Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 09:00:26 08/23/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 23, 2001 at 10:56:00, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On August 23, 2001 at 10:17:01, Mogens Larsen wrote: > >>On August 23, 2001 at 09:49:37, Graham Laight wrote: >> >>>Ha ha ha ha ha! >>> >>>Crafty got a draw against Quest, and is now joint 3rd in the tournament table! >> >>Darn !! :-)) >> >>Still, it's so close that almost anything can happen. Even though Crafty has a >>decent lot in the 9th round. Therefore some congratulations are better left >>until after the last round, except to Goliath and Deep Junior of course. >> >>Mogens. > > >My preference here would be that Crafty _not_ be awarded any "title" based >on "amateur" status. My office is stuffed to the gills with trophies from >the 70's 80's and 90's at ACM and WCCC events. I would _much_ prefer that >the "amateur" title be given to someone that fits a reasonable definition of >amateur. I certainly don't believe that I fall in that category. > >I would hope that Vincent or someone at the event would relay this to the >ICCA folks. I've been competing in computer chess events since 1976. I >think that should disqualify me as an "amateur" immediately. And no, I don't >believe I am a "professional" either. I am "other" I suppose. :) > >But in any case, the "real amateurs" ought to be rewarded for coming to an >event like this. And for the work they have done. I have about 350 pounds of >"rewards" I will have to do something with once I retire from UAB in another >15 years or so. More is definitely not "better" in this case. :) > >Bob Interesting question, what's amateur? You are amateur by definition (lover), to do something "for the love of doing it". You are not a "beginner" but you are an "amateur". The problem is that the word amateur has been misused tremendoulsy in every aspect in every discipline. I understand too that there is a difference between a private amateur and an academic amateur in this particular area. The "academic" amateur will do something non-for-profit but has access to resources (many times payed by taxes) that the private amateur do not have. You routinely have access to quads, crays and all sort of cool gadgets for testing and development and probably the people (the government thru taxes) has paid you to do some research on this area before (maybe not now?). I do not have that access and nobody paid me to do computer chess. That is a difference that creates an advantage for you. That is a fact, should ICCA makes you non-amateur? I do not think so, since you are not a professional but... If there were enough entrants, I think that it would be better to have 3 categories: Professional, Academic, Amateurs. However, I am sure that there is enough entrants to make even more categories. That would be cool though. Regards, Miguel
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.