From: jim@uvmark.uucp (Jim Todhunter)
Subject: Re: US Open
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 14:35:06 GMT
Organization: Vmark Software, Inc.

In article <SCHILLER.92Aug11212347@tira.uchicago.edu> schiller@tira.uchicago.edu (Eric Schiller) writes:
>Your system offers no improvement on the present situation.
>It is not a question of knowing in advance whether a 
>player is willing to play against a machine. It is the
>problem that unfair pairings will arise inevitably, as
>in the US Open, as Mark Ginsburg points out.
>
>Look, I won't compete against computers. But if a 
>computer firm offers large enough financial incentives,
>I might. More importantly, our leading GM's, who lead
>lives of near poverty in some cases, could use the money.
>Who am I to tell some organizer that they can't run an
>event with machines?
>
>I don't like to play Fedorowicz. He ALWAYS beats me. But
>I can't stop someone from pairing me against him. And
>I think that Vivek Rao has a machine implanted in his
>brain, but I can't prove it and can't refuse to play him
>either.
>
>Banning machines hardly seems like a democratic idea.
>I don't think machines should play for National titles,
>and so voted in the committee.
>
>Eric Schiller

You do have a point.  More is required to solve the problem
than a simple change to procedures.  There must also be a
change in attitude.  As you say, the financial incentive for
a tournament organizer is strong.  Having organized tournaments
in past, I do understand that the monetary issues cannot be
ignored by the organizer of the event.

However, banning machines does not necessarily imply an end
to corporate sponsorship of events.  If the promotional value
of sponsorship is great enough, then the sponsorship will continue.

Remember, not all players who dislike playing computers are
trying to avoid a loss.  As for me, I don't find it interesting
to play against a computer.  Having done some work in the field
of artificial intelligence, I view the problem solving techniques
used by human and machine players as so dissimilar that a comparison
of playing strength is about as meaningful as race between a
bicycle and car.  (I won't say which is which.)

I believe you stated in an earlier post that you choose to
avoid events with computers.  If this is so, you have reasons
which you probably feel are justifyable.  Many other players
have reasons of their own as well.  The quality of those
reasons is not important.

What is important, is remembering that it is the human players
that make the game what it is, and for many of those human
players, chess against a computer is not enjoyable.  We should
not lose site of this truth.

The notion that a decision to exclude computers is not democratic
is a ruse.  The membership of our Chess Federation is dominated by
humans, not machines.  The decision to provide a more favorable
environment for computer participation forwards the financial
interests of a few, at the expense of many.

We should find creative ways to address the financial side of chess
as sport, and not simply give in to the impulse of accepting the
easy answer (forcing corporate interests upon the players) as
the only answer.  We should focus on encouraging corporate sponsorship,
and try to steer away from computer participation as the vehicle for
that.

What do you think?

Jim Todhunter

-- 
James W. Todhunter, Director, Research & Development
jim%uvmark@merk.com
VMark Software, Inc.  30 Speen Street  Framingham, MA  01701-1800 USA
Telphone: (508) 879-3311  Facsimile: (508) 879-3332
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess