From: hyatt@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt)
Subject: Re: Computers & chess ethics
Organization: University of Alabama at Birmingham
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 18:16:09 GMT

In article <92202.195726U13054@uicvm.uic.edu> Howard Wachtel <U13054@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>In article <u895174.711114141@bruny>, u895174@bruny.cc.utas.edu.au (Tim Morris)
>says: (quoting my earlier post)
>>
>>>   What?  Are you comparing computer hardware to the biological entities
>>>that constitute the human brain?  We're not talking about the same thing
>>>here.  The computer playing against a human player has an unfair advantage
>>>because it can refer to an opening book during play, and can analyze the
>>>game on a separate board, while the human does not have those privileges.
>>
>>Is this really the case?  True, computer chess programs have access to
>>an opening book of moves.  You say they "refer" to this book.  I
>>propose that this is no different to a human "referring" to his own memory
>>of openings.
>
>   And I propose that they are as different as night and day.  The human
>memory can fail; the computer's cannot.  Humans blunder; humans forget.
>Computers do not (at least in theory).
>

And I'll bet you never back up your disk drives either???  :^)

Seriously, this argument is simply rediculous.  I enjoy chess, if I want
to win I don't play GM's nor the better computers around.  If I want to
learn, improve, bone up, practice, etc.  A computer is the best partner
there is...  anonymous, untiring, exacting, bloodthirsty, etc.  

BTW, MY computer does "forget" when the disk gets corrupted, and I have lost
chess games (Cray Blitz) because of that.....  Not that the argument deserves
any more flames...


>If you were so inclined, you could sit down and rote learn
>>a plethora of openings, but this would not be considered unfair.  A
>>computer is able to take this to the extreme.
>
>   But it would be considered unfair if I had a copy of ECO in my lap.
>So why should we deny the human opponent of the computer the right to
>do so in a tournament game?

I would wager that a Fisher, or whomever, has a "copy" of ECO in his
head.  Fisher was famous for his memory.  If a computer is better, so
what?  It's just better at remembering....  humans are better at
long-range planning.....  I protest that...  :^)

>>
>>I don't believe the computer is "cheating" by storing a representation
>>of the board in it's memory and subsequently manipulating this
>>representation.  If you are considering a move and trying to decide
>>your opponent's response, then in your mind is an image of the chess
>>board with it's pieces in a new configuration.  This hardly constitutes
>>a "seperate board".  The fact is, a computer can do this faultlessly.
>>Is this fair?  Well no, but that's a seperate issue entirely.
>
>   I think that it is not really a separate issue.  It is
>unfortunate that we use the same term "memory" to refer to
>two entirely different entities--the computer RAM and the human mind.
>My mind's image of the chessboard and of any line of opening moves
>are necessarily imperfect.  If that were not so, you would have no
>need to deny the human player the right to consult an opening book
>during the game.
>________________________________________________________________
-- 
!Robert Hyatt                    Computer and Information Sciences   !
!hyatt@cis.uab.edu               University of Alabama at Birmingham !