|
My understanding of defamation in the UK is that you (the defamer) can be sued for saying anything bad about anyone, but you can defend yourself if you can demonstrate that a "reasonable person" would also believe as you believe, given the evidence available. In practice, lol.
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 12:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 22:23 |
|
|
potatocubed posted:My understanding of defamation in the UK is that you (the defamer) can be sued for saying anything bad about anyone, but you can defend yourself if you can demonstrate that a "reasonable person" would also believe as you believe, given the evidence available. My favourite thing about defamation laws here in the UK is that as far as I know, 'it is demonstrably true' is not necessarily a defense.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 12:28
|
|
|
potatocubed posted:My understanding of defamation in the UK is that you (the defamer) can be sued for saying anything bad about anyone, but you can defend yourself if you can demonstrate that a "reasonable person" would also believe as you believe, given the evidence available. Their court system is rough. Notable Nazi Reich enthusiast and Holocaust denier David Irving sued historian Deborah Lipstadt via the English court system for calling him a Holocaust denier (you see, there was no Holocaust to deny so why would you call him that?) in her book and it was an absolute poo poo storm for what should have been laughed out of court by any reasonable judge but it appeared for awhile that Irving was going to win. From an interview with her: quote:In the book, I devote a couple of pages to David Irving. I said harsh things about him. I said he's a Hitler partisan because he had written this book claiming Hitler didn't know about the Holocaust, and more importantly that unlike other deniers who had just repeated what they had been told, he knew the documents. He knew the facts, and he doctored them to make them appear as if they were - denied the existence of the Holocaust. And he waited 'til the book came out in the U.K. and then he sued me there. Hilariously, after she won she published a book called "History On Trial: My Day In Court With A Holocaust Denier"
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 12:38
|
|
|
HopperUK posted:My favourite thing about defamation laws here in the UK is that as far as I know, 'it is demonstrably true' is not necessarily a defense. It is a defence, but the burden of truth falls on the defendant to prove the truth of their statement in court. The plaintiff only has to establish "harm" first, and that can be harm to reputation etc. The reason the UK's libel cases are so one-sided is that the plaintiff just has to turn up, show the other side said a Bad Thing about them, and then it entirely falls to the defendant to get themselves off the hook by establishing truth (or the other three defences). The danger comes from this vast imbalance in what the two sides have to prove . The classic libel scenario is of course "you're drunk!" "Prove that! Produce a blood test result taken at the scene!". In the David Irving case, Irving just had to prove that his reputation had been lowered and he'd made his case. It then fell entirely on Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books to prove the existence of the Holocaust. It's gotten better than it used to be (most of the stuff about "this web page passed through a UK server once so the UK courts can claim jurisdiction so you're screwed" crap came from one specific judge who has been forcibly retired). But it's still grim. Loxbourne fucked around with this message at 12:55 on Sep 28, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 12:52
|
|
|
HopperUK posted:My favourite thing about defamation laws here in the UK is that as far as I know, 'it is demonstrably true' is not necessarily a defense. As I understand it that was the case prior to 2013, technically. Under the present legislation truth is a defence, but before the reforms the standard was “justification”, so if you were going to argue that what you said is true, you also needed to show you had a good reason to believe it was true when you said it. If you go back a hundred years or so, the justification element was also understood to include a requirement that you had to have a good reason to say something in the first place, so like, a man who had discovered his wife having an affair would be justified in calling his wife’s lover an adulterer, but some stranger who heard about the affair would be defaming the same man to say the same thing on account of it being none of his business. But so far as I know that standard of justification fell away gradually in the 20th century.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 13:01
|
|
|
NC Wyeth Death Cult posted:Hilariously, after she won she published a book called "History On Trial: My Day In Court With A Holocaust Denier" lol, that's some delightful revenge.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 13:04
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:As I understand it that was the case prior to 2013, technically. Under the present legislation truth is a defence, but before the reforms the standard was “justification”, so if you were going to argue that what you said is true, you also needed to show you had a good reason to believe it was true when you said it. My understanding is that this hasn't changed in all Commonwealth countries yet, which is why a certain well-known and widely-despised pants-making GBS threads rapist has launched several lawsuits in Canada and Australia, and none in the US or UK.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 14:34
|
|
|
Why are you folks assuming that a Norwegian dude talking about a cheating allegation in a French-Swiss organization would get charged in an American court, let alone a UK court?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 16:37
|
|
|
It wouldn't be anyone getting charged with anything, it would be bringing suit and, as mentioned upthread, old-rear end judges don't understand the internet and have creative ideas about how it affects jurisdiction
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 16:53
|
|
|
Also a person does not necessarily only want to avoid losing a suit. Most people want to avoid being sued at all. Being sued is expensive. Carlsen has a strong incentive to avoid that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 17:03
|
|
|
Sure, but in the scale of relevance, I'm not seeing a commonwealth country's laws breaking the top 3 in a dispute between an American and a Norwegian about a Swiss organization. American I get, 1 in 3 chance, sure. The hell does the UK have to do with this?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 18:11
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Sure, but in the scale of relevance, I'm not seeing a commonwealth country's laws breaking the top 3 in a dispute between an American and a Norwegian about a Swiss organization. Jurisdiction fishing is a thing and it was previously very common for plaintiffs to find any stretch they could to get a defamation case going in the UK. Though that usually required some reason for the defendant to care about a UK ruling, like doing business there. Between the reforms in the laws and UK leaving the EU I think it's a lot less relevant though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 18:34
|
|
|
I mean I was just talking about defamation laws because I thought that was the topic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 18:34
|
|
|
It would be trivial to pick any country in which Niemann has played a tournament and sue in that country on the basis that his ability to keep playing in that country has been harmed by Carlsen making specific, refutable claims. Regardless of the degree to which you or I think that's "likely," Magnus Carlsen's lawyer, if he has retained one, will probably have advised him not to make a specific, falsifiable accusation, because he could be sued, and might find it difficult to keep playing in any country where he just ignored a lawsuit against him. Realistically I don't think Niemann will sue because his character is being assassinated internationally and no specific lawsuit will really help him at all. I'm not sure anything will.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 18:43
|
|
|
I don't think Niemann will sue just because he seems more like he would rather do more edgy fake-accent interviews. Both he and Magnus seem like such crazy people I love it. They should create a new ESPN channel just for this chess drama.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 22:19
|
|
|
Honestly if chess has hit the point where cheating is like "I accuse this guy of not memorizing vast swathes of computer output like he says he did" then it's time to change the game anyway. Maybe cheating should just be allowed but if you figure out how and can prove it mid game you win. Maybe you get a paintball gun. Maybe the game has to be played on an air hockey table so if you aren't careful the pieces slide around.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 22:58
|
|
|
theironjef posted:Honestly if chess has hit the point where cheating is like "I accuse this guy of not memorizing vast swathes of computer output like he says he did" then it's time to change the game anyway. Maybe cheating should just be allowed but if you figure out how and can prove it mid game you win. Maybe you get a paintball gun. Maybe the game has to be played on an air hockey table so if you aren't careful the pieces slide around.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 23:02
|
|
|
Yeah the entire claim of cheating or not is just memorized patterns which is like 99% of high level chess anyways? Like, what the poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 23:07
|
|
|
theironjef posted:Honestly if chess has hit the point where cheating is like "I accuse this guy of not memorizing vast swathes of computer output like he says he did" then it's time to change the game anyway. Maybe cheating should just be allowed but if you figure out how and can prove it mid game you win. Maybe you get a paintball gun. Maybe the game has to be played on an air hockey table so if you aren't careful the pieces slide around. Any cheating allegations are settled by a game of chess boxing instead
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 23:14
|
|
|
mystes posted:How about chess 2.0 where there's only one type of piece but it's played on a bigger 19x19 board so it's harder to just memorize openings? I'm probably the first person to think of this. Go on...
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 23:15
|
|
|
mystes posted:How about chess 2.0 where there's only one type of piece but it's played on a bigger 19x19 board so it's harder to just memorize openings? I'm probably the first person to think of this. Go on e;fb
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 23:43
|
|
|
Correlation with a solver isn't "memorized patterns." For each board situation, a solver finds the best possible move, and if the player also finds that best possible move: that's "accuracy." Once you're past the standard openings, any given board situation is likely to be unique in the history of the world, that's how the math works; many are of course similar, and some openings and standard defenses will lead to the same midgame configuration: but a 30+ move game has a dozen or more turns with unique board states. A player can't memorize moves to make for a game state that has never been played before. Sometimes there's only one not obviously stupid move to make and any player would make the perfect move, but that can't persist in a game through the mid and endgame, there's basically always going to be some hard decisions to make against a similar-ranked opponent and even the worlds best grand masters will only very rarely find the most accurate move every time. The accusation is that a player is perfectly accurate more often than plausible, which implies that some of their moves in at least some of their perfect-accuracy games were likely given to them by a solver. "Likely" is a key word here because without actual physical proof of cheating, you can never prove that on any given turn any player could not have found the best move - you're just showing that they're finding the best move far more often than even the best players in chess ever do. There are definitely angles to attack the current analysis though. If Niemann is substantially better than the players he's been playing against (over the course of the 2+ years of games being analyzed), then maybe he could be expected to be more accurate than the games that the top players have been playing (against much tougher opponents on average). It's also possible that Niemann plays games that wind up in more "typical" or understandable positions that a good player could be 100% accurate within, vs. more creative players who wind up in more difficult or rarer situations. You could also argue that the top grand masters are more creative in exploiting known weaknesses of their opponents, making less than 100% accurate moves specifically to challenge an opponent with a situation they're less comfortable with. E.g. I push pawns even where a knight attack is more accurate, because I know my opponent is weak against pushed pawns. It may also be the case that the specific solvers being used just happen to play "like" Niemann does, so they rate his games as more accurate than others. Solvers aren't perfect, they're programmed by humans and that introduces bias. The way to resolve a lot of these questions is more and better analysis against larger datasets and looking at more than just the very top players. But "resolution" will still only ever be "this player is implausibly more accurate than statistically likely" and never "this is proof the player cheated." To prove Niemann cheated in a given game, someone needs to find an accomplice who confesses, illicit electronic gear, or some other tangible proof. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 23:50 on Sep 28, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 23:47
|
|
|
https://github.com/RonSijm/ButtFish
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 01:59
|
|
|
Thank god that brightest minds of our age are working tirelessly to ensure that you can actually cheat at otb chess using anal beads in order to transform this stupid meme theory into a reality.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 02:07
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:It may also be the case that the specific solvers being used just happen to play "like" Niemann does, so they rate his games as more accurate than others. Solvers aren't perfect, they're programmed by humans and that introduces bias. Or that he plays 'like' solvers because he admittedly cheated in online games enough to react similarly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 04:49
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Or that he plays 'like' solvers because he admittedly cheated in online games enough to react similarly. I think it's fair to say that just about all top tier players play against and study play with solvers a lot. I'm pretty dubious actually that anyone could "play like a solver" but I'm open to being convinced, I just wanted to float it as a possibility.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 05:14
|
|
|
David Sirlin actually created a “Chess 2”. It was about as successful as you would expect given that you’ve probably only just heard of it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 14:40
|
|
|
Tons of people have created chess variants, the most successful is probably Fisher's Chess 960 which randomizes the starting board with some constraints giving 960 possible starting positions. I haven't played it much but it still feels like chess while cutting down on the memorization.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 14:47
|
|
|
It seems like a solved problem to me, Chess 960 already provided a variant that reduces the reliance on memorizing lines and learning opening theory. The problem is that a computer is still going to beat human ability, so the cheating problem still exists, and also people don't really seem to like Chess 960.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 14:50
|
|
|
If you want a fun chess sequel, look up "really bad chess". It gives you random pieces within a weighted score, and the better you are/ worse your opponent is, the less likely you are to get better pieces. You may be good but can you win with three knights, one bishop, a king and some pawns versus a team with four rooks two bishops and two queens?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 15:34
|
|
|
If Carlsen thinks he's such hot poo poo at Chess, then he should have no trouble with this: https://store.steampowered.com/app/1349230/5D_Chess_With_Multiverse_Time_Travel/
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 16:08
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure the problem with all the various chess variants is that there's too much focus on just varying within the mechanics and not enough new stuff. The designers need to go back to the game's themes to find something new. Maybe a secondary board where you have to manage the overall ongoing war your two kingdoms are engaged in, or a system where after each game you need to deal with the fallout, like if your bishop died you now need to handle an investiture controversy as you try to get your preferred candidate appointed to the old bishop's diocese. Uh oh, that Knight who checked the enemy King bagged a huge ransom and secured a marriage to your half-sister and might be making a play for your throne! All this coming soon in Chess: Checkacy
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 16:19
|
|
|
My favorite Chess Plus is For the Crown, which is Dominion and also chess with fairy pieces. Because of the Dominion part and the chance elements it's really more of a chess-adjacent game?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 17:20
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:I'm pretty sure the problem with all the various chess variants is that there's too much focus on just varying within the mechanics and not enough new stuff. The designers need to go back to the game's themes to find something new. Maybe a secondary board where you have to manage the overall ongoing war your two kingdoms are engaged in, or a system where after each game you need to deal with the fallout, like if your bishop died you now need to handle an investiture controversy as you try to get your preferred candidate appointed to the old bishop's diocese. Uh oh, that Knight who checked the enemy King bagged a huge ransom and secured a marriage to your half-sister and might be making a play for your throne! 
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 17:51
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:I'm pretty sure the problem with all the various chess variants is that there's too much focus on just varying within the mechanics and not enough new stuff. The designers need to go back to the game's themes to find something new. Maybe a secondary board where you have to manage the overall ongoing war your two kingdoms are engaged in, or a system where after each game you need to deal with the fallout, like if your bishop died you now need to handle an investiture controversy as you try to get your preferred candidate appointed to the old bishop's diocese. Uh oh, that Knight who checked the enemy King bagged a huge ransom and secured a marriage to your half-sister and might be making a play for your throne! This reminds me of Chess: Two Knigdoms.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 19:17
|
|
|
It's hard to talk about a "problem" with Chess exactly, because it remains enduringly popular. It's not a game for me, but there seems to be some real appeal to that kind of competitive open-information problem solving, and fundamentally you're never going to make it so that the computer isn't better at it than the human, because it's one of the relatively rare activities that's really well set up for computation. (As opposed to games with hidden information or player reading.) But "competitive move computing as a human" is still going to be fun for people who that's fun for, and in that sense solvers are a problem more in the way doping is a problem for physical sports - it's a challenge to figure out how to detect it and avoid it at the highest levels, but it doesn't really dilute what people are getting from the core activity. So trying to make variants to address it kind of seem like they'd dilute what people actually like about Chess; non-computer-soluble Chess is just a fundamentally different two-player strategy game.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 19:31
|
|
|
Another option, which already exists and is very popular, is speed chess. If you have to make a move in under a second there's no time to send the board state to a solver, get an answer back, listen to it, and then make that move. It's fun watching Hikaru play chess with the coffee crew where he has only one minute to make all his moves, e.g: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzXDIq3LVBs Speed variants are played at the top professional level, too. Unfortunately in this format, you don't get to think up brilliant moves, not everyone is going to be good when under time pressure, it's a game I'll never play for example. But it's there. e. for the record, golani there would crush any of us at chess, he's 10 Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Sep 29, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 19:51
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Another option, which already exists and is very popular, is speed chess. If you have to make a move in under a second there's no time to send the board state to a solver, get an answer back, listen to it, and then make that move. It's fun watching Hikaru play chess with the coffee crew where he has only one minute to make all his moves, e.g: I had so much fun back in high school playing Bughouse (aka Siamese, aka probably a bajillion other names with subtle rule variations). 2v2, short-timer clock (I think we did 5 minutes, enough to fit a few into a lunch break), pieces you take go to your teammate who can place them instead of a move, playing fast means you feed your teammate more options but also makes it more likely to make a mistake. Instead of checkmate or "no you can't move there it puts your king in check" winning was via actually taking the king so you could triumphantly slam it down on your teammate's side of the table. Usually ends with one person jammed up and watching their clock tick down while the teammate tries to either win or get them the piece they need. The speed factor is great, and ramps the energy up to a point where you have a bunch of nerds around the table cheering people on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 21:10
|
|
|
hyphz posted:David Sirlin actually created a “Chess 2”. It was about as successful as you would expect given that you’ve probably only just heard of it. Okay, here me out: Chess Story Mode
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 22:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 22:23 |
|
|
hyphz posted:David Sirlin actually created a “Chess 2”. It was about as successful as you would expect given that you’ve probably only just heard of it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgeYScYe8wI
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 00:07
|
|
