Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 13:56:25 05/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 19, 2004 at 16:41:21, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >On May 19, 2004 at 16:37:27, Matthew Hull wrote: > >>On May 19, 2004 at 16:22:09, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >> >>>On May 19, 2004 at 16:09:19, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On May 19, 2004 at 14:48:16, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >>>> >>>>>On May 19, 2004 at 13:20:35, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On May 19, 2004 at 12:19:05, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On May 19, 2004 at 11:56:37, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On May 19, 2004 at 03:38:52, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On May 18, 2004 at 13:56:25, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On May 18, 2004 at 13:46:02, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>I hope that makes it clear why _I_ have not said much about playing this year. >>>>>>>>>>>>Who knows _what_ rule(s) the ICCA will use this time around. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>I know. And I have told you many times. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>That is _really_ convincing. You guys don't even want to produce a list of who >>>>>>>>>>is playing??? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Check the WCCC page today. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Last time I looked _you_ didn't speak for the ICCA any more than the organizers >>>>>>>>>>of the WCCC I tried to enter a couple of years back spoke for it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I don't know when or where you looked, or what happened in Paris or Jakarta that >>>>>>>>>you frequently mention. What I know is about WCCC 2004, and I am telling you in >>>>>>>>>the clearest possible way what will be the case here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I'll run through this once more. Slowly. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>In Jakarta, there was _no_ outside communication. No game results. No nothing. >>>>>>>> Dead silence. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>In Paris, same deal. No internet access. No nothing. I believe this was the >>>>>>>>event where Thorsten was getting results out at his own expense via cell. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Two of the first two WMCCC's I ever participated in. While at every ACM and >>>>>>>>WCCC event past 1980 we had outside world access. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Then For one of the more recent events, and no, now I don't even remember which >>>>>>>>because I no longer care, I made arrangements to get a pretty good box (8-way >>>>>>>>from Dell) and when they finally worked out the details for me, I tried to enter >>>>>>>>and was told "We have a new rule that says that a programmer _must_ attend." >>>>>>>>Bruce Moreland went to this event and can confirm all of this as he and I talked >>>>>>>>about it multiple times. I then "undid" my machine arrangements, a bit >>>>>>>>embarassing after having asked and having had some folks at Dell go out of the >>>>>>>>way to help. Later Bruce tells me that a commercial entry could not get the >>>>>>>>programmer there and the ICCA decided to drop the rule. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Doesn't that do wonders for my wanting to participate _again_?? Doesn't that >>>>>>>>make me take what you say on behalf of the ICCA at something less than true face >>>>>>>>value, since the rules get changed on a whim??? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>That is my problem. Later they _again_ modified this rule so that it became >>>>>>>>possible to have a non-programmer operator, but at double the normal entry fee. >>>>>>>>What is _that_ about? This is an organization that wants to promote computer >>>>>>>>chess or throttle it? Is it all about the money going in to the ICCA? Or is >>>>>>>>it about the computer chess competition and interest in same? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Looks _bad_ from my perspective. And when the last CCT had what appears to be >>>>>>>>over 5x the entries of the current WCCC event, and there is no cost, and there >>>>>>>>are no changing entry rules, and so forth, what is the incentive to go to a WCCC >>>>>>>>rather than the next CCT event? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Hopefully you get my drift. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I don't believe _any_ of this has put the ICCA in a particularly favorable >>>>>>>>light. I guess those of us that originally formed this organization can just >>>>>>>>carry on feeling embarassed about how the tournaments have been handled the past >>>>>>>>few years. The journal is a good thing. But the tournament (which was >>>>>>>>originally the 'flagship' of the ICCA) has gone steadily downhill. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>How would _you_ react to such utter nonsense??? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It seems that indeed some points where unclear in some of the previous WCCCs. >>>>>>>But again, I am only responsible for the current WCCC. And I am doing my best to >>>>>>>clarify the things as much as possible. >>>>>> >>>>>>Yes you are. But as I mentioned _YOU_ are not the ICGA. Through at least 1992 >>>>>>or so, "we programmers" had a strong voice in what happened. Somewhere around >>>>>>1992-1995 things started to change however. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>As long as it was about providing information, I replied to everything you >>>>>asked. If it is about flamewars, I'm too busy to take part, sorry. >>>> >>>>I see no flame war from my end. I pointed out a _big_ ICCA problem. I ran into >>>>it _personally_. And I have seen _nothing_ to date that is any sort of >>>>guarantee that it won't happen again... >>>> >>>>IE, again, and you have not answered this, why double the entry fee for someone >>>>that can't possibly attend any other way than with a remote operator? >>> >>>It is an old rule and the source of it might be as Gerd mentioned: >>>http://talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?366100 >>>The logic behind this rule is very clear: to encourage the programmers to attend >>>in person (after all, it is a programmers event). >>> >>>If your operator must fly to Israel, then he will receive $500 grant for >>>covering the ticket costs (assuming you register soon, as the grant is for the >>>first 12 amateurs only). And you start complaining about 25 Euros? [sigh...] >>> >> >>The wording says $500 for "programmers", not operators. So not only no $500, >>but a doubling of entry fee. > >If you know better than me, so be it. From the ICGA site, "...provide $500 in financial assistance to 12 amateur Chess programmers..." Now you know better. > > > >>> >>> >>>>What is >>>>the justification, the logic, the common sense, that would cause such an idea to >>>>even be considered, much less put into place??? >>>> >>>>Did you know that I attended almost every ACM event from 1976 to 1994? Did you >>>>know that my program played in the WCCC in 1977, 1983, 1986, and 1989? Do you >>>>know what I had to pay in entry fees for all those events? Not one thin dime. >>>>An entry fee is _pointless_ and only becomes an obstacle in an already expensive >>>>operation. The ACM even paid all remote telephone costs in the pre-internet >>>>days... All we had to do was arrange for our machine, and get ourselves to the >>>>event. Sometimes the ACM even helped everyone with travel... >>>> >>>>Look at where we are today in contrast... >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>At the CCT we manage to have an _open_ discussion about the rules _before_ the >>>>>>>>>>event, and then we go by those rules. The ICCA might try that at some point in >>>>>>>>>>time, perhaps??? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>I'd love to play remotely. Once it becomes obvious that doing so is "OK". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>We don't provide operators here. But if you send someone to operate Crafty on >>>>>>>>>your behalf, that is OK. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I have a volunteer that would do well. I'll investigate hardware one more time. >>>>>>>> But I can guarantee you that if the rules change this time, it will be my >>>>>>>>absolute last time to try this... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>If you send an operator here, there will be no problem.
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.