Author: Omid David Tabibi
Date: 03:11:49 12/17/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 14, 2003 at 20:21:44, Matthew Hull wrote: >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. But the "Scotch" did conquer the world :) > >... 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.