Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 10:17:49 06/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 21, 2002 at 12:45:30, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: I even proposed it, because the alternative is that there are no rules. From pure viewpoint i agree however that the commercial statement added to it is not nice. The rules are they are now are acceptible to all parties. Do not forget that commercial entries pay $500 entry fee, their voice is a bit more important than amateurs who pay $25 entry fee. $500 is about $500/9 = 55.56 dollar a game. From legal viewpoint there are problems too from making it a pure viewpoint, because suppose chessbase claims they pay for a book and the rights to use it. That would mean that Chrilly can't use a book coming world champs, which would be a big shame. The only thing what i dislike, but that would happen with whatever book, is the fact that Quest has a good chance for the world title this year (no tiger book to a point to this year), and that if there is a game Brutus-Quest, say round 8 or 9, that i know very well what's going to happen. Fritz sells a multiple from what Brutus is going to sell. With all respect to Chrilly, he's chanceless for a title of course. He's getting outsearched by everyone, and he has a program which is even worse tested than any other program. Just making a hardware chip is already an incredible achievement, and if i understand well it's still busy to get improved. If he plays against Quest, then i bet that chessbase won't be happy if they would lose out of book against Brutus. The problem is that originally Alex made a book for Chrilly's chessplaying things. Later chessbase bought from him a book (wise decision), so there is a complete difference between who owns the legal rights to use something and what is acceptible from pure competition viewpoint. >On June 21, 2002 at 12:01:46, Christophe Theron wrote: >>On June 21, 2002 at 11:45:40, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >>>On June 21, 2002 at 08:12:39, Peter McKenzie wrote: >>> >>>>Great news that we have a ruling on this. >>>> >>>>Peter >>> >>>I find this rule outrageous and a shame. It is taylor-made for the commercial >>>companies. >>> >>>Miguel >> >> >> >>It has been discussed between the programmers themselves for a few months. >> >>The rule has not been imposed by the ICCA. It has been suggested to the ICCA by >>most of the programmers, *including* amateurs. > >How many amateurs agree to this? Did Hyatt and Moreland agree? I doubt it. > >>The rule is not taylor-made for commercial companies. It has been designed in >>the spirit of respecting the copyrights on opening books. > >Yes it is, because of this: >"The same book author is allowed to compete more than once with the same >book or a different book." > >The fact that some amatateurs agree does not change the fact that commercial >engines can benefit from using one author in different teams i.e. the book >author. > >>For the first time the programmeurs have a say on the rules way before the event >>starts. That's a significant progress. > >Good, that is progress from the organization's point of view. It would be nice >that the competitors choose conditions that are fair for everybody. > >Miguel > > >> >> >> Christophe
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.