From: richardr@sco.COM (Richard Robinson)
Subject: Re: US Open
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 18:23:27 GMT
Keywords: computers, freedom of choice


In article <1992Aug12.150556.11816@cs.ucf.edu> jdd@engr.ucf.edu (Joseph Dumas) writes:
>In article <SCHILLER.92Aug11214041@tira.uchicago.edu> (Eric Schiller) writes:
>>Right! If those of us who hate machines don't play in events
>>where we have a reasonable chance of playing the beasts, the
>>old fashioned fun tournments will return.
>>
>Nah, the companies that make computers/software will just prop up the
>"C" events financially to the point where most people, even those who
>would prefer not to play computer opponents, will be lured into playing.
>Only those few of us who *absolutely* don't want to play computers will
>be left out.  In fact, even I might be tempted to play.  I'd just have
>to take the chance of being paired, but then I'd have to forfeit that
>round, along with (probably) any chance of winning a prize.  Of course,
>I'd get the satisfaction of denying the computer entry a rated game,
>plus I'd get to watch all the top board games and/or rest up for the
>next round.
>
>>Why do people feel so threatened by freedom of choice?
>>
>I don't.  In fact I would classify myself as pro-choice :^)  It's just
>that in some areas, the local organizer/organizers are cozy with the
>manufacturers and run only "C" events.  In those areas, players have to
>play computers, organize their own events (*if* they have the time,
>money, and expertise), or make the highly undesirable choice of
>traveling long distances to find "NC" events.  Still, at least under
>current rules, th local organizers are free to allow forklifts in the
>weightlifing competition (borrowed that from another post :-) if *they*
>choose.  I would just like to still be able to choose whether to compete
>directly against the forklift.
>
>That said, what *really* bothers me is the inclusion of computers in an
>event (like the US Open) which conveys a title that even computer
>advocates admit may only be held by a human.  Jack Nodebreath allowing
>computers in his own local tourney is one thing.  The USCF allowing
>computers in a national tournament, conveying a national title, which
>you and I may presumably want to play for without interference from
>someone/something which cannot win the title, is another.  And now, on
>top of that, it is proposed to compound that mistake by *forcing* you or
>me to accept a pairing against that title-ineligible entrant, while the
>other contenders are busy playing each other.  Just who is the US Open
>(or any other national tournament) held for, anyway?  I think it should
>be for the (human) players, not for some hardware/software developer who
>wants guinea pigs for the purpose of testing his creation.
>
>Bottom line, under current practice (as evidenced in this year's US
>Open) and the proposed new rule, I will have no freedom of choice.  If I
>wish to play for the US Open (Human) title, I have no choice but to
>accept possibly being paired against a computer opponent.  And that,
>IMNSHO, sucks.
>
>Again, not a personal flame against you, Eric.  Thanks for keeping us
>updated on these developments.  (How do you ever find time to play?)
>
>Joe
>-- 
>--->  Joe is jdd@engr.ucf.edu (Joseph Dumas):  "Cats are snooty and wouldn't
>fetch a stick on a bet.  They also scratch.  I dislike cats....  I like dogs
>because they forgive easily...and will settle for thirty seconds of care and
>attention if that is all you have to spare."  --Lewis Grizzard


I don't know why I feel so inclined to enter into this again, but...

I _prefer_ playing humans in tournaments _generally_, to playing computers
in tournaments.  If I knew that I was going to play 6 or more computers, say,
out of the 12 rounds at the U.S. Open I might have scond thoughts about
actually playing in it.

But, I wouldn't mind  being paired against a computer for a few rounds.  In
fact, I would look forward to being able to play against DT II or Hiertech,
or any other similarly strong HW/SW combo.  I would much prefer that to
playing a 1700 strength combo.  I think that would be a much different ex-
perience from playing KnightStalker on my PC.

I have no trouble with computers entering the U.S. Open (just call me
Nodebreath...).  I have no trouble with Socrates being declared U.S. Open
champion.  I will probably take note of which human came in closest to
first because that is of interest to me as well.

I think Kaidanov and Fedorowicz could beat Socrates.  If it edges them
out of first place because they refuse to play it that is their choice.
No machine plays perfect chess.  They play with a different set of
advantages and disadvantages than humans.  they play better than some
humans and worse than some others.  Forklifting analogies are faulty
because that is a one dimensional activity.  I can lift 40 lbs., the
machne can lift 1500 lbs.  I lose.

If the computer chess folks could turn it into a one dimensional activity
then I would agree.  But that is not likely to happen any time in the
near future.

For all chessplayers for whom the personal aspects of the game are necessary
to enjoy it, I support them. They make it enjoyable for me, too.  I don't
require that every game but I generally like the people I have met playing
chess and it is a large positive part of my experience.  If I were to lose
that entirely I would probbaly not play in tournaments ever again.

This is the only argument against playing computers that I wholeheartedly
understand and sympathize with even if I don't feel quite so strongly
myself.

And, if there aren't enough tournaments of 'your kind' in your area,
organize, organize, organize. There are always people willing to criticize
the way things are being done.  There are only a few who are willing
to put out the actual effort to change things. (I should point out
that I have nothing against "NC" tournaments either. I agree with
Eric Schiller, why are people so afraid of choice?)  If you think it's
too much trouble then thank the nice people who organized whatever is
happening in your area.

richardr
richardr@sco.com


-- 
	- - -
	Q. According to a March 18, 1992, New York Times article sent to you
by alert reader Melanie Allen, what were Russian anarchists chanting at
a Moscow street demonstration?
	A. They were chanting: ``Eat Gaseous Worms.'' The Times states:
``Nobody figured out what this was supposed to mean, but the slogan
stirred considerable emotion.''
	Q. ``Gaseous Worms'' would be a good name for a rock band.