Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:36:57 08/30/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 30, 2001 at 01:35:15, Uri Blass wrote: >On August 29, 2001 at 23:23:32, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On August 29, 2001 at 05:37:17, Ulrich Tuerke wrote: >> >>>> >>>>1. Amateur: >>>> You cannot be an amateur if you earn money by the selling of your program, >>>> (that would be a commercial interest), so the amateurs cannot be receiving >>>> money from the game-company... >>> >>>How about programmers who had once (say 2 years ago) obtained an amount of money >>>for publishing their program (i guess young talents fall into this). Do they >>>have to be non-Amateurs for the rest of their lives ? >>> >>>I'm sorry, but I think it's not possible to make a clear and fair >>>classification. IMHO, one should omit this nonsense completely. >>> >>>Regards, Uli >>> >>>>2. Semi-professional: >>>> Are you an associate of a games-programming company if you let them >>>> sell your program and receive some money for it? >>>> Unclear. >>>> Have the named programs become "commercial products" by advertising >>>> and selling them in the same way as the game-company's flagship-products? >>>> Yes, I think so! >>>> So the named programs cannot be semi-professionals. >>>>3. Professional: >>>> Apparently the question if the programmers are heavily income-dependent >>>> on their game progams is NOT relevant to the organisers. Strange... >>>> >>>>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 van der Storm >> >> >>I view this just like the USCF views titles. Once you are a master, you are >>a master, even if your rating drops to 1500. Once you are a professional, you >>are a professional for life, period. Changing back and forth just because you >>couldn't sell a program for two years is nonsensical. Once you are a pro >>baseball player, you are a pro for life. You can _never_ get your amateur >>status back in that sport. > >The problem here is not the definition but the fact that professional need to >pay 500$ for participating. > >I think it is unfair to ask people to pay 500$ for participating only because >they earned money some years ago. > >In chess there are tournaments when GM's and IM's do not have to pay money when >other need to pay so >the situation is different from computer chess when it is exactly the opposite >and professionals need to pay more money. > >Uri I agree there. I have _always_ been against the entry fees. Since I started in 1976 at the ACM event that year I have _never_ had to pay an entry fee, until I finally downgraded from the "anything-goes tournaments" to the "microcomputer tournaments". Then I started paying also. And it does stifle the competition. And it is unnecessary. And it should be dropped.
This page took 0.01 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.