The Issue Of Books And Computers In Postal Checkers

[Dennis Cayton]

Greetings:

In a different topic thread, the subject of whether the use of checker books in postal checker came up for discussion.

One player expressed the point of view that doing so was "cheating."

Another player disagreed and said that it was an "acceptable practice", and therefore, not "cheating."

As a former postal player who played competitively for over 30 years, starting in the early 1960s, I would like to share my thoughts and feelings about this issue.

My position is that the use of checker books in postal play was not "cheating."

I did it myself, back when my first and only checker book was Tom Wiswell's "Learn Checkers Fast."

When referring to my books, I was not seeking to look up the next "correct" move to each and move in every single game. I would have never been able to derive any enjoyment from playing in such a manner.

Instead, I would use my books for the purpose of discovering what I was hoping would be an unpublished move, one which would at least draw from my side of the board, and one which would hopefully challenge my opponent to burn some midnight oil, in search for a draw in the new and uncharted territory I carved out and created.

More often than not, my worthy opponents would do the same to me.

To me, this was the true challenge of postal play. I used to spend hours upon hours analyzing and studying games which were off my published sources, due to these new and innovative moves.

When the computers came along, the game of postal checkers became changed forever. A number of postal players started buying computer programs to help them decide upon their next moves.

Some of the "old school" postal players regarded this practice as "cheating" and accordingly, would accuse postal players who used such computer programs, of "cheating."

In my opinion, accusing another player of "cheating" is a very strong accusation, one which should be supported by solid evidence and reasoning.

As an "old school" postal player myself, I never went as far as calling the use of computer programs in postal play as "cheating."

But I have to be honest.

I didn't like it.

The use of computer programs ultimately led to my loss of interest in competitive postal play.

Common lines of defense for the use of computers in postal play were the following:

"You use your books. I use my computer. What's the difference?"

"You don't understand. Computers really can't see that all far ahead."

"Computers don't understand certain types of positions."

"Computers don't always make the best moves, so you still have to use your brain."

And so on.

Even though I was able to undertand these points of view, I still didn't like it.

Why?

I guess I am a purist.

For me, the use of computer programs in postal play forever diminished the "human element" to the game.

For example, back in the pre-computer days of postal checkers, I would occasionally catch my opponent in a stroke, such as a simple 3-for-1 shot, or some other type of trap.

Although I did not always cherish winning a game so easily, at least I knew I was playing a real person, one with a human heart and an imperfect "human" brain.

When the computer programs began to be used extensively by a lot of postal players, I was no longer able to catch these players in such traps. Their computer programs were too strong to allow it.

As the computer programs grew stronger, postal players with only average ability at best suddenly began playing at much higher levels.

What I was witnessing was a diminished role of "human intelligence" in postal checkers and the advent of the new and unprecedented role of "artificial intelligence" into the game.

Once again, I didn't like it.

If I go to a baseball game, I do not want to watch a bunch of robots in the outfield who are "programmed" never to commit a fielding error, knowing that the greatest "human" fielders in the history of the game have committed an error on occasion.

Likewise, when I play somebody in a game of postal checkers, I do not want to play against anybody who is "programmed" never to fall into a 3-for-1 shot, even though I would prefer not to win a game so easily.

During the last days of my postal checkers career, I believe I may have played in one tournament, in which I may have been the only player who was not using a computer program.

I soon began to realize that my limited "human intelligence" was no match for the powerful computer programs some players were using.

I was no longer able to stay competitive.

For this reason, I lost interest in the game and decided to end my postal checkers career.

To this day, I have never installed a computer checker program on my computer.

Not being very computer literate, I am not sure if I even know how.

In regard to the "What's the difference?" argument when comparing the use of books versus computer programs in postal play, I would like to note one difference:

Back in the days when I was using my checker books in postal play, I was still making use of "human intelligence."

It may not not have been my own intelligence, but it was still "human intelligence", expressed by the many lines of analysis and play from the "human" author who created them for the printed page.

In contrast, the advent and use of computer programs in postal checkers introduced the factor of "artificial intelligence" in the game.

Today the distinction between the use of "books" versus "computer programs" has become blurred, as increasing numbers of books are written with play which was born from the "artificial intelligence" of various computer programs.

It's a new world.

It is my hope this message does not cause any offense to those players who champion the use of computer programs in various forms of "checkered" competition.

If so, this was not my intent, and I humbly apologize.

The pure and simple fact is that the use of computer programs in postal play just never interested me.

Nevertheless, I shall forever cherish the memories of the many postal matches and tournaments in which I played, before the advent of the computer era.

By living in an era which allowed me the opportunity to do so, I feel blessed.

Best Wishes,

Dennis Cayton

[Jay H]

Amen brother.....I cannot find anything in your post to disagree with.....
From one "old school " checkerist to another, and from one "Wood's Ladder " climber to one who had the number one rung (!!!!)...

I am,

Most Respectfully,
Jay Hinner s h i t z

[jaguar72]

Excellent post, Mr. Cayton; Jay H, too. All true and well said.

I played postal chess for years and years and really loved it. It was a very enjoyable part of my life and I would have a couple of dozen games going at once (that's a lot of post cards...). As far as the use of chess books and chess literature was concerned, it was "anything goes" and the issue of cheating was never raised, never discussed; it was simply a non-issue. Reference books were an accepted part of postal chess (and even with all the books available, I still managed to lose a lot of games...I usually had a beer or two while I played; maybe that had something to do with it...). After all, almost anyone could afford the ten bucks for the latest edition of Modern Chess Openings (MCO) or find it at the library. Some mail players were so good, of course, I doubt if they needed any help.

No matter. It was a level playing field.

Indeed, with the advent of chess computers and the rapid advances in computer chess programs (and the Internet...), as Dennis pointed out, the game changed forever. Postal chess seemed to die almost overnight (relatively speaking). In the last couple of years I played, I kept getting matched, more and more frequently, with people in prison; that is, the only people who were playing postal were people without computer access... . Some of the inmates were quite good, by the way. Still, it made me a little uneasy. Probably shouldn't have, but it did.

I don't mind playing computers (I don't enjoy it much but I don't mind...) but not when the opponent is supposed to be human.

I no longer play postal. I could sit at home and play the computer without having to walk to the mail box everyday with my post cards. But what fun is that?

Sorry, but for me, it isn't fun at all.

V/R,

Gary Jenkins/jaguar72

[Pedro Saavedra]

I have some comments to this, though I am in basic agreement. Note that my experience was mostly with postal chess, though I played postal checkers in the 1970s.

1) I contend that cheating is to use any aid which the rules of the event or the the mutual agreement of the parties do not permit. I once found a web site that had three classes of tournaments. One was human only, and the use of computers was prohibited. And I agree that the use of computers in that class of tournament would be cheating. A second one was computer assisted, where both sides could use computers, but could override their computers by their own judgment. The third one was computer only, and was used by programmers who wanted their computer program to face other computers. As far as I am concerned, overriding your computer would be cheating in this milieu.

2) My suggestion is that cheating is simply the violation of a clearly specified or implicit rule in a particular event.I do not think I would want to play in a turn-based event that prohibited the use of books or web sources, but if I did, I would abide by those rules.

3) In pre-computer days, there was a common practice which could be considered cheating, and which many tournaments explicitly prohibited. This was seeking help from other players. I recall in postal chess, every so often, a player would bring a position to the club for analysis.

I think establishing clear-cut rules is important. In these days of computers, a player may legitimately be studying an opening using a computer, intending to use it for crossboard play. This is legitimate, but in my view, the minute the same opening is played against him in a postal or turn-based game, he should stop the analysis. This poses a problem, as one would want to use a computer to review a game after it is over, but if one is playing a similar position in another game, this is questionable.

All this calls for a committee to set up viable rules for turn-based checkers.

[tommyc]

What i would like to see from some forward thinking checker Association is a Ty online or otherwise on the "New Openings".Such as the (Skunk)
(The Black Widow)(The Inferno)(Gemini I)(Gemini II)(Wilderness 1)(Wilderness II)(Garter Snake)(The Black Hole)
(The Twilight Zone) for instance. This would give a much more level playing field as many of the Master players are not too well versed on these,so it would put most players on level par at the outset?/,with no advantage either way.

As for the arguement of books versus computers versus books,well i think thats called progress but does it do harm to checkers in general,im not sure.I know of many players who used all these aspects and still lost many games,so its not all black and white by any means.One might say whoevr works hardest or is more creative will win thru regardless of books or computer programmes.The human element is still very important.

[Pedro Saavedra]

What i would like to see from some forward thinking checker Association is a Ty online or otherwise on the "New Openings".Such as the (Skunk)
(The Black Widow)(The Inferno)(Gemini I)(Gemini II)(Wilderness 1)(Wilderness II)(Garter Snake)(The Black Hole)
(The Twilight Zone) for instance. This would give a much more level playing field as many of the Master players are not too well versed on these,so it would put most players on level par at the outset?/,with no advantage either way.

I hate to tell you this, but the postal or turn-based best players are very familiar with the barred openings. It is the players who only play crossboard who are least familiar with it.

[tommyc]

Well it was the xboard players i was referring to.I know postal players are aware of em because it was them who worked em out and opened them up for xboard play.