Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Amateur and Professional

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 20:16:52 08/31/01

Go up one level in this thread


On August 31, 2001 at 21:55:02, Dave Gomboc wrote:

>On August 31, 2001 at 12:23:53, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On August 30, 2001 at 23:43:48, Dave Gomboc wrote:
>>
>>>On August 30, 2001 at 18:21:39, Dann Corbit wrote:
>>>
>>>>Why do we have to sock it to the rich guys anyway?  Just because we know that
>>>>they have deep pockets?
>>>>
>>>>Why not charge everybody $50 for admistrative costs and let it go at that?
>>>>
>>>>Is there some reason that the professionals should be punished?
>>>>
>>>>Make the entry fee the same for everyone.
>>>
>>>Then the entry fee would be relatively high, and there would consequently be
>>>less entrants.  Also, remember that the ICCA has a journal to publish: from the
>>>financial perspective, it's important for them to generate money from their
>>>championship tournament to support that.
>>>
>>>Dave
>>
>>
>>This is something I don't like.  It would seem to me that the ICCA membership
>>fee ought to pay for the journal.  Or else the fee is too low, or the journal
>>is too expensive.  If the ICCA is going to charge a fee, that ought to be used
>>to buy the trophies/plaques/etc, for example, rather than being a necessity for
>>the journal to continue.
>
>So, what do you think they should charge for the journal?

Whatever it costs to produce it.  Can you think of _one_ reason why the
20-30 participants of a WMCCC event should subsidize the Journal that is
subscribed to by many more people than that?  IE charge the very people that
write the articles, do the research, write the programs, and make them pay so
that everybody _else_ can have access to the journal at a cheaper price than
what it costs to produce it?

That seems backward.  The authors ought to get the journal _free_, considering
what the authors are contributing.

>
>>I would be just as happy to see the journal become a semi-annual thing, to cut
>>the cost of membership to get more members.  That would drive the journal cost
>>down rather quickly.  IE the opposite of taxes.  The more you tax a group,
>>the more leave the group, making you tax the remainder even more, until there
>>is nobody left to tax.
>
>Maybe, but you need a certain amount of money to keep the thing running in any
>case.  I don't think they're trying to get rich off of it!

No, but they are trying to support it the wrong way.  The wmccc event ought
not be supporting the journal.  The participants are _already_ required to be
ICCA members.  Do they have to pay _more_ to support the journal just because
they are writing chess programs?  That seems strange...



>
>>The ICCA is headed in that direction, when there are other computer chess
>>organizations with more members, in spite of their not being world-wide
>>organizations.  The ICCA ought to try to figure out how to increase the
>>active membership.  Events outside of Europe would be one positive step.
>>Perhaps even going to an "electronic journal" to eliminate all the publication
>>costs would be another.
>
>The electronic journal idea isn't a bad one at all IMO.  Regarding more members,
>I think the whole move to ICGA from ICCA is supposed to broaden the group of
>people interested in the journal and the organisation.  I see it as a positive
>thing, I mean hey, people have been doing computer chess for fifty years, there
>just isn't a heck of a lot of research there anymore as compared to other games
>(go, amazons, lines of action, etc.).
>
>Dave



This page took 0.21 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.