human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA (10/06/84)
From: Charles McGrew (The Moderator) <Human-Nets-Request@Rutgers>
HUMAN-NETS Digest Friday, 5 Oct 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 56
Today's Topics:
Computers and People - Big Brother is Watching us Watch TV,
Computers and the Law - Unions/Working at Home (3 msgs),
Chess - Move 16
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 84 11:17 MST
From: Jong@HIS-PHOENIX-MULTICS.ARPA
Subject: Re: Big Brother is Watching
If They have the technology to target the mix of commercials on
cable TV, says my cubemate Laurie Harrington, the next steps are
obvious:
1) When a network can't decide which series to air, it can simply
air both -- "The A Team" for male-headed households, "Remington
Steele" for female-headed households.
2) From there, it's a short step to manufacturing the news according
to what you want to hear -- on the West Coast, the 49ers beat the
Patriots, while on the East Coast, we hear the score the other way.
------------------------------
Date: Wed 3 Oct 84 17:29:23-PDT
From: WYLAND@SRI-KL.ARPA
Subject: Unions vs telecommuting
To: minow%rex.DEC@DECWRL.ARPA
After reading the following, I just had to comment. (Just my
thoughts - not intended to be a flame.)
<Date: Tuesday, 2 Oct 1984 11:18:43-PDT
<From: minow%rex.DEC@decwrl.ARPA
<Subject: telecommuting may not be so good after all
<
<A recent collection of messages on Human Nets and the Unix USENET
<presented the case for telecommuting and against the ban against
<working at home (the Vermont knitters) proposed by the trade
<union movement.
<
<The issues are somewhat more complex than the "they just want to
<regulate us out of existance" messages I have been seeing. There
<are several disadvantages to working at home -- the work environment
<may not be as safe as in an office or factory (poor lighting and
<seating arrangements, for example).
<
<More importantly, when you work alone at home, you may lose some
<important aspects of work:
<
< Social status -- your peers don't see the value of your efforts.
<
< Sense of community -- you don't see the relevance of your work in
< a greater context. Also, you lose the socializing aspects of
< work: especially the "old-boy" network that many feel is important
< for advancement.
<
< Use and development of one's resources -- at-home jobs are likely
< to be repetitive dead-end work, such as data-entry (or knitting).
< Working at home will make it more difficult for you to locate a
< more challanging job.
<
<While it is certainly true that turning labor into a collection of
<cottage industries will erode union control and power, it would be
<unwise to ignore other aspects of the situation.
<
<Martin Minow
The above points - while valid - do not attract our attention in
today's society. Today's hero is an individual, not a member.
Our images are not of IBM or the US Government, but of the
Silicon Valley company started in a garage, of the software
hacker and the video game genius, of Jobs and Wozniak, Osborne,
Kildall, Noyce and Grove, and, yes, even Reagan and Iacocca. The
generation that went from Kennedy and the New Frontier to
assasination(s), the War on Poverty, Viet Nam, and Watergate has
more trust in the individual than in the organization. "I'm from
the Government and I'm here to help you" represented hope in the
Depression; it is now the punch line to a cynical joke.
Since we do not trust organizations, government or union, we see
them as potential enemies of us, the individuals. We are
therefore sensitive to any action that an organization takes
against individuals because we believe that it is against us.
Good intentions do not matter: we have seen them before, and
their results.
We don't want to be protected from the dangers of working at
home: we want to participate - directly or vicariously - in the
Silicon Valley Age and be heros, too. We don't see protection as
an attempt to help us, but as an attempt to stop us.
Dave Wyland
SRI
------------------------------
From: ihnp4!utzoo!henry@Berkeley
Date: 4 Oct 84 08:11:24 CDT (Thu)
Subject: unions miscredited?
> ...You wouldn't like your
> life quite so much if it weren't for the gains that unions bought:
> the 40-hour week...
I don't quarrel with the basic thesis that unions have made valuable
contributions, or with the rest of the points mentioned, but I'm a bit
unsure about this one. I seem to recall (perhaps somebody can confirm
or deny) that the 40-hour work week came from management, not the
unions!
I have no doubt that many managements had to be prodded into the
40-hour week by unions, but I believe the original 40-hour week came
from some interested manager (vague memories that it may have been
Henry Ford) who discovered that it *increased* productivity, because
of reduced fatigue. Workers (at least, manual workers) are more
productive on a 40-hour week than on a longer one. There were
incidents during the Battle of Britain where armament-plant workers,
voluntarily working long hours to increase production, were asked to
stop doing so -- after a brief initial spurt, fatigue and boredom had
reduced net production below what was normal for a 40-hour week.
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
------------------------------
Date: Thu 4 Oct 84 14:53:45-PDT
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Homework
To: Poli-Sci@RUTGERS.ARPA
I just ran across a short article on the telecommuting homework
problem in the May issue of Data Communications. At that time Reagan
was trying to eliminate the homework laws (including knitting, etc.);
other candidates had taken no position. It seems that the AFL-CIO has
already petitioned that the current laws be extended to include
computer homework after the members of one of their subunions (United
Service Industries Employees?) voted for such an action. Politicians
have not been very receptive to the AFL-CIO position.
-- Ken Laws
------------------------------
Date: Thu Oct 4 23:57:12 1984
From: mclure@sri-prism
To: chess@sri-unix, ailist@sri-ai
Subject: Delphi 16: cruncher entices you to do battle.
The Vote Tally
--------------
The winner is: 15 ... Bd7
69% favored it out of 16 votes.
Surprise
--------
One surprise is that Cray Blitz, the current world computer chess
champ, submitted a vote, but unfortunately this is only a machine vs.
humans event, not machine vs. (humans and machine), so the vote had
to be disallowed. Nevertheless, it is interesting to see what a
machine would do for you humans. It agreed with your Bd7. The
message explaining Cray Blitz's vote is included below. Also, Cray
was asked to play a move for White after its Bd7. The Prestige 8-ply
played the same move as Cray's recommendation, a somewhat machine-like
move shown below.
The Machine Moves
-----------------
Depth Move Time for search Nodes Machine Est
8 ply Qc4 15 hrs 5.4x10^7 +3% of a pawn
(Q-B4)
Humans Move # Votes
BR ** -- BQ BN BR BK ** 15 ... Bd7 11
** BP ** BB BB BP BP BP 15 ... Bh5 3
BP ** -- BP -- ** -- ** 15 ... Bxf3 2
** -- ** WP BP -- ** --
-- ** WQ ** WP ** -- **
** -- WN -- WB WN ** WP
WP WP -- ** -- WP WP **
WR -- ** -- WR -- WK --
Prestige 8-ply
The Game So Far
---------------
1. e4 (P-K4) c5 (P-QB4) 11. Be2 (B-K2) Nxe2 (NxB)
2. Nf3 (N-KB3) d6 (P-Q3) 12. Qxe2 (QxN) Be7 (B-K2)
3. Bb5+(B-N5ch) Nc6 (N-QB3) 13. Nc3 (N-QB3) O-O (O-O)
4. o-o (O-O) Bd7 (B-Q2) 14. Be3 (B-K3) Ne8 (N-K1)
5. c3 (P-QB3) Nf6 (N-KB3) 15. h3 (P-KR3) Bd7 (B-Q2)
6. Re1 (R-K1) a6 (P-QR3) 16. Qc4 (Q-B4)
7. Bf1 (B-KB1) e5 (P-K4)
8. d4 (P-Q4) cxd4 (PXP)
9. cxd4 (PXP) Bg4 (B-N5)
10. d5 (P-Q5) Nd4 (N-Q4)
Commentary
----------
JLG@LANL
My vote is 15 ... Bd7. Cray Blitz agrees: 8-ply
search, 8 minutes 53 seconds, Blitz places black about
1/6 pawn down. After 32 minutes and 26 seconds, Blitz
predicts white will play 16 Qc4, with White up by about 1%
of a pawn. The 32 minute search was quite a surprise,
5-10 minutes for 8 plies is more typical. It's a very
quiet position though, so it probably found few killer
moves or alpha-beta cut-offs. Note that Qc4 is not a
very useful move, computers tend to wander in quiet
positions. This tendency is why computer programs
still get beat by the masters.
[More accurately: computers, even deep-searchers,
don't have plans like masters such as "put a
Knight on d6 via this route c3-d5-b6-c8-d6 and
move our Bishop at c3 to a good square during all this, all
in order to cramp our opponent's castled Queen-side."
Essentially these master plans are nothing more than
horrendously deep searches, but because the masters don't
worry about specific variations, they just keep trying to get
the Knight to that square if the opponent's plan intervenes.
The key to all of this is the complex database of chess
patterns in the master's mind. The database tells him
when a Knight at d6 might be good in cramping an opponent.
He may have played over numerous games in Informants in
which another master has put a Knight at d6 with interesting
results. The master's database "flags" him that this might
be a good thing to do now. When computers are able to do this
sort of complicated thing throughout a game, plus have a
tactical sense at the level of Belle's (perhaps in parallel
with the plan database), then and only then will we have
world-championship-caliber artificial chess play. I think
this will happen in 25 to 50 years. It is a dandy problem
for 10 or 15 PhD theses, now that academia seems to have
neglected this once promising area because architecture
and algorithm analysis have been the main moving force of
late. Along the road of this plan, the master tries to watch
out for tactics too. There are numerous cases where a master
has made an awful tactical blunder because he was "blinded"
by following his own plan too obsessively, something he
becomes very enmeshed in. Also, if the circumstance warrants
it, this plan can be changed, or the master can even have
sub-plans and sub-goals. These effectively increase his
search tree up to 20 ply or more. Note that masters have
played 20-ply combinations (cf. Alekhine, Tal, etc.) but
opportunities for these are rare. The above planning
is what distinguishes masters most from non-masters.
--Stuart]
WEBBER@RUTGERS
Bd7 (B-Q2) seems forced here in light of the previous maneuvers.
JPERRY@SRI-KL
I vote for 15...B-Q2. B-R4 is an ERROR because after
16. P-KN4 B-N3 now we can no longer move the King's
Knight's pawn one square to enforce our plan of pushing
the KBP. After 15...B-Q2, White CANNOT stop our plan
of P-KN3, N-N2, and P-KB4. Furthermore, it is
difficult to see a counter- plan for white in this
position that will succeed nearly as quickly.
REM@MIT-MC
Anyway, after h3, Black's reply is obvious, Bd7. Why not
Bh5? That would give white the option of playing g4
which simultaneously locks the black bishop in a corner
and prevents black from playing f5. If the pawn
advance is prevented, maybe the bishop would rather be
on the other side. With my move, Bd7, if white plays
g4 then not only is it not sente (black doesn't have to
answer it), but the bishop has the option of working on
the other side, or looking toward advancing the pawn to
f5 later anyway when circumstances are better. Why not
BxN? Besides trading bishop for knight, a
disadvantageous trade most of the time, it opens up
things too much before black has finished bringing out
his pieces, rather risky.
VANGELDER@SCORE
If White finds 16. g4, we should proceed cautiously.
E.g., 16. ... g6 17. Bh6 Ng7 18. Kh2 f5? 19. gxf5
gxf5 20. Rg1 gets very uncomfortable for Black. This
position (after 16. g4) is similar to some closed Ruy
Lopez lines. Black NEVER gets in f5. The question is
whether WHITE can break through after doubling on the
g-file. Nevertheless, if we play 18. ... f6 (instead
of f5?) we may be able to build up slowly while the
computer wanders around aimlessly. Alternatively, on
16. Nd2 g6 17. Nc4 the Black Q needs a flight square,
so 17. ... Ng7 and 17. ... Bg5 come into
consideration. It looks like White can trade off our
good Bishop in this line. Therefore, we may need to
answer 16. Nd2 with an immediate f5. Let's hope the
computer chooses a different move.
HPLABS!IHNP4!INUCXC!INUXD!CLAUS
My vote is for Bh5. This might not be a good move but I think it
is better than taking the knight or tying up our other pieces.
[The following message, from a master, came in a bit late
and couldn't be included in the last digest, so here it is.
He recommends a radically different course of action than this
list is taking and eschewed our recent Ne8.--Stuart]
QUINTANAR%TI-EG.CSNET@CSNET-RELAY
In my opinion black is only very slightly better than white at
move 14... I really don't see how on earth any computer can ever
beat a group of humans that contain at least 1 expert, much less a
master. [I explained to Sam that Belle has an excellent record
against masters, so disparaging computers is of no use. --Stuart]
I recommend 14....b5 (P-QN4) for black because it prevents white
from establishing a queenside bind by playing a4(P-QR4) and
developing either the control of b6 with bishop and knight or
developing favorable play on the queenside if black decides to
contest b6. Since blacks main force is concentrated on the "h"
half of the board it doesn't make sense to try mixing anything on
the queenside. The preventative I suggest also creates the threat
against whites e4, thus adding more pressure on the side of the
board on which black already pressures. My main line of analysis
runs:
14....b5
15 h3 Bh5
16 g4 Bg6
17 Bg5 =+
The only reason black may have any edge at all depends on the
feasibility of cracking white "weakened" kingside. If white
successfully builds an unassailable fortress black can quickly
have the inferior game because knights will be stronger than
bishops in the ensuing closed position on the kingside. White may
then quickly transfer his knights to the queenside attack while
black will have great difficulty transfering his bishops thru the
web of restrictive pawns.
Solicitation
------------
Your move, please?
Replies to Arpanet: mclure@sri-prism, mclure@sri-unix or
Usenet: ucbvax!menlo70!sri-unix!sri-prism!mclure
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************