Author: Theo van der Storm
Date: 15:42:32 08/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 29, 2001 at 17:30:50, Dann Corbit wrote: >On August 29, 2001 at 16:41:54, Theo van der Storm wrote: >>On August 29, 2001 at 05:37:17, Ulrich Tuerke wrote: ... >>>I'm sorry, but I think it's not possible to make a clear and fair >>>classification. >>I think it is possible. >>Even if my text is still not good anough and needs a lawyer to fix it. >>Here goes my 1,5ct worth: >> >>amateur: >>A programmer is an amateur if he is not a professional, >>nor an employd scientist involved with game-theory at any time >>and has not received money for his game-development in the last 12 months. > >The 12 month requirement is a contradiction of "once a professional, always a >professional" No, it is not. The 12 month requirement only distinguishes amateur and semi-professional. >>semi-professional: >>A programmer is a semi-professional if he is not an amateur nor a professional. >> >>professional: >>A programmer is a professional if during any full year his income >>from game-development has been bigger than any other part of his income. > >What if he has a large stock portfolio, but works on computer chess programming >12 hours a day, 6 days a week for a computer chess company? His game programming work will provide a bigger income than "The large stock portfolio", so he is a professional :-) Now he has become a top lawyer for a US political party for only 20 hours/week, because there will not be presidential elections this year. Still this makes more money than his additional 40 hour game-development: Then he's a semi-professional, which seems right to me! You are welcome to disagree... Distinguishing amateurs from the other two categories is a more important issue anyway. >How will you discover someone's real income? In many countries, tax records > are not publicly available. In case of serious doubt he should show his submitted tax-form to the organisation, but I agree this is a bit cumbersome. Maybe work on their conscience? >>So: >>Once a professional, always a professional. >>A professional in Chess-programming must also be considered a >>professional in Amazons-programming. >>Switching between amateur and semi-professional is possible >>depending on the circumstances. >> >>> IMHO, one should omit this nonsense completely. >>IMHO, one should omit this needless frustration completely. >>As a matter of fact in the Dutch Computer-chess championship we >>never had such a distinction and I'm not proposing to introduce it either. >>So my text is just an advice in case ICCA does continue on this road. >> >>>Regards, Uli >>>... >>>>I feel the definitions need mending. My internet connection is about >>>>to break due to idle(eh?) time, so I cannot give my proposed exact >>>>definitions yet. Maybe later. >>>> >>>>Theo >>Theo van der Storm (I'm back) > >I don't see any clear solution. > >Why do the professional programs have to pay so much? >What are the expenses involved that require such large fees? My sympathy is more with the amateurs. For a poor student $100 is a lot of money. >I would think that a sponsoring university could be found that would not charge >thousands of dollars for the use of the fascilities. Although I was NOT involved in the Maastricht organisation, I happen to know, that many universities have established a kind of self-supporting facilities department in order to cut over-all costs. Other departments, among which the sponsor, simply have to pay. Usually these are budgeted internal cost, except for special events... Theo van der Storm
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.