Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:49:14 08/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 29, 2001 at 02:03:55, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On August 28, 2001 at 19:09:12, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >>At the start of the tournament, the rules are made. We play, and the winner is >>the winner according to the rules. > >True. This doesn't prevent us from taking a critical look at >the rules and results and clearing up a few things. > >>The professional/amateur distinction is always a little strange, but the ICCA >>defined the categories and there is no way that people arguing in a discussion >>group are going to change things after the tournament. >> >>Except for a few details I agreed with the categorization of the programs. > >Perhaps you did, but it certainly seems that I am not the >only one who feels that the current categoritzation is basically >nonsense. > >-- >GCP I think all the various schemes are broken. Simplest way is what we used to do at the ACM event years ago. One title. Plus one award for "best newcomer". After you have played in one of these events, you are no longer a newcomer and can't win that award a second time, ever. Trying to distinguish between someone who works on a commercial program, someone in academia that does research on a private program, and someone that just does it for fun, is most likely always going to be unfair, arbitrary, and incorrectly done. If it is hard to do, then simply quit trying to do it. This has caused arguments since it was first implemented. And it has not gotten any better. That should cause _someone_ to realize that perhaps the amateur/pro junk should just simply be dropped. Once and for all.
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.