From: U13054@uicvm.uic.edu (Howard Wachtel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Computers & chess ethics
Date: 27 Jul 92 23:41:46 GMT
 <seP4=in0BwxV5ot1Bc@transarc.com>
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago

In article <seP4=in0BwxV5ot1Bc@transarc.com>, Bruce_Leverett@TRANSARC.COM says:
>
>>Humans blunder; humans forget.  Computers do not (at least in theory).
>
>I don't understand.  What is this ``theory?''  Computer memory can and does
>fail.  This goes for both primary memory and secondary (e.g. disk) memory.
>

   Yes, but such failures are rare in comparison to those of the human
memory.  Computers don't hang pieces or fall into two-move mates, even
in time pressure, as human players, even strong players often do.

>Computer memory is pretty reliable in practice.  There is a certain practical
>argument that it isn't equivalent to human memory.  But if we are talking
>about practical arguments, remember that knowledge of book openings has been
>a weak point, not a strong point, for the master-level computers and programs.
>Deep Thought was notorious for getting into trouble in the opening.

   It isn't equivalent to human memory, period.  If knowledge of opening
books is indeed a weakness (which I rather doubt), then the developers
of chess programs would diminish or do away with opening books for theor
programs.
   Perhaps what you mean is that DT and other computers would get into
trouble in the opening because their (probably master-level or higher)
opponents knew a little more opening theory than the computer's pre-
programmed "book" contained.  In that case, the developer could keep
abreast of current theory and continually update the program's book
as necessary.

>
>>I am suggesting that the human opponent of the computer be allowed
>>to play by correspondence rules, as long as the computer is doing so.
>>(S) he should also be allowed to have someone else keep score and
>>punch the clock for him/her, as long as the computer does so (as
>>is the case with the opponent of a blind player).
>
>Interesting suggestions.  However, bear in mind that, even if you believe that
>computer memory is infallible, the computer still isn't playing by
>correspondence rules.  In correspondence, I can consult any reference I can
>get my hands on.  The computer is limited to its own memory.

   OK, so the term "correspondence rules" isn't entirely exact.  Maybe we
should coin a term for the correspondence-rules-over-the-board situation
like "pseudo-correspondence rules"?  In any event, the human opponent of
the computer in an OTB tournament is likewise limited to whatever
references (s)he has with him/her during the game, so both sides are
playing by the same set of rules, whatever you call them.
>
>Both suggestions strike me as somewhat unlikely to catch on.

   Unfortunately true.

Who is going to
>want to play a game under tournament conditions with an ECO at their elbow?

   I'll gladly volunteer, though I can't speak for anyone else.  And I won't
be embarrassed about it, unless I lose anyway.

>If I did that, I'd be too embarrassed to show up in the skittles room
>(or in the bar) afterwards.  As for having someone to keep my score and press
>my clock, such a deal.  I have never seen anyone who was playing a blind or
>handicapped player invoke this rule.  But who knows.

   Probably because there aren't that many blind chess players.  I'd
be glad to have someone keeping score for me in time pressure,
instead of having to check off moves.
>
>I guess what this is leading to is that no amount of tinkering with the rules
>is going to help much.

   We're constantly "tinkering" with the rules, hoping that our rule
changes will help in some way.  Recently the USCF de-standardized
digital clocks, allowed a player to stop both clocks to summon a TD,
and so forth.  (Before 1985 you could win on time with only a King left!)

A computer opponent is not equivalent to a human
>opponent and anyone who owns a chess computer or chess software and uses it
>regularly knows this.  But for a single game, under tournament conditions,
>playing a computer is similar to playing a human, and this has led to the
>practice of entering computers in tournaments.

    I disagree with both clauses of the last sentence.  What led to the
practice of entering computers in human tournaments is the desire to
produce stronger and stronger chessplaying machines (and therefore to
measure their strength against humans).  What has kept that practice
going is the desire to attract computer enthusiasts to the game of
chess who might not be interested otherwise.

>I've played ChipTest and Hitech (twice) and I enjoyed it.

  It helps if you're a senior master!  The rest of us might not enjoy
it so much.

But it's a serious error to think that
>human vs. computer is equivalent to human vs. human or that the ethical issues
>involved have an easy solution.

   That has been my point all along, that we should at least _consider_
the ethical issues involved with computers playing in human tournaments,
and not to dismiss then as uninteresting or unimportant.  I think that
the discussion that this topic has generated proves that the solutions
are not easy.
________________________________________________________________
Howard K. Wachtel              University of Illinois at Chicago
U13054@UICVM.CC.UIC.EDU        Phone (312) 975-7970