Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 14:30:50 08/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 29, 2001 at 16:41:54, Theo van der Storm wrote: >On August 29, 2001 at 05:37:17, Ulrich Tuerke wrote: >>>1. Amateur: >>> You cannot be an amateur if you earn money by the selling of your program, >>> (that would be a commercial interest), so the amateurs cannot be receiving >>> money from the game-company... >>How about programmers who had once (say 2 years ago) obtained an amount of money >>for publishing their program (i guess young talents fall into this). Do they >>have to be non-Amateurs for the rest of their lives ? >> >>I'm sorry, but I think it's not possible to make a clear and fair >>classification. >I think it is possible. >Even if my text is still not good anough and needs a lawyer to fix it. >Here goes my 1,5ct worth: > >amateur: >A programmer is an amateur if he is not a professional, >nor an employd scientist involved with game-theory at any time >and has not received money for his game-development in the last 12 months. The 12 month requirement is a contradiction of "once a professional, always a professional" >semi-professional: >A programmer is a semi-professional if he is not an amateur nor a professional. > >professional: >A programmer is a professional if during any full year his income >from game-development has been bigger than any other part of his income. What if he has a large stock portfolio, but works on computer chess programming 12 hours a day, 6 days a week for a computer chess company? How will you discover someone's real income? In many countries, tax records are not publicly available. >So: >Once a professional, always a professional. >A professional in Chess-programming must also be considered a >professional in Amazons-programming. >Switching between amateur and semi-professional is possible >depending on the circumstances. > >> IMHO, one should omit this nonsense completely. >IMHO, one should omit this needless frustration completely. >As a matter of fact in the Dutch Computer-chess championship we >never had such a distinction and I'm not proposing to introduce it either. >So my text is just an advice in case ICCA does continue on this road. > >>Regards, Uli >>... >>>I feel the definitions need mending. My internet connection is about >>>to break due to idle(eh?) time, so I cannot give my proposed exact >>>definitions yet. Maybe later. >>> >>>Theo >Theo van der Storm (I'm back) I don't see any clear solution. Why do the professional programs have to pay so much? What are the expenses involved that require such large fees? I would think that a sponsoring university could be found that would not charge thousands of dollars for the use of the fascilities.
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.