Author: Graham Laight
Date: 09:07:08 08/23/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 23, 2001 at 12:00:26, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >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 I'd be happy if there were enough prizes to ensure that every entrant received at least one. -g
This page took 0.01 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.