Author: Chris Whittington
Date: 02:43:35 10/13/97
Go up one level in this thread
On October 12, 1997 at 19:48:32, Fernando Villegas wrote: >I am really amazed reading the post where ICCA executives are almost >accused of some kind of plot and/or trying to sell people to third >parties and/or trying to become rich just exploiting poor programmers , >and all this agressive noise just because they ask 1000 bucks to those >commercial programmers that want to be part of the party in Paris. >Is 1000 bucks so much money? A thousand bucks is a thousand bucks. >So badly goes things in this industry that commercial programmers -that >sell each of his products at 150 dollars- cannot pay $1000? That indeed is one of the problems. a) programmers who don't make enough money from their sales. And chess program sales are not that high in total. b) programmers who make enough and then get stung when the distributor doesn't pay them. c) programmers who used to make money, but no longer do so. The other problem, as pointed out by Amir Ban: is $1000 enough to turn some commercial programmers away from the tournament; or is the icca pricing the tournament out of the market. I think the answer is clear: yes and yes. > What I see here is that all the time there are many reasons for some >poeple for not going. Once is a political reason: Jakarta was not >adequate because of the people that rules that country. Then the >tournament is not fair because some people in the ICCA does not gives >the due salutations and reverences to this or that guy; now is money, >because, as anybody can see, with 1000 bucks in the pocket this people >could fly to Monaco and expend a week with an army of girls. >What's next? The programmers get to fly to Monaco with an army of girls :) No, not possible, it would be with an army of laptops :( >I don't believe 1000 is too much money to get the chance to get a good >position and then to use it as advertising. I don't believe many people go to tournament with the idea that $1000 is going to buy them something. I don't suffer from this delusion. Maybe if you think you can win, but this is too much of a lottery now there are so many strong programs. Most people go for hobby reasons, even the 'professionals'. I go because it has the reputation of being the yearly place for this particular sport. Although I guess this is waning now that we have so many alternatives. AEGON is generally better, communication between us can be done over the net, games can be played over the net. So this year, I thought very carefully before paying my $1000. For me it was a very marginal decision, and now that Mchess, Hiarcs, Genius and Rebel are not going, I wish I hadn't bothered to apply. I actually don't think its worth the entrance fee and the travel and the hotels and the week away any more. >Even if you cannoit get the >first prize, you always can say that your program got a point against >this or that other program, as Chris has made once with CST and Genius. >Or that your program got the fastest winning. Or that your program was >the best, provided his slow hardaware. Or that you won the prettiest >game of the tournament. Or this or that. I don't know any program that >ever has been in a tournament that has not got specious reasons to >proclaim that very same tournament as a wonderful motive to buy it. >So, if this kind of tournament becomes, as ever, a good launching >platform for almost any guy that goes there -like in movies festivals >theses days-, it seems to me that paying 1000 cannot be reasonnably >considered as abusive. After all, we are talking of COMMERCIAL guys, not >amateurs, not poor genuses, not deprived people. All very marxistly correct. Except that just because some sell their programs, doesn't make them necessarilly rich. Some are quite poor it seems. And, on this basis, why not means test everybody by income, wherever this income comes from ? Fernando, I have to say I disapprove of this kind of populist rhetoris that suggests 'commercials' are available for financial exploitation, just because they have sold their program sometime. Many are struggling. Many have no other source of income. Many are poorer than 'amateurs' who keep their day time jobs. Instead of operating to the divide and rule paradigm, why can't we just scrap this ridiculous dichotomy and scrap the entrance fees ? Or, why are these entrance fees apparently so important that the icca insists on keeping, and broadening them ? > Maybe what some people want is that ICCA does not organize nothing at >all. Not tournaments, no need to compete, no need to suffer the agony of >defeat, no need to lye telling that even to be the very last in the >final list is a kind of succes. I think what MOST people want is for a scrapping of this ridiculous amateur / professional / emerging professional categorisations. Chris Whittington
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.