Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 11:55:43 08/02/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 02, 2001 at 12:08:34, Frank Schneider wrote: >On August 01, 2001 at 16:36:41, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On August 01, 2001 at 12:12:57, Tony Werten wrote: >> >>How i read the suggestion from Levy is: >> - you enter the building and can say >> "i want to play for the wmcc title" >> which means you might be multiprocessor >> or not, but you play for possibly 2 world titles >> a) WMCC title if you win the tournament in front of >> everyone who mentionned 'wmcc' when entering >> b) if you entered as amateur and you did end up highest >> you get the amateur title if you have most points >> "i want to play for the single cpu title" >> which means you play everyone and if you have most points >> in the category single cpu, then you win that title, >> you can't win the other 2 titles of course. >> > >If there are two tournaments (single and multi) there should be two >titles (professional and amateur) in each tournament (congratulations >to Diep[*] in this case?). > >Given only 3 titles 2 of them should be in the tournament with more >participants - very likely the single-tournament. It does not make sense >to have an amateur-title in the multi-tournament if there is maybe only >one amateur playing on a multi. Amateurs would have the choice to >a) play in the multi-tournament for the amateur title with no chance to > compete with professionals on their multis >b) play in the single-tournament with no chance to get the one title > offered there. In 1995 my program came in third behind two professional programs. One got the overall title, one got the professional title, and I got the amateur title. The trophy was a nice enamelled cup that I had to set on the ground while I slept in on the Hannover train station floor, because it wouldn't fit in my luggage. In 1996 my program came in second behind another amateur program. He got the overall title, the fifth (?) place finisher got the professional title, and I got nothing. The main trophy was a ship. I think Stefan was a little bummed out until he figured out that the ship was made out of solid silver. In 1996 my program won the blitz event. The trophy is a little bigger than a credit card, and if I remember and don't end up tearing up my plane ticket, I'll put it in my wallet and bring it along so people can see. The 1997 blitz trophy was a giant glass horse courtesy of Chessbase, which I had to unpack so the airline could verify that it wasn't a bomb. Apparently X-rays can't go through a solid block of glass. In 1999 my program finished second behind a professional program. He got the world title, various microcomputer and amateur titles were awarded to programs that finished behind me (I was on a multi that would be allowed in the current microcomputer event, as defined by the second set of rules), and I got a "first loser" trophy. I don't know what happened in 2000 because I didn't go. All that can be counted on is that things will be done differently each time. What's the best way to do this? At this point I don't care. It will always be strange, and there will always be a controversy. My only argument about any of this is: NO PLAYOFFS. NINE FREAKING ROUNDS IS ENOUGH. Winning a trophy is bad if you have a one-person team, because they are very hard to manage on the airplane. bruce >Frank > >*of course only if Ferret gets the professional title :-) > > >>>On August 01, 2001 at 11:43:58, Ed Schröder wrote: >>> >>>>This just came in from David with the request to post. >>>> >>>>I think it is okay and will reconsider my withdrawl. >>>> >>>>Thanks David. >>>> >>>>Ed >>>> >>>>========================== >>>> >>>> WORLD MICROCOMPUTER CHESS CHAMPIONSHIP 2001 >>>> >>>> A MESSAGE TO ALL PROSPECTIVE PARTICIPANTS >>>> >>>> >>>>A number of chess programmers have expressed serious concern that the rules of >>>>this year's World Microcomputer Chess Championship have been changed at short >>>>notice to accommodate multi-processor machines. In my view the objections being >>>>raised are reasonable, but on the other hand having made the original >>>>announcement it would be unfair at this stage for the ICCA to bar >>>>multi-processor entries from the tournament. >>>> >>>>Ideally I would have liked to consult with my colleagues in Maastricht on this >>>>issue before taking a decision as to the best course of action. Unfortunately >>>>they are all on vacation at the moment and their date of return is too late for >>>>any new decision to benefit several of the prospective participants. The >>>>following change is therefore my own decision entirely and any criticism for it >>>>should fall on my head alone. I should add that this decision is not necessarily >>>>an indication of the rules for next year's event but it does represent, in my >>>>view, the best compromise for 2001. >>>> >>>> REVISED RULES >>>> >>>> The leading program which executes on a single processor will be >>>>declared the World Microcomputer Chess Champion (single processor category). The >>>>leading program executing on multiple processors will be declared the World >>>>Microcomputer Chess Champion (multi-processor category). >>> >>>OK I'll ask it. >>> >>>Does this mean a Professional World Microcomputer Chess Champion (single >>>processor category) an Amateur World Microcomputer Chess Champion (single >>>processor category) a Professional World Microcomputer Chess Champion >>>(multi-processor category) and a Amateur World Microcomputer Chess Champion >>>(multi-processor category) ? >>> >>>Well, at least a big percentage of the participants will go home with a prize. >>>Do those 4 categories have a 2nd and 3rd price as well ? >>> >>>Anyway, I hope this change will make Ed and Christophe reconsider. >>> >>>Tony >>> >>>> >>>> No program may participate in more than one category. >>>> >>>>I very much hope that this will satisfy most if not all of the dissenters and >>>>that we may see a large entry for the forthcoming World Championships. >>>> >>>>Regards to all contestants. >>>> >>>>David Levy
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.