From: jhc@m2lll.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Re: Mandatory human-computer tournament play (was Re: US Open)
Keywords: computers, pairings
Reply-To: jhc@m2lll.UUCP (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 19:29:30 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.030558.2107@cis.uab.edu> hyatt@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.170331.2807@afit.af.mil> wbralick@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug19.151458.2688@cis.uab.edu> hyatt@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) writes:
>>| In article <1992Aug19.022125.17183@afit.af.mil> wbralick@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick) writes:

>Since the first computer was built, man has wanted to bestow "intelligence"
>upon the machine.  Every science fic flic since the 1950's has had a
>"talking" computer that reasoned like a man (most anyway.)  This is nothing

"Man" has wanted to bestow.  Well, some men.  Some women too.  But all
men?  Definitely not.  The entire race?  Definitely not.  Part of
western mythology?  Definitely yes.  Part of all mythology?  Perhaps.

We could just as easily and accurately say that "man" has sought to
destroy machines, at least those machines that he/she finds threatening
(e.g., not the electric can opener).

>more than a simpler goal than making a mechanical man.. (Isaac Asimov
>readers will understand this.)  This is the goal I mentioned.  I have no
>intent of pursuing "my goal" at your or anyone's expense.

But, this IS your goal.  It may not be yours alone, but it is not
"man's goal" anymore than destroying machines is "man's goal."

>I think the argument against machines is less about chess and more
>about something else that I currently only vaguely understand.

Good reason to make more of an effort to understand than to beat down
the opposition.  You want machines to have intelligence?  Enable them
to sense antipathy and to respond sympathetically.

>why?  I believe that if you answer yes to the last question, we are
>reaching the root of the problem.  A form of bigotry, where the machine
>is the object?

Wow!  Have you looked up bigotry?  No one's participation in this
discussion has been more bigotted than your own.  Look it up in a good
dictionary before getting fired up.  I think you mean "prejudice."

And I would have answered the question in the YES, so I will respond as
well.  Yes, of course, it is prejudice against the machine, just as it
is judgment that one wants to play a human, that one was led to believe
that one was playing a human, and that one was deceived.  And why did
one want to play a human in the first place?  What difference does it
make?  Just consider, if I play correspondence chess against Jones, I
would not be happy to find out that I was really playing against
Smith.  And if I think I am playing Cray Blitz, I will be upset to find
that I have been playing Deep Thought.  So why should it be a surprise
that a person would feel deceived by being fed Blitz instead of Smith?

Now if you want to question why would someone care about the difference
between correspondence chess with a human instead of a computer....  If
nothing else, the human provides the moves of a human, which moves
become the basis for the construction of a fuller entity in one's
imagination.  Even the handwriting become evidence.  And, ultimately,
we have profiles of correspondence players in Chess Life so that
everyone can see who they are.  And so on.

>A computer chess program is NOT a chiropracter.  It is an opponent that
>plays exactly the same game, by EXACTLY the same rules as do you.  It
>just is a little "colder" and ignores your sneers, smoke, etc.  It IS
>playing chess (and, in fact, a high quality game it is).

It may be a "high quality" game.  It certainly looks different from the
games that I see in the books.  I call it a stupid game.  Just because
the machine is effective against people does not make it intelligent.
I just re-introduced the word "intelligent."  You did not use that word
here.  Fine.  I find the computer game uninteresting, planless,
boring.  The machine gets out of the opening book and then has no idea
of the purpose for placing the pieces as they are: it just starts
looking ahead and takes the best move it can come up with in N ply.

>I guess I have to grant you that we are at an impasse here, as when I
>play chess, I play chess.  I don't try to irritate or intimidate my
>opponents.  I try to be cordial, polite, and make the game a game of

But you are the one who said just a few paragraphs ago, "And I think
your idea is nothing less than idiocy."  And aren't you the one who
started talking about "biggotry."  These seem like attempts to
intimidate.  Oh, in *chess*, you try to be cordial, polite, etc.

--Jim
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess