Boost Your Chess Winning Odds: Discover 3 Essential Cheats for Success!

Chess Game Analysis

Detecting Cheating in Chess: The Challenge

Simple Image/Getty

Just three cunning acts of cheating can drastically shift the odds in chess, turning an evenly matched game into an almost guaranteed victory, a new analysis reveals. This highlights the need for effective systems to detect and prevent cheating in chess.

Daniel Kellen from the University of Haifa, Israel, simulated 100,000 games using the advanced Stockfish chess engine. Famous for its unmatched performance, Stockfish can outplay any human world champion. In these matches, two computer engines competed at an average skill level (1500 Elo rating), while powerful interventions occurred from a more skilled computer with an Elo score of 3190—higher than any human’s.

Typically, playing as White confers a slight advantage with a 51% probability of winning, primarily due to the first move advantage. However, Kellen’s findings showed that leveraging a computer system like Stockfish for guidance on just one move amplifies that probability to an average of 66%. If a player resorts to three instances of cheating, the chance of victory escalates dramatically to 84%.

“We anticipated that the first act of cheating would raise the winning probability to 55%, with a second nudging it to 60%. However, cheating three times escalated the odds to an astonishing 84%,” Kellen notes. This is a crucial insight for players seeking victory.

A single, well-timed move suggested by a superior chess engine (approximately 30 moves into the game) can improve winning chances by 15 percentage points. In contrast, random interventions throughout the game yield a mere 7.5 percentage point boost.

The analysis employed a system that intervened only if the suggested move significantly enhanced winning chances compared to the player’s original choice. The thresholds for cheating became more stringent as gameplay progressed. “Initial acts of cheating are somewhat lenient; however, scaling up your cheating necessitates a marginally greater advantage,” Kellen points out.

Such tactics create a “camouflage measure,” according to Kellen, which enables cheaters to evade detection by the automated systems employed by online chess platforms. These systems may mistake a remarkably effective move as an exceptional human insight rather than a product of computer assistance.

“Proving selective cheating through manual analysis poses significant challenges, as a single strategic hint from an engine can determine the outcome of a game,” emphasizes Kellen. Kim Shu from the University of Mainz in Germany finds this research compelling.

Kellen clarifies that his work does not aim to facilitate cheating but rather to assist chess platforms in recognizing the threats posed by subtle cheating methods. “Understanding your adversary is crucial,” he concludes.

As online chess gains popularity, the community must intensify its efforts to uncover cheating instances, notes Shu. “An effective anti-cheating strategy demands a multifaceted approach,” he advises, suggesting the analysis of behavioral patterns, move timings, and comprehensive histories of online chess accounts.

Topics:

This version has been optimized for SEO while maintaining the original HTML structure and improving the content’s clarity and relevance.

Source: www.newscientist.com

Mathematics Reveals the Ideal Strategy for Winning the Lottery

How can mathematics help you win the lottery?

Brandon Bell/Getty Images

I’ve got a foolproof method that guarantees you’ll win the lottery you desire. Just follow my simple technique and you’ll capture the biggest jackpot imaginable. The only caveat? You need either millions yourself or a circle of wealthy friends.

Let’s use the US Powerball as an illustration. To participate, you must select five unique “white” numbers from 1 to 69, along with a sixth “red” number from 1 to 26. Notably, this last number can replace one of the white ones. How many unique lottery tickets can you create? To find out, we turn to a branch of mathematics known as Combinatorics, which helps calculate the number of potential combinations of items.

This situation is analogous to the “n choose k” problem in which n signifies the total number of objects available for selection (69 for the white Powerball numbers) and k refers to the number of objects you wish to pick. It’s essential to note that these selections occur without replacement—each winning number drawn removes it from the pool of available choices.

For this, mathematicians employ a useful formula for solving n choose k problems: n! /(k! ×(n k)!). If this notation is unfamiliar, don’t worry! It’s simply a representation of the product of all whole numbers leading up to a given integer. For instance, 3! = 3×2×1 = 6.

Applying 69 for n and 5 for k results in a total of 11,238,513 combinations. While that sounds substantial, we’ll see shortly that it might not be enough. Enter the Red Powerball. Essentially, this means you’re effectively playing two lottery tickets at once, raising the stakes for winning the grand prize. Merely adding a sixth white ball, the combinations soar to 119,877,472 in total. However, since there are 26 possibilities for the red ball, you would multiply the white ball combinations by 26, yielding a grand total of 292,201,338 potential outcomes.

Now we’re talking about over 292 million possible Powerball tickets. The ultimate trick to guaranteed victory? Simply purchase every possible ticket. Of course, the logistics involved complicate this idea. Most importantly, you’d need over $5 billion on hand, as each ticket costs $2.

Is that enough to ensure a significant payout? It’s a bit complicated to answer. The Powerball jackpot accumulates weekly, often remaining unclaimed, which means the prizes can vary. However, there are about 15 instances of jackpots exceeding $584 million, which would not be worth pursuing under the buy-all-tickets approach. Profits are further diminished by the prospect of multiple winners choosing the same combination and approximately 30% of winnings being deducted for taxes.

It’s not surprising, really. If winning the lottery and making a profit were guaranteed, people would be doing this all the time, leading lottery operators to go bankrupt. Yet, surprisingly, poorly designed lotteries do appear, leaving savvy investors at a disadvantage.

One of the earliest noted incidents of this kind involved the writer and philosopher Voltaire, who collaborated with mathematician Charles Marie de la Codamine to create a syndicate aimed at buying all tickets in a lottery tied to French government debts. While the exact methods remain vague, there are suggestions of devious tactics employed that allowed them to circumvent the full ticket payment, resulting in the syndicate winning repeatedly before authorities shut down the lottery in 1730. In a letter to a colleague, Voltaire remarked, “The group that won the victory and purchased all the tickets triumphed over a million players.”

Modern lotteries have faced similar fates. A notable instance is the Irish National Lottery, which was taken over in 1992 by numerous syndicates. At the time, players had to select six numbers from 1 to 36. The n choose k formula indicates 1,947,792 possible tickets. With each ticket costing 50 Irishpense (the currency then), the conspirators managed to raise £973,896 and began acquiring tickets poised for an estimated £1.7 million prize pool.

Lottery organizers caught wind of this scheme and began restricting the number of tickets any one vendor could sell. This limitation meant the syndicate could only purchase roughly 80% of the possible combinations. The outcome was a shared jackpot with two other winners, leading to a loss of £568,682 for the syndicate. Thankfully, the lottery had introduced a £100 guaranteed prize for matching four numbers, bringing their total to £1,166,000.

In response to the incident, the Irish National Lottery quickly revised its rules. Players now must select six numbers from 47, elevating the total number of tickets to 10,737,573. Though the jackpot is capped at 18.9 million euros, the £2 price per ticket makes lottery investments unprofitable.

Despite ample awareness regarding the pitfalls of poorly structured lotteries, such phenomena may still arise. One extraordinary instance emerged in 2023, when a syndicate won a $95 million jackpot in the Texas lottery. Texas lottery tickets involved 54 choices, allowing for 25,827,165 possibilities, with each ticket priced at $1, making this a significant venture. However, there were speculations that the syndicate had possible support from the lottery organizers themselves. Fallout from this controversy is still ongoing, raising questions about legality. The syndicate may have collaborated through local retailers and acquired a ticket printing terminal from the Texas lottery, simplifying logistics. Organizers at the time deny any involvement in unlawful activities, and no criminal charges have been filed. As a lawyer representing the syndicate stated, “All applicable laws, rules, and regulations were adhered to.”

So there you have it. If you can secure an ample amount of upfront cash and the organizers fail to implement the n choose k formula effectively, you might just make a decent profit. Good luck!

Topics:

Source: www.newscientist.com

Fish use mirrors to assess their size and determine their likelihood of winning a confrontation

Bluestreak Cleaner checking himself out in the mirror

Osaka Metropolitan University

Before deciding whether to fight another fish, wrasse look at their own reflection in the mirror to gauge their size.

Blue Streak Cleaner Lass (Loveroid) are astonishingly bright. This finger-sized coral reef fish is the first to pass the mirror test, a common assessment of whether an animal can recognize its own body and not another animal in a mirror. Researchers discovered that these wrasses use their own reflection to build an image of their own body size and compare it to others.

beginning, Taiga Kobayashi Researchers at Osaka Metropolitan University in Japan conducted an experiment to see if fish were willing to attack. They held up images of different wrasses, each 10 percent larger or smaller than the real fish, against the glass wall of an aquarium. Regardless of the size of the model fish in the photo, the territorial wrasses put up a fight.

The researchers then repeated the test with additional mirrors, and the fish saw their own reflection in the mirror, but when the researchers held up pictures of larger or smaller wrasses on the glass plate, the fish chose to fight only the smaller rivals.

“This was unexpected, as this fish has always been known to be aggressive towards rivals, regardless of its size,” Kobayashi says.

Because the tanks are partitioned, the wrasses can't see both themselves and pictures of rival fish at the same time, so the scientists think the fish must be comparing the pictures to a mental approximation of their own size.

How did wrasses develop this ability, given that they evolved in an environment without mirrors? In both the lab and in the wild, it's advantageous for fish to know the size of their opponent before fighting, Kobayashi says. In other words, the fish were smart enough to use the mirror as a decision-making tool.

topic:

Source: www.newscientist.com