Author: Chessfun
Date: 05:49:55 04/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 19, 2001 at 04:50:01, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On April 19, 2001 at 00:05:14, Chessfun wrote: >No, you don't get it. I'm complaining about the event with or without Shredder >because of the selection process made and nothing else. The comment on how to >operate a program is independent of who's participating in the event. And just >like there are rules on running a tournament, there are rules concerning >operating a program. That should be simple enough. Under your selection process none is qualified except Shredder. If this is a BGN tournament what rules must they comply with? >That's not just my opinion. They are rules on how to run tournaments, which >would have applied since the qualifier is a tournament and not a match. It's a >match now, but that irrelevant for the arrangements made before that was known. >To put it in layman's terms. We have to solve a situation, where the rules are >known for doing that. Do we make up new rules? No, we do not. Especially without >consulting the governing body ICCA. Again you know nothing of any exchanges between BGN and the ICCA. >But I would like to know your selection process and why it's fair. I already wrote the process and why it was fair. >You don't give a damn about the development of amateur programs. Restricting the >selection to commercial programs instead of a open tournament doesn't accomplish >that. That is obvious I think. You're only interested in speeding up the process >of a new commercial release. Nice try LOL. Now you read minds?. Ok try this...what am I thinking now?. >No, you're right, it does not. But there are rules for a reason, sanctioned by >the organization ICCA. That is why players complain to FIDE when the make >strange changes to the accepted format. Or they start another organization PCA. >Not surprisingly, since they have nothing to lose and know about the publicity >value. They wouldn't be in contention that easily under normal circumstances, so >why waste time complaining. But they did get irrelevant changes to the three >month rule and a refund. One small step for Amir Ban and one giant leap for >computer chess? No, not really. It wouldn't have mattered to me if they didn't get any changes. Accepting the conditions was a choice for them to make. Sarah.
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.