Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Is this true?

Author: Wayne Lowrance

Date: 06:46:32 07/31/01

Go up one level in this thread


On July 31, 2001 at 07:23:23, Jeroen van Dorp wrote:

>On July 31, 2001 at 06:55:11, Uri Blass wrote:
>
>>If this is the reason you can still participate with your single processor.
>>
>>History proved that single processor against multi-processors is not a struggle
>>with no chance and shredder won WCCC inspite of having only one proccesor.
>>
>>I think the correct reason for the withdrawl should be different and it should
>>be done in order to convince people to avoid similiar behaviour in the future.
>>This reason is correct also for the people who have the hardware advantage.
>>
>>If chessbase decides to refuse to play in the competition because of this reason
>>or decide to "cheat" and use only one processor for the competition they can
>>earn some respect from the public.
>>
>>Unfortunately I do not expect them to do it and I do not say it because I hate
>>chessbase.
>
>
>Organizers should be clear about the set rules. A contestant decides to
>participate based on what he or she can expect from the tournament and the
>competition.
>This goes for *every* sports event.
>
>I haven't checked the rules at the time when the Rebel class decided to enter
>competition, but from the reactions I read here it seems that the rules were
>changed after entries were made, and without informing or consulting (all) the
>participants.
>
>I doubt if there's any malice involved, I'd rather think it was decided in a
>"non-professional way".

"A professional way" would have given notice in a year advance, not in the way
it was done in this case.
Bye the way, I think it is very understandable to withdraw. How better a way to
express disaproval. It is the event's loss, they can spend more time with their
family, (more important anyhow). :)

>
>When organizing a running event for people missing one leg, the last minute
>decision to let people with two legs run in the event as well might be a very
>sympathetic rule, aimed at "further integration of handicapped and
>non-handicapped people", but it leaves the one legged people without a chance of
>competing with each other, reason why they joined in the first place.
>
>Mind you, it's no comparison of one-processor against multiprocessors, but a
>comparison of the unfairness of untimely changing the rules.
>
>The WCCC change might be a good change, but in that case it should be a good
>change for the next event.
>
>
>J.



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.