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: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 03:05:58 GMT

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:
>| >The ``starving chess program developers'' out there who favor forcing 
>| >humans to compete against their programs to either (1) improve the program 
>| >or (2) establish a rating for the program seize the moral low ground.
>| >Why?  Clearly the program doesn't benefit from either (1) its improvement 
>| >or (2) the rating.  Who does?  It seems that the developers and/or the 
>| >equipment supplier (e.g. Cray whose name is advertised in ``Cray Blitz'') 
>| >benefit from forcing said competition.  ``Benefit'' in this context is 
>| >not restricted to monetary gain but can also include papers published, 
>| >research grants obtained, fame garnered, curiosity satisfied, academic 
>| >promotion and tenure decisions decided favorably, etc.  This is not ethical.
>| 
>| I have to disagree here.  First, what is the purpose of developing a
>| computer chess program?  In my case (and for many others) it is to try
>| to get the computer to "act intelligent" by playing an intellectual game.
>| Your opinion of "why" we develop these programs is slightly warped.
>
>I guess that I would classify this purpose in the ``curiosity satisfied''
>category I mentioned.  Why do you want to ``get the computer to "act 
>intelligent"?''  I assume that this is not random behaviour on your
>part but that you have a purpose for so doing.  I would say that it 
>is unethical for one person to attempt to fulfill his purpose at the 
>expense of the interests and purposes of another.

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

>
>| Second, I don't want to "force" humans to play against programs.
>
>I was discussing the developers _who favor forcing humans to compete_
>and thus if the shoe doesn't fit ...
>
>| However,
>| if the majority agree that having computers in tournaments is a good thing,
>| then the minority is either going to have to go along or play elsewhere.
>
>As has been pointed out, nobody even asked the chess playing population.
>
>The question then becomes whether it is a chess player's right to 
>compete against a human opponent.  We can all agree that the computer 
>has no rights at all.  Thus the human competitor's rights must be
>considered paramount.  The developer isn't playing the game; nor is 
>the TD -- the human whose interests are most directly threatened by
>the conduct of the game, per se, is the human competitor.  In this
>case ``interests'' have little to do with winning or losing but have
>to do with the intrinsic value of the game to the human who has some
>objection to playing against a machine.
>
>I view chess as an active struggle between two minds unaided by any 
>device or tool.  If you want to use your chess-playing algorithm to 
>compete against me then by all means do so, but don't bring a computer 
>to help you execute your algorithm.
>

Here, I suggest that Cray Blitz, Deep Thought, etc. have a "chess mind".
Indeed, they are better than most "biological minds."  I have a question
here.  If you played me in a game, not knowing who I was, and the outcome
was one of the two following possibilities, what would you think:

1.  you win.

2.  I win.

Suppose, unbeknownst to you, Cray Blitz was telling me how to move,
and, in effect, playing the game using me as a peripheral device.  If
you didn't know about this, how would you feel about the above outcomes.
Now, if you found out, would this change your feelings?  and if so,
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?  Suppose Kasparov contracted polio and was bound to one
of the famous "iron lungs".  Would you object to his playing remotely
via a human operator since he can't leave the hospital?  If so, why?
If not, how is this different from the machine?

>| If you call that "forcing" then maybe I am for it.  I believe the "option"
>| of not pairing against the computer is acceptable for lower rated players
>| that are not going to finish at the top.  However, for those players that
>| have legitimate chances of placing "in the Money" in a tournament, the 
>| choice should be recinded or else the computer is going to perturb the
>| final standings (and money) and THAT'S really bad.
>
>Interesting.  This is also the most desirable group for a developer 
>to pit his machine against.  I think that every human chess player 
>(even a good one) has the right to refuse to be paired against a machine.

And I think your idea is nothing less than idiocy.  It is far better to
simply bar the machine totally.  What would happen if certain players
are allowed to "not be paired against Kasparov?"  This is the specific
problem I am concerned with.  Either everyone agrees to play against
the computer, or else bar the computer.  To do anything else allows the
computer to become a disruptive force in a tournament, which will
ultimately result in barring them anyway.  Why not be up front about
it and simply "just say no" if that is what everyone wants.  Or "just
say yes", but, please, no "maybes." (as is let 'em in, but don't pair
me agin' 'em.)

>
>| My position is simply that if the majority wants computers, everyone should
>| get computers.  Isn't that what a democracy is?
>
>Chess makes its own rules and as an institution has never reflected 
>a noticeable bias toward democracy.  If the majority want to exclude
>handicapped people would you argue that they should then therefore be
>excluded?  How about handicapped players with less than an 1800 rating?
>Protection for the rights of the minority (which might include people 
>who prefer playing humans) shouldn't be contingent on rating.
>

I have to agree with you here, but this is philosophical anyway...  the
USCF is going to go with the bucks.  If you don't believe this, just
watch.  However, a TD can run his tournament as he sees fit and if he
NC's the tournament, then that is that.  USCF can be damned.... and that
is the way it ought to be.

>| By your reasoning, the
>| art of medicine would be kaput - consider the scientology people that don't
>| allow any type of medical treatment for themselves or family members. 
>
>This is not analogous to my argument at all.  I argue that if a person 
>goes to a hospital to see an MD then the hospital should have no right 
>to force him to see a chiropractor.  Your response is that if a majority 
>of the people want to see chiropractors then the hospital should be 
>able to force anybody to see them.

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).

>
>| Because a minority don't want medical care, do I have to give up that right?
>
>No.  But if you are a doctor you cannot take somebody who enters the 
>hospital and force him to undergo a treatment that he does not want.
>
>| I would summarize by saying that I don't want to force anything, nor have
>| I ever desired to do so.  I used to get requests to enter Cray Blitz in
>| human tournaments and did so when I could afford it.  Your purported reasons
>| for forcing computers on humans really rankles me, particularly your
>| "unethical" statement.  Chess has not made me any money, fame, fortune,
>| promotion, tenure, or whatever.  It has provided me with years of enjoyiment
>| and introduced me to many new friends and fellow researchers.  You need to
>| post with more thought and less emotion.  
>
>It is your ``years of enjoyiment'' which has been your benefit, then.  
>Do you argue that your further years of enjoyment for yourself and 
>your fellow researchers should be bought at the expense of the playing 
>enjoyment of human chess players?  
>

No I don't.  I have NEVER played in a tournament where we weren't wanted,
and I never will.  However, the "right of refusal" rule won't work.  It
worked o.k. until computers moved to the top of the finishing order, but
it just won't work any more and should be completely scrapped.  Let's decide:
(a) no computers or (b) unlimited computers.  No other choices will work.

>I bring no emotion into this ... you are the one who is ``rankled.''
>
>| The only ones interested in "forcing" computers on all of us are the 
>| commercial companies.
>
>Sorry, but you contradict yourself.  Earlier you said that ``if the
>majority agree that having computers in tournaments is a good thing,
>then the minority is either going to have to go along or play elsewhere.
>If you call that "forcing" then maybe I am for it.''  Therefore, it is
>not _only_ the commercial companies which may be interested in "forcing" 
>computers on all of us, but also at least one reasearcher -- yourself.
>

This is "out of context" reasoning.  I propose that the majority of
tournament players should be able to control how tournaments are
handled.  If this majority says "let computers play" then that should
be it and the minority can either accept them or play in NC only
tournaments if they still exist.  If the majority says "no computers"
then the minority that want them will have the same option.  If you
can't live with majority rule, (and I'm talking about a majority of
PLAYERS, not BOARD MEMBERS) then you have a problem.

>| I would be perfectly happy if the commercial 
>| companies were barred from all chess competition, both human tournaments
>| and computer-only tournaments.
>
>We only differ slightly, then.  I would be perfectly happy if computers
>were barred from all human chess competition and will leave to the computer
>chess community to decide how to structure their own tournaments.  For an
>event to be sanctioned by the USCF it should allow any human participant
>to refuse to play against a machine.
>
>| The analogy doesn't hold.  95% of the chess players in the world would 
>| be hard-pressed to decide whether they are playing a machine or a human 
>| if they couldn't see their opponent.  Suppose you entered a tournament 
>| where you never see your opponent.  After winning a wild and tactical 
>| game, would the win lose its "gloss" when you discover you just beat 
>| Cray Blitz instead of a human?
>
>Yes.  Because in that case in this game of ideas there were ideas on 
>only one side ... my ideas beat a calculator.  Given the above scenario,
>I would feel cheated, not because I want to crush somebody's ego (not 
>likely when I play chess :-), but because I enjoy the struggle of two 
>minds.  Such a game would have been a waste of my time; it is a 
>particularly unspeakable type of theft to steal a person's time.
>
>Nor would I be impressed if the computer beat me; I wouldn't care 
>about that any more than I am impressed by a fractal melody generated 
>by a computer.  It doesn't ``speak'' to me like music because it has 
>nothing to say.  This applies to some human composers, too, but the 
>worst human composer is infinitely better than any machine composer 
>unless the human is using a no-brainer algorithm to manually generate 
>music.
>

Only for today.......  computers make many moves that would result in
their board "being showered with gold coins" a few hundred years ago.
In 10 or 20 years, they will be making moves (or generating melodies)
that are ONLY understood by other machines.

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
chess, not a war of rudeness.  I guarantee you that I would savor a
win over Cray Blitz more than I would a win over 99% of the human chess
players, and not because I am a computernik, but because these programs
are that good.... and it doesn't matter what they are made of......


>| As far as the human goes, there is no physical difference between
>| playing a computer and a human, and the "volunteer" analogy is 
>| inappropriate.
>
>So what is the metaphysical difference?  Ideas have consequences and 
>computers don't have any (ideas).
>
Naive...  won't it be a sad perfidy if we one day discover that our
thought processes are really in terms of 0's and 1's also?  it might
happen.  Cray Blitz might think that WE don't have any ideas when it
is across the board from us?????


>| Granted, some like to intimidate their opponent...
>
>Well, since I don't do any of these things then I assume that your
>comment was directed to somebody else.
>
>
>Regards,
>
>-- 
-- 
!Robert Hyatt                    Computer and Information Sciences   !
!hyatt@cis.uab.edu               University of Alabama at Birmingham !
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess