Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 22:23:26 04/28/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 28, 2000 at 22:35:43, Bruce Moreland wrote: >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. That is _really_ short-sighted. When my doctor fails to keep an appointment, because he had to go to emergency surgery, I don't weight that patient's importance vs mine. I assume we are _both_ important. I believe his code of ethics (and the oath he takes when graduating from med school) dictates this behavior. I have played in over 20 ACM events. Rebel played in several. I have _never_ encountered Ed. I have _never_ assumed he thought his time was more valuable than mine. I did assume that he either (a) didn't have the time; (b) didn't want to spend the money; (c) some other reason that I didn't know about and didn't care about. I think it is a _wild_ stretch to think anyone says "Hmmm... my time is more valuable than Moreland's, and I am not going to waste any going to this event in person." I have given my reasons for not going. There are 2. Expense and Time. I also have a responsibility to students in my classes. I don't think it reasonable in a 9 week term to take off for over 1 week, and dump class. I have played in so many computer chess events, the 'magic' is gone. And I can dispassionately assess the gains vs the cost and make a decision of whether I want to spend at least a couple of grand going to Europe for over a week, or would I rather spend that same time with my family in Disney World, or whatever. The decision is not hard to make. And it has _nothing_ to do with whether I think my time is more valuable or less valuable than yours. It is about what I perceive my responsibilities and obligations to be. Factored in with some simple financial analysis. Going back to my first ACM event, I attended events with (1) Various Lang programs, but I met Richard exactly once. Ossi operated a couple of times. Louman at least once. (2) Various Rebel/chessmachine programs. Never seen Ed at the events I attended. Mostly saw Louman operating. (3) Several times Slate/Atkin didn't come, or came for the last round or two. Often Dave Cahlander (CDC) operated for them. Later Blanchard operated for Slate several times. (4) We played in at least 2 ACM events (one ACM, one WCCC) where neither Bert nor I went, but Harry did. Harry wasn't the programmer. (5) Belle was operated by someone other than Ken several times. (6) Someone besides Hsu/Campbell operated Deep Thought several times. (7) someone besides Berliner operated Hitech on multiple occasions. (8) I am sure there are lots of others. I don't _ever_ remember anyone saying they were personally insulted/offended when a primary author didn't/couldn't show up. We were so busy tweaking the book between rounds that it didn't cause a second thought. > >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. > For _any_ of the programs I mentioned, I would have always been in favor of the program participating as the first priority, the author attending if possible as the second. But the participation is the most important part of the equation, IMHO. >>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. > For many of us, the _competition_ was the important thing. Not the idea that we would sit across the table from an opponent that would discuss details of his program during the game. In fact, even in the games we played Ken, there wasn't a lot of banter, as things were always 'tense' and everyone was always 'nervous'. >>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. > Not really. I complained in 1995. 1989 was in Canada. 1992 was in Europe. 1995 was due to be in North America again, but Levy used the argument "at this point, the total games for Europe and NA are the same, and we have a sponsor for Hong Kong, so we are going to repeat playing on this side of the world again, and then go back to NA next time." I notice that "next time" was also not in North America, marking 3 consecutive WCCCs that were not held here. And yes, the ICCA Charter does specify that the event alternates. Unless it was changed without my knowing. This was a careful stipulation when we formed the thing in 1977 in Toronto at the WCCC for that year. >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 agree... > >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 I think they 'lurk'. When the heat is on, it is best to stay out of the kitchen, perhaps??? :)
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.