I think you will see computer participation and the rules change as programs get stronger. It's very interesting what happened in chess.
1. Years ago, computers were welcomed and everyone wanted to play them. The computer program was like a celebrity at any tournament. 2. After the novelty wore off and computer started getting stronger, some people didn't want to play them. 3. Then the USCF made a rule about whether a computer could play in a tournament. The DEFAULT was no, not yes as in GO. If computers were allowed it had to be clearly stated. That was pretty much a death knell for computers because most orgainizers did not bother (or just forgot) to specify this, even if they were favorable to computers. 4. When computers were allowed any player had the right of refusal if they made this clear beforehand. A lot of people "forgot" to do this but would then raise a big stink when paired with a program in a later round. 5. Fairly early on it was not allowed for computers to win money, prizes or titles. Even though I wanted to play my programs in these tournaments, I was sympathetic to the "humans" point of view. Often people wanted to pick a fight with me on this subject, assuming that I was "pro-computer participation" and sometimes players would make critical comments that I could hear, etc. But I personally felt that no human should ever have to play the computer when they travel distances to play against other humans and I saw that even having them in tournaments was disruptive, so I was thankful when I could bring the machine and did not make waves. It's awkward when a computer wins a tournament, beating some human in the last round and yet other players end up with the same score - and some human is declared winner on tie-break - sometimes when they did not even make it to the final round. So I thought it made a mess of things having to work around the actual results and dealing with the scheduling issues, etc. In the days where most humans were refusing to play, I found a simple solution. You can get the majority of humans to play if you offer money for a win or draw and it does not have to be very much at all. I don't know how computer go is, but a lot of US tournaments had a kind of Las Vega's feel to them. You payed a high entry fee but there was much prize money offered. Even a very weak player could win a class prize. So for a lot of players it was all about the "gaming" aspect, go the tournament and get lucky and come home with a few bucks and a trophy. I knew of players who would sandbag their ratings in the local clubs just to have a chance to win a class prize. It was a funny thing that you did not have to offer much money. In one tournament I offered $10 for a win, $5 for a draw against the machine and that tiny amount was enough to entice most of the players to be willing to be paired against the computer - even though this would not even begin to cover their hotel bill, entry fee and travel expenses. It worked because it was like getting to play yet another "game." For this to work I think it is sensible to have tournaments that computers are invited to and that it should be made very clear that they will come and you must play against them if paired against them. Don't come if you don't want that - but given that they are welcomed to a given tournament they should be given full status as players - including being allowed to win prize money and the title if they are able. I'm not opposed to them paying a higher entry fee or perhaps having to pay out for each loss - assuming money has to be involved just to get people to come play. Don On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 11:47 AM, David Fotland <[email protected]>wrote: > > More from the 1988 AGA tournament rules... > > D. Classes of computer participation. > > There shall be three types of tournament with respect to participation by > computer programs. > 1. Humans only -- no computer programs may compete. This fact must appear > clearly on all pre-tournament announcements. > 2. Human right to refuse computer program as opponent. > > a. The right to refuse to compete against a computer program must be > exercised globally, at the time of registration. > b. The player may play the program if the alternative is a bye. However, in > this case the computer is a competitor, and both will be scored > accordingly. > > > 3. Open - no right to refuse any opponent. > a. Computer programs are entered as any other player, and have the same > rights as any other plaer. Such rights will be asserted and exercised by > the > owner of the program. > b. Tournament announcements must clearly state the conditions. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:computer-go- > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of steve uurtamo > > Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 6:21 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [Computer-go] KGS highest rank Bot > > > > kgs recently had a tournament where bots were allowed to play -- it > > was on nonstandard-sized boards, and zen did fantastically well, > > taking second place in the 21x21 tournament, in both american/european > > and asian/european divisions. > > > > there are also a stable of people throwing themselves at zen in the > > "computer go" room on kgs, solidifying its rank at 5d (as it slowly > > creeps toward 6d). (to be clear, this is the version playing at > > roughly (15s?/move), which in my experience is at-speed or slower than > > most non-tournament play happens in practice without a clock, so > > totally fair for humans to play at). so even if it can't play in human > > tournaments, everyone knows that it is at least as strong as the > > strongest 5d's on KGS. > > > > i think that it'd be great if bots could play in the 19x19 tournaments > > on kgs. that is a far cry from playing as an actual player over the > > board on a regular basis at regular tournaments. does anyone have an > > example of *any* game that existed before computers where computers > > have been accepted/allowed to play as a regular practice (instead of > > as a highly debated issue?). > > > > s. > > > > On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 6:06 AM, Jouni Valkonen > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Ingo wrote: >The ranks you mention are from KGS. Is there something > > like a > > > KGS World Championship, let it be with or without prize money? > > Winning such > > > an online championship might be easier for a bot then winning "over > > the > > > board".> > > > > > > Is it allowed for gobots to participate to online Kgs tournaments? It > > would > > > very nice if they could. I think that there should be 2-4 places open > > for > > > gobots, because computer go is such an important aspect of go. > > > > > > Chessbots could participate into some offline tournaments until they > > were > > > too strong to play with humans. This is the best way to observe the > > > development of gobots. > > > > > > -Jouni > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Computer-go mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Computer-go mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go > > _______________________________________________ > Computer-go mailing list > [email protected] > http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go >
_______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
