Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 17:21:44 12/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 14, 2003 at 02:39:21, Johan de Koning wrote: >On December 12, 2003 at 01:53:04, Matthew Hull wrote: > >>On December 12, 2003 at 01:40:25, Johan de Koning wrote: >> >>>On December 10, 2003 at 10:36:44, Matthew Hull wrote: >>> >>>>On December 10, 2003 at 02:46:34, Johan de Koning wrote: >>> >>>>>c) lots of wasted time and I loved every minute of it. >>>> >>>>Is this the European way or just the ICGA way? >>> >>>My point was that the WCCC is an event. >>>An event by & for humans, not by & for computers. >>>Barking madness, as you call it, is part of the event. >>>Technicalities (organizational and electrical) are part of the event. >>>They can be discussed, but still they are technicalities. >>> >>>Humans are pretty smart (even the ones that fail to agree with me :-). >>>They can easily survive and multiply with only 1 hour "work" per day. >>>The rest of their lives is about wasting time (aka money) in an >>>enjoyable manner. Creating a chess program is enjoyable. Pitting it >>>against others is enjoyable, and even if it isn't, learning why not >>>is enjoyable. Going to the movies is enjoyable. And finally, joining >>>the WCCC *can* be enjoyable. >>> >>>However, optimizing an event like the WCCC for time is like compressing >>>LotR for a 22' time slot: an interesting challenge, but a completely >>>different thing. And while I'm with the analogy, [snipped more blah]. >>> >>>... Johan >> >>I completely grok what you are saying. However, the happy medium between a >>leisurely event and an efficient, cost-effective event must be balanced >>according to the needs of the _World's_ participants > >The _World_ is not going to help your side of the argument. :-) > >> with the primary goal of >>the event in view. > >If you don't mind me repeating: there is no primary goal. I think you are confusing your goals (none) with everyone else's. >The event can be experienced on many different levels, by many >people. The WCCC cross table might be the primary *motivation* >for a handful of contenders. But a 5-round 2-day event would >challenge the motivation of the other 100 persons, and probably >even of the contenders. In your eyes, the US ideal gets shorter and shorter. Soon you'll be claiming we advocate a 24 hour, 6 round event, each game a 4 hour sudden death. > >> Instead, it seems to us that they are balanced by only >>considering the needs of Europeans (and relatively near nieghbors) who have >>loads of liesure time to burn. > >Well, of course there is the optimal balance, as a function of the >expected (or desired!) crowd. Even Europens would be freaked out by >a 4-week event. :-) But considering the actual event days are only >half of the time wasted, 9 days is fair, 7 days is more fair, and 3 >days is not fair. Remember that to "us" it seems that USans typically >waste 50 weeks at the office, Aha. The mystery of why there are no European footprints on the Moon is solved. It is somewhat similar to the reason why the Irish have never conquered the world. Whiskey was invented first. ... Matt (busy) >rendering the complaints about a few >too many days of quality time a bit silly. :-) > >... Johan
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.