Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 19:28:48 08/24/01
Go up one level in this thread
I don't think there's anything wrong with it. Junior won the tournament. They are not overall world champion, they are dual world champion. As long as they don't claim a title they didn't get, everything is fine. Regarding the rules for the tournament, there weren't really any. We hashed through some stuff at the players' meeting. But if someone had brought a quad that moved on wheels, there would have been no reason to rule it ineligible. The only rule that I know of is that it had to be on site. bruce On August 24, 2001 at 20:07:49, K. Burcham wrote: > > > > >we all here have read the posts before the tournament, referring to >the rule changes. we all knew that it was decided that there would be >two classes, single and dual processors. many sports try to put competitors >on an even playing field with rules and separate classes. i prefer >this approach of separate classes, and have posted this opinion here >before. in some sports the winning combination is the guy with the most > money and the guy most passionate about the win. > > >deep junior finished first in its class. > >and shredder finished first in its class. > > > >this was posted at chessbase. > > > "Deep Junior wins, Quest 2nd, Shredder 3rd" > >"After nine rounds of the ICCA world microcomputer championship in Maastricht >the winner with an incredible 8/9 points was the Israeli program Deep Junior, >followed by Quest and Shredder. Reports, pictures, games and results are >available on our special WMCCC page <news/wmcc01a.htm>." > > >sounds like someone in marketing or sales wrote this not knowing the truth. >there were no overall categories in this tournament. there was no overall >playoff in this tournament. they did not bring the top three finishers in >each class back for an overall ranking like some sporting events. > >deep junior did not win overall. >the two classes were split because of total kns per move. >the only way deep junior was the overall winner was if every program was >playing with dual processors, or if this tournaments rules stated that >this was an "open" tournament in regards to the pc. > >the managing of chess tournaments and the thinking of some of the chess > personel involved with making these events happen, is far behind other > sporting events. > >was there a maximum limit on the mhz? >was there a maximum limit on the number of processors? >was there a maximum limit on the available voltage 120v, 220v, 440v? > single phase? three phase? >was there a maximum limit on the outside dimensions of the pc case? >were there any rules limiting how the contestents were allowed to > tranport their computers into the game room? > >if your answer to all of the above questions was no, then what would have > happened if chris had arrived with moving dollies, a small crane, > five strong workers, a large truck with a hydraulic tail gate, > his own 440volt generator, a large commercial 32 processor > with several gigs of ram, and deep tiger? > >there should be separate classes with detailed rules. these rules should > be in print a year ahead of time, and easily available to everyone. > >if there is an overall playoff for a champion----then so be it. > >but it did not happen this year. there were two champions. > >deep junior was a champion only over the dual processors. > > >my point-------a single processor program did not come in third like chessbase > stated. > > >kburcham
This page took 0.01 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.