🚀 go-pugleaf

> To begin with, though, I don't think that computers belong in
> human chess tournaments.  Special tournaments set up to test a
> computer's playing strength are fine, but I don't think that
> they belong in "opens" (the last one I played in was open to
> computers, although none entered).

If a tournament is "open", then it's open to any player.  If you
want to have "human only" tournaments, then OK.  If the object of
an open tournament is to find the strongest player, then so what if
the winner is human, machine, or martian.

> My reason for this is 
> simple.  By analogy, a robot could probably be built that could
> run faster than a human being, but that does not mean that
> we allow them in marathons.  Tournaments and competitions are
> for humans vs humans.

Says who?

> If computers started taking top prizes in
> our tournaments, I think it would delete greatly from the 
> excitement of tournament play.

I think it would be just the opposite.

> I am not a chess-computerphobe;
> I have one at home and think it is a valuable training aid,
> but I have little desire to fight it for points at a tournament.
> 
> Any opinions?

Yes.  I find this whole thing very amusing.  I was waiting to see if
Hans would respond to this.  Back in 1971 when Hans and I were graduate
students at CMU, the ACM held its first computer chess tournament.
The quality of the moves that the programs made ranged from weak at
best to suicidal and illegal!  This prompted Levi to make his famous
bet that no machine could beat him within x (I forgot the exact number)
years.  Some foolhearty computer science AI types took hum up on his
bet.  He collected.

Today, we see evidence that someday a machine may possibly be the world
champion.  This is a significant breakthrough in AI!!  For a long time,
chess was believed to be an intellectual activity that was beyond the
ability of a machine.  I'm happy and proud that Hans has been part of
this; he is finally realizing his dream.