Author: Uri Blass
Date: 16:18:24 08/28/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 28, 2001 at 17:36:12, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On August 28, 2001 at 17:32:54, Mogens Larsen wrote: > >>Of course not. But one could argue that the chances of selling an older version >>is minimal when there's a newer one available for free. What does it take to >>revert to amateur status in your opinion? > >I think it is simply not possible. I disagree I think that there should be a definition of amatuer and professional for the entry fee. The definition of amatuer and professional should have nothing with the time that the programmer wasted about his program. The idea is that programmers who earns more money should pay more in order to participate. I think that 100$ for amatuers and 500 $ for professional is unfair. part of the professional programmers should pay more than 500$ and part of them should pay less than 500$. Suppose that the programmer of Gromit earned in the last year exactly 300$ for the fact that chessbase sold the young talents. I have no idea how much he earned and it is only my guess. I think that in this case deciding that he needs to pay more 400$ as entry fee is unfair. I think that a more fair method of deciding about entry fees should say that programmers should pay 100$+ 1% of the total money that they earned from selling their program in the last year. > >For an extreme example, what if Frans Morsch would release >a new free engine. Would that make the engine an amateur? >Of course not...he has already benefitted from being a pro. I think that if he does not earn from his program for at least one year it should be defined as an amteur. Uri
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.