossible to run code on lichess.org other than the actual source code published on github. for example, you'd have to make certain that at all times both versions of the code have the same bugs. and you don't know which bugs are in the published source code.
and we can all verify that the published code has the same bugs as show up on lichess.org.
so it's really difficult to find a conspirative way to pair people with bots that does not show up in the published source code. anyone who has ever done any kind of software development will tell you that keeping up a conspiracy like that for any serious amount of time is close to impossible, maybe even completely impossible.
You don't think separate code could be written for bots and run elsewhere? Come on man.
@JLee2027 said in #15:
> You don't think separate code could be written for bots and run elsewhere? Come on man.
code for bots yes. but not code for pairing with bots, because pairing is already done by the open source code. come on man, think about how something like this would actually have to be implemented. code for bots is not enough.
> You don't think separate code could be written for bots and run elsewhere? Come on man.
code for bots yes. but not code for pairing with bots, because pairing is already done by the open source code. come on man, think about how something like this would actually have to be implemented. code for bots is not enough.
@JLee2027 said in #13:
> Great defection, but it wouldn't be in open source now would it?
i ask you where is your proof of these bots all you have given is your word. If what you say is true that above a certain threshold its just bots then you could easily prove it by doing a study of all games above said threshold to prove that its bots.
"Great defection, but it wouldn't be in open source now would it?"
The amount of effort required to code bots good enough to fool most people and then keep it working on top of everything else in secret and then lichess would need some serious compute to handle something of that scale.
Now can a free website with volunteers helping code stuff and running only off donations have the time and resources to pull something of that scale off and remain undetected and then for what would they gain according to you
"all people are busy and have their opponents, so to avoid waiting too long, you can play against bots. However, even that logic doesn't hold because when it starts giving me bots, it just keeps going, almost until my rating drops below 1800. And then, when it drops, it starts giving me human opponents again in most cases"
its not to fill the queue but to keep ratings low or what reason would benefit lichess enough that would justify this
> Great defection, but it wouldn't be in open source now would it?
i ask you where is your proof of these bots all you have given is your word. If what you say is true that above a certain threshold its just bots then you could easily prove it by doing a study of all games above said threshold to prove that its bots.
"Great defection, but it wouldn't be in open source now would it?"
The amount of effort required to code bots good enough to fool most people and then keep it working on top of everything else in secret and then lichess would need some serious compute to handle something of that scale.
Now can a free website with volunteers helping code stuff and running only off donations have the time and resources to pull something of that scale off and remain undetected and then for what would they gain according to you
"all people are busy and have their opponents, so to avoid waiting too long, you can play against bots. However, even that logic doesn't hold because when it starts giving me bots, it just keeps going, almost until my rating drops below 1800. And then, when it drops, it starts giving me human opponents again in most cases"
its not to fill the queue but to keep ratings low or what reason would benefit lichess enough that would justify this
Don't they teach how to think at school? I'll give you a quick rundown.
A) Lichess is hosting bots to present them as human players:
Reality A) requires us to assume that there's a botting operation of unknown scope and purpose. That operation costs money and only affects a few users for some reason, while many others with a higher rating are fine. We don't have any evidence that points to this; so far a guy argued that 'the proof is that they could do it if they wanted to'. Basically 'the evidence is that there's no evidence'.
B) Everything is working as intended:
Reality B) happens when you play enough games to reach the rating where you belong. It also requires that you don't know your limitations and/or that you overestimate your skill, which are things humans do. This reality doesn't require us to assume anything without proof, and fits observed reality perfectly.
Is A) more likely to happen than B)? Vast conspiracy with zero evidence, or skill issue with plenty of salt?
A) Lichess is hosting bots to present them as human players:
Reality A) requires us to assume that there's a botting operation of unknown scope and purpose. That operation costs money and only affects a few users for some reason, while many others with a higher rating are fine. We don't have any evidence that points to this; so far a guy argued that 'the proof is that they could do it if they wanted to'. Basically 'the evidence is that there's no evidence'.
B) Everything is working as intended:
Reality B) happens when you play enough games to reach the rating where you belong. It also requires that you don't know your limitations and/or that you overestimate your skill, which are things humans do. This reality doesn't require us to assume anything without proof, and fits observed reality perfectly.
Is A) more likely to happen than B)? Vast conspiracy with zero evidence, or skill issue with plenty of salt?
It is interesting that the most passionate critics here have very few games under their belt:
glbert - 76 blitz games
for crying out loud - 185 blitz games
juicy chicken No 1 - 57 blitz games
What is going on that has allowed them to gain such expertise in such a short order? Is there something they are not telling us?
glbert - 76 blitz games
for crying out loud - 185 blitz games
juicy chicken No 1 - 57 blitz games
What is going on that has allowed them to gain such expertise in such a short order? Is there something they are not telling us?
@DavidDennison said in #19:
> What is going on that has allowed them to gain such expertise in such a short order? Is there something they are not telling us?
i have been on this site longer than you, and i am involved mainly in organising the 4545 community. so most of my time is not spent playing chess, but talking about the exact type of nonsense that goes on in this topic. you'll also find that i have more than 2000 forum posts, many of which relate to similar topics.
but sure. don't think about what we are writing, but attack us on the number of games we played. that's definitely an argument that has a lot of merit.
edit: as proof about me posting about similar stuff before: lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/chess-engines-have-poisoned-online-chess?page=5#46 second part of this post i wrote almost the exact thing i wrote here, a year ago, in reply to a very similar conspiracy theory.
> What is going on that has allowed them to gain such expertise in such a short order? Is there something they are not telling us?
i have been on this site longer than you, and i am involved mainly in organising the 4545 community. so most of my time is not spent playing chess, but talking about the exact type of nonsense that goes on in this topic. you'll also find that i have more than 2000 forum posts, many of which relate to similar topics.
but sure. don't think about what we are writing, but attack us on the number of games we played. that's definitely an argument that has a lot of merit.
edit: as proof about me posting about similar stuff before: lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/chess-engines-have-poisoned-online-chess?page=5#46 second part of this post i wrote almost the exact thing i wrote here, a year ago, in reply to a very similar conspiracy theory.