From: jdd@engr.ucf.edu (Joseph Dumas)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: US Open
Keywords: computers, freedom of choice
Date: 12 Aug 92 15:05:56 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: engineering, University of Central Florida, Orlando

In article <SCHILLER.92Aug11214041@tira.uchicago.edu> (Eric Schiller) writes:
>Right! If those of us who hate machines don't play in events
>where we have a reasonable chance of playing the beasts, the
>old fashioned fun tournments will return.
>
Nah, the companies that make computers/software will just prop up the
"C" events financially to the point where most people, even those who
would prefer not to play computer opponents, will be lured into playing.
Only those few of us who *absolutely* don't want to play computers will
be left out.  In fact, even I might be tempted to play.  I'd just have
to take the chance of being paired, but then I'd have to forfeit that
round, along with (probably) any chance of winning a prize.  Of course,
I'd get the satisfaction of denying the computer entry a rated game,
plus I'd get to watch all the top board games and/or rest up for the
next round.

>Why do people feel so threatened by freedom of choice?
>
I don't.  In fact I would classify myself as pro-choice :^)  It's just
that in some areas, the local organizer/organizers are cozy with the
manufacturers and run only "C" events.  In those areas, players have to
play computers, organize their own events (*if* they have the time,
money, and expertise), or make the highly undesirable choice of
traveling long distances to find "NC" events.  Still, at least under
current rules, th local organizers are free to allow forklifts in the
weightlifing competition (borrowed that from another post :-) if *they*
choose.  I would just like to still be able to choose whether to compete
directly against the forklift.

That said, what *really* bothers me is the inclusion of computers in an
event (like the US Open) which conveys a title that even computer
advocates admit may only be held by a human.  Jack Nodebreath allowing
computers in his own local tourney is one thing.  The USCF allowing
computers in a national tournament, conveying a national title, which
you and I may presumably want to play for without interference from
someone/something which cannot win the title, is another.  And now, on
top of that, it is proposed to compound that mistake by *forcing* you or
me to accept a pairing against that title-ineligible entrant, while the
other contenders are busy playing each other.  Just who is the US Open
(or any other national tournament) held for, anyway?  I think it should
be for the (human) players, not for some hardware/software developer who
wants guinea pigs for the purpose of testing his creation.

Bottom line, under current practice (as evidenced in this year's US
Open) and the proposed new rule, I will have no freedom of choice.  If I
wish to play for the US Open (Human) title, I have no choice but to
accept possibly being paired against a computer opponent.  And that,
IMNSHO, sucks.

Again, not a personal flame against you, Eric.  Thanks for keeping us
updated on these developments.  (How do you ever find time to play?)

Joe
-- 
--->  Joe is jdd@engr.ucf.edu (Joseph Dumas):  "Cats are snooty and wouldn't
fetch a stick on a bet.  They also scratch.  I dislike cats....  I like dogs
because they forgive easily...and will settle for thirty seconds of care and
attention if that is all you have to spare."  --Lewis Grizzard