Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:32:12 08/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 29, 2001 at 18:42:32, Theo van der Storm wrote: >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 That is the thing I don't understand. I competed in ACM events from 1976 to the last one held. We _never_ charged an entry fee. I played in many WCCC events. We _never_ charged an entry fee. The ICCA decided to charge entry fees for the WMCCC events as they were essentially all "professional" in the 80's. And it was a way to engorge the ICCA treasury from companies that would use the WMCCC results to augment their sales. All quite reasonable. But now the WMCCC event has effectively replaced the old ACM events, where everybody comes. And the entry fee has outlived its usefulness. It stifles the competition. As does the rather ridiculous issue of traveling to Europe every year since that is the only place these things seem to be held, for the most part. The ACM did it the right way, with the event bouncing all over the US, so that everyone had a chance to make a cheap trip at least every other year. We need to encourage new people to join in the fun, not make it impossible for them to do so unless they own their own airline.
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.