Author: Kevin Strickland
Date: 15:27:24 07/16/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 16, 2002 at 18:11:01, Bruce Moreland wrote: >A few thoughts about this: > >1) If you make this an open tournament, and you get the kind of response you >want to get, you've basically just said "commercials only", almost, since there >are a lot of commercials and they are strong. Almost all of the commercials are >European. So you've just created a tournament in North America, from which >North American amateurs would be squeezed out. That is not what I am trying to do. Can you imagine all the commercials and _all_ the amateur programs attending. That would be close to 200 participants. This is not what _is_ going to happen, I am simply looking for feedback. >So you need to have way way more than 12 entrants. > >2) With this in mind, having multiple qualification tournaments doesn't make a >lot of sense. What you really really want to do is invite everyone. I'd hope >that you'd have room for everyone, but if you don't, you should invite as many >as you can. Want to help me compile a list of programmer email addresses to that I can cc the email to 200 people at once? I would be more than happy to have 200 programs here. Can you imagine the response? It would be incredible and more than likely the biggest computer chess tournament in history. >More is better. Weaker programs are not a problem. Weaker program plus >interesting event equals motivated programmer equals stronger program. I do not care the strength of the programs attending. In fact some of my favorite programs are not in the top 20 amateurs or commercials. > >EVERYONE should be there, as long as your program can castle and handle the >en-passant rule, no problem, in my opinion. I agree.. > >3) It is alright to be angry at the ICCA for not having a tournament in North >America in recorded memory, but your event will likely fail if it is going to be >held almost exactly the same time as the ICCA event. I can't afford the time >and money to go to more than one. Probably a lot of people are in the same >situation, so you have to take into account their schedule. I agree that taking participants schedules into account is important. It is the basic reasoning that I am posting details of what I would like to do to see _exactly_ what everyone would like to see happen. If you don't ask or show your hand how can anything be successful. > >4) Details such as time controls and opening book rules should be hashed out by >the participants. If the organizer is spending a lot of time on this, that's >bad. You should be spending time getting a big venue, sponsors, places for >people to stay, and beer in the tournament hall. That is why I removed the book rule. I would like to stick with the tournament time control if possible. I think it makes for more interesting chess. Although a shorter time control would allow for more rounds which in itself is interesting. > >5) There is no need for a prize fund. If you have excess cash, subsidize the >beer. Now finally we can agree on something. Lower cost beer is something I dream about daily. > >6) "World Champion" is not a necessary title here. There is less obvious >animosity toward the Europeans if you call this a North American Open >Championship, which is what it is. If the Europeans want to call their event >the World Championship, there is some history backing that up, and it doesn't >matter anyway. > >Don't piss them off too much and it's possible that more good can come of this. I am not trying to piss anyone off. I am trying to make the best event possible in North America. Kevin.
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.