13-01-2013, 01:20 PM
Alan Jelfs Wrote:Andrew McHarg Wrote:andyburnett Wrote:it would be revealing to know the probability that a 2200 player could mirror Houdini 2's (rated about 3100) first choice over 95% of the time? I'd guess we're in the realms of lottery numbers (10 million to 1).
Much, much more unlikely than that. :U
But wouldn't you have to measure that against the probability of a 2600 player mirroring Houdini's moves?
Yeah, pretty much. You'd probably have to do something with the average strength of his moves to check if there is a difference between the mean strength of his old moves and new ones. You can gauge some kind of statistical evidence from that, as is done in normal cases, then look towards human evidence. Using an expert in computers and cheating (eg. Lilov) seems sensible. Looking at behavior during the time of accusation helps as well, for example, in the Feller case they worked out the captain was passing moves via a code of standing near boards.
Looks pretty guilty to me.