Yeah, although this is speculation, I imagine its less of an issue because cheaters would get board somewhat easily.
I mean whats the fun in copying what a machine says to win chess games against strangers?
Its not like its people they know who might be impressed and if they cheat then their ranking will rise far above their skill, so if they wanted to play a real game, they would then be crushed.
> I mean whats the fun in copying what a machine says to win chess games against strangers?
I mean, what's the fun in beating everyone in Overwatch / PUBG / Fortnite / Quake / Doom / etc. etc. with an aimbot?
To win. Because cheaters find winning fun, even if they're not doing it on their own skill. I obviously disagree with the mindset, but cheaters disagree with me (and clearly continue to use aimbots / chessbots / whatever to rack up "their wins").
Generally speaking, their excuses are along the lines of "I don't have the reaction speed of others", or "I don't find games of reaction fun" (etc. etc.). Similarly, a chessbot user would almost certainly say "I don't like having obvious blunders in my games, and a chessbot prevents me from missing obvious blunders".
---------
I mean, Centaur Chess is a thing. Human + Computer, if you really wanted to fight fair. But these cheaters don't go towards Centaur Chess servers, they stay on human-only servers and just wanna have an advantage on the opponent. Soooooo... yeah. That's their decision.
There's chess tournaments of 24-hours a move, no holds barred. (IE: Chess AIs are allowed to assist you). If you really wanted "blunder free chess", people can play in those communities. Those who continue to use computer-assistance on human-only servers are simply cheaters in my book.
I had a Romanian stats teacher that sneered at Americans' preoccupation with fairness. She would say, "Why do you use this word fair? Life is not fair. It is a useless idea."
That seems merely like a way of perpetuating unfairness.
I don't know the story, but it sounds like the teacher was in a position of power and someone said she was being unfair. Retorting "life is unfair" when you, yourself, are the agent causing unfairness simply inflicts needless pain. For what -- to teach the lesson that life is unfair?
As a parent, I try to parent my kids fairly. I try not to show favoritism. I try to recall which kid had the last cookie most recently. Obviously the kids sometimes don't agree with me and claim I am being unfair, but by valuing fairness at the very least I am trying, and modeling for them a world where they value fairness in turn.
(Of course, note, people may value different things. Fairness is its own category in the moral foundations theory[1], and some people rank it as less important than, say, authority or purity.)
This was a graduate level class and the teacher did not believe in partial credit. Someone had missed a sign and thought their B was unfair.
I agree, kids should be treated fairly and taught to treat others fairly. However, I think it is just as important to teach children resilience in the face of unavoidable adversity. It’s important to feel feelings, but to not let them poison you. Learning to get over a breakup, or an injury come to mind. I’d like to stress unavoidable adversity, in contrast to crimes like discrimination, battery, fraud, etc.
So, my harping on “life isn’t fair” is an indirect and misleading way of saying, “it’s important to be resilient”. I apologize for posting my comment without more context.
That sounds like much different situation. It was not about cheating and getting unfair advantage at all.
It was about stopping infinite debate about "what is fair" and "what are ideals rules" just so that one kid can get better grade. E.g. the claim that it is unfair was already motivated reasoning and your teacher perceived/treated it that way.
I am from former soviet blog and really, what teacher said is normal way to shut up bullshit complains. And yes, there is way more cheating in schools too amd bad teacher can get away with more.
But, the notion of fairness is important to both students and teachers.
>I had a Romanian stats teacher that sneered at Americans' preoccupation with fairness. She would say, "Why do you use this word fair? Life is not fair. It is a useless idea."
I can see the point of that, to a certain extent.
We [well most of us] are brought up to play fair and with a deeply inculcated sense that it's shameful to cheat and that "cheaters never win". Then [in my case anyway], when we get a bit older and more worldly wise we realise that there are people everywhere, richer and more successful than us. Not because they're better or cleverer but because they went to the right school, or they knew the right people, or they had the right parents, or they could use money and/or influence to get out of trouble. That, in essence, they didn't have to play by the same rules as the rest of us. And, isn't that by definition "cheating"? In this case, cheating at life. I sometimes think maybe I'd have achieved a lot more, without the burden of having such a heightened sense of morality and fair play as I do.
I'd never contemplate cheating when playing a game for enjoyment though. Because that enjoyment comes from the self-satisfaction of getting a wee bit better each time. I think in most sports/hobbies/games the old cliché is true. In the end, you're competing against yourself. So there's no point in cheating.
Thing is, what you call unfair or cheating is only true when 1: the rulebook says so, 2: one is caught doing it, 3: when the evidence is indisputable & the interpretation of the rule is agreed upon.
Many big strides forward in sports are accomplished by re-interpreting understanding of said rules and coming up with possibilities that others have not yet thought about.
Take the Ten Commandments as example. Easy enough, at first glance. But the interpretation has been going on for about 6000 years with no end in sight.
And yet, Romania still distinguishes between little league, high school, and professional athletics; men's and women's athletics; etc. I'd guess they have some sort of anti-trust laws. Theft is still a crime, right?
I'm pretty sure everybody values fairness at some level.
It is not a useless idea. Fairness is something one can choose to strive for, notwithstanding that one will inevitably fall short of perfection. Much like proficiency in chess.
Isn't it argued that the English legal system (a form of enforce fairness) was responsible for the extent of it's Empire and was carried over in American success?
> Pls, it is quite natural for humans to care about notion of fairness.
Yes, but should we give up things we enjoy because the possibility for unfairness in that thing exists?
We may never know whether someone is using a chess engine assistant, but by observing what we can, their moves and game records, we can objectively argue that the match is fair. Statistically speaking, you have about a 50% chance to win. Is that unfair?
Pls, it is quite natural for humans to care about notion of fairness. How and why we loose matters.