There was a time, as I understand it, from the dawn of the portable computer era, in which chess engine software developers wanted to enter their computers into tournaments so their programs could receive ratings for marketing/evaluation purposes.
While I personally never saw such an entry, or attempted one in one of the events I have ever been a part of, it might be a part of a distant past for some of you. And as this phrase is basically irrelevant in today’s events, and as such, I have not even thought about it, it mattered not to me. That is, until I got a call from a new parent who called me assuming that this phrase meant one of two things: a, electronic notation devices are not allowed, or b., that parents could not bring laptops or other electronic devices for their pleasure/work while waiting for their kids in events.
Although I am confident there may be a few events which do bar
all laptops, or electronic devices from anywhere in the tournament, including waiting areas, I have not seen or heard of such.
And last, with the “merge” of the laptop with the cellphone, ipad, and other electronic devices with similar capabilities, it would seem that the term “computer” itself might be outdated, and continued use of the term, confusing to some.
I’m pretty sure that ‘No Computers Allowed’ still refers just to computers as entrants in events, and I agree that it is largely archaic. I remember when there used to be an area of the US Open for games against computers, and I think there were some US Opens with side events where you could play the computers for free.
The issue of electronic recording devices is separate, we may need a separate code for that in TLAs.
As to banning computers and other electronic devices OUTSIDE of the playing hall, I’m unaware of this being a new trend.
As far as I know, the rules on computers in rated events haven’t been changed, they do have to register as computers, which is category M. But there haven’t been any active category M computers since about 1991.
Category M was apparently used for some other purpose for a while between 1993 and 2003, I’ll have to ask the staff if anyone remembers what those were for.
I was a programmer and active player about 90 miles from where Blitz (later Cray-Blitz) was developed. Before the bugs were worked out it was welcome. When it got to be really good, there was a lot of opposition. blitz.htm
At many of the tournaments I have attended, either as a player or a director, there are more frequent sightings of parents or coaches sitting out in the hall or in the skittles area with computers, tablets, and phones with game positions on the devices. When given the opportunity to see the kids’ games, the device users analyze the positions to see how their kids are doing. There have been instances where kids have gone out to talk to parents about something or to get some food and have been accused of cheating. There have been cases of real cheating, too. While it will be difficult to ban all devices from an entire site, there have been measures to separate the kids from the adults in scholastic events. In open events, that separation has happened less often as it is hard to monitor an entire site. For the most part, parents with laptops are busy working, using social media, or playing games other than chess. When the kids come out after a game, there is a battle to get the devices so that they can play the games, too.
During the mid- to late 1980’s, the computer programs started to get too strong to allow them to play in tournaments against human players. The Carnegie Mellon University programs HiTech and Deep Thought I and II played in several tournaments in Pittsburgh and other places for experimental purposes. They played in a round robin masters event at the Pittsburgh Chess Club and the Fredkin Masters tournament which I directed one year. The tournament allowed a number of programs from around the country to compete with masters. HiTech played in the World Open. I know that because I was paired with the 2400+ rated program and defeated it. Most of the players had signed a sheet to opt out of playing the computer. Somehow, I missed seeing that sheet, but was willing to play it anyway as I had played a number of practice games against it while they were figuring out how to set up evaluation algorithms. The opt out feature became more common as the programs got stronger to the point that it became permissible for organizers to ban them in their TLAs. Even when the programmers paid an entry fee and the program would not be eligible for a prize, players considered getting ground for 4 to 6 hours by a remorseless machine that could outsit them not a good day. The frequency of banning the computers increased to the point that they were no longer welcome for experimental purposes. Thus, the TLA designation. All of the programs moved to playing in computers only events.
These days the programs are so good (2400 or better at slow chess time controls) that I suspect they wouldn’t be welcome in most events, including events for masters and senior masters.
Also, remember that it was the DEVELOPER of the program who was entitled to register the program and enter it in an event, not any random owner of a chess computer. My guess is the developers feel entering their programs in rated events is no longer necessary, since none appear to have done it since around 1992.
I used to allow computers to play in my tournaments in the early 90s, and a couple of developers tested their programs that way. Computers weren’t eligible to win prizes, and players had the option of requesting not to be paired against a computer. What eventually happened was that so many players asked not be paired against a computer that it was no longer viable, so I stopped allowing computers to enter.
In that last tournament, the 2.5 computer is paired against a 1.0 human in the last round, so I assume a lot of the players opted out (and I’ll bet the 1.0 simply didn’t realize that he could opt out).
In the last event the computer played somebody with the same score every round (first tournament in the top section).
In the next to last event it is a 1.5-1.5 human playing a 2.5-0.5 computer). If the 3-0 human opted out of playing a computer than he would have skipped over the 2.5 computer and played a 2-1 human. Two of the three remaining 2-1 humans had already played the computer (along with the highest 1.5-1.5) and if the third remaining 2-1 human had opted out then the 1.5-1.5 human that was paired was the highest rated of the 1.5-1.5 players that had not already played the computer. At least two of the nine humans opted out.
The first event was the one with a 2.5-0.5 computer playing a 1-2 human. That would have required the top two 2.5-0.5 humans to opt out (the third had already drawn the computer), two of the three 2-1 humans to opt out (the third had already lost to the computer), and one of the two 1.5-1.5 humans to opt out (the other had already lost to the computer). That is fifteen human players with at least five opting out.
I don’t think I ever played a rated game against a computer, but I played several games against the CDC 3400 computer program at Northwestern back in the late 60’s and early 70’s. That project (the programming team was Dave Slate and Larry Atkin, Keith Gorlen was also involved for the first several years but when he finished his degree he moved on, I’m glad to see he gets some credit in the Wiki article these days) went on to win several of the ACM computer chess events and at least one world championship title. I did help run the demo boards at one of the ACM events in downtown Chicago.
I remember when losing to several million dollars worth of computer equipment bothered me, but later on a device not much bigger than a deck of playing cards could defeat me handily. I guess I just never saw the point to playing one in a tournament. Of course by the time I was playing in events like the US Open the programs were far too strong for me to be likely to be paired against them.
I’m not clear on why there is this much discussion about participation of computers in rated tournaments, since the issue is dealt with clearly and unambiguously in the current USCF rulebook (see Rules 36C and 36D). The rules are that (1) it must be announced in pre-tournament publicity that computers are permitted to participate, and (2) participants may not opt out of playing against a computer (the reasoning seems to be that since participants were warned that computers might be participating and chose to participate anyway, they have already given an applied consent to being paired against a computer). The TD Tip for Rule 36D does suggest posting at the registration desk the fact that computers will be participating and allowing people to withdraw from the tournament if they don’t want to be paired against a computer, but it does not give players the right to participate in the tournament but refuse to be paired against a computer.
As I understand it, though (and my rulebook isn’t nearby at the moment), it has to be the developer of a program entering it, not just someone who bought a chess computer.
I think the rules may still permit rated games against computers as house players, though, if provided by the organizers.
Yes. That’s covered in Rules 36A and 36B. The actual wording is “the originator or the legal owner of a computer program” (and keep in mind that when you “buy” computer software at a store or via the internet, you don’t normally end up owning it - you’ve just bought a non-exclusive license to use it).
Yes, that’s covered in Rule 28M1. But the program has to be USCF-rated, commercially available, and even then it can only be used if computer participation was announced in the pre-tournament publicity.
Very few of the currently available computer chess playing programs are likely to have a US Chess rating these days, mainly because the manufacturers don’t take the time to register them and have them play in enough events to get a rating.
