From: direwolf@seismo.gps.caltech.edu (Kathy Watts)
Subject: Re: US Open
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 17:58:36 GMT

(please reply to Hal Bogner, direwolf@seismo.gps.caltech.edu)

First, an aside: why is this thread still called "Re: US Open"?

On to the main issue, which hasn't been broken down into its components yet.
Here's an attempt to do so.

There are three different kinds of people who seem to want to enter computers
in tournaments:

- Marketers of commercial products intent on publicity
- Developers of the above trying to test their work
- Developers with no commercial overtones trying to test their work

I think the first group must be excluded absolutely, and am very upset at the
CRA for putting some of their tests back into tournaments.  It's highly
disruptive, and completely unnecessary - Dave Welsh had previously developed a
method of testing that was independent of open tournaments, and mathematically
more accurate.  

While any computer playing in a tournament may upset someone, I am certain that
the participation of commercial programs has helped to magnify people's
unhappiness with the presence of any computer.

The reason the other two groups are playing in tournaments is very simple.
Without having to make special arrangements, the programmer can easily find
opponents who will play against his/her program under serious conditions.
Whatever motivates the programmer to try to make a program that plays chess
well may vary from person to person (Bob Hyatt's reasons may be different from
Richard Lang's, for instance), it's hard to avoid the conclusion that the best
way to find out how much progress one has made is by trying it out against
people.  And tournaments are where those people are!

I don't believe that anyone should have to play a computer.  And I don't like
the disruptive influence computers have had on some tournaments.  Some
organizers/tournament directors don't seem to pay much attention to making sure
that players are provided with quiet, enough space, and the other proper
playing conditions.

(By the way - I don't think anyone should be forced to play with a digital
clock, either; the only manufacturer of them I know agrees!)

I also believe that some computers should no longer enter most tournaments; in
particular, the strongest computers should not play in events in which it is
likely they will affect prize distribution.  I am frankly surprised that this
was not addressed after Long Beach 1989, when Deep Thought shared first prize
with GM Miles.  (Although Bob Hyatt has made it clear that he doesn't want to
impact these kind of things.)

Computers of the Deep Thought variety must restrict themselves to events where
everyone has agreed to treat them as an equal for pairing purposes.  That means
matches, round-robins, or swisses in which it's a well-announced condition.

But I still think that the developers of Spectre, Zugzwang, Lachex, et al,
should have the chance to obtain the feedback that only tournament play
provides so easily.  And I think that there are some (many?) players who can
share in the spirit of inquiry that developers of these programs are
expressing. 

I hope that this thread can address the above successfully, and develop a
consensus leading to realistic guidelines for participation of the last
category of developers in tournaments.

-Hal Bogner

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess