Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 15:41:51 08/25/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 24, 2001 at 22:02:29, Pete Galati wrote:
>On August 24, 2001 at 12:32:05, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>
>>On August 23, 2001 at 15:12:58, Dann Corbit wrote:
>>
>>>On August 23, 2001 at 14:59:31, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote:
>>>
>>>>On August 23, 2001 at 14:48:27, Dann Corbit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On August 23, 2001 at 14:42:54, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On August 23, 2001 at 14:36:16, Dann Corbit wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Use of commercial books is old hat. You will find that quite a few amateur
>>>>>>>programs use the fritz 4 book, and have done so openly for many years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes. This is the key issue. They did so openly. While I find
>>>>>>it a very weird idea that you can be an amateur and use a
>>>>>>professional book, lying about it is much worse.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If it is not spelled out as a rules violation, then it is not wrong to do so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Right and Wrong are not solely determined by written rules.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>In a sporting event, right and wrong are determined by written and
>>>>unwritten rules. Was this not allowed by any of those?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>It probably *should* be specified one way or the other. I doubt that it has
>>>>>>>been or the problem would not arise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I agree 100% here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>At any rate, an entertaining tournament as always. Shredder has once again
>>>>>>>risen to the top, and certainly deserves every accolade.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Darn. It almost looks like this thing can't lose :)
>>>>>>Why are we holding tournaments still :))
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And Gromit has obviously made enormous strides.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>With a dark shadow over those 'accomplishments'...
>>>>>
>>>>>From:
>>>>>http://213.191.70.91/shope/index.html
>>>>>
>>>>>We have this:
>>>>>"GROMIT
>>>>>by Frank Schneider and Kai Skibbe
>>>>>
>>>>>Gromit is a very slow engine in nodes/second. The authors prefer better
>>>>>positional evaluation over higher speed. They are successfull with this concept.
>>>>>Gromit doesn´t have to hide behind the fast tacticians. Tactical disadvantages
>>>>>are compensated with clean positional play. It allows less possibilities for the
>>>>>tacticians to use their strength. Frank Schneider used to develop Gromit on his
>>>>>own. With the new version he co-operates with Kai Skibbe. They rewrote the
>>>>>engine completely which did a lot of good to it. It's much stronger already.
>>>>>kN/s: 30-35, not faster in the endgame. Taktiktest: 90 solved in 10 seconds
>>>>>average
>>>>>
>>>>>DM 19,90 | Euro 10,17"
>>>>>
>>>>>Which I take to mean it is a professional engine [sold for money] and normally
>>>>>uses the Fritz book anyway n'est ce pas?
>>>>
>>>>Got another question here: What the heck is amateur then? What determines that?
>>>>the price? the sales volume?
>>>
>>>Speaking of which, I think it would have been very nice if they put designators
>>>next to the programs so that we could see which categor[y][ies] they belong in.
>>>
>>>For some of the programs with "deep" in their name, it is fairly obvious. For
>>>others, it is not so clear. For instance, I have no idea which programs are
>>>attempting to compete as amateurs, though some seem to be obviously
>>>professional. What about [however] Quest? I have never seen a program called
>>>Quest offered for sale. Is it professional or amateur? Is the author having
>>>been paid for *some* program enough to make a program professional? Can someone
>>>simply rename their program and change its category?
>>>
>>>What about the "Young Talents CD"? There seem to be several programs on this CD
>>>which are sold for money and are also entered into the tournament. Are they
>>>professional? Are they amateur? How do we decide?
>>
>>May i beg your pardon Dann,
>>
>>Are you REALLY busy here to give the ICCA even more money as they already
>>waste?
>>
>>I'm not here to buy the icca dudes another extra few set of meals at the
>>most expensive restaurant and paying for their stay in the most expensive
>>hotel in town.
>>
>>Note the ICCA dudes could drink & eat the entire tournament for free
>>during the tournament.
>>
>>That's ok for me, but most likely that's getting paid by the sponsor,
>>the money i paid someone in ICCA is wasting without EVER giving insight
>>into their finances.
>>
>>Everyone pays for the ICCA like 100$ entry fee , quest paid of course 500$
>>entry fee and so did junior and so did shredder of course.
>>
>>However, could you show me WHERE that money goes to?
>>
>>Simply on PAPER?
>>
>>No one knows where the icca money goes to!
>>
>>All i know is that Levy again went bankrupt with 2.5M pounds of debt,
>>his 4th bankrupty by the way (some insider told me that during the
>>supper which btw was paid by CMG). What was posted here at CCC said that
>>Levy's bankrupt thing debts basically were salaries paid to members of
>>that company.
>>
>>So i read basically the name 'david' there.
>>
>>A guy who has gone bankrupt for 4 times might know quite a bit about money!
>>
>>For sure he doesn't disclose *any* information about where the entry fee
>>went to!
>>
>>All i heart was next:
>> - location paid by CMG
>> - Hans Bohm paid by CMG
>> - monitors from university brought in 50$ from the participants
>> - entry fee of mine was 100$
>> - some people paid 250 or 500$ entry fee
>> - Jaap wasn't in a 5 star hotel
>> - closing evening paid by CMG (very good evening btw!)
>>
>>So in short CMG paid all major costs as far as i know.
>>
>>Where did that couple of thousands of dollar entry fee + monitor hire go to?
>
>Please explain the connection between the money ICCA wastes and the professional
>or amateur catagories. I'm not seeing the conection between Dann's post and
>your reply.
>
>Pete
All i know is that
a) - the sponsor needs to raise like 100000 dollar to just let the
icca organize the event
- amateur entries pay $100 entry fee
semi professional entries pay $250 entry fee
professional entries pay $500 entry fee
- if bob wants to not let crafty play for the amateur title he
needs to pay $250 and another $250 because he's not there so in total
$500 entry fee.
b) ICCA never makes a paper which tells exactly where what money went to
they in fact don't say a WORD on where the money they get goes to.
c) what Dann Corbitt suggest here is that next year everyone who ever
said something needs to pay $500 according to his standards
d) every person can say that someone else needs to pay more, but i'm sure
the same person doesn't want to pay $500.
Well and now i'm speaking for the large majority who was at wmcc 2001,
i don't want to pay $500 to enter a tournament. The exception being
a quite good chance for a world title after which you can sell your
program.
I find $100 already a huge amount to join a tournament!
Consider the sponsor raises like $100000 already anyway which goes
into icca pockets.
Considering Marsland and Beal are no longer members of the ICCA and
knowing that if i would be in an organization where i get free money,
i assume that they didn't get any of the money.
Who's getting it?
I organize tournaments myself, all the sponsors money i get in tournaments
i organize goes to starting fees for GMs, IMs and basically to prize
money.
In this ICCA event there are no starting fees, entry fees are way
higher as the events i organize, and there are only a few cheap to buy
medals awarded, no price money.
Where does all the money go to?
I'm sure that without entry fee (or at least a smaller entry fee),
way more programs would have joined.
Note that even the monitors cost $50 to the ICCA. It could be possible
that university gave them for free... ...who is going to tell us anyway?
Best regards,
Vincent
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.