Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 05:51:00 04/28/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 28, 2000 at 05:39:31, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On April 27, 2000 at 20:53:28, Michael Cummings wrote: > >>I do not understand then what you want out of a tournament like this. Do you >>want the best program, or do you want it only to be a place where you can meet >>fellow programmers and play a few games of chess. > >If you look up the words, a "world championship" does not necessarily determine >the best in the world. It's just some competition. > >If you expect the WMCCC to determine the best program in the world, you are in >for a big disappointment. First of all, every WMCCC that I know about has been >missing several top programs. Second, the hardware is not uniform. Third, there >are so few rounds that luck plays a major role. > >So if you give up on trying to determine the best program, what are you left >with? > >If the programmers attend the WMCCC, then the event is exciting. People are >excited about their programs and the possibilities of doing well. It's a unique >opportunity to meet other programmers in person, share ideas, get excited about >each other's programs, go to bars and drink, and generally have a good time. >This stuff is pretty much impossible unless the programmers attend. > >-Tom That would seem to be _the_ problem. All programmers are _not_ able to attend anyway. And now not only don't they attend, but their programs don't attend, and that detracts from the quality of the event. The rule is part of the problem of programmers not attending, because it prevents enough from attending that others might well say "hmphh.. nobody is going to be there anyway, so why should I go?" ACM never had this rule, 90% of the programmers attended _anyway_. But, in general, 100% of the _programs_ were always there.
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.