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

K9MA k9ma at sdellington.us
Sun May 5 00:16:41 EDT 2019

I sure hope trying to work one of those CW robots isn't going to be like 
trying to talk to one of those telephone robots!

Scott K9MA

On 5/4/2019 12:51, Ken Widelitz wrote:
> 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?

Scott  K9MA

k9ma at sdellington.us

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list