[CQ-Contest] Robotic Contesting for CW and SSB - Forget FT4

[Ken Widelitz]

Tom, N1NN, nailed it when he wrote:

"Computer games have automated "players".  They are used to enhance the
experience of the humans playing the game."

Casual stations acting as Robots is a great tool for enhancing the
experience of the humans playing the game. CW contests!!! SSB contests also!
Put your computer, radios and antennas to the use of enhancing human ham
enjoyment if you aren't operating yourself. 

More QSO's and Mults = MORE FUN. 

Q.E.D. - Only 500 Robots and no more Sunday doldrums in Sweepstakes.

In the robot category stations can't work other robots or call CQ so robots
are not taking away spectrum. Robots know what callsign is another robot
because robot logs are automatically fed into an online database in real
time.

Contests will be adjudicated in real time for robots and humans alike by RF
RoboRef (TM,) the wide band, every band, every second, QTH world-wide,
omnidirectional vertical antennas, cloud based referee/scorekeeper. RF
RoboRef (TM) will score the contest, log check and enforce penalties in real
time. I'm undecided if real time feedback should create a new category.
Plaques fulfilled by Amazon for next day delivery. 

But seriously, Robots as automated players is a genius idea for CW and SSB.
To incentivize activating robots, I can see a Robot competition category
where the station owner wins by programming the best scoring algorithms:
QSOs (pileup busting strategy, fill strategy, QSO probability, etc.) vs.
MULTS (yagi turning strategy, on time optimization, voice decoding
algorithm, etc.)

73, Ken, K6LA / VY2TT

-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
Edward Sawyer
Sent: Friday, May 3, 2019 10:07 AM
To: tom at n1mm.com; cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Minority Report: FT4 - Robotic Contesting

Tom, Great ideas.  Run as an FT4 only contest - its wonderful.

Ed  N1UR

-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Tom
Sent: Friday, May 3, 2019 5:19 AM
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Minority Report: FT4 - Robotic Contesting

Yes, but what would they do? I'll answer that in a minute.

There has been a bunch of complaining about FT4 and the automation put into
selecting which station to work.  I'm sure the authors saw the 6 second
cycle time and decided that was a useful thing to add.  The problem is that
it diminishes the amount of operator intervention required and thus the
effect of operator skill on outcome.  Worse, it makes fully automated
stations possible.  What would be the fun in that?

Why not turn a disadvantage into an advantage? Computer games have automated
"players".  They are used to enhance the experience of the humans playing
the game.  What if a *new* contest had robots that were there to provide
bonus points and/or multipliers to the human participants?  What if the
robots could be worked multiple times during a contest, dispensing the bonus
points to far away stations during the
15 minutes, close stations during the second 15, odd grids during the third
15, even grids during the fourth 15, etc.   The point is not these examples,
the point is that the robots would be designed to force participants to make
tactical and strategic decisions that would require operator skill.  These
skills would replace those lost due to the other changes.

Stop thinking about how FT4 will ruin contesting.  Start thinking about how
one would design a one hour contest (like CWT) that would leverage FT4's
strengths and get hams with rudimentary antennas interested in HF
propagation. Or not.

73,

Tom - N1MM

On 5/2/2019 9:51 PM, Hans Brakob wrote:
> For curiosity's sake, I would be interested in a contest where some robots
were in the mix, but a contest of only robots would be a giant yawn.
>
> 73, de Hans, KØHB
> "Just a Boy and his Radio"
>
> ________________________________
> From: CQ-Contest <cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com> on behalf of 
> ktfrog007--- via CQ-Contest <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Sent: Thursday, May 2, 2019 8:40 PM
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com; wsjtgroup at yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Minority Report: FT4 - Robotic Contesting
>
>
> I'm sure I'm way deep in the minority but I'd love to see an automated
contest run as an experiment.  FT4 could be used as the mode with the
appropriate software.
>
> Control operators would have to be present and the software would need
some kind of periodic time out requiring operator input to continue, as well
as being able to alert the control ops in case of problems and  governors to
keep the program from running amok.
>
> In the latter case, the software would need a driver for a klaxon.
>
> Aside from the fact that virtually nobody likes this, is there any real
reason not to do it?  Some regulatory issue not covered above?
>
>
> 73,Ken, AB1J
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
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