Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 14:28:04 08/05/98
Go up one level in this thread
Hi Amir et al: Maybe we should change a bit the definition of "professional" that we are using here or to precise it just another bit. Take the following cases to show you the inadequacies of actual meaning: a) Chris W. is considered a professional chess programmer, but he is more the owner of a company dedicated to many games and many other non-games software and in fact he does not even dedicate all time to work in chess engines, as the slowness of CSTAL to be delivered show, although there were also the effects of developping an entirely new engine, or he tried to do so at least. But then, seeing how a fraction of his entire time as programmer is dedicated to chess as such, he is then not a professional chess programmer? I think he is although he does not dedicate fully to it. b) Or take Christophe Theron: he does not use all his time to develop Tiger neither has a developed distribution system, etc, but it would be difficult to describe him as just an amateur. c)Or take Bob Hyatt, that does not even try to sell his engine, but surely I cannot imagine treating him as an amateur. d)Or take Mr Ban, you, dear amir, not dedicated as much as you told me to this business entirely, but Junior should give you with all propiety the right to be called a real pro. e) or take, instead, Mr N.N, an imaginary programmer dedicated full time to this but what if his engines are mediocre? It would be difficult to call him a professional if hhis program lose a queen after a 5 plys combination. And so and so. Maybe the criteria of time dedicated and/or commercial or non comercial commitment are somewhat inadequate. In the strict sense of the word such as we are using it, only Ed is now a pro. Maybe the criteria should just be the quality of the product. If you write good, or make good programming or compose good music, all above certain level of quality, you are a pro no matter the time used and the payment you got for it. To be or not to be professional is more a title given to whom is above a certain level of mastery of a craft than an external, economical consideration. I think that is a more healthy way to see this issue. And if you don't get that level, you are not a pro but a sad failure even if you use all your time to that. fernando
This page took 0.03 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.