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, 26 Aug 1992 17:59:42 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.170009.9477@afit.af.mil> wbralick@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.220047.20945@cis.uab.edu> hyatt@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) writes:
>| 
>| Right, and if you will reread my post, the "idiocy" I mentioned was the
>| idea of allowing a single opponent to "refuse" to play the machine.  This
>| disrupts the final standings enough to rankle anyone. ...
>
>Sigh.  Only under the status quo.
>
>| I don't want to intimidate anyone.  As I have stated repeatedly, there is
>| no middle ground.  Either reject computers totally, or accept them totally.
>
>Without falling once again into a bottomless pit of disputation over
>whether machines have ``ideas'' or can ``think,'' I would merely like to
>point out that this is the fallacy of the ``false dilemma.''  Clearly,
>my suggestion allows the players the right to refuse all play against
>machines and allows the machines to compete without muddling up the
>standings in either section.  The marginal cost of running an additional
>section is highest in small tournaments, but still not too onerous.
>
>This is a suggestion you never addressed seriously choosing instead to
>label any attempt to satisfy individual preferences as ``idiocy.''  Without
>resorting to empty invective, perhaps you could explain what is wrong
>with creating a mixed (or computer-only) section and a humans-only section?
>
>| Don't try to muddle things up by having the "right of refusal" and such
>| follies.  Such rules simply guarantee that machines will "fade from sight"
>| because of the negative effect they will have on tournaments.  
>
>This isn't clear, either, but is merely an opinion of the author.  If
>nobody wants to play the machines then they will fade.  If people don't
>mind or prefer playing machines then they will not fade.  There is no
>necessary disruption of the tournament except that caused by placing the
>machines in sections where people don't want to play them.
>
>

Your idea is fine, and is completely compatible with my previous
suggestions.  The only problem is how will you handle a state
championship event?  Two sections give two winners..... and that
won't fly.  What about the us open winner?  Two sections give two
winners again....  and so forth.

I agree that computers ought to be put in with a group where everyone
must play the machine if pairings so dictate.  That is one options.
A section without computers is also workable. that is another option.
Two sections, as you propose is workable except when you have some
type of title "on the line" as in the closed state championship
events to name but one.  These events are the ones that are going to
either be NC events, or mandatory-play-computers-if-paired events,
or else the computers are going to really blow out the final standings
to everyone's dissatisfaction.....

I like your multi-section events for large tournaments, except for the
prize money problem, and the title problem.  What do you suggest here?
I hope it's good enough that the problem will be solved.  If you want,
I can give you one specific event where we really trashed the final
standings and felt badly about doing it.....

Bob

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