From: ed@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (edward.m.hummel)
Subject: Re: US Open
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 00:35:28 GMT

In article schiller@tira.uchicago.edu (Eric Schiller) writes:
>Who am I to tell some organizer that they can't run an
>event with machines?

No one asks "you" to tell organizers anything.  But, the USCF can set the
rules to which an organizer must adhere for his/her event to be
recognized and rated.

>I don't like to play Fedorowicz. He ALWAYS beats me. But
>I can't stop someone from pairing me against him.

I don't think we are talking about civil right here.  It is not a
simple matter of not playing opponents we "dislike".  Many people
feel that computers don't play by the same rules and that they have
an unfair advantage.  The USCF has amended the rules to allow their
play and in doing so has altered the underlying competitive
principles.  To many people this is of little consequence, to others
it is very significant.  Many people view the essence of the game
as the person v. person struggle, the battle of minds.  It is not
simply a matter of unequal strength.  The comparison with Fedorwicz
is a misdirection.  I hope these are not the arguments used in the
committe discussion before they decided on their recommendation.

>Banning machines hardly seems like a democratic idea.

Democracy?  What does democracy have to do with it?  In another
posting you point out that the USCF is NOT democratic.  If we did
the "democratic" thing and let the "people" vote, we would probably,
not allow the computers to vote.  It doesn't seem particularily
undemocratic to ban them from voting.  Democracy has nothing to do
with it.

The decision to 'require' humans to play computers may reduce the
wrong done via the pairing problems but it introduces another wrong
in its place.  "Banning" computers does away with wrongs to competitors
altogether -- assuming computers don't have any rights.  The people
who get "hurt" are the machine developers.  These are a very small
group of people, and there are other methods for meeting their needs
that don't infringe on the regular tournament goers.

Letting the organizers determine whether or not to run NC tournaments by
observing the attendance at NC vs. C tournaments is slow and inefficient.
People who don't show up may not explain why.  There is a delay due to
the time it takes for people to understand what is going on and for 
the time it takes directors to see the results.  The "boycott" effect
may well be difficult to pinpoint because of other effects.  
(I doubt some one is going to run a controlled experiment.)

>I don't think machines should play for National titles,
>and so voted in the committee.

Great!  Did you vote to allow computers to play for non-National
titles (like winner of the East Hoboken under-1200 3rd-Sunday-of-
the-month quad)?  Is it just a matter of degree?  Some people feel
bad when a computer wins the US Open.  Some people feel bad when
a computer wins a quad.  I guess the people who feel bad when the
National title gets won are more important.  Compromise is great stuff.
Who benefits from the position recommended?  Scientists?
Vendors?  The USCF?  Is more money generated?  What alternatives
were debated?  Who are the people on the committee?  Are the minutes
available?

Ed Hummel

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess