Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 19:35:43 04/28/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 28, 2000 at 11:31:16, KarinsDad wrote: >On April 27, 2000 at 16:32:49, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >[snip] >> >>I think the rule is fine and I believe it. I wouldn't go even if the rule were >>trashed. If people are going to travel thousands of miles to go to tournaments, >>they shouldn't end up sitting across the table from people who don't have >>anything to do with the program that they are operating. >> >>bruce > > >There are several considerations: > >1) To have a World Championship with most of the major programs in the world in >attendance. > >2) To have the location change dramatically from event to event in order to >enable occasional attendance by programmers from all over the world. > >3) To have programmers sit across from each other (of course, this would imply >that the programmers actually talk about how their program work, but does anyone >seriously think that this happens in any great detail from the commerical >programmers?). It doesn't matter if they talk. The social aspect is nice, but there are other important aspects. There is shared experience, shared history, and continuity of reputation. I have had some bad experiences with non-author operators, which would not have happened had the author been operating. Additionally, there is the simple matter of respect. If someone is chronically absent, the implication is that their time is more valuable than yours, or that they are of a higher category than you are in some way. I resent this. It is not a particularly big thing to sit an event out if you can't attend, and I don't see that any participant, or even any group of several participants, is so meaningful that its absence will destroy the event. >Now, you have to determine which of these three considerations are the most >important (or if they are important at all). It is evident that the ICCA does >not consider #1 or #2 to be important. They blew off #2 over 10 years ago and >this year, they are enforcing their earlier rule to blow off #1. I don't see that rule #1 will change much. Some people go in person, some send operators, and some don't go at all. The number that send operators to any given tournament is not so high that the tournament would be destroyed if these entries simply did not show up. And if it's true that many of the top programs won't show up unless they can send operators, there is no way in the world that I'd attend *that* tournament. >So, to them (and evidently to you), #3 is the most important out of these 3. > >To the rest of the world, #3 is a nicety in a World Championship tournament, but >should not have priority over #1 or #2. I would think to the vast majority of >people interested in computer chess, #1 would have the greatest priority. > >The bottom line appears to be that the ICCA events are quasi-european computer >chess elite (i.e. commercial) boys club social get togethers which can be >attended by non-europeans and amateurs if they have money and time to burn >(note: This does not mean that these events are not worth something. Everyone >wants to be able to put on their box that their program was champ.). But, these >events are not really World Championships, regardless of name (similar to how >the World Series is not really a World Championship baseball event, but rather a >North American one). I am pretty militant about this but I'm not that militant. I think I might have helped get Bob going on his "ECCA" trip, and I feel a little bad about that. I am willing to believe that it is easier to find European sponsors, and that when times get tight, you find what sponsors you can. I am concerned that there won't be a North American event unless the sponsor pays air fare, because the argument will be brought up that unless air fare is paid, the Europeans won't attend, that that will wreck the event. That would make me pretty mad. There have been two recent (last five or six years) ICCA events held outside Europe. Both of those featured travel support, presumably because the sponsor asked either asked the ICCA if a diverse and strong field would attend without support, and the ICCA said probably not, or the sponsor figured this out for themselves and was willing to factor in travel support up front. I doubt anyone is asking this question regarding the European events. I suspect that the sponsors would be quite content with a 100% European field, plus whoever else wanted to pay their own way, and apparently the ICCA is content with this as well, since it has happened several times. I'm just wondering what will happen if there ever is an event in North America again. I've brought up this issue several times. I asked Tony Marsland about this when he was president of the ICCA, and I believe that I mentioned this issue to the ICCA programmer board, a completely impotent and irrelevent group that I'm still a member of, assuming that it exists, which is uncertain. I have not gotten a satisfactory answer from anyone. Therefore I will sit this one out. We'll see if the next one is in North America. If so, I will apply to go. If it is in Europe, I will apply to go, assuming I have interest and feel like I can afford the time and expense. I cannot afford the time and expense this year. That there is virtually no ICCA presence in this group is astonishing, by the way. bruce
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.