From: wbralick@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick)
Subject: Re: Mandatory human-computer tournament play (was Re: US Open)
Keywords: computers, pairings
Organization: Self-similar
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:03:31 GMT

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.

| 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.

| 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.

| 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.

| 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.

| 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?  

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.

| 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.

| 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).

| 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,

-- 
Will Bralick                          |  If we desire to defeat the enemy,
             wbralick@afit.af.mil     |  we must proportion our efforts to 
             bralick@cs.psu.edu       |  his powers of resistance.
with disclaimer;  use disclaimer;     |               - Carl von Clauswitz
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess