From: palane@iastate.edu (Paul A. Lane)
Subject: Re: Computers & chess ethics
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 16:01:18 GMT

In <seP4=in0BwxV5ot1Bc@transarc.com> Bruce_Leverett@TRANSARC.COM writes:


>>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.

The relationship between computer memory and board positions is a one-to-one
mapping. They are equivalent. Commercial chess programs provide a display on
a computer screen which is not made of wood or ceramic or whatever, yet we
have no trouble identifying that as a chess board.

You argument about fallible computer memory and storage is a red herring. 
Parity checking and other techniques eliminate virtually all errors, and
when errors occur, it is likely to crash a program, not move a piece.

>If the argument is that computers are fundamentally different from humans
>because they're infallible, then you're drawing the right conclusion for the
>wrong reason.  In a hundred different ways, the chess-playing computer works
>differently from the human mind.  But both computers and humans rely on
>memory that is fallible.

>Computer memory is pretty reliable in practice.  There is a certain practical
>argument that it isn't equivalent to human memory.  

In many ways it's better.

>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.

>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.

Both a human and a computer are limited by budgets. The computer by what its
designer can afford in the way of RAM and disk space; the human by how much
he can blow on books. If you wish to make an equivalence, establish a space
limit for both sides (the computer gets so many bits, the human so many pages).

>Both suggestions strike me as somewhat unlikely to catch on.  Who is going to
>want to play a game under tournament conditions with an ECO at their elbow?
>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.

>I guess what this is leading to is that no amount of tinkering with the rules
>is going to help much.  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've played ChipTest and
>Hitech (twice) and I enjoyed it.  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.

Simple solution. Computers are for training. When I go to a concert, I expect
to hear live musicians, even though someone could put together a sound system
and play a recording. When I go to a chess tournament, it's to play a person.
If I want to play a game against a computer, I'll whip out my copy of CM2100
or Sargon and sit down at the computer. At $5/game, I deserve better.

Paul A. Lane

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess