At 03:18 PM 1/23/05, you wrote:
In message <6.1.2.0.2.20050123142226.04d74710@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ray Tayek <rtayek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writesunfortunately, it must be an aga thing, as the winnder of the open goes to another tournament to see if he can represent the us in some cup (fujitsu?).
As for 2), (computers in human tournaments) other posters have mentioned problems with this; in addition, there's the problem that no one really knows how strong the programs are or what rank to enter them as.i am thinking that mf could be entered at 2 stones stronger than it's current igs rating or whatever sensei (mr. yang) would agree to.
On the matter of computers entering a "real" Go tournament - I have heard that the AGA classified tournaments into three groups: those which computers could not enter those with computer entrants, but no human could be forced to play one those with computer entrants competing on equal terms
This sounds to me like bureaucratic overkill, though I can see the reasons for it. I don't know if it still applies, or even if it ever really applied.i have no clue, and am afraid to ask. i suspect that if eric wants it we can find some way to this. we definitly will not force anyone to play the computer if his opponent fails to show. but we would probably offer a $25-$50 prize if he plays and wins. and maybe a $100 or something like that for the person who beats a program by the most stones or something (we have a small prize for the person who loses the most games, and one for most improved.) i played an even game with young boy in september who started learning in febreuary (i was in as a 1-dan, been playing for 30 years). i won by one point. he got the most improved proze. he was annoyed. i hope i won't have to play him again except with a *very* large* handicap. (don d - this is what i mean by go players having a bit less ego and a bit more humility - all you have to do i watch a pro play).
I have asked about the official reasons for the BGA not wanting computers in human tournaments....we will *alwasy* give them a choice. take the win or play the pc for a chance to win a few $ and maybe more if you beat it up badly enough. do you think that that will make any difference?
maybe if we just did it when someone's opponent failed to show up and we had say a $25-$50 prize (assuming this does not happen) a lot maybe we would overcome the reistance and maybe it could be more than just a "stunt" maybe a $100 prize for whoever beat the computer by the most stones or someting (eric has been know to do some fairly unusual things).Now I really don't think that is a good idea.
If I enter a tournament, and get drawn against a computer, I will shrug my shoulders and play it. But If my opponent doesn't show up, and after sitting waiting for him, I get told that now I will have to play against a program, I _will_ be unhappy.
If you do ask people to play against computers, how, mechanically, will you do it? The easy way is to expect the human to sit at the screen, and use the mouse to make their moves. Many people claim they play worse under such conditions (I am 2k on the EGF scale, 7k on KGS). The formal way is to use a real board and real clock, and have an operator transfer moves from board to computer and back. You will need volunteer operators for this, but it may make the human opponents feel better about it.we would do it on a real board for sure. with an operator.