Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 09:49:22 05/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 24, 2002 at 00:38:52, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On May 23, 2002 at 18:00:04, José Carlos wrote: > >> I'll try to make my point again. My english is also not very good, and I'd >>prefer to discuss in spanish, but since a spanish-german debate would not be >>very useful, I'll try to say it in english. >> If I understand you right (correct me if I'm wrong) you try to find a solution >>for the actual situation of FIDE refusing computers in official tournaments. And >>you say (I'm not informed about this) that FIDE rejects programs because they >>say they cheat "reading" books. >> Now, it is a very important point for the discussion whether you agree with >>FIDE or not. If you agree, then I'll try to exaplain why I think they're wrong. >>If you don't, then we should try to find a way to make them understand. >> >> José C. > > >This is not the current state of affairs. Years ago FIDE passed a resolution >allowing computers to play. The problem was that the entry fee was ridiculous >for anybody but (say) an IBM. $10,000 is the figure I remember to allow a >computer to play for one year in FIDE events, although the event organizers >had the right to say "no" still. I don't know whether this rule is still in >force or not. > >Computers have not been excluded because they "cheat". The problems with >computers in human events are well-known: > >1. noise. The machine is not quiet, programs like to beep, keyboards click, >fans whirr, power supplies hum, crowds gather around the monitor (which whines) >to see the output, etc. As a result a separate room is usually needed to move >the computer noise out of the main playing hall. > >2. rules such as the USCF rule that says any player may, prior to the first >round, notify the TD that they do not want to be paired against the computer. >This causes pairing problems in later rounds and also skews the final tournament >results badly. I could write volumes about this as I was right in the middle >of such an event with Cray Blitz in 1981. More if you want. > >3. computers (in the old days when this was an issue) required phone lines >to communicate with the actual machine playing chess (IE a Cray for us). > >4. there are always "anti-computer" people present at events. They complain, >groan, accuse, etc, making the TD's life miserable. There was once a USCF >group that called themselves "Citizens against Computers". > >It doesn't take much for a TD/organizer to say "no way". It happened all over >the US in the 1980's... It would help us in the debate however if we would not mix up FIDE, USCF, old, and new days, named problems, and true problems which are however never specified in public simply because GM would be called sore losers. We know that from the event in 1997. We recognized it again during the Dutch National Championships a couple of years ago. The better a GM the less probable he could be irritated by the "cheating" of any books. As I demonstrated the machines _could_ well be lowered to 220-2350, and here on such a level the average chess experts and masters usually have no (perfect) eidetics. So, in other words, the cheating does _not_ concern GM players so much but more so experts and masters. Not to speak of amateurs. But _all_ together would profit from a concerted attempt by a handful of super GM to develop anti computer technology. Then the cheat with the books would become even more obvious. So, what I want to say is let's always try to differentiate. There are open and hidden factors. Rolf Tueschen
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.