From: md85-epi@byse.nada.kth.se (Urban Koistinen)
Subject: Re: Computers & chess ethics
Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 11:46:29 GMT

In article <92211.221618U13054@uicvm.uic.edu> Howard Wachtel <U13054@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>In article <markv.711913564@pixar>, markv@pixar.com (Mark VandeWettering) says:
[...much deleted...]
>
>   Of course humans have that "advantage", but it is arguable whether it
>is sufficient to compensate for the advantages that the computer has.
>

There should be no need to compensate any advantages the computer has.
Even though the generic computer in many ways is undefined, I think
you should be able to construct a good chess "computer" by combining
good human chess players with literature + computing machinery, including
paper, pencils and chess boards.
This was done before the advent of the modern computer.
The difference that modern computers make is that now a computer can
compete compete without requiring a separate room for discussion.
A modern computer need only the same aids as a blind player do.
This makes it feasible to allow computers to play in tournaments
rather than only in especially arranged matches.

>
>   If not, then why should they have the opportunity to determine which
>human _does_ win a title such as a state or national championship?
>

A computer should not be entered in such a tournament unless it is likely
to do worse than more than a few of the best players.
Then it will not affect the result more than a similarly rated player.
Why should a 2000 rated players blunders be allowed to determine which
human _does_ win a title such as a state or national championship?

>
>   What is odd about it?  Actually the speed advantage of the computer was
>not really the thrust of my argument (although it is worth considering);
>rather, it is that the machine is storing information in a "memory"
>which is more like a scratchpad than the human player's memory; hence
>my suggestion to give the human player the privilege of using a
>scratchpad/separate board.
>
>   Why does giving the human opponent the privilege of using a separate
>board or an opening book make the game less interesting?  It is unlikely
>that the two will be using the _same_ book, but I would think it would
>still be interesting even in that case, assuming all else is unchanged.

Because, that is not the way humans play chess.
Your rating is a measure of how well you play chess when you play without
using books/separate board and the computers rating is a measure of how
well it play using whatever tools the creator of it chose to include.
In chess, you are your ability, if you change your ability you become
a different opponent.
For a human v computer match to be useful in asserting the strength of
the computer, the human strength must be known.
You can't generally solve an equation with two unknowns.

Having computers play in human-dominated tournaments is a convenient
way to learn how well a computer play humans under tournament conditions.
It also allow computer ratings to be more on the same scale as
human ratings.
I should post some of the ratings from the Swedish rating list.

You should require that the computer doesn't disturb you by beeps or
other noise as it is possible to avoid this.
Also, I have heard stories of computer operators not behaving well.
Issues like these are more important than having a "computer affect
the result of the tournament"(fake quote).

My opinion in short:
Computers should be allowed to play in regular human tournaments where
they are not expected to win. If they win, it's no use except for the
players that were beaten.

>________________________________________________________________
>Howard K. Wachtel              University of Illinois at Chicago
>U13054@UICVM.CC.UIC.EDU        Phone (312) 975-7970
-- 
Urban Koistinen - md85-epi@nada.kth.se