Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:50:41 08/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 29, 2001 at 13:00:35, José Carlos wrote: >On August 29, 2001 at 10:49:14, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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. > > I like the "best newcomer" idea. I guess it's related to the programmer, not >to the program, right? No. It was about the author. Otherwise someone would re-write their code each year, re-name it, and win the thing over and over, even if they had been competing for 20 years. > Additionally, I'd like to see a "best freeware". It's also easy to define (the >version that participates _must_be_ free for download somewhere) and I think >it's a good idea to award those who share their work/hobby for free. > > José C. I don't like the 'freeware' concept. Nor _any_ such thing that is about the program, rather than its author. Obviously the author is the driving force behind any program, and whether I write a program and sell it, keep it to myself, or distribute it as freeware, I am _still_ the same person with the same knowledge and experience. To coax new people into the tournaments, they know they aren't going to win the first year. A "best newcomer" trophy gives them an incentive to compete anyway, and eventually they will compete for the overall title.
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.