|
|
|
|
|
|
by bambax
1351 days ago
|
|
|
> For instance one of the easiest ways to catch a weak player cheating is move times. Such a player will have no idea whether a move is trivial or works only due to an exceptionally precise and lengthy series of counter-intuitive calculations that no human could do without a significant think Ok, but what prevents the helper to communicate the difficulty or the number of minutes to think-pretend as well as the move itself? Everything that can be measured can and will be gamed. That's why anti-fraud units are so secretive. |
|
|
There was a video game speedrun cheating incident where the cheater was caught splicing. But their splices were perfect. No audio artifacts, no video artifacts, for a long time no evidence at all because the cheater perfectly conformed to all known cheat detection.
Then one day it was discovered that the loading animation was dependent on a frame counter that persisted across all game states. If the run wasn't spliced, the loading animation's current sprite should have matched a perfectly predictable pattern.
It didn't. But this counter/consistency wasn't discovered until much after the run was achieved, so the cheater had no way of avoiding detection.
This is basically what happened with Hans. Hans knew all the traditional methods for detecting chess cheating successfully evaded them.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-30/chess-cheating-expert...
but new techniques for cheat detection were developed in direct response to accusations against Hans, and Hans had not perfectly emulated a prodigy human with his cheating. He did things that only an assisted player would be capable of.