From: hyatt@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt)
Subject: Re: Mandatory human-computer tournament play (was Re: US Open)
Keywords: computers, pairings
Organization: University of Alabama at Birmingham
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 15:14:58 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.022125.17183@afit.af.mil> wbralick@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick) writes:
>
>In article <1992Aug18.022521.2346@cis.uab.edu> hyatt@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) writes:
>| In article <BszGqo.BrF@cs.psu.edu> bralick@asm.cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) writes:
>| >Why don't they put up $$$ to play matches against these strong players who don't 
>| >want to play the computer.  A developer could stake, say, $500.00 on his machine 
>| >being stronger than the human Master -- winner take all.  That is one way to
>| 
>| >motivate a starving chess player.
>| 
>| Yeah, right.  But what about us starving chess program developers?  This
>| has been an ongoing struggle.... and misconception....  all of us are not
>| supported by companies with big advertising budgets.  Cray supplies us
>| with machine time and that's it...  the rest of our money comes out of
>| our pockets (the cray blitz team here).
>
>With all due respect, just because chess program developers can't afford 
>to pay a human opponent doesn't mean that they should be able to force 
>the human to play for free.  
>
>The ``starving chess program developers'' out there who favor forcing 
>humans to compete against their programs to either (1) improve the program 
>or (2) establish a rating for the program seize the moral low ground.
>Why?  Clearly the program doesn't benefit from either (1) its improvement 
>or (2) the rating.  Who does?  It seems that the developers and/or the 
>equipment supplier (e.g. Cray whose name is advertised in ``Cray Blitz'') 
>benefit from forcing said competition.  ``Benefit'' in this context is 
>not restricted to monetary gain but can also include papers published, 
>research grants obtained, fame garnered, curiosity satisfied, academic 
>promotion and tenure decisions decided favorably, etc.  This is not ethical.
>

I have to disagree here.  First, what is the purpose of developing a
computer chess program?  In my case (and for many others) it is to try
to get the computer to "act intelligent" by playing an intellectual game.
Your opinion of "why" we develop these programs is slightly warped.
Second, I don't want to "force" humans to play against programs.  However,
if the majority agree that having computers in tournaments is a good thing,
then the minority is either going to have to go along or play elsewhere.
If you call that "forcing" then maybe I am for it.  I believe the "option"
of not pairing against the computer is acceptable for lower rated players
that are not going to finish at the top.  However, for those players that
have legitimate chances of placing "in the Money" in a tournament, the 
choice should be recinded or else the computer is going to perturb the
final standings (and money) and THAT'S really bad.

My position is simply that if the majority wants computers, everyone should
get computers.  Isn't that what a democracy is?  By your reasoning, the
art of medicine would be kaput - consider the scientology people that don't
allow any type of medical treatment for themselves or family members. 
Because a minority don't want medical care, do I have to give up that right?

I would summarize by saying that I don't want to force anything, nor have
I ever desired to do so.  I used to get requests to enter Cray Blitz in
human tournaments and did so when I could afford it.  Your purported reasons
for forcing computers on humans really rankles me, particularly your
"unethical" statement.  Chess has not made me any money, fame, fortune,
promotion, tenure, or whatever.  It has provided me with years of enjoyiment
and introduced me to many new friends and fellow researchers.  You need to
post with more thought and less emotion.  

The only ones interested in "forcing" computers on all of us are the 
commercial companies.  I would be perfectly happy if the commercial 
companies were barred from all chess competition, both human tournaments
and computer-only tournaments.  I have been doing this for about 20 years
now, and really used to enjoy sitting down with David Slate, Tom Truscott,
Ken Thompson, Tony Marsland, Fred Swartz, and others and exchanging ideas
for the next year.  The commercial companies represent "information black
holes".  They listen, and take the ideas they like, but they contribute
nothing in return.  To disclose their algorithms would give their
competitors some advantage and they are unwilling to contribute to the
research knowledge.  The research chess programs represent the cutting edge
of chess programs, but we have the habit of disclosing those ideas that work
well as well as those ideas that fail.  The commercial companies digest this
and also produce their own innovations (which they don't disclose).  If the
research programs had never been started, you wouldn't be able to buy a
master-level opponent for $200 that will play whenever and wherever you
want.

Lighten up.....

>I think that we can view human-computer competition on the computer side 
>as artificial ``intelligence'' research, but on the human side it is 
>cognitive psychology experimentation and hence the normal rules concerning 
>experimentation on human subjects should apply.  In particular, humans 
>should not be experimented upon against either their will or their 
>informed consent.  If you want human subjects for your experiments then
>you should get unpaid volunteers or a grant for your research and pay 
>the volunteers for their participation, but in any case the humans 
>should not be forced to participate.
>

The analogy doesn't hold.  95% of the chess players in the world would be
hard-pressed to decide whether they are playing a machine or a human if
they couldn't see their opponent.  Suppose you entered a tournament where
you never see your opponent.  After winning a wild and tactical game, would
the win lose its "gloss" when you discover you just beat Cray Blitz instead
of a human?  As far as the human goes, there is no physical difference between
playing a computer and a human, and the "volunteer" analogy is inappropriate.
Granted, some like to intimidate their opponent, and it's "hard" to intimidate
a computer, but that IS NOT part of the game.  You aren't supposed to slam
pieces down, slam the clock, lean over the board and scowl, or do anything
else that disturbs your opponent.  If you play like this, the computer simply
makes you follow the rules, since it ignores all of the "action" you present.

Bob Hyatt

-- 
!Robert Hyatt                    Computer and Information Sciences   !
!hyatt@cis.uab.edu               University of Alabama at Birmingham !