Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:00:47 08/23/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 23, 2001 at 12:07:08, Graham Laight wrote: >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 That also causes a headache. The ACM events awarded plaques to each participant at the tournaments. My wall is covered in the things. :)
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.