Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:18:07 04/23/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 23, 2000 at 19:00:19, Mark Schreiber wrote: >On April 19, 2000 at 23:29:23, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On April 19, 2000 at 02:39:21, Mark Schreiber wrote: >> >>>I also agree, this is great for computer chess fans. We need more strong >>>tournaments to allow computers. Then we can get more accurate rating. This is a >>>win for everybody. Players make more money. The program gets publicity. What >>>hardware will Fritz use? I think Fritz has a good chance to win. >>> >> >> >>I think you are wrong, based on experience. If a computer plays in an event >>where it isn't "welcome" it gives computer chess another black eye. And you >>can bet that next year, this tournament will have a specific exclusion for >>computers, if it comes down to getting top human GM players or else getting a >>computer. >> >>At the first sign of resistance, it is time to back out. Else the next time >>you don't get to 'back out' because you are 'locked out'. Seen it happen in >>the USA for many years now.. >> >What 'locked out' experience have you seen in the USA for many years? >Computers have been prohibited from playing from every major tournament. If we >back out at the first sign of resistance, computer will never play. There will >always be resistance. If computers play in spite of the resistance then players >will see the computers bring money, publicity and variety to chess. Computers >should not play if there are no top human GM players. Computers are too strong >for everyone else. >> First, some details. Computers do _not_ bring "money, publicity and variety" to chess. They bring complexities, confusion, anger, acrimony, and so forth to the game. As far as "lock out" in the 1970's I could play in any human tournament I wanted to. In the 1980's this started to change. By the time 1990 rolled around, no major tournaments in the US allow computers. Why? Because the USCF chose to give the final say-so to the local organizers. And they would rather simply lock computers out, rather than (a) put up with protests from those not wanting to play computers; (b) deal with special requirements for a computer (the machine isn't welcome in the normal tournament hall due to noise, the monitor attracting a crowd, etc.) (c) deal with special 'happenings' like the operator enters the wrong move. Or whatever other human error can happen. (d) deal with the case where the computer finishes so high it screws up the final standings. Etc... It happened... >>>On April 18, 2000 at 19:20:11, Bas Hamstra wrote: >>> >>>>On April 18, 2000 at 05:17:49, Jouni Uski wrote: >>>> >>>>>If this really happens (I am sceptical), I think this is the most interesting >>>>>human-computer event in history after Kasparov - Deep Blue! After this we really >>>>>know how strong Fritz is. No statistical calculations needed at all, only the >>>>>result counts... >>>>> >>>>>Jouni >>>> >>>>I agree, it's great. The dutch chess community is furious though...Chess >>>>journalists don't stop to point out how scandalous it is and why Paul van der >>>>Sterren is a true hero for refusing to play Fritz (it will cost him the point). >>>>"What next", they ask, "next year a blind player to attract publicity?" >>>> >>>>:-) >>>> >>>> >>>>Bas Hamstra.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.