Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:02:31 07/31/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 31, 2001 at 13:03:31, Bruce Moreland wrote: >On July 31, 2001 at 10:48:47, Detlef Pordzik wrote: > >>Oh - you could have participated, Bob...:-)) >>by paying doubled price - as they tried to drag Ed into this direction, too. >> >>To summarize the rest : >>a) you're totally right - quite naturally >>b) we can notice ( here too, now ) : >>Industry rules - nothin' else. > >I don't have any objection to that rule. I was one of the people who suggested >the "author must be present" rule. I got tired of flying my ass half-way around >the world to end up sitting across a table from someone who can't find the "take >back" command, because the real author is "too busy" or "too important" to >attend. I don't personally like the way that sounds. I teach classes year-round here. I believe that I have an obligation to teach those classes, rather than running off for 1.5-2 weeks to play chess. The old ACM events and old WCCC events were 4 or 5 rounds, and were played on 3 consecutive days including a weekend. I never missed one. But I can't miss 2 weeks of classes during a 9 week term. Either "too busy" or "too important" doesn't describe my situation. "too dedicated to the students that are paying tuition" is more like it... > >The event is much less fun for everyone if principle authors don't show up. > >bruce That is another issue. two weeks is too long. 3-4 days would cause a lot more people to attend.
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.