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

[Barry]

Our menu has changed.  Please listen carefully.  Your QSO may be 
recorded for quality assurance.
Press 1 for a repeat callsign, press 2 for your signal report, press 3 
for the zone or state, marque ocho para español.

Barry W2UP

On 5/4/2019 10:16 PM, K9MA wrote:
> 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!
>
> 73,
> 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?
>
>