I would be interested to see how this goes if you remove the requirement that B has to be stronger at chess than A. (Which, to my knowledge, is not a requirement of the test as Eliezer posed it, but was introduced in Zane’s proposal.) Of course, a B that is weaker than A will be easier to beat, which means a win would prove little; which I assume is why Zane introduced this requirement. But it would also mean a loss would prove more. If B is weaker than both C and A, but A loses anyway thanks to C’s deception, that would be much more damning than losing against a B that is natively stronger than A to begin with. Maybe you should run the test both ways? (And maybe not tell A which type of B they’re facing?)
I would be interested to see how this goes if you remove the requirement that B has to be stronger at chess than A. (Which, to my knowledge, is not a requirement of the test as Eliezer posed it, but was introduced in Zane’s proposal.) Of course, a B that is weaker than A will be easier to beat, which means a win would prove little; which I assume is why Zane introduced this requirement. But it would also mean a loss would prove more. If B is weaker than both C and A, but A loses anyway thanks to C’s deception, that would be much more damning than losing against a B that is natively stronger than A to begin with. Maybe you should run the test both ways? (And maybe not tell A which type of B they’re facing?)