From: jdd@engr.ucf.edu (Joseph Dumas)
Subject: Re: Mandatory human-computer tournament play (was Re: US Open)
Keywords: computers, pairings
Organization: engineering, University of Central Florida, Orlando
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 15:26:42 GMT

schiller@tira.uchicago.edu (Eric Schiller) writes:
>
>It has to do with prize distribution and pairings.
>
>The objection is to the existence of tournaments which allow
>computers to play but do not require humans to play against them.
>
>In one case brought to my attention, there were 4 computers of
>varying strengths playing in a 20 player swiss, where many of
>the participants, especially the stronger ones, refused to
>play the computers. The result was that the computers received
>very artificial pairings, and so did some of the humans. Screwed
>up the tournament for everyone.
I guess you mean all the humans.  I'm sure the computers didn't care who
they played :-)

Undoubtedly there is a problem with this situation, but the correct way
to solve it depends on who you blame it on.  If you think the problem is
with the humans who insist on a right to play other humans for their
money, then by all means, eliminate the problem by penalizing them.
Force them to play the computers next time.  There, that'll show 'em!

On the other hand, if you believe the tournament exists for the pleasure
of the human competitors, a large percentage (probably a majority to
cause the problems you described) of whom do not wish to play the
computers, then why not just...eliminate the computers?!  Then you would
have had a perfectly good 16-player swiss, all the pairings would have
worked out fine (unless I was there, I always seem to get three blacks
:^)....  Only the computers would have been disappointed...er, their
developers, who would have had to go to the effort of finding a more
appropriate venue for testing their machines.

No, the problem here is not with the rules, at least not with the rule
that allows right of refusal to play computers.  The problem starts with
the rule that allows the computers to participate in the first place.  I
agree, Eric, change *that* rule.  Then you won't have to even have a
rule governing refusal to play computers.  But the real problem in this
case is with the organizers.  Operating in an area where, obviously, a
large number--perhaps a clear majority--of players do not wish to play
computers in tournaments, they chose to make the tournament "C" anyway.
Why?  Financial incentives from the developers, perhaps?  Or just
unaware of the wishes of the players and/or the problems it would cause?
In any case, it seems pretty clear that the way to avoid this problem
occurring again in that area would be to make all future tournaments
"NC", or at the very least to limit the number of computers entered to a
small fraction (*not* 20%) of the total number of entrants.  (Or better
yet, of the total number of entrants willing to play against computers.)
If this means that only 1 or 2 computers can be entered instead of 4,
hey, too bad, this tournament is primarily for humans to enjoy, right?

Let's keep the tournaments (not just the US Open, but all tournaments)
the way they should be:  fun for, and fair to, all the human
participants...not just the ones willing to pay money to play a box.  If
this means we have to be somewhat less than accommodating to the
computer developers, well, they'll just have to figure out other ways to
evaluate their progress.  It can't be as hard as it was to come up with
the programs/hardware in the first place, can it?
>
>I would prefer to ban both computers and class prizes, but 
>the votes never go my way...
>
Ditto on the computers.  As for class prizes, well, I'm not an IM, only
a Class A player hoping to one day make it to Expert (after I finish
this dissertation...no, not this post, my *real* dissertation :).  So I
think it is nice to have a little something to play for in return for my
entry fee.  But I agree, large class prizes have had some terrible
effects on tournament chess, including sandbagging (which has to be
combatted with artificial devices like the rating floor which screws up
the ratings).  Perhaps a cap on class prizes would be in order (sorta
like the NBA salary cap on a much lower level).  Or maybe the people who
pay big entry fees to take a slim shot at huge class prizes are getting
what they deserve.

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
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess