Author: Don Dailey
Date: 03:01:36 07/25/98
Go up one level in this thread
Bob, >I'm somewhere between the two of you here. The first time I encountered this >was at the 1981 Mississippi tournament I mentioned. That was back in the early >days of "sign a list before the tournament and you *never* have to play the >computer, even if it affects the outcome of the tournament." The only problem >was, you didn't have to sign *before* the tournament, you could sign *during* >the tournament. > >When everyone heard we were on a supercomputer, before round 1, there was a >mad rush to sign. After watching us smash player after player, the list kept >growing. > >I voiced the opinion that "this is a stupid procedure, because we are >*obviously* going to be near the top, and if the top players don't play us, >the tournament is going to be screwed up." "nah, said the TD, you'll never >make it through 3-4 rounds without getting killed so it won't be a problem." > >We did make it thru all 5 rounds, it was a problem. Later I asked "why does >everyone not want to play the computer?" > >The answer was "because we don't have a chance to beat it." > >I then asked "who'd like to play Fischer or Karpov in this tournament?" > >Everyone raised their hands. > >I then asked "Why, you don't have a chance of beating either of them >either." > >There was a moments bewildered silence, then "but they are world champions.." > >I *never* did get it. If a computer is that strong, I'd not object, if I were >good enough to be paired against it. Somehow the "point" eludes me completely. I have been in this situation many time Bob. I took REX to a tournament in Florida, and many people refused to play. But there were many who didn't mind at all. REX won the tournament. The next year I tried again and only about 2 people wanted to play it. Several others wanted to play it if they got payed money for it. There was a guy there who was going to play it, but then found out there was no money involved for beating or drawing it. He started literally screaming and it was very embarrasing to me. He freaked out completely. But no one had said there was any money involved, he just assumed this or was given bad information. Since he was also a chess teacher for children I was very embarassed for him too, the children had to obvserve his crying. We have sinced learned that people will play for peanuts. If you offer 10 dollars for a win and 5 dollars for a draw you will be amazed how this tiny amount of money motivates people. It almost turns my stomach to see this but it's true. There is a Las Vegas mentality at chess tournaments, people don't really come to play chess, but to win money. They might pay 200 for the trip and accomodations for a chance to win 100. But this makes them happy. I got really sick of these things for that very reason. People are too irrational to think these things through. In my opinion, if a computer is allowed to play at all, then everone at the tournament should have to play it if they are paired. There should be no exceptions. Well in advance it should be advertised that this tournament is OPEN to computers and you have better be prepared to play against one. The rule of allowing people to decline has caused way too much trouble, you are admitting right from the start that you are prepared to cater to everyones demands. There should also be many, perhaps most tournaments where computers are not allowed at all, they are either in completely or out completely. If computers were allowed in tournaments completely, and everyone was required to play them if paired, then this would be a huge improvement. It would just make the tournament stronger and I would be willing to bet people would be willing to live with this, as long as it was clear right from the start. I would only suggest that computers still not be allowed to win prize money, mainly as a concession to the professional chess players who go to these tournaments, and to the Las Vegas players who work very hard and spend much money and time to win their $100 class prize. >>>How much money does your average GM make at the average tournament he goes to? >>>If that is all they would charge for a match with a computer than you are right. >>>But if they insist on charging much more than they would make at a good >>>tournament then I fault them very much. >> >>I don't. It's a simple contract, who says they even have to play? If >>they don't want to play for $1000 but will for $10000 that is their >>decision. By the same token we can decide how much we pay them. They >>could be having the same conversation about us, saying to each other, >>those guy's are being very unreasonable for paying us less than x amount, >>when we should be rightfully getting this other amount. >>(wasn't Staunton making some quibbles >>>about the purse with his anticipated game with Morphy? Next thing you knwo GM's >>>will be saying they need some time to review their openings and endings. :) In >>>the mean time the programs will be sitting on their shelves ready to play any >>>time any place.) >> >>Unfortunately, it's still an honor to play a great player if he is human, >>but strong computer masters are a dime a dozen! That's why we have >>to pay them for the privilege, even if our programs are equal. >> > > >It's not a matter of "computer masters are a dime a dozen." In 1981 there >were exactly two computers with USCF ratings > 2200, Cray Blitz and Belle. >Everyone else was in the 1500-1600 range except for chess 4.x which was around >1900-2000 on the CDC Cyber 176. > >So we were a definite rarity back then, but the same opinion was still there: >We'd love to play a human master, but please, keep the computer masters away. >Ken had the same problems at tournaments he went to... And so did I. I was also in a US open and had similar problems. I don't agree with the reasoning process that goes on in their minds and their irrational fears, but I do agree with their right to play only humans if they want. I think there are a few who simply want the human interaction and a real human opponent. I can't fault them for that. But as I've said, it should be all or nothing in my opinion, if you allow computers then everyone must play them, otherwise no computers. Then it's everything at face value, you advertise in advance and people make their own decisions before they come. I believe the only way this would happen is if the computer players contibuted to the prize money however. I don't think many would willingly invite computers without this bribe. >>Which is why it's most fair if a third party pays the winner. >> >> >>>>Another issue is that the top players are under no obligation to >>>>prove themselves, they have established long ago that they are >>>>the dominant players, not our computers. So it is us that have >>>>to take the initiative to make matches happen if we can, they >>>>have no obligation of any kind to do this. >>> >>>"Long ago" computers were 286's with 2 meg of ram. So saying they proved it >>>long ago is like me telling Gary Kasparov 'remember when I played you when you >>>were 6 years old and beat you 3-0!?! Now you have to pay me a million dollars >>>if you want a rematch'(BTW I never did play him when he was 6.) Who would I be >>>kidding? >> >>You completely missed my point, sorry I didn't explain it better. I'll >>use your example to better illustrate my point since it is perfect for >>this. It's not about who won the last game, but about who is the one >>who needs to prove himself. In your example, Kasparov will laugh at >>you and both of you will know that YOU are the one who needs to prove >>himself. But for arguments sake, let's say Kasparov NEVER FORGOT >>this stinging loss and has been dwelling on it all these years. IF >>he felt the need to avenge his loss and "prove himself" (which of >>course is silly) then your example works, you might very well hold >>out for a lot of money. Do you see the difference? He is comming >>to you, not the other way around. In reality we know that if you >>wanted to play a match with Kasparov, you would have to come to HIM >>and I'm sure you would have to come up with some serious money! >> >>In your post, you are looking at things backwards. We are "chomping >>at the bit" to prove ourselves, they are not. We cannot sit back >>and say what is wrong with them for not seeking us out. >> > > >that's the way it has *always* been in fact... "blitz" was a USCF member >around 1975 or so, and even then it was looked upon with suspicion, even though >it was clearly a 1500-1600 player. As it got better, the suspicion got higher. > >At 1500, most tournament players were rated higher than it. At 2200 it was >better than all but a few at any given tournament. Which means everyone below >it suddenly is anti-computer. We've gotten so good, that hardly anyone is left >above us, just a few hundred GMs and and a few IMs. Which means we become less >and less welcome by more and more people... I think it's because humans are very socially structured and status oriented. At chess tournaments everyone talks about ratings, and you are a peon to some and a god to others, depending only on your rating. Computers do not fit well in this scheme. They have bad manners because they do not respect anyone and neither to they present a role model to look up to. Computer chess tournaments must be viewed as a social event and computers are not very sociable. >>This could of course change at some point. If it started to become >>clear that we were better, then a few might become highly motivated >>to seek US out instead of the other way around. But right now I >>don't think that is the situation. >> > > >I used to think this, but don't any longer. Most humans view chess as a >human endeavor... and frown upon silicon intrusion... That's why I said "a few". - Don
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.