Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:53:01 08/01/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 01, 2001 at 01:07:59, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >On August 01, 2001 at 00:22:42, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On July 31, 2001 at 23:25:29, Bruce Moreland wrote: >> >>>> >>>Apparently I stuck my foot in it. I will contact you via email and explain in >>>more detail. >>> >>>bruce >> >> >>Sorry, but no you didn't "step in it". It is somewhat more of a case of my >>frustration with the ICCA. It was _founded_ by "academics". It was >>academics for its first 15 years. And they seem to have forgotten that. We >>started off with 4 round ACM events. Then the WCCCS were 5 rounds. People >>started the nonsense about "5 rounds is not enough, we need 8 or 10 or >>11" which is total baloney if you have 32 or fewer total players. The down- >>side of such long events is that the event takes too long and the people with >>real jobs have a hard time taking off for two weeks to travel to Europe, attend >>a week+ long event, and get back. >> >>I used to play in a couple of weekend events a year, plus the ACM event, and >>an occasional Fredkin match. All were quick in-out events so that we were not >>killed on missing too many classes. >> >>This seems to be forgotten nowadays. I don't see how the current ICCA people >>can take that much time off from work unless they make that their annual summer >>vacation or whatever. I can find better things to do with my family of course, >>than have them stuck in a hotel while I am playing chess. :) >> >>Bob >> >> >>As far as your point about authors attending, I happen to agree, however. >>I attended many ACM events where authors were not present. We had a small >>group that always showed up. Myself. Slate. Thompson. Hsu/Campbell. >>Schaeffer. Marsland. Newborn. Schwartz. Scherzer. Truscott. Berliner. > >I am new in all this and let me know if I am wrong: >I imagine this kind of competitions something in between an academic event and a >sporting event. More of the former, particularly because ICCA seems to be an >academic oriented institution (it runs an academic journal, doesn'it?). >At least, this is what it is supposed to be. Under this point of view, it should >be unthinkable to register a participant program without a programmer present. >In any scientific meeting the author of the research or somebody directly >involved should travel along the "presentation", either is a poster, oral >presentation, abstract, paper, whatever, either is from the academia or a >private company. It might happen rarely that somebody sends a poster through >other person that also attends the meeting to just hang it. It is kind of rude >and generally there is a serious reason behind it. If there is any intent to >have this tournaments with the slightest scientific spirit the suggestion from >Bruce Moreland should really be taken into account. I suppose it would depend on the "purpose" of the event. IE if it is mainly to find out which computer chess program is "best" then it is more important to get all the programs to play in the event. If the purpose is to exchange ideas, then it is more important to get all the authors to attend the event. Early on, it was _both_. But if you look back in history, once we had a "commercial" entity, as the Dodge truck commercials say, "the rules changed." The first 15-20 years of ACM events were great fun because most programs attended (the core group were almost always present) and all of the academic authors attended (they were the only ones that would reveal anything anyway, with a few exceptions like the Spracklens and Dave Kittinger.) Things aren't the same today... >In 4 days 7 rounds could be played, there is no reason today not to play 2 >rounds a day. Even the carbon players are doing it. > >I am a complete amateur in all this, but I would really love to attend once to >one of this meetings/tournaments. I would seriously consider to go to one if it >was organized nearby (i.e. North America). Somebody has to be last :-) >Well, this has been discussed already. > >Another thing, where was all the people that are thinking about a boycott when >Bruce Moreland was screaming about this one month ago? it looked like he was the >only one with complains at that time. I'm not suggesting a boycott, and I don't think Bruce is either. I announced I could not attend when it was once again scheduled in Europe. I have (on my own) renamed this the EMCCC, since it is always held in Europe. The ICCA charter demanded that the WCCC alternate between Europe and North America every 3 years. I was one of the founding members in 1977 at the Toronto edition of the WCCC. We did that with the hope that holding it in Europe would attract some North American entries, and holding it in North America would attract some European entries. And with a few common people, ideas would be shared. That has been totally forgotten. > >Regards, >Miguel > > > > >> >>Notice almost all are/were academics. There were a few others I have probably >>forgotten. For the "PC" crowd, it was rare to have 50% of the authors there. >>The spracklens were always there when they competed. And Kittinger was always >>there. Those are the only two I can remember that managed to make the events >>every time. >> >>It was aggravating, but the commercial guys gave their usual secretive >>crap anyway, so they weren't missed when they were not there. They were >>black holes, even back then. The names I mentioned would discuss engines >>and stuff openly and in great detail, and we all gave each other ideas to >>try for "next year". Except for the commercials of course. They took lots >>of ideas however...
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.