Author: Tony Werten
Date: 14:54:08 12/21/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 21, 2001 at 12:22:23, Christophe Theron wrote: >On December 21, 2001 at 01:01:08, Russell Reagan wrote: > >>>That's not my point. We were talking about best commercial programs vs. best >>>amateur programs. >>> >>>I agree that there are strong amateurs, but the interesting thing is the gap >>>between the best professionals and the best amateurs. >>> >>> >>> >>> Christophe >> >>I should have made the distinction between best commercial chess programs and >>best non-commercial chess programs. I agree that I wasn't entirely clear about >>that. >> >>You are indeed correct that the only interesting discussion lies in the >>differences between the _best_ commercial chess programs and the _best_ >>amateur/non-commercial programs. No one really cares that an amateur engine is >>better than the worst commercial engine. >> >>Also, I would agree with your definition of commercial vs. non-commercial. I >>believe a commercial program is one that the author recieves enough income from >>the program to consider it a job (even a part time job). I find it similair to >>the idea of "professional" chess players. In my mind, a "professional" chess >>player is one who is good enough to support himself from the winnings of >>tournaments he competes in. I don't think it be necessary that the professional >>chess player be able to support himself solely on the income from his chess >>playing, but it should constitute a good portion, just as a commercial program >>should be one that provides a good portion of a person's income in order to be >>considered commercial. I think it might also be a requirement that the author of >>the program, without the financial aide his program provides, find himself in a >>financially bad situation. However, this might not work, since this defines Bill >>Gates as not being a professional programmer, or a professional anything, since >>he could be without any job and still be financially secure. Commercial and >>professional are more difficult to define that I first suspected. > > > >Yes the definition is fuzzy at best, and it has already lead to harsh >discussions at the beginning of the ICCA events, because in these events >"professional" programmers had to pay a ridiculously high entry fee ($1000 or >something like that). It was $1000 exactly. But don't worry. If the dollar comes below the euro it will be changed to 1000 euro. Tony > > > > Christophe
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.