[CQ-Contest] FT4 - Robotic Contesting

[N4ZR]

I basically agree that the role of the human brain should be the "bright 
line" in contesting on phone and CW.  But RTTY already crosses that 
bright line so far as decoding is concerned, and nobody (so far) seems 
to be suggesting that RTTY Contests aren't contests.  If skill played no 
part, then the standings would be a lot more crowded at the top.

In this respect, I disagree with Ed on assisted CW and SSB contesting.  
Using the RBN or conventional spots is *not* "no different from FT8/4."  
A different set of skills, but the operator is still essentially in the 
mix, as you'll find out if you try to do really fast assisted S&P.  This 
is not to say that I minimize the downsides of the FT modes - I've tried 
FT-8 several times, and each time wound up thinking "an excellent 
technical development, but not what I want to do on the air."  Any mode 
where you can leave your desk, return a few minutes later, and discover 
that your computer worked someone while you were gone, truly is across 
the line for me.

73, Pete N4ZR
Check out the Reverse Beacon Network
at <http://reversebeacon.net>, now
spotting RTTY activity worldwide.
For spots, please use your favorite
"retail" DX cluster.

On 4/30/2019 9:02 AM, Edward Sawyer wrote:
> Hello Rudy.  To be clear, I am not resisting innovation.  It just has no place being mixed in with other modes and call it "the same but different".  If FT8/4 users want to robo war each other - go for it.  No issue.
>
> The answer to your fundamental question is that the operator decodes CW and SSB before entering in the log by ear and brain.  If that is eliminated, then I agree with you.  If someone is pulling RBN spots, clicking them, and never being part of it, its no different than FT8/4.  This would explain why so many dupes are appearing and people not understanding the Serial number exchange on WPX CW.  Sounds like serial numbers should be added to every contest to eliminate such things.
>
> 73
>
> Ed  N1UR
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rudy Bakalov [mailto:r_bakalov at yahoo.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 8:57 AM
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com; Edward Sawyer
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] FT4 - Robotic Contesting
>
> Ed,
>
> I understand your reaction to FT4. Only time will tell how it will be adopted in contesting. Before sounding the alarm, we should consider the following:
>
> 1) FT4/FT8 and other modern digital modes have extensive error correction algorithms built-in. Nothing show up on your screen if the message has not been correctly received.  That is, CW and RTTY, there is absolutely no human involvement in deciding, not even human “error correction”.
>
> 2) Specific to FT4, the operating behavior you described is essentially the same as the stack in N1MM. You can let N1MM populate the stack and the only thing a human does is pressing ENTER. If you chose so, you can populate the stack by clicking on calls and have N1MM prioritize the stack just like FT4 does.
>
> I would argue that the truly profound change is the complete elimination of the human from any decoding activities. Everything else is noise...but this is only my personal opinion.
>
> At the higher level, I don’t understand those who resist innovation and yet have no problem accepting computer logging, keyer or computer generated CW, etc. I challenge any top contester to forgo computer automation and win over the average competitor.
>
> Rudy N2WQ
>
> Sent using a tiny keyboard.  Please excuse brevity, typos, or inappropriate autocorrect.
>
>
>> On Apr 30, 2019, at 6:59 AM, Edward Sawyer <EdwardS at sbelectronics.com> wrote:
>>
>> I am not sure how many people are aware of a new FT mode that was just released.  The mode called FT-4 has a few new features.
>>
>> The first is that its quicker by trading S/N capture algorithm for speed of contacts.  I read somewhere there is a 10db price to pay on the weak signal capability.
>>
>> The second is it allows for more flexibility of contest exchanges.
>>
>> The third is disturbing.  It allows for an automated feature that decides the best contact available of the decoded possibilities (like a new mult) and just goes for it automatically.  The operator doesn't click on the call, the operator clicks on the desire to find the best call.
>>
>> Because of the simplistic possibility of having a screen macro just keep clicking on "find the best call", a feeble attempt to thwart full robotic capability is made to swap the button on the screen with the cancel button.  Although this is NOT done after every QSO but only after "a few QSOs" whatever that means.  So even with this attempt, the acceptance of a few automated and optimized QSOs has been declared acceptable.  Just not 100% fully robotic.  Although whether this attempt to move buttons actually prevents a macro from engaging the button is not assured to me.  People more knowledgably on such things can comment.
>>
>> I hope that the Contest community is watching this slippery slope slide.  Fire up FT4, decode the signals in the pass band, Automatically find a few and work them without the operator even knowing which ones are being worked.  Seriously, what is the point?  If a robot war contest is desired, I am all for it and think it's a cool concept.  But we don't put 6 year olds in the ring to fight with robots in robowars and we shouldn't be mixing the two in contesting either.
>>
>> Contesters ignore this disturbing trend and acceptance by sponsors at their peril in my opinion.
>>
>> 73
>>
>> Ed  N1UR
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest