Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 01:17:03 08/30/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 29, 2001 at 23:21:30, Robert Hyatt wrote: >I would agree. But I _despise_ the title "semi-professional" We have a >faculty member that used to give grades A, B, C, D, and F, which are >traditional and understood. But he would augment them with +/- signs, >and expect the rest of the faculty to understand what a C--- means, and >how that compares to a C--, and a C- and a C, and a C++, and you-name it. Well, I'm not too fond of it either. But if agree on what we mean by amateur and pro, ie. making no money and chess programmin as primary income respectively, then there's a group of people left in no mans land. Of course you can add these people to either category by singeling out either amateur or pro as something special. By that I mean amateur and the rest or pro and the rest. Will that simplify things? Only in theory I think. >The more complicated the distinctions between various titles, the more >dissatisfied the competitors will be about how they are categorized. I >like the KISS principle here and would prefer that myself... Actually, the idea shared by Theo and I adheres quite nicely to KISS IMHO. Define white (amateur) and black (pro) and put all the grey stuff in a box of its own. But there won't be a hundred percent fair system unless admission is free IMO. If all pay the same some will be dissatisfied and there it starts. Mogens.
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.