Author: Pete Galati
Date: 17:39:22 08/25/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 25, 2001 at 18:41:51, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >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 Ok, I wasn't trying to argue with anything you had said, I just wasn't following the connection in the thread. I probably needed to read things more carefully. I would think ICCA would be more open about what was happening to the money. Some of it does look sort of suspicious. The $50 for monitors just sort of looks like fat that goes into the general tournament funds to me though, that seems minor in comparison. It probably paid for coffee and folding chairs or something. The extra $250 for not running your own program though, I don't follow the thinking on that fee. Is that a fine for not paying for an airplane ticket and taking time out of your life and work to be there? It might hurt ICCA to not be more up front about some of this. Pete
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.